Abstract
Abstract. 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.
Highlights
The management of flood risk calls for a better understanding of vulnerability, as hazards only become disasters if they impact a community or system that is vulnerable to their effects (Reilly, 2009)
Both analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and analytical network process (ANP) proved to be effective for flood vulnerability assessment; ANP is preferred as it considers the dependences among criteria
Participatory multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) provides a promising and structured framework for integrating interdisciplinary knowledge in an effort to bring credibility to vulnerability indicators, participant satisfaction, and some degree of mutual learning (Sheppard and Meitner, 2005). It can improve the transparency and analytic rigour of flood vulnerability assessment since the choices of input criteria, data standardization, weighting, and aggregation are explicitly expressed, leading to justifiable decisions and reproducible results. Considering these challenges, we present a participatory approach for assessing the vulnerability to floods by comparing two MCDM methods: the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and the analytic network process (ANP)
Summary
The management of flood risk calls for a better understanding of vulnerability, as hazards only become disasters if they impact a community or system that is vulnerable to their effects (Reilly, 2009). Since vulnerability is not directly measurable, several methods have been proposed to estimate it – including damage curves (Merz et al, 2010; PapathomaKöhle, 2016), fragility curves (Ozturk et al, 2015; Tsubaki et al, 2016), and vulnerability indicators (Cutter et al, 2003; Roy and Blaschke, 2013). Both damage and fragility curves are building type-specific and focus on the physical vulnerability of structures to a certain hazard, neglecting the social vulnerability and coping capacity of the inhabitants (Koks et al, 2015). Several authors emphasize the need for a holistic understanding of vulnerability by integrating its different dimensions in an overarching framework through the use of indicators (Birkmann et al, 2013; Fuchs et al, 2011; Godfrey et al, 2015)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
