Natural Hazards

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 169–194 | Cite as

Evaluation of food risk parameters in the Day River Flood Diversion Area, Red River Delta, Vietnam

  • Nguyen Mai Dang
  • Mukand S. Babel
  • Huynh T. Luong
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

An interdisciplinary approach is necessary for flood risk assessment. Questions are often raised about which factors should be considered important in assessing the flood risk in an area and how to quantify these factors. This article defines and quantitatively evaluates the flood risk factors that would affect the Day River Flood Diversion Area in the context of integrated flood management in the Red River Delta, Vietnam. Expert analysis, in conjunction with field survey and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), is applied to define and quantify parameters (indicators, subcomponents, and components) that contribute to flood risk. Flood duration is found to be the most prominent indicator in determining flood hazard. Residential buildings, population, and pollution are other fairly significant indicators contributing to flood vulnerability from the economic, social, and environmental perspectives, respectively. The study results will be useful in developing comprehensive flood risk maps for policy-makers and responsible authorities. Besides, local residents will also be able to implement suitable measures for reducing flood risk in the study area.

Keywords

Floods Flood diversion Flood risk definition AHP Quantitative evaluation Vietnam 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. ADRC (Asian Disaster Reduction Center) (2005) Total disaster risk management – good practices, report. Asian Disaster Reduction Center, Kobe, Japan. Available via DIALOG: http://www.adrc.or.jp/publications/TDRM2005/TDRM_Good_Practices/GP2005_e.html
  2. Alkema D (2003) Flood risk assessment for EIA; an example of a motorway near Trento, Italy. Studi Trentini di Science Naturali Acta Geologica 78:147–153Google Scholar
  3. Apel H, Aronica GT, Kreibich H, Thieken AH (2008) Flood risk analyses–how detailed do we need to be? Nat Hazrads. doi: 10.1007/s11069-008-9277-8
  4. Botzen WJW, van den Bergh JCJM, Bouwer LM (2010) Climate change and increased risk for the insurance sector: a global perspective and an assessment for Netherlands. Nat Hazards 52:557–598. doi: 10.1007/s11069-009-9404-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burn DH (1999) Perceptions of flood risk: a case study of the Red River flood of 1997. Water Resour Res 35(11):3451–3458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. CCFSC (Central Committee for Flood and Strom Control) (2007) Summary of typhoon and extreme flood event in October 2007, report. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Hanoi, Vietnam (in Vietnamese)Google Scholar
  7. Crichton D (2002) UK and global insurance responses to flood hazard. Water Int 27(1):119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dang NM, Babel MS (2009) Analysis of historical data for projecting future flood frequencies and sea level rise in the Red River Delta, Vietnam. In: An international perspective on environmental and water resources, proceedings of the international conference 2009 organized by environmental & water resources institute (EWRI) of American society of civil engineering (ASCE) and asian institute of technology, January 2009, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  9. DEFRA (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) and Environmental Agency (2005) The appraisal of human related intangible impacts of flooding, report. DEFRA Flood Management Division, Ergon House, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. DeSteiguer JE, Duberstein J, Lopes V (2003) The analytic hierarchy process as a means for integrated watershed management. In: The proceedings of the first interagency conference on research in the watersheds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, pp 736–740. Available via DIALOG: http://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/ICRW/Proceedings/Steiguer.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2006
  11. DHV Consultants BV (Amersfoort, the Netherlands—leading partner), Hydraulic Research Wallingford Ltd (Wallingford, UK), and Vietnam Institute for Water Resources Research (Hanoi, Vietnam) (2002) Day river flood diversion and water resources development project, Vietnam, report. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development—Government of Vietnam, Ministry of Foreign Affairs—Government of Netherlands, Hanoi, VietnamGoogle Scholar
  12. Dwyer A, Zoppou C, Nielsen O, Day S, Roberts S (2004) Quantifying social vulnerability: a methodology for identifying those at risk to natural hazards, report. Australian Geoscience, Commonwealth of AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  13. ESCAP (1991) Manual and guidelines for comprehensive flood loss prevention and management, report. United Nations Development Programme, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. Evers M (2006) The complexity of integrated flood management: decision support Systems. In: Tchiguirinskaia I, Thein KNN, Hubert P (eds) Frontiers in flood research, vol 305. International Association of Hydrological Science (IAHS), Red Book SeriesGoogle Scholar
  15. Green CH, Penning-Rowsell EC (1989) Flooding and the quantification of intangible. Inst Water Environ Manag 3(1):27–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Green CH, Parker DJ, Tunstall SM (2000) Assessment of flood control and management options, report. World Commission on Dams, Cape Town, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  17. Green C (2004) The evaluation of vulnerability to flooding. Disaster Prevent Manag 13(4):323–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall JW, Meadowcroft IC, Sayers PB, Bramley ME (2003) Integrated flood risk management in England and Wales. Natural Hazards Review @ASCE, pp 126–135, August 2003Google Scholar
  19. Harker PT (1987) Derivatives of the perron root of a positive reciprocal matrix: with application to the AHP. Appl Math Comput 22:217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harker PT (1989) The art and science of decision making: the analytic hierarchy process. In: Golden BL, Wasil EA, Harker PT (eds) The analytic hierarchy process: applications and studies. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–36Google Scholar
  21. Huang Y, Zou Y, Huang G, Maqsood I, Chakma A (2005) Flood vulnerability to climate change through hydrological modeling: a case study of the Swift Current Creek watershed in western Canada. Water Int 30(1):31–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Islam MM, Sado K (2000) Flood hazard assessment in Bangladesh using NOAA AVHRR data with geographical information system. Hydrol Process 14(3):605–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. IWRP (Institute for Water Resources Planning) (2001) Capacity assessment of flood diversion of day river and re-using the flood detention areas, and solutions for response to extreme flood and emergency cases, report. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Hanoi, Vietnam (in Vietnamese)Google Scholar
  24. IWRP (Institute for Water Resources Planning) (2003) Flood control planning for Red River System and Hanoi Capital, report. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Hanoi, Vietnam (in Vietnamese)Google Scholar
  25. Kron F (2005) Flood risk = Hazard * Values * Vulnerability. Water Int 30(1):58–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lekuthai A, Vongvisessomjai S (2001) Intangible flood damage quantification. Water Resour Manag 15:343–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. MONRE (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment) (2009) Climate change, sea level rise scenarios for Vietnam. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, HanoiGoogle Scholar
  28. Miyata Y, Abe H (1994) Measuring the effects of a flood control project: hedonic land price approach. Environ Manag 42:389–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. NFRAG (The National Flood Risk Advisory Group) (2008) Flood risk management in Australia. The Australia J Emerg Manag 23(4):21–27Google Scholar
  30. Penning-Rowsell EC, Chatterton JB (1977) The benefits of flood alleviation. Saxon House, HantsGoogle Scholar
  31. Penning-Rowsell EC, Parker DJ (1987) The indirect effects of floods and benefits of flood alleviation: evaluating the Chesil sea defence scheme. Appl Geogr 7:263–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pilon PJ (ed) (2003) Guidelines for reducing flood losses, report. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), Inter-Agency Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR), UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the pacific (UNESCAP), United States of America, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (USA NOAA), World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Available via DIALOG: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/flood_guidelines.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2006
  33. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Shi P, Ge Y, Yuan Y, Guo W (2005) Integrated risk management of flood disaster in metropolitan areas of China. Water Resour Dev 21(4):613–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shrestha MS, Thapa KB, Ghimire ML, Shakya N (2004) Flood risk and vulnerability mapping using GIS: a Nepal case study. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference of Asia–pacific association of hydrology and water resources, Singapore, July 2004, vol 1, pp 180–190Google Scholar
  36. Simonovic SP (1999) Social criteria for evaluation of flood control measures: winnipeg case study. Urban Water 1:167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith D (1994) Flood damage estimation: a review of urban stage–damage curves and loss function. Water SA 20(3):231–238Google Scholar
  38. Takeuchi K (2006) ICHARM calls for an alliance for localism to manage the risk of water-related disasters. In: Tchiguirinskaia I, Thein KNN, Hubert P (eds) Frontiers in flood research, International Association of Hydrological Science (IAHS), Red Book Series, p 305Google Scholar
  39. Tingsanchali T (1996) Floods and human interaction: experiences, problems, and solutions, report. Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  40. Tingsanchali T, Karim MF (2005) Flood hazard and risk analysis in the southwest region of Bangladesh. Hydrol Process 19(10):2055–2069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tran TXM, Malato HM, Thompson RG (2003) Application of the AHP to prioritize irrigation asset renewals: the case of the La Khe irrigation scheme, Vietnam. Eng Constr Archit Manag 10(6):382–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. VSC (Vietnam Standards Centre) (2005) TCVN 5945: 2005 Industrial wastewater—Discharge standards (second edition). Directorate for Standards and Quality (STAMEQ), Ministry of Science and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam (in Vietnamese)Google Scholar
  43. Weichselgartner J (2001) Disaster mitigation: the concept of vulnerability revisited. Disaster Prev Manag 10(2):85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nguyen Mai Dang
    • 1
  • Mukand S. Babel
    • 2
  • Huynh T. Luong
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Hydrology and Water ResourcesWater Resources University (WRU)Dong DaVietnam
  2. 2.School of Engineering and TechnologyAsian Institute of TechnologyKlong Luang, PathumthaniThailand

Personalised recommendations