In this study, we developed an innovative operational decision-support system (DSS) based on flood data and mitigation or recovery options, that can be used by both naïve and expert users to score portfolios of flood mitigation or recovery measures. The DSS combines exposure (i.e., economic, social, or environmental values at risk) and resilience (i.e., protection of the main equilibrium functions of human and physical systems). Experts from different fields define indices and functions, stakeholders express their attitudes towards risk, relative weights, and risk perceptions, and both groups use a shared learning process for risk assessment. The DSS algorithms include the “technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution” (TOPSIS) and the “basic linguistic term set” (BLTS) methods for heterogeneous multi-criteria multi-expert decision-making. Decisions are illustrated using fixed or bounded values of flood depth, duration, and frequency, with plausible parameter values, for a case study of Cesenatico. The best mitigation option was construction of sand dunes and development of evacuation plans, which achieved 32% of the potential net benefit. The best recovery option was construction of sand dunes and development of evacuation plans and insurance schemes, which achieved 42% of the potential net benefit. Mitigation options outperformed recovery options whenever the relative importance of exposure with respect to resilience was greater than 95%. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the best mitigation option was most robust with respect to flood duration and depth; the best recovery option was most robust with respect to the relative weights attached to economic, social, and environmental factors. Both options were similarly robust with respect to interdependencies between the options.

A heterogeneous multi-criteria multi-expert decision-support system for scoring combinations of flood mitigation and recovery options

ZAGONARI, FABIO;ROSSI, CLAUDIO
2013

Abstract

In this study, we developed an innovative operational decision-support system (DSS) based on flood data and mitigation or recovery options, that can be used by both naïve and expert users to score portfolios of flood mitigation or recovery measures. The DSS combines exposure (i.e., economic, social, or environmental values at risk) and resilience (i.e., protection of the main equilibrium functions of human and physical systems). Experts from different fields define indices and functions, stakeholders express their attitudes towards risk, relative weights, and risk perceptions, and both groups use a shared learning process for risk assessment. The DSS algorithms include the “technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution” (TOPSIS) and the “basic linguistic term set” (BLTS) methods for heterogeneous multi-criteria multi-expert decision-making. Decisions are illustrated using fixed or bounded values of flood depth, duration, and frequency, with plausible parameter values, for a case study of Cesenatico. The best mitigation option was construction of sand dunes and development of evacuation plans, which achieved 32% of the potential net benefit. The best recovery option was construction of sand dunes and development of evacuation plans and insurance schemes, which achieved 42% of the potential net benefit. Mitigation options outperformed recovery options whenever the relative importance of exposure with respect to resilience was greater than 95%. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the best mitigation option was most robust with respect to flood duration and depth; the best recovery option was most robust with respect to the relative weights attached to economic, social, and environmental factors. Both options were similarly robust with respect to interdependencies between the options.
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/265693
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 31
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 29
social impact