Estimation of flood in the catchment area of reservoir dams using a multi-criteria decision-making system (Case study of Kermanshah Province)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, Faculty of Water & Environmental Engineering, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

2 Faculty of Water and Environmental Engineering, Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz,, Ahvaz,, Iran

3 Faculty of Water and Environmental Engineering, Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

Abstract

  Undoubtedly, floods can be considered as one of the most effective natural hazards that cause many human and financial losses every year. A flood is defined as an overflow of water or its overflow in a river or spring, which is a threat to the life and property of residents near these sources. In simpler terms, any relatively high flow that impinges on natural or artificial banks in any direction of a stream is called a flood.
  In this research, the effective criteria related to the estimation of flood design discharge in reservoir dams in 17 in Kermanshah province were identified and prioritized, and then in order to review and analyze the effective factors in estimating the flood estimation separately for each reservoir dam, were evaluated using 8 different multivariate decision-making methods.  Considering the large number of studied dams the four hydrological agents and comprehensive options such as design flood estimation in connection with the occurrence of hydrological events in the area by human origin, with natural origin, the quantity and quality of information and hydrometeorological data and the limitations of methods (statistical, experimental, models) were selected and prioritized with SAW, AHP, FAHP, VIKOR, TOPSIS, FTOPSIS, PROMETEE, Electre III methods. Based on the mentioned 8 methods, 22 criteria involved in estimating the flood yield of 17 reservoir dams were ranked.
  In the SAW method, experimental methods with 6 rank 1, statistical methods with 5 rank 1 and physiographic parameters with 2 rank 1 are the most important effective criteria in estimating the flood entering the reservoirs of dams studied in this research. In the AHP method, hydrometric stations and the true limit of the basin were the most important effective criteria with 5 and 3 ranks, respectively. In the FAHP method, experimental methods with 6 and statistical methods with 5 ranks were recognized as two important criteria. In TOPSIS method, statistical methods, physiographic parameters and conversion of maximum flow to maximum instantaneous flow rate each with 1 first rank, and Fuzzy TOPSIS experimental methods, statistical methods and conversion of maximum flow rate to instantaneous flow rate with 6, 4 and 2 first rank respectively. In ViKor's method, only experimental methods have 1 rank. In the Electra method, the criteria of meteorological stations, the true limit of the watershed and experimental methods were evaluated as effective criteria with 1 rank. Finally, in the PROMETHEE method, only the experimental method with one item was ranked 1 rank.
  The results showed that more than 76% of the dams have priority in the option of conditions and limitations of flood estimation methods (statistical, experimental, model, etc.) and 24% have problems in the option of quantity and quality and water and meteorological information.. The option that has more frequency than other option of the conditions and limitations of the flood estimation method (V4) of each reservoir dam. Based on the review of documents and documents of flood analysis and achieving the design flood in the studies of the first and second stages of reservoir dams of the studied dams, this conclusion is confirmed, in the statistical methods, the length of the statistical period is low and the frequency distribution function is not recognized properly. In addition, the use of experimental methods, which are mainly applied without recalibration of relevant coefficients and without necessary precautions and checks, is one of the weaknesses of flood estimation.

Keywords

Main Subjects


Abdolhosseini, M., & Farzaneh, M. R. (2014). Investigation of internal uncertainty sources of change factor method in downscaling of climatic parameters of future period. Intl J Agric Crop Sci, 7(12), 941-949. https://www.academia.edu/9021424
Akay, H. (2021). Flood hazards susceptibility mapping using statistical, fuzzy logic, and MCDM methods. Soft Computing, 25(14), 9325-9346. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1007/s00500-021-05903-1
Bobrowsky, P. T. (2013). Encyclopedia of natural hazards. Published by Springer. https://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-1-4020-4399-4
Chitsaz, N., & Banihabib, ME. (2015). Comparison of different multi criteria decision-making models in prioritizing flood management alternatives. Water Resour Manag, 29(8), 2503–25.                                   http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-0954-6
Fakhri, M., Farzaneh, M. R., Eslamian, S., & Khordadi, M. J. )2012(. Confidence interval assessment to estimate dry and wet spells under climate change in Shahrekord Station, Iran. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 18(7), 911-918. https://www.academia.edu/7922627
Laikangbam, L., Loukrakpam, CH, & Somchand Singh, T. (2019). Flood Hazard Zonation of Imphal River, Manipur, India, Using AWS Data, International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT), 8 (4), 1676-1680. https://www.ijeat.org/wp-content/uploads/papers/v8i4/D6689048419.pdf
Jafari, N., Hafezparast, M., & Farhadi, B. (2022). Prioritization of sub-basins using multi-criteria decision making methods (Case study: Gamasiab catchment, Kermanshah). Journal of Environmental Science Studies, 7(1), 4727-4740. https://doi.org/10.22034/jess.2022.144732 [In Persian]
Levy, J. K. (2005). Multiple criteria decision making and decision support systems for flood risk management. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 19, 438-447. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00477-005-0009-2
Mabrouk, M., & Haoying, H. (2023). A multicriteria approach for identifying urban flood-exposed risky districts using multiple-criteria decision-making tools (MCDM). International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,91, 103684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103684
Mousavi, S. M., Ataie-Ashtiani, B., & Hosseini, S. M. (2022). Comparison of statistical and mcdm approaches for flood susceptibility mapping in northern iran. Journal of Hydrology, 612, 128072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128072
Nuri, A. Z., Farzaneh, M., & Espanayi, K. (2014). Assessment of climatic parameters uncertainty under effect of different downscaling techniques. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 8(9), 1316-1320. https://www.academia.edu/9021536
Saaty,T.L. (1980). Multi criteria Decision Making. TheAnalyticHierarchyProcess. McGrawHill, NewYork. https://www.scirp.org/reference/ReferencesPapers?ReferenceID=1943982
Smith, K., & Petley, D. N. (2008). Environmental Hazards, Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster, 5th edn. Routledge, London. https://www.routledge.com/Environmental-Hazards-Assessing-Risk-and-Reducing-Disaster/Smith-Smith/p/book/9780415681063
Souissi, D., Zouhri, L., Hammami, S., Msaddek, M. H., Zghibi, A., & Dlala, M. (2020). GIS-based MCDM–AHP modeling for flood susceptibility mapping of arid areas, southeastern Tunisia. Geocarto International, 35(9), 991-1017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2019.1566405
Taheri, K., Gutiérrez, F., Mohseni, H., Raeisi, E., & Taheri, M. (2015). Sinkhole susceptibility mapping using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and magnitude–frequency relationships: A case study in Hamadan province, Iran. Geomorphology, 234, 64-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.01.005
U.S. Bureau of Reclamations (USBR). (1987). Design of small dams. Water Resour. Technical Pub. https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/mands/mands-pdfs/SmallDams.pdf
UNESCO. (2001). Guidelines on Non-Structural Measures in Urban Flood Management, Technical Documents in Hydrology, 50, Paris. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000124004
Wing, O., Bates, P., Smith, A., Sampson, C., Johnson, K., Fargione, J., Morefield, P. (2018). Estimates of present and future flood risk in the conterminous United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 034023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaac65
Zou, Z. H., Yi, Y., & Sun, J. N. (2006). Entropy method for determination of weight of evaluating indicators in fuzzy synthetic evaluation for water quality assessment. Journal of Environmental sciences, 18(5), 1020-1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(06)60032-6