Effect of climate change and urbanisation on flood protection decision-making

被引:21
|
作者
Daksiya, Velautham [1 ,2 ]
Mandapaka, Pradeep V. [3 ]
Lo, Edmond Y. M. [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Nanyang Technol Univ, Nanyang Environm Water Res Inst, Environm Proc Modelling Ctr, Singapore, Singapore
[2] Nanyang Technol Univ, Interdisciplinary Grad Sch, Singapore, Singapore
[3] Nanyang Technol Univ, Inst Catastrophe Risk Management, Singapore, Singapore
[4] Nanyang Technol Univ, Sch Civil & Environm Engn, Singapore, Singapore
来源
JOURNAL OF FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT | 2021年 / 14卷 / 01期
关键词
annual expected loss; climate change; flood protection; graduality; MCDA; urban projections; RISK-MANAGEMENT; URBAN; VULNERABILITY; UNCERTAINTY; PROJECTIONS; RAINFALL; MODEL;
D O I
10.1111/jfr3.12681
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The changing climate and the rapid urbanisation may alter flood severity and influence the decision-making process for flood management. In this study, a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) framework for optimal decision-making in flood protection is developed and applied to a central flood-prone basin of Jakarta, Indonesia. Specifically, the decisions are on levees corresponding to protection under different rainfall return periods (RP), considering climate change and associated uncertainties, urbanisation, and evolving socio-economic features of the flood plain. Three cases were studied to analyse future (year 2050) conditions (i) future rainfall/current urban, (ii) current rainfall/future urban and (iii) future rainfall/future urban. Future climate change projections from the NASA Earth Exchange are used to obtain information about changes in rainfall, whereas Landsat derived imperviousness maps along with the population projections are used for future urban conditions. Annual Expected Loss, Graduality, upgrade Construction cost and Net-Socio-Economic Vulnerability Index are the criteria used in the MCDA. It is found that climate change has a higher impact compared to urbanisation on the flood protection decisions. For the basin studied, the extreme future case of increased rainfall and urbanised conditions have the optimal decision in levee protection level corresponding to 250 years RP under current rainfall which corresponds to similar to 60 years RP under future rainfall.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Decision-making in Barrier Construction for Flood Protection
    Dragovic, Nada
    Vulevic, Tijana
    WASSERWIRTSCHAFT, 2022, 112 (01) : 19 - 26
  • [2] Simulation of Optimal Decision-Making Under the Impacts of Climate Change
    Moller, Lea Ravnkilde
    Drews, Martin
    Larsen, Morten Andreas Dahl
    ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2017, 60 (01) : 104 - 117
  • [3] A structured decision-making approach to climate change adaptation in the forest sector
    Ohlson, DW
    McKinnon, GA
    Hirsch, KG
    FORESTRY CHRONICLE, 2005, 81 (01): : 97 - 103
  • [4] Climate Decision-Making
    Orlove, Ben
    Shwom, Rachael
    Markowitz, Ezra
    Cheong, So-Min
    ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES, VOL 45, 2020, 45 : 271 - 303
  • [5] Flood Risk Assessment to Enable Improved Decision-Making for Climate Change Adaptation Strategies by Central and Local Governments
    Yu, Insang
    Jung, Huicheul
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2022, 14 (21)
  • [6] Some issues in climate change decision-making
    Babu, PG
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT AND POLLUTION, 1998, 9 (2-3) : 179 - 185
  • [7] Climate change and the British Uplands: evidence for decision-making INTRODUCTION
    House, Jo I.
    Orr, Harriet G.
    Clark, Joanna M.
    Gallego-Sala, Angela V.
    Freeman, Chris
    Prentice, I. Colin
    Smith, Pete
    CLIMATE RESEARCH, 2010, 45 (01) : 3 - 12
  • [8] Simulation of Optimal Decision-Making Under the Impacts of Climate Change
    Lea Ravnkilde Møller
    Martin Drews
    Morten Andreas Dahl Larsen
    Environmental Management, 2017, 60 : 104 - 117
  • [9] Adaptation, flexibility and project decision-making with climate change uncertainties
    Colombo, Andrew F.
    Byer, Philip H.
    IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT APPRAISAL, 2012, 30 (04) : 229 - 241