IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlswr/v9y2014i4id27-2014-swr.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to reach a compromise solution on technical and non-structural flood control measures

Author

Listed:
  • Pavel KOVÁŘ

    (Faculty of Environmental Sciences and)

  • Martin PELIKÁN

    (Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Darina HEŘMANOVSKÁ

    (Faculty of Environmental Sciences and)

  • Ivan VRANA

    (Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic)

Abstract

Harmful impacts of floods are the result of an interaction between extreme hydrological events and environmental, social, and economic processes. Flood management should consider many diverse aspects and influences and an integrated approach to flood management therefore plays an important role. In order to make an analysis and provide an adequate flood management, it is necessary to bring together a team comprising experts e.g. from the fields of hydrology and water resources, nature protection, risk management, human security, municipal administration, economics, and land use. Estimates by experts can serve finding solutions to given YES/NO problems, and estimating the value of specific attributes or parameters. It is not easy to adopt the solution which represents the best possible agreement among the participating experts, since experts and other participants can represent diverse standpoints. In particular, landowners and leaseholders upstream a catchment are often in a different position than the members of the municipal flood control committee downstream in a city with a high inhabitancy. In order to measure and evaluate the level of agreement between experts and landowners, a newly developed method for assessing the level of agreement and the τ-agreement value was applied. The aim of the present paper is to illustrate the use of a fuzzy-group-agreement decision-making procedure of this kind, involving a broad range of standpoints in a case study of the Zdravá Voda catchment, Žarošice, Czech Republic. This illustration has been made by comparison of hydrological model scenarios with the experts' decision. The method used in the paper applied towards aggregating expert proposals expressed as fuzzy quantities to propose a binary solution to estimate a decisive parameter numerical value. The decision achieved for the Zdravá Voda catchment was that the efficiency of structural measures (polder) was superior over the non-structural measures (replacement of the arable land by grassland).

Suggested Citation

  • Pavel KOVÁŘ & Martin PELIKÁN & Darina HEŘMANOVSKÁ & Ivan VRANA, 2014. "How to reach a compromise solution on technical and non-structural flood control measures," Soil and Water Research, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 9(4), pages 143-152.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlswr:v:9:y:2014:i:4:id:27-2014-swr
    DOI: 10.17221/27/2014-SWR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://swr.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/27/2014-SWR.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://swr.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/27/2014-SWR.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/27/2014-SWR?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grabisch, Michel & Rusinowska, Agnieszka, 2013. "A model of influence based on aggregation functions," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 316-330.
    2. Michel Grabisch & Jean-Luc Marichal & Radko Mesiar & Endre Pap, 2011. "Aggregation functions: Means," Post-Print hal-00539028, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ulrich Faigle & Michel Grabisch, 2017. "Game Theoretic Interaction and Decision: A Quantum Analysis," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-25, November.
    2. Ulrich Faigle & Michel Grabisch, 2016. "Bases and linear transforms of TU-games and cooperation systems," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 45(4), pages 875-892, November.
    3. Jaume Belles‐Sampera & Montserrat Guillén & Miguel Santolino, 2014. "Beyond Value‐at‐Risk: GlueVaR Distortion Risk Measures," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(1), pages 121-134, January.
    4. Merigó, José M. & Palacios-Marqués, Daniel & Ribeiro-Navarrete, Belén, 2015. "Aggregation systems for sales forecasting," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2299-2304.
    5. Alexis Poindron & Nizar Allouch, 2024. "A Model of Competing Gangs in Networks," Games, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-15, February.
    6. Merigó, José M. & Palacios-Marqués, Daniel & del Mar Benavides-Espinosa, María, 2015. "Aggregation methods to calculate the average price," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 1574-1580.
    7. Förster, Manuel & Grabisch, Michel & Rusinowska, Agnieszka, 2013. "Anonymous social influence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 621-635.
    8. Rusinowska, Agnieszka & Taalaibekova, Akylai, 2019. "Opinion formation and targeting when persuaders have extreme and centrist opinions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 9-27.
    9. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2020. "A Survey on Nonstrategic Models of Opinion Dynamics," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-29, December.
    10. Gagolewski, Marek, 2015. "Spread measures and their relation to aggregation functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(2), pages 469-477.
    11. Cowell, Frank & Van de Gaer, Dirk, 2025. "Condorcet was wrong, Pareto was right: families, inheritance and inequality," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 127769, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Belles-Sampera, Jaume & Merigó, José M. & Guillén, Montserrat & Santolino, Miguel, 2013. "The connection between distortion risk measures and ordered weighted averaging operators," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 411-420.
    13. Peláez, José Ignacio & Bernal, Rubén, 2016. "Selective majority additive ordered weighting averaging operatorAuthor-Name: Karanik, Marcelo," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(3), pages 816-826.
    14. Alexis Poindron, 2019. "A general model of synchronous updating with binary opinions," Post-Print halshs-02372486, HAL.
    15. Dombi, József & Jónás, Tamás, 2022. "Weighted aggregation systems and an expectation level-based weighting and scoring procedure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(2), pages 580-588.
    16. Michel Grabisch & Jean-Luc Marichal & Radko Mesiar & Endre Pap, 2011. "Aggregation functions: construction methods, conjunctive, disjunctive and mixed classes," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00539032, HAL.
    17. Mario Maggi & Maria-Laura Torrente & Pierpaolo Uberti, 2020. "Proper measures of connectedness," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 547-571, December.
    18. Veronica Cappelli & Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Stefania Minardi, 2021. "Sources of Uncertainty and Subjective Prices," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 872-912.
    19. Michel Grabisch & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2016. "Determining models of influence," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 26(2), pages 69-85.
    20. Pérez-Fernández, Raúl, 2023. "On the use of robust estimators of multivariate location for heterogeneous data," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:caa:jnlswr:v:9:y:2014:i:4:id:27-2014-swr. 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: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    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.