Integrated multi-criteria flood vulnerability approach using fuzzy TOPSIS and Delphi technique

Lee, G.; Jun, Kyung Soo; Chung, Eun‐Sung

doi:10.5194/nhess-13-1293-2013

Cited by 95 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are a number of methods in normalization for data types and distribution, and this study uses a method that can conserve the value distribution of the original data. This study also adopts an equal weighting assumption for the proxy variables and assessment components for which the proper weighting coefficients need to be determined and assigned in a logical process as following some studies in the Korean Peninsula [34][35][36]. Differences and uncertainties in the normalization and weight determination methods can have another impact on composite indicator outcomes.…”

Section: Discussion and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Flood Vulnerability Assessments to Climate Change by Construction Frameworks for a Composite Indicator

Lee

Choi

2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:As extreme weather conditions due to climate change can cause deadly flood damages all around the world, a role of the flood vulnerability assessment has become recognized as one of the preemptive measures in nonstructural flood mitigation strategies. Although the flood vulnerability is most commonly assessed by a composite indicator compiled from multidimensional phenomena and multiple conflicting criteria associated with floods, directly or indirectly, it has been often overlooked that the construction frameworks and processes can have a significant influence on the flood vulnerability indicator outcomes. This study has, therefore, compared the flood vulnerability ranking orders for the 54 administrative districts in the Nakdong River Watershed of the Korean Peninsula, ranked from composite indicators by different frameworks and multi-attribute utility functions for combining the three assessment components, such as exposure, sensitivity, and coping, presented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report. The results show that the different aggregation components and utility functions under the same proxy variable system can lead to larger volatility of flood vulnerability rankings than expected. It is concluded that the vulnerability indicator needs to be derived from all three assessment components by a multiplicative utility function for a desirable flood vulnerability assessment to climate change.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Flood Vulnerability Assessments to Climate Change by Construction Frameworks for a Composite Indicator

Lee

Choi

2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Kim et al, 1997;Chu, 2002;Shih et al, 2007;Lee and Chung, 2007;Chung and Lee, 2009a, Jun et al, 2011, Lee et al, 2013. …”

Section: 샤논 엔트로피 분석mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Approach of Social Vulnerability Assessment to Urban Flood

Lee

Choi

Jun³

2016

Journal of Korean Society of Hazard Mitigation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this research, the assessment technique to evaluate the degree of vulnerability to a flood disaster, which reflects the environmental and social characteristics in the light of the urban environment, was addressed. In particular, the road transportation problems, which are affected by inland inundation in urban areas and by the vulnerable groups, such as inhabitants' age and disability, are considered in the evaluation. Consequently, the assessment technique is more focused on the life and management of urban functions than the amount of damage. Vulnerability assessment procedures comprise three stages, i.e., composing the assessment index to reflect the characteristics of the cities and inhabitants, calculating the weight, and evaluating the vulnerability using the TOPSIS technique. The weights were determined using the Delphi method and Entropy analysis, which employed the typical subjective weight assessment technique and objective weight assessment technique, respectively. The target area for the evaluation was the Dorimcheon basin in which a flood had occurred because of the influence of backwater from the nearby streams and the poor rainfall drainage system. The established approach, employed as an urban flood vulnerability assessment technique that is able to consider the characteristics of each region, makes it possible to predict the inherent vulnerable factors in urban regions and to propose the area of priority control when urban floods occur.

show abstract

“…So, first of all, the consensus building among all stakeholders should be necessary to prioritize the proper sites or areas through any democratic and systematic procedures. Therefore, many studies [1][2][3][4][5][6] have used vulnerability as a tool to objectively derive the spatial priority of sub-regions for the large study region.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-Criteria Assessment of Spatial Robust Water Resource Vulnerability Using the TOPSIS Method Coupled with Objective and Subjective Weights in the Han River Basin

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study developed a multi-criteria approach to spatially assess the robust water resource vulnerability in sub-basins and applied it to the Han River basin. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggested three factors of vulnerability; namely, exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity were used in this study with respect to water quantity and quality. In this study, 16 water quantity indicators and 13 water quality indicators were selected to identify the vulnerability using the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method. Environmental and socioeconomic data were obtained from the national statistics database, and hydrological data were simulated using the calibrated Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model. Expert surveys and Shannon entropy method were used to determine subjective and objective weights for all indicators, individually. As a result, water quantity-vulnerable sub-basins were associated with high water use and water leakage ratios. Water quality-vulnerable sub-basins were associated with relatively high values of maximum consecutive dry days and heatwave days. The water quantity indices of both weighting methods showed relatively similar spatial distributions, while the distribution of water quality indices was distinct. These results suggest that considering different weighting methods is important for assessing the robust water resource vulnerability of sub-basins.

show abstract

Integrated multi-criteria flood vulnerability approach using fuzzy TOPSIS and Delphi technique

Cited by 95 publications

References 60 publications

Comparison of Flood Vulnerability Assessments to Climate Change by Construction Frameworks for a Composite Indicator

Comparison of Flood Vulnerability Assessments to Climate Change by Construction Frameworks for a Composite Indicator

An Approach of Social Vulnerability Assessment to Urban Flood

Multi-Criteria Assessment of Spatial Robust Water Resource Vulnerability Using the TOPSIS Method Coupled with Objective and Subjective Weights in the Han River Basin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About