2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.055
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Coastal Vulnerability Mapping Using Geospatial Technologies in Cuddalore-Pichavaram Coastal Tract, Tamil Nadu, India.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
1
9
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Unlike most previous coastal vulnerability case studies (Cui et al, 2015; Le Cozannet et al, 2013; McLaughlin and Cooper, 2010; Orencio and Fujii, 2013; Sankari et al, 2015), this study was thoroughly documented with the collaboration and consultation of stakeholders. Moreover, the criteria scores were identified based on the responses to questionnaires; unfortunately, some decision-makers were unfamiliar with multi-criteria questionnaires.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Unlike most previous coastal vulnerability case studies (Cui et al, 2015; Le Cozannet et al, 2013; McLaughlin and Cooper, 2010; Orencio and Fujii, 2013; Sankari et al, 2015), this study was thoroughly documented with the collaboration and consultation of stakeholders. Moreover, the criteria scores were identified based on the responses to questionnaires; unfortunately, some decision-makers were unfamiliar with multi-criteria questionnaires.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contrary to most other empirical model Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI) case studies (Balica et al, 2013; Cui et al, 2015; McLaughlin and Cooper, 2010; Orencio and Fujii, 2013; Rangel-Buitrago et al, 2015; Sankari et al, 2015), this study documents the process of consultation with decision-makers and describes the use of a FAHP method, which is more sophisticated. A few studies, such as Le Cozannet et al (2013) and Sankari et al (2015), have used the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to assess the level of coastal vulnerability risk, but the classic AHP has some weaknesses in the process of assigning unclear weights (Hajkowicz et al, 2000; Yang and Chen, 2004). Many researchers who have studied the FAHP have provided evidence that this method shows relatively more flexibility, an ability to determine appropriate areas and a more appropriate description of these kinds of decision-making processes compared to traditional AHP methods (Aruldoss et al, 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dengan keunggulan tersebut, metode CVI relatif lebih popular dibandingkan dengan metode lain yang digunakan dalam penilaian kerentanan garis pantai di berbagai negara, seperti; Kanada (Shaw et al, 1998), Australia (Abuodha and Woodroffe, 2006), Spanyol (Ojeda-Zújar et al, 2008), Yunani (Alexandrakis et al, 2009), Turki (Özyurt andErgin, 2010), dan India (Kumar et al, 2010;Sankari et al, 2015), termasuk di Indonesia (Disaptono, 2008). Metode CVI ini juga memiliki kekurangan yaitu data numerik yang dihasilkan (ranking dan skor indeks) tidak serta-merta dapat disetarakan dengan dampak fisik tertentu.…”
Section: Pendahuluanunclassified
“…One such method of need assessment is through the lens of 'vulnerability' analysis, which articulates the reality that hazards and subsequent assistance impact various population groups in grossly heterogeneous ways [11]. Numerous vulnerability indices have emerged in fields including infectious diseases [12,13], environmental health [14,15], disaster preparedness [16][17][18], refugee services [7,19], and climate change [20][21][22] which incorporate diverse, cross-sectoral indicators such as socio-economic status, education, information access, mobility, health and morbidity, security, and geographic location.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%