Evaluating the Effects of Inundation Duration and Velocity on Selection of Flood Management Alternatives Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making

Abstract

Impacts of flood management alternatives are mostly assessed by inundation depth. Other inundation parameters such as velocity and duration are rarely taken into consideration. In this paper, a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) based framework is used to analyze the effects of inundation velocity and duration on evaluation of flood management alternatives. The framework incorporates a two-dimensional (2D) flood model, Flood2D-GPU and a spatial MCDM (SMCDM) method, Spatial Compromise Programming (SCP). Flood2D-GPU is employed to simulate floods and SCP is applied to rank a set of flood management alternatives. Assessment of flood management options is conducted with multiple different weight set scenarios. First, alternatives are ranked without consideration of inundation velocity and duration. Then, the importance of these parameters increases and the alternatives are ordered in each weight set and a GIS map showing the best alternative in each grid cell is generated in each case. Best alternative maps (BAMs) are compared to investigate the impacts of inundation velocity and duration on selection of best strategy using F fit measure and κ analysis. The framework applicability is illustrated on the Swannanoa River watershed located in the state of North Carolina, US. Case study results indicate up to 49.7 % change of BAM by taking into account inundation velocity and duration. The presented approach addresses the change in selection of flood management strategies resulted by considering other inundation parameters rather than inundation depth. This can potentially reduce the uncertainties associated with the decisions made without consideration of inundation velocity and duration.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

References

  1. Ahmadisharaf E, Bhuiyan MNM, Kalyanapu AJ (2013) Impact of spatial resolution on downstream flood hazard due to dam break events using probabilistic flood modeling. 5th Dam Saf Conf. Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO), Providence

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bana E, Costa CA, Da Silva PA, Correia FN (2004) Multicriteria evaluation of flood control measures: the case of ribeira do livramento. Water Resour Manag 18:263–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonnin G, Todd D, Lin B, Parzybok T, Yekta M, Riley D (2004) Precipitation frequency atlas of the United States. NOAA Atlas 14:2

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brouwer R, Van Ek R (2004) Integrated ecological, economic and social impact assessment of alternative flood control policies in the Netherlands. Ecol Econ 50:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen YR, Yeh CH, Yu B (2011) Integrated application of the analytic hierarchy process and the geographic information system for flood risk assessment and flood plain management in Taiwan. Nat Hazards 59:1261–1276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Citeau JM (2003) A New control concept in the Oise catchment area definition and assessment of flood compatible agricultural activities. FIG Working Week, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dang MN, Mukand SB, Huynh TL (2011) Evaluation of flood risk parameters in the Day river flood diversion area, Red river delta, Vietnam. Nat Hazards 56:169–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dutta D, Herath S, Musiake K (2003) A mathematical model for flood loss estimation. J Hydrol 277:24–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fernandez DS, Lutz MA (2011) Urban flood hazard zoning in Tucuman Province, Argentina, using GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Eng Geol 111:90–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ferziger JH, Peric M (2002) Computational methods for fluid dynamics, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  12. Forster S, Kuhlmann B, Lindenschmidt KE, Bronstert A (2008) Assessing flood risk for a rural detention area. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 8:311–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hajkowicz S, Collins K (2007) A review of multiple criteria analysis for water resources planning and management. Water Resour Manag 21:1553–1566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Horritt MS (2000) Calibration of a two‐dimensional finite element flood flow model using satellite radar imagery. Water Resour Res 36:3279–3291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Horritt MS, Bates PD (2001a) Effects of spatial resolution on a raster based model of flood flow. J Hydrol 253:239–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Horritt MS, Bates PD (2001b) Predicting floodplain inundation: raster‐based modelling versus the finite‐element approach. Hydrol Process 15:825–842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jonkman SN, Vrijling JK, Vrouwenvelder ACWM (2008) Methods for the estimation of loss of life due to floods: a literature review and a proposal for a new method. Nat Hazards 46:353–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jonkman SN, Maaskant B, Kolen B, Zethof M, Lehman W (2013) Loss of Life, Evacuation and Emergency Management: Comparison and Application to Case Studies in the USA

  19. Jun KS, Chung ES, Kim YG, Kim Y (2013) A fuzzy multi-criteria approach to flood risk vulnerability in South Korea by considering climate change impacts. Expert Syst Appl 40:1003–1013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kalyanapu AJ, Shankar S, Stephens A, Judi DR, Burian S (2011) Assessment of GPU computational enhancement to a 2D flood model. J Environ Model Softw 26:1009–1016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kalyanapu AJ, Shankar S, Stephens A, Judi DR, Burian S (2012) Monte Carlo-based flood modelling framework for estimating probability weighted flood risk. J Flood Risk Manag 5:37–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kalyanapu AJ, Hossain AA, Kim J, Yigzaw W, Hossain F, Shum CK (2013) Toward a methodology to investigate the downstream flood hazards on the American River due to changes in probable maximum flood due to effects of artificial reservoir size and land-use/land-cover patterns. Earth Interact 17:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kalyanapu AJ, Judi DR, McPherson TN, Burian SJ (2014) Annualised risk analysis approach to recommend appropriate level of flood control: application to Swannanoa river watershed. J Flood Risk Manag. doi:10.1111/jfr3.12108

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kourgialas NN, Karatzas GP (2012) Flood management and a GIS modeling method to assess flood hazard areas-a case study. Hydrol Sci J 56:212–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kreibich H, Piroth K, Seifert I, Maiwald H, Kunert U, Schwartz J, Merz B, Thieken AH (2009) Is flow velocity a significant parameter in flood damage modeling? Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:1679–1992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee GM, Jun KS, Chung ES (2013) Integrated multi-criteria flood vulnerability approach using Fuzzy TOPSIS and Delphi technique. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13:1293–1312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee GM, Jun KS, Chung ES (2014) Robust spatial flood vulnerability assessment for Han River using fuzzy TOPSIS with alpha-level sets. Expert Syst Appl 41:644–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee GM, Jun KS, Chung ES (2015) Group decision making approach for flood vulnerability identification with the fuzzy VIKOR method. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci Discuss 2:6141–6171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Levy JK (2005) Multiple criteria decision making and decision support systems for flood risk management. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 19:438–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Levy JK, Hartmann J, Li KW, An Y, Asgary A (2007) Multi-criteria decision support systems for flood hazard mitigation and emergency response in urban watersheds. J Am Water Resour Assoc 43:346–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lillywhite J, Kalyanapu, AJ (2011) Water supply reliability assessment using Monte Carlo Simulation. 47th Annu Water Resour Conf, Albuquerque, NM

  32. McCuen RH (1998) Hydrologic analysis and design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  33. Merz B, Kreibich H, Thieken A, Schmidtke R (2004) Estimation uncertainty of direct monetary flood damage to buildings. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 4:153–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Meyer V, Scheuer S, Haase D (2009) A multicriteria approach for flood risk mapping exemplified at the Muddle River, Germany. Nat Hazards 48:17–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Munda G (2006) Social multi-criteria evaluation for urban sustainability policies. Land Use Policy 23:86–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. National Weather Service (NWS) (2013) Hydrologic Information Center - Flood loss data. Available at: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/hic/index.shtml. Accessed 17 September 2013

  37. North Carolina Floodplain Management Program (NCFMP) (2011) NCFMP Program Review, Appendix B. http://www.ncfloodmaps.com/program_review.htm. Accessed 12 September 2012

  38. Pistrika AK, Jonkman SN (2010) Damage to residential buildings due to flooding of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina. Nat Hazards 54:413–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Qi H, Altinakar MS (2012) GIS-based decision support system for dam break flood management under uncertainty with two-dimensional numerical simulations. J Water Resour Plan Manag 138:334–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Radmehr A, Araghinejad S (2014) Developing Strategies for Urban Flood Management of Tehran City Using SMCDM and ANN. J Computing in Civil Eng. 28 DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000360

  41. Schröter K, Kreibich H, Vogel K, Riggelsen C, Scherbaum F, Merz B (2014) How useful are complex flood damage models? Water Resour Res 50:3378–3395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Schubert JE, Sanders BF (2012) Building treatments for urban flood inundation models and implications for predictive skill and modeling efficiency. Adv Water Resour 41:49–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Simonovic RJ (1989) Application of water resources systems concept to the formulation of a water master plan. Water Int 14:37–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sinha R, Bapalu GV, Singh LK, Rath B (2008) Flood risk analysis in the Kosi River Basin, North Bihar using multi-parametric approach of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). J Indian Soc Remote Sens 36:335–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Stefanidis S, Stathis D (2013) Assessment of flood hazard based on natural and anthropogenic factors using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Nat Hazards 68(2):569–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sun R, Wang X, Zhou Z, Ao X, Sun X, Song M. (2014) Study of the comprehensive risk analysis of dam-break flooding based on the numerical simulation of flood routing. Part I: model development. Nat Hazards 1–22

  47. Tecle A, Shrestha BP, Duckstein L (1998) A multiobjective decision support system for multiresource forest management. Group Decis Negot 7:23–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Tkach RJ, Simonovic RJ (1997) A new approach to multi-criteria decision-making in water resources. J Geogr Inf Decis Anal 1:25–44

    Google Scholar 

  49. UDFCD (2010) Cost estimator for master planning (UD-MP Cost) User Manual. Denver, CO

  50. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN-ISDR) (2013) Flood – Data and Statistics. http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hazards/statistics/?hid=62. Accessed 16 September 2013

  51. US Inflation Calculator (2014) http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/. Accessed 5 January 2014

  52. Willette K, Sharda R (1991) Using the analytic hierarchy process in water resources planning selection of flood control projects. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 25:103–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Yigzaw W, Hossain F, Kalyanapu AJ (2013) Comparison of PMP-driven probable maximum floods with flood magnitudes due to increasingly urbanized catchment: the case of american river watershed. Earth Interact 17:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Yu D, Lane SN (2006) Urban fluvial flood modelling using a two‐dimensional diffusion‐wave treatment, part 1: mesh resolution effects. Hydrol Process 20:1541–1565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Zou Q, Zhou J, Zhou J, Song L, Guo J (2012) Comprehensive flood risk assessment based on set pair analysis-variable fuzzy sets model and fuzzy AHP. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 27:525–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the support provided by the Center of Management Utilization and Protection of Water Resources. We also acknowledge the fruitful comments by the two anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alfred J. Kalyanapu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahmadisharaf, E., Kalyanapu, A.J. & Chung, ES. Evaluating the Effects of Inundation Duration and Velocity on Selection of Flood Management Alternatives Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making. Water Resour Manage 29, 2543–2561 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-0956-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Assessment of flood management alternatives
  • Flood2D-GPU
  • Spatial compromise programming (SCP)
  • Inundation velocity
  • Inundation duration