IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v80y2019icp464-479.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managing protection in torrential mountain watersheds: A new conceptual integrated decision-aiding framework

Author

Listed:
  • Carladous, Simon
  • Tacnet, Jean-Marc
  • Batton-Hubert, Mireille
  • Dezert, Jean
  • Marco, Olivier

Abstract

In mountains, natural hazards such as torrential phenomena are damageable for elements at risk. Land use management policies depend on natural risk analysis and on its reduction by protective measures such as civil engineering structures (e.g. check dams, dikes) and forest. Managing these systems is thus needed to help land use planning. It is related to multidisciplinary decision-making problems, from technical effectiveness assessment of protective measures (structural, functional) to their socio-economic efficiency to reduce risk. Decision-aiding tools such as Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) have been recently introduced in mountain watersheds’ management field. Nevertheless, traceability of involved expert reasoning is still missing such as the link between technical and socio-economic problems. This paper aims to show how decision-aiding tools can help to improve these aspects within an innovative integrated decision-aiding framework at the torrential watershed scale. Therefore, a brief overview of decision-aiding approaches, involving several theoretical frameworks, is provided. The integrated decision-aiding framework is then introduced. Finally, improvements are discussed showing that field applications are now needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Carladous, Simon & Tacnet, Jean-Marc & Batton-Hubert, Mireille & Dezert, Jean & Marco, Olivier, 2019. "Managing protection in torrential mountain watersheds: A new conceptual integrated decision-aiding framework," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 464-479.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:80:y:2019:i:c:p:464-479
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.040
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717308888
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.040?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. Jean-Marc Tacnet & Jean Dezert & Corinne Curt & Mireille Batton-Hubert & Eric Chojnacki, 2014. "How to manage natural risks in mountain areas in a context of imperfect information? New frameworks and paradigms for expert assessments and decision-making," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 288-311, June.
    2. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1984. "Prométhée: a new family of outranking methods in multicriteria analysis," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9305, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. Lai, Young-Jou & Liu, Ting-Yun & Hwang, Ching-Lai, 1994. "TOPSIS for MODM," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 486-500, August.
    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. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    2. Gokhan Ozkaya & Mehpare Timor & Ceren Erdin, 2021. "Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Indicators and Comparisons of Countries through a Hybrid Model of Data Mining and MCDM Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-49, January.
    3. Amin Mahmoudi & Xiaopeng Deng & Saad Ahmed Javed & Na Zhang, 2021. "Sustainable Supplier Selection in Megaprojects: Grey Ordinal Priority Approach," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 318-339, January.
    4. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    5. Alfandari, Laurent, 2004. "Choice Rules with Size Constraints for Multiple Criteria Decision Making," ESSEC Working Papers DR 04002, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    6. Corrente, Salvatore & Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore, 2014. "The SMAA-PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 514-522.
    7. Kadziński, MiŁosz & Greco, Salvatore & SŁowiński, Roman, 2012. "Extreme ranking analysis in robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 488-501.
    8. Wenyao Niu & Yuan Rong & Liying Yu & Lu Huang, 2022. "A Novel Hybrid Group Decision Making Approach Based on EDAS and Regret Theory under a Fermatean Cubic Fuzzy Environment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(17), pages 1-30, August.
    9. Thomas L. Saaty, 2013. "The Modern Science of Multicriteria Decision Making and Its Practical Applications: The AHP/ANP Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1101-1118, October.
    10. Łatuszyńska Anna, 2014. "Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis Using Topsis Method For Interval Data In Research Into The Level Of Information Society Development," Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, Sciendo, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, July.
    11. Huiru Zhao & Nana Li, 2016. "Performance Evaluation for Sustainability of Strong Smart Grid by Using Stochastic AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-22, January.
    12. Martina Kuncova & Jana Seknickova, 2022. "Two-stage weighted PROMETHEE II with results’ visualization," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 30(2), pages 547-571, June.
    13. Greco, Salvatore, 1997. "A new PCCA method: IDRA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(3), pages 587-601, May.
    14. Arévalo Quijada, Mª T. & Gómez Domínguez, D. & Vázquez Cueto, Mª J. & Zapata Reina, A., 2002. "Un estudio de las Cajas de Ahorros Andaluzas mediante el método multicriterio promethee," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 20, pages 5-27, Abril.
    15. Majda Ivić & Jelena Kilić & Katarina Rogulj & Nikša Jajac, 2020. "Decision Support to Sustainable Parking Management—Investment Planning through Parking Fines to Improve Pedestrian Flows," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-19, November.
    16. Zohre Hoseinzade & Asal Zavarei & Kourosh Shirani, 2021. "Application of prediction–area plot in the assessment of MCDM methods through VIKOR, PROMETHEE II, and permutation," 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. 109(3), pages 2489-2507, December.
    17. Willem Brauers, 2013. "Multi-objective seaport planning by MOORA decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 206(1), pages 39-58, July.
    18. Ishizaka, Alessio & Nemery, Philippe & Lidouh, Karim, 2013. "Location selection for the construction of a casino in the Greater London region: A triple multi-criteria approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 211-220.
    19. Nishat Alam Choudhary & Shalabh Singh & Tobias Schoenherr & M. Ramkumar, 2023. "Risk assessment in supply chains: a state-of-the-art review of methodologies and their applications," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 322(2), pages 565-607, March.
    20. Kuo, Ting, 2017. "A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 152-160.

    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:eee:lauspo:v:80:y:2019:i:c:p:464-479. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.