Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 61, Issue 2, pp 441–468 | Cite as

Preliminary flood risk assessment: the case of Athens

  • Georgia Kandilioti
  • Christos MakropoulosEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Flood mapping, especially in urban areas, is a demanding task requiring substantial (and usually unavailable) data. However, with the recent introduction of the EU Floods Directive (2007/60/EC), the need for reliable, but cost effective, risk mapping at the regional scale is rising in the policy agenda. Methods are therefore required to allow for efficiently undertaking what the Directive terms “preliminary flood risk assessment,” in other words a screening of areas that could potentially be at risk of flooding and that consequently merit more detailed attention and analysis. Such methods cannot rely on modeling, as this would require more data and effort that is reasonable for this high-level, screening phase. This is especially true in urban areas, where modeling requires knowledge of the detailed urban terrain, the drainage networks, and their interactions. A GIS-based multicriteria flood risk assessment methodology was therefore developed and applied for the mapping of flood risk in urban areas. This approach quantifies the spatial distribution of flood risk and is able to deal with uncertainties in criteria values and to examine their influence on the overall flood risk assessment. It can further assess the spatially variable reliability of the resulting maps on the basis of the choice of method used to develop the maps. The approach is applied to the Greater Athens area and validated for its central and most urban part. A GIS database of economic, social, and environmental criteria contributing to flood risk was created. Three different multicriteria decision rules (Analytical Hierarchy Process, Weighted Linear Combination and Ordered Weighting Averaging) were applied, to produce the overall flood risk map of the area. To implement this methodology, the IDRISI Andes GIS software was customized and used. It is concluded that the results of the analysis are a reasonable representation of actual flood risk, on the basis of their comparison with historical flood events.

Keywords

Floods GIS Multicriteria evaluation (MCE) Sensitivity analysis Uncertainty Vulnerability 

References

  1. Alkema D (2001) Flood-risk assessment for EIA. Studi Trentini Sci Nat Acta Geol 78:147–154Google Scholar
  2. Bamford TB, Digman CJ, Balmforth DJ, Waller S, Hunter N (2008) Modelling flood risk, an evaluation of different methods, WaPUG. Org. Autumn Conference, UKGoogle Scholar
  3. Bana E, Costa CA (1990) Reading in multiple criteria decision aid. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belton V, Stewart TJ (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis—an integrated approach. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradbrook KF, Lane SN, Waller SG, Bates PD (2004) Two dimensional diffusion wave modelling of flood inundation using a simplified channel representation. Int J River Basin Manag 2(3):211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler D, Kokkalidou A, Makropoulos CK (2005) Supporting the siting of new urban developments for integrated urban water resource management. In: Hlavinek P, Kukharchyk T (eds) Integrated urban water resources management, NATO scientific series. Springer, Berlin, pp 19–34Google Scholar
  7. Carr RS, Smith GP (2006) Linking 2D and pipe hydraulic models at fine spatial scales. 7th International conference on urban drainage modelling and 4th international conference on water sensitive urban design, vol 2, Melbourne, pp 361–368Google Scholar
  8. Carver SJ (1991) Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 5:321–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen AS, Hsu MH, Chen TS, Chang TJ (2005) An integrated inundation model for highly developed urban areas. Water Sci Technol 51(2):221–229Google Scholar
  10. Dawson RJ, Speight L, Hall JW, Djordjevic S, Savic D, Leandro J (2008) Attribution of flood risk in urban areas. J Hydroinform 10(4):275–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Djordjević S, Prodanović D, Maksimović Č, Ivetić M, Savić D (2005) SIPSON–Simulation of Interaction between pipe flow and surface overland flow in networks. Water Sci Technol 52(5):275–283Google Scholar
  12. EA (2009) Flooding in wales: a national assessment of flood risk. Environment Agency, Wales, p 24Google Scholar
  13. Eastman JR (1997) IDRISI for windows, tutorial exercises. Version 2.0, Clark UniversityGoogle Scholar
  14. Eastman JR, Kyem PAK, Toledano J, Jin W (1993) GIS and decision making. UNITAR, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  15. Eastman JR, Jin W, Kyem PAK, Toledano J (1995) Raster procedures for multi-criteria/multi-objective decisions. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 61:539–547Google Scholar
  16. ENM (2004) Basic information and proposals for updating the flood protection of Attica. Ministry of Public Works, AthensGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans EP, Penning-Rowsell EC, Hall JW (2003) Foresight flood and coastal defence project, phase 1 technical report. Drivers, scenarios and work plan. Office of Science and Technology, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. Evelpidou N, Mamassis N, Vassilopoulos A, Makropoulos C, Koutsogiannis D (2009) Flooding in Athens: the kephisos river flood event of 21–22/10/1994. COST22 Conference, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  19. Floros I (2009). Developing a database for recording flood incidents. MSc Thesis, Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens (in Greek)Google Scholar
  20. Heywood I, Oliver J, Tomlinson S (1995) Building an exploratory multi-criteria modelling environment for spatial decision support. In: Fisher P (ed) Innovations in GIS2. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 127–136Google Scholar
  21. Hopkins LD (1977) Methods for generating land suitability maps: a comparative evaluation. J Am Inst Plann 34:19–29Google Scholar
  22. Hunter NM, Bates PD, Neelz S, Pender G, Villanueva I, Wright NG et al (2008) Benchmarking 2D hydraulic models for urban flooding. Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers. Water Manag 161(1):13–30Google Scholar
  23. ICE (2001) Learning to live with rivers. Institution of Civil Engineers, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  24. King D (2000) You’re on our own: community vulnerability and the need for awareness and education for predictable natural disasters. J Conting Crisis Manage 8:223–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lamond JE, Proverbs DG, Hammond FN (2009) Accessibility of flood risk insurance in the UK: confusion, competition and complacency. J Risk Res 12(6):825–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Makropoulos C, Butler D (2006) Spatial ordered weighted averaging: incorporating spatially variable attitude towards risk in spatial multicriteria decision-making. Environ Model Softw 21(1):69–84Google Scholar
  27. Makropoulos C, Butler D, Maksimovic C (1999) GIS supported evaluation of source control applicability in urban areas. Water Sci Technol 32(9):243–252Google Scholar
  28. Makropoulos C, Argyrou E, Memon FA, Butler D (2007) A suitability evaluation tool for siting wastewater treatment facilities in new urban developments. Urban Water J 4(2):61–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Makropoulos CK, Memon FA, Shirley-Smith C, Butler D (2008) Futures: an exploration of scenarios for sustainable urban water management.Water Policy 10(4):345–375. doi: 10.2166/wp.2008.014 Google Scholar
  30. Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Wiley, USAGoogle Scholar
  31. Malczewski J (2000) On the use of weighted linear combination method in GIS: common and best practice approaches. Trans GIS 4(1):5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Malczewski J (2006) GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 20(7):703–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Malczewski J, Chapman T, Flegel C, Walters D, Shrubsole D, Healy MA (2003) GIS—multicriteria evaluation with ordered weighted averaging (OWA): case study of developing watershed management strategies. Environ Plan A 35(10):1769–1784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Messner F, Meyer V (2006) Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perception—challenges for flood damage research. Chap. 13. In: Schanze J, Zeman E, Marsalek J (eds) Flood risk management—hazards, vulnerability and mitigation measures. Springer, Berlin, pp 149–167 Nato Science SeriesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meyer V, Scheuer S, Haase D (2008) A multicriteria approach for flood risk mapping exemplified at the Mulde river, Germany, Nat hazards 48. Springer, Berlin, pp 17–39Google Scholar
  36. Munda G (1995) Multicriteria evaluation in a fuzzy environment—theory and applications in ecological economics. Physica Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  37. Nunes Correia F, Da Graca Saraiva M, Nunes Da Silva F, Ramos I (1999) Floodplain management in urban developing areas. Part I. Urban growth scenarios and land-use controls. Water Res Manag 13:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ologunorisa TE, Abawua MJ (2005) Flood risk assessment: a review. J Appl Sci Environ Manag 9(1):57–63Google Scholar
  39. OPW (Office of Public Works) (2007) Screening of Natura 2000 sites for impacts of arterial drainage maintenance operations. ISSN 1649-9840. Series of ecological assessments on arterial drainage maintenance. No. 1. Office Public Works, 51 St Stephens Green, Dublin 2, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  40. Rinner C, Malczewski J (2002) Web-enabled spatial decision analysis using ordered weighted averaging (OWA). J Geograph Syst 4(4):385–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. RPA (2008) Railway procurement agency. Metro north railway order application—further information request. Item 4. Flood Risk Assessment (downloadable from: http://www.dublinmetronorth.ie)
  42. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Saaty TL (1992) Decision making for leaders. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  44. Sauer VB (2002) USGS, The national flood frequency program, version 3: a computer program for estimating magnitude and frequency of floods for ungaged sites. Water-Resources Investigations, Report 02-4168, pp 8–10Google Scholar
  45. Sayers P, Calvert M (2007) National flood risk assessment for Northern Ireland. Flood mapping strategy (Interim). Report EX 5299. Release 5.0. HR WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  46. Sayers PB, Gouldby BP, Simm JD, Meadowcroft IC, Hall JW (2002) Risk, performance and uncertainty in flood and coastal defence-a review, Defra/EA R&D Technical Report FD2302/TR1Google Scholar
  47. Schanze J, Zeman E, Marsalek J (2006) Flood risk management. Hazards, vulnerability and mitigation measures, vol 67. Springer, Dordrecht (NL), pp 3–4 (Nato science series—IV. Earth and Environmental Sciences)Google Scholar
  48. Schmitt TG, Thomas M, Ettrich N (2004) Analysis and modeling of flooding in urban drainage systems. J Hydrol 299(3–4):300–311. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.08.012 Google Scholar
  49. Sharada D, Kaveri Devi D, Prasad S, Kumar SS (1997) Modelling flash flood hazard to a railway line: a GIS approach. Geocarto Int 12(3):77–82. doi: 10.1080/10106049709354600 Taylor & FrancisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Simonovic SP, Nirupama A (2005) A spatial multi-objective decision-making under uncertainty for water resources management. J Hydroinform 7(2):117–133Google Scholar
  51. Smith K (1996) Environmental hazards. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. Strager MP, Rosenberger RS (2006) Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: weights and measures in spatial MCA. Ecol Econ 57(13):627–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tapsell S, Penning-Rowsell EC, Tunstall SM, Wilson TL (2002) Vulnerability to flooding: health and social dimensions. Philos Transact R Soc Lond A Math Phys Eng Sci 360:1511–1525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thinh NX, Hedel R (2004) A fuzzy compromise programming environment for the ecological evaluation of land use options. Conference proceedings of the Enviro Info 2004Google Scholar
  55. Tkach RJ, Simonovic SP (1997) A new approach to multi-criteria decision making in water resources. J Geogr Inform Decis Anal 1(1):25–43Google Scholar
  56. Tomlin CD (1990) Geographical information systems and cartographic modeling. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  57. HR Wallingford (2002) Risk performance and uncertainty in flood and coastal defence—A review. SR587 (Second Draft)Google Scholar
  58. Yager RR (1993) Non-numeric multi-criteria multi-person decision making. Group Decis Negot 2:81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yalcin G, Akyurek Z (2004) Analysing flood vulnerable areas with multicriteria evaluation. XXth ISPRS Congress, Istanbul, Turkey 12–23 JulyGoogle Scholar
  60. Zadeh L (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations