IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/waterr/v36y2022i6d10.1007_s11269-022-03114-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative prioritization of sub-watersheds based on Flood Generation potential using physical, hydrological and co-managerial approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Ali Nasiri Khiavi

    (Tarbiat Modares University)

  • Mehdi Vafakhah

    (Tarbiat Modares University)

  • Seyed Hamidreza Sadeghi

    (Tarbiat Modares University)

Abstract

One of the important tools for watershed management and optimal decision making is the prioritization of sub-watersheds which can be effective in soil and water conservation and flood management. Hence, the purpose of this study is to investigate different methods of prioritization of sub-watersheds based on flood generation potential using physical, hydrological and co-managerial approaches in the Cheshmeh-Kileh Watershed, Mazandaran province, Iran. To do this, three approaches including physical criteria (i.e., application of game theory based algorithms), hydrological modeling (i.e., using HEC-HMS model) and co-managerial approach (i.e., employing the opinions of local residents, technical experts and policy makers) were used to prioritize sub-watersheds. Finally, the sub-watersheds were classified into three categories based on flood generation potential. The results showed that there is a difference between the results of co-managerial approach with physical and hydrological modeling approaches. According to the research findings, in physical and hydrological modeling approaches, prioritization of sub-watersheds depends on physical factors such as greater slope, area and less time of concentration. But in Integrated Watershed Management (IWM), in addition to the physical and technical aspects, economic, social, political and legal issues must be considered in decision making, which indicates the necessity of the application of co-managerial approach. Based on field observations, sub-watersheds that have been given first priority by co-managerial approach have a significant annual contribution in flood generation due to low vegetation density. In general, it can be said that physical and hydrological approaches consider only physical and geo-environmental parameters and cannot prioritize important issues such as economic, social and political factors that require the views of local stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Ali Nasiri Khiavi & Mehdi Vafakhah & Seyed Hamidreza Sadeghi, 2022. "Comparative prioritization of sub-watersheds based on Flood Generation potential using physical, hydrological and co-managerial approaches," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 36(6), pages 1897-1917, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:36:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s11269-022-03114-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11269-022-03114-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11269-022-03114-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11269-022-03114-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adhami, Maryam & Sadeghi, Seyed Hamidreza & Sheikhmohammady, Majid, 2018. "Making competent land use policy using a co-management framework," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 171-180.
    2. Vinita Yadav & Zeeshan Ibrar, 2022. "Relationship of Water Stress and Flood Damage for Sustainable Development," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 36(4), pages 1323-1338, March.
    3. Min Fan & Hideaki Shibata, 2014. "Spatial and Temporal Analysis of Hydrological Provision Ecosystem Services for Watershed Conservation Planning of Water Resources," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(11), pages 3619-3636, September.
    4. Yuming Huang & Yanjie Li & Min Liu & Liang Xiao & Fuwan Gan & Jian Jiao, 2022. "Uncertainty Analysis of Flood Control Design Under Multiple Floods," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 36(4), pages 1175-1189, March.
    5. Steven J. Brams & Ann E. Doherty, 1993. "Intransigence in Negotiations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(4), pages 692-708, December.
    6. R.I. Ogie & C. Adam & P. Perez, 2020. "A review of structural approach to flood management in coastal megacities of developing nations: current research and future directions," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 63(2), pages 127-147, January.
    7. Berthomé, Guy-El-Karim & Thomas, Alban, 2017. "A Context-based Procedure for Assessing Participatory Schemes in Environmental Planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 113-123.
    8. Daniel Seaberg & Laura Devine & Jun Zhuang, 2017. "A review of game theory applications in natural disaster management research," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 89(3), pages 1461-1483, December.
    9. Majid Sheikhmohammady & D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2010. "Modeling the Caspian Sea Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 149-168, March.
    10. Fabrice Valognes & William V. Gehrlein, 2001. "Condorcet efficiency: A preference for indifference," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(1), pages 193-205.
    11. Hans Visser & Arthur Petersen & Willem Ligtvoet, 2014. "On the relation between weather-related disaster impacts, vulnerability and climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 125(3), pages 461-477, August.
    12. William Gehrlein & Fabrice Valognes, 2001. "Condorcet efficiency: A preference for indifference," Post-Print halshs-02173169, HAL.
    13. Hongjian Zhou & Jing’ai Wang & Jinhong Wan & Huicong Jia, 2010. "Resilience to natural hazards: a geographic perspective," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 53(1), pages 21-41, April.
    14. Thomas D. Pol & Ekko C. Ierland & Silke Gabbert, 2017. "Economic analysis of adaptive strategies for flood risk management under climate change," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 267-285, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sumar Farooq & Khalid Mahmood & Fiza Faizi, 2022. "Comparative Simulation of GIS-Based Rainwater Management Solutions," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 36(9), pages 3049-3065, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Álvarez, Xana & Gómez-Rúa, María & Vidal-Puga, Juan, 2019. "Risk prevention of land flood: A cooperative game theory approach," MPRA Paper 91515, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Regenwetter, Michel & Grofman, Bernard & Marley, A. A. J., 2002. "On the model dependence of majority preference relations reconstructed from ballot or survey data," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 451-466, July.
    3. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Issofa Moyouwou & Hatem Smaoui, 2021. "Condorcet Efficiency of General Weighted Scoring Rules Under IAC: Indifference and Abstention," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Mostapha Diss & Vincent Merlin (ed.), Evaluating Voting Systems with Probability Models, pages 55-73, Springer.
    4. Merlin, Vincent & Valognes, Fabrice, 2004. "The impact of indifferent voters on the likelihood of some voting paradoxes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 343-361, November.
    5. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Issofa Moyouwou & Hatem Smaoui, 2019. "Condorcet efficiency of general weighted scoring rules under IAC: indifference and abstention," Working Papers hal-02196387, HAL.
    6. William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley, 2015. "The Condorcet Efficiency Advantage that Voter Indifference Gives to Approval Voting Over Some Other Voting Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 243-269, March.
    7. Lepelley, Dominique & Martin, Mathieu, 2001. "Condorcet's paradox for weak preference orderings," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 163-177, March.
    8. Mathieu Martin, 2002. "On the emptiness of the stability set of order d," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 313-326, June.
    9. Adhami, Maryam & Sadeghi, Seyed Hamidreza & Sheikhmohammady, Majid, 2018. "Making competent land use policy using a co-management framework," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 171-180.
    10. Mostapha Diss & Vincent Merlin, 2010. "On the stability of a triplet of scoring rules," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 289-316, August.
    11. Erik Friese & William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley & Achill Schürmann, 2017. "The impact of dependence among voters’ preferences with partial indifference," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2793-2812, November.
    12. Eric Kamwa, 2019. "Condorcet efficiency of the preference approval voting and the probability of selecting the Condorcet loser," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(3), pages 299-320, October.
    13. Yongdeng Lei & Jing’ai Wang & Yaojie Yue & Hongjian Zhou & Weixia Yin, 2014. "Rethinking the relationships of vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation from a disaster risk perspective," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 70(1), pages 609-627, January.
    14. Jones, Lindsey & d'Errico, Marco, 2019. "Whose resilience matters? Like-for-like comparison of objective and subjective evaluations of resilience," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Scharpf, Fritz W. & Mohr, Matthias, 1994. "Efficient self-coordination in policy networks: A simulation study," MPIfG Discussion Paper 94/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    16. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    17. Mohammad Hadavi & Lutong Sun & Djordje Romanic, 2023. "Normalized insured losses caused by windstorms in Quebec and Ontario, Canada, in the period 2008-2021," Papers 2309.16695, arXiv.org.
    18. Wen-Ko Hsu & Wei-Ling Chiang & Qiang Xue & Dung-Mou Hung & Pei-Chun Huang & Cheng-Wu Chen & Chung-Hung Tsai, 2013. "A probabilistic approach for earthquake risk assessment based on an engineering insurance portfolio," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 65(3), pages 1559-1571, February.
    19. Laura Devitt & Jeffrey Neal & Gemma Coxon & James Savage & Thorsten Wagener, 2023. "Flood hazard potential reveals global floodplain settlement patterns," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    20. Syed Ahmad Hakim Bin Syed Muzamil & Noor Yasmin Zainun & Nadiatul Nazleen Ajman & Noralfishah Sulaiman & Shabir Hussain Khahro & Munzilah Md. Rohani & Saifullizan Mohd Bukari Mohd & Hilton Ahmad, 2022. "Proposed Framework for the Flood Disaster Management Cycle in Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-21, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:36:y:2022:i:6:d:10.1007_s11269-022-03114-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.