Integrated flood vulnerability assessment approach based on TOPSIS and Shannon entropy methods

Yang, Wei; Xu, Kui; Lian, Jijian; Ma, Chao; Bin, Lingling

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.02.015

Cited by 159 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Unlike the subjective methods, in this study, we applied an objective weighting procedure by which it is more appropriate to give precise evidences for prioritizing planning areas (based on the value of sub-components), which seeks attention and remedies to reducing the livelihood vulnerability of communities to the adverse effects of climate variability/change. The Shannon entropy method, an objective weighting method that has been recommended as robust [20,22,57], was used to generate an evaluation score for each indicator. The following computation procedures were used (for a more detailed description of the procedures, see the Supplementary Materials): (1) We standardized all 33 indicators (as provided in Table 1 in the results section) by using a dimensionless processing technique that helps facilitate easy comparison of score values.…”

Section: Measures Of Livelihood Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Communities’ Livelihood Vulnerability to Climate Variability in Ethiopia

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethiopia has experienced more than 10 major drought episodes since the 1970s. Evidence has shown that climate change exacerbates the situation and presents a daunting challenge to predominantly rain-fed agricultural livelihoods. The aim of this study was to analyze the extent and sources of smallholder famers’ livelihood vulnerability to climate change/variability in the Upper Blue Nile basin. We conducted a household survey (n = 391) across three distinct agroecological communities and a formative composite index of livelihood vulnerability (LVI) was constructed. The Mann–Kendall test and the standard precipitation index (SPI) were employed to analyze trends of rainfall, temperature, and drought prevalence for the period from 1982 to 2016. The communities across watersheds showed a relative difference in the overall livelihood vulnerability index. Aba Gerima (midland) was found to be more vulnerable, with a score of 0.37, while Guder (highland) had a relatively lower LVI with a 0.34 index score. Given similar exposure to climate variability and drought episodes, communities’ livelihood vulnerability was mainly attributed to their low adaptive capacity and higher sensitivity indicators. Adaptive capacity was largely constrained by a lack of participation in community-based organizations and a lack of income diversification. This study will have practical implications for policy development in heterogeneous agroecological regions for sustainable livelihood development and climate change adaptation programs.

show abstract

Section: Measures Of Livelihood Vulnerabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Communities’ Livelihood Vulnerability to Climate Variability in Ethiopia

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the above considerations of the aggregation schemes for composite indicators, the first flood vulnerability indicator FVI 1 can be expressed in Equation (1) by compiling the three primary assessment components, exposure E, sensitivity S, and lack of adaptability A independently, as presented in previous studies [13][14][15][16][17]:…”

Section: Aggregation Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, two proxy variables, which are deemed relevant to human and properties are identified based on the IPCC's widely referred assessment components. A comprehensive review was carried out for previously published flood vulnerability assessment articles [13][14][15][16][17][19][20][21]23,[30][31][32]34,35] to select each proxy variable for the study site, as presented in Table 1. To represent the duration and extent to which the study site is influenced by flood events, the proxy variables for the exposure component comprised of days of heavy rainfall greater than 80 mm per day [52] and ratio of flooded area to each administrative district area.…”

Section: Proxy Variable Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Analysis of Flood Vulnerability Indicators by Aggregation Frameworks for the IPCC’s Assessment Components to Climate Change

Lee

Choi

2019

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As severe flood damages have been increasing due to climate change, the flood vulnerability assessment is needed in the flood mitigation plans to cope with climate-related flood disasters. Since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report (IPCC TAR) presented the three assessment components, such as exposure, sensitivity, and adaptability for the vulnerability to climate change, several aggregation frameworks have been used to compile individual components into the composite indicators to measure the flood vulnerability. It is therefore necessary to select an appropriate aggregation framework for the flood vulnerability assessments because the aggregation frameworks can have a large influence on the composite indicator outcomes. For a comparative analysis of flood vulnerability indicators across different aggregation frameworks for the IPCC’s assessment components, the composite indicators are derived by four representative types of aggregation frameworks with all the same proxy variable set in the Republic of Korea. It is found in the study site that there is a key driver component of the composite indicator outcomes and the flood vulnerability outcomes largely depend on whether the key component is treated independently or dependently in each aggregation framework. It is concluded that the selection of an aggregation framework can be based on the correlation and causality analysis to determine the relative contribution of the assessment components to the overall performance of the composite indicators across different aggregation frameworks.

show abstract

“…Whereas UNISDR's (2009) definition of vulnerability is limited to the susceptibility to hazardous events, "the characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard." Thus, vulnerability assessments focus more on the exposure of a social-ecological system (Yang et al 2018), whereas resilience assessments focus more on the recovery and adaptability of the system (Cutter et al 2008). Therefore, their evaluation index systems will contain different dimensions and indicators (e.g., Cutter et al 2008, Hahn et al 2009, Gautam 2017, Huong et al 2019.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiattribute decision making for the assessment of disaster resilience in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area

Yang¹,

Guo²,

Chen³

et al. 2020

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disaster resilience assessments are critical to both urban and rural development, especially in disaster-prone regions. The Three Gorges Reservoir Area is a typical disaster-prone area, but there is a lack of research on disaster resilience in this area. We proposed a set of indicators and methodologies as a development of a comprehensive disaster resilience evaluation index system that encompasses societal, economic, natural environment, and infrastructure perspectives. Then an integrated approach, which combines 3 weight value determination methods, 6 evaluation methods, and 3 sorting methods, was developed and applied to disaster resilience assessments of 17 counties in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area, from which a final ranking was obtained. The conclusions we got from the research are: (1) the overall disaster resilience in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area is relatively low; (2) the disaster resilience in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area has significant regional differences, as well as social, economic, infrastructural, and environmental resilience; and (3) the societal, economic, and natural environment resilience all have a certain correlation with disaster resilience. Finally, suggestions were given to improve the disaster resilience in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area. This study can provide a framework and method for disaster resilience assessment.Ecology and Society 25(2): 5 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol25/iss2/art5/

show abstract

Integrated flood vulnerability assessment approach based on TOPSIS and Shannon entropy methods

Cited by 159 publications

References 35 publications

Communities’ Livelihood Vulnerability to Climate Variability in Ethiopia

Communities’ Livelihood Vulnerability to Climate Variability in Ethiopia

Comparative Analysis of Flood Vulnerability Indicators by Aggregation Frameworks for the IPCC’s Assessment Components to Climate Change

Multiattribute decision making for the assessment of disaster resilience in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About