Perception and handling of uncertainties in water management—A study of practitioners' and scientists' perspectives on uncertainty in their daily decision-making
In: Environmental science & policy, Volume 71, p. 9-18
ISSN: 1462-9011
14 results
Sort by:
In: Environmental science & policy, Volume 71, p. 9-18
ISSN: 1462-9011
In: Natural hazards and earth system sciences: NHESS, Volume 16, Issue 4, p. 1019-1033
ISSN: 1684-9981
Abstract. This paper provides a review of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) applications to flood risk management, seeking to highlight trends and identify research gaps. A total of 128 peer-reviewed papers published from 1995 to June 2015 were systematically analysed. Results showed that the number of flood MCDM publications has exponentially grown during this period, with over 82 % of all papers published since 2009. A wide range of applications were identified, with most papers focusing on ranking alternatives for flood mitigation, followed by risk, hazard, and vulnerability assessment. The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was the most popular method, followed by Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and Simple Additive Weighting (SAW). Although there is greater interest in MCDM, uncertainty analysis remains an issue and was seldom applied in flood-related studies. In addition, participation of multiple stakeholders has been generally fragmented, focusing on particular stages of the decision-making process, especially on the definition of criteria weights. Therefore, addressing the uncertainties around stakeholders' judgments and endorsing an active participation in all steps of the decision-making process should be explored in future applications. This could help to increase the quality of decisions and the implementation of chosen measures.
In: Environmental science & policy, Volume 55, p. 335-344
ISSN: 1462-9011
In: Disaster prevention and management: an international journal, Volume 22, Issue 1, p. 17-28
ISSN: 1758-6100
Purpose
– The aim of this paper is to present a concept where social learning is used in education. Thematically, the concept is suitable for complex, interdisciplinary, societal challenges with a high degree of uncertainty regarding future changes. It is exemplified here by the need to link disaster risk reduction (DRR) with climate change adaptation (CCA) and flood risk management (FRM). The concept answers to the variety of adopted solutions and build-up of knowledge that exist, as a consequence of far-reaching local liabilities and initiatives. The concept advocates building of platforms and procedures where managers, stakeholders, researchers, policy makers, and regular students can meet, interact and learn from local examples.
Design/methodology/approach
– The concept IntECR (integrated education, research and collaboration) has been tested in two courses during 2009 and 2010 around the Swedish lakes Vänern and Mälaren. Seminars and field visits were arranged in ten different cities. Participants replied anonymously to a course evaluation and were questioned in groups about their perceived benefit from the concept.
Findings
– Informal networking, holistic perspective, shared problem identification and the positive possibility to study several examples of local management in arrangements with high degree of structural openness, were mentioned by the participants as positive outcome of the concept.
Originality/value
– The use of this educational concept aims to increase the adaptive capacity of societal entities through raised capacity of their individual members. The applied example is timely, relevant and a contribution to DRR and CCA.
This paper presents a participatory multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach for flood vulnerability assessment while considering the relationships between vulnerability criteria. The applicability of the proposed framework is demonstrated in the municipalities of Lajeado and Estrela, Brazil. The model was co-constructed by 101 experts from governmental organizations, universities, research institutes, NGOs, and private companies. Participatory methods such as the Delphi survey, focus groups, and workshops were applied. A participatory problem structuration, in which the modellers work closely with end users, was used to establish the structure of the vulnerability index. The preferences of each participant regarding the criteria importance were spatially modelled through the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and analytical network process (ANP) multi-criteria methods. Experts were also involved at the end of the modelling exercise for validation. The final product is a set of individual and group flood vulnerability maps. Both AHP and ANP proved to be effective for flood vulnerability assessment; however, ANP is preferred as it considers the dependences among criteria. The participatory approach enabled experts to learn from each other and acknowledge different perspectives towards social learning. The findings highlight that to enhance the credibility and deployment of model results, multiple viewpoints should be integrated without forcing consensus.
BASE
In: Environmental science & policy, Volume 76, p. 185-196
ISSN: 1462-9011
In: The European journal of development research, Volume 33, Issue 4, p. 980-999
ISSN: 1743-9728
World Affairs Online
This paper presents a participatory multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach for flood vulnerability assessment while considering the relationships between vulnerability criteria. The applicability of the proposed framework is demonstrated in the municipalities of Lajeado and Estrela, Brazil. The model was co-constructed by 101 experts from governmental organizations, universities, research institutes, NGOs, and private companies. Participatory methods such as the Delphi survey, focus groups, and workshops were applied. A participatory problem structuration, in which the modellers work closely with end users, was used to establish the structure of the vulnerability index. The preferences of each participant regarding the criteria importance were spatially modelled through the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and analytical network process (ANP) multi-criteria methods. Experts were also involved at the end of the modelling exercise for validation. The final product is a set of individual and group flood vulnerability maps. Both AHP and ANP proved to be effective for flood vulnerability assessment; however, ANP is preferred as it considers the dependences among criteria. The participatory approach enabled experts to learn from each other and acknowledge different perspectives towards social learning. The findings highlight that to enhance the credibility and deployment of model results, multiple viewpoints should be integrated without forcing consensus.
BASE
The European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires EU member states to produce and implement river basin management plans, which are to be designed and updated via participatory processes that inform, consult with, and actively involve all interested stakeholders. The assumption of the European Commission is that stakeholder participation, and institutional adaptation and procedural innovation to facilitate it, are essential to the effectiveness of river basin planning and, ultimately, the environmental impact of the Directive. We analyzed oficial documents and the WFD literature to compare implementation of the Directive in EU membre states in the initial WFD planning phase (2000-2009). Examining the development of participatory approaches to river basin management planning, we consider the extent of transformation in EU water governance over the period. Employing a mixed quantitative and qualitative approach, we map the implementation "trajectories" of 13 member states, and then provide a detailed examination of shifts in river basin planning and participation in four member states (Germany, Sweden, Poland and France) to illustrate the diversity of institutional approaches observed. We identify a general tendency towards increased, yet circumscribed, stakeholder participation in river basin management in the member states examined, alongside clear continuities in terms of their respective pre-WFD institutional and procedural arrangements. Overall, the WFD has driven a highly uneven shift to river basin-level planning among the member states, and instigated a range of efforts to institutionalize stakeholder involvement-often through the establishment of advisory groups to bring organized stakeholders into the planning process.
BASE