Identifying and Measuring the Importance of Spatial Policy Indicators for Rural Flood Risk Management

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• Seyed Mohammad Mousavi Parsaie ¹
• Morteza Tavakoli ²
• Mahdi Pourtaheri ³

¹ PhD Candidate in Geography and Rural Planning, Tarbiat Modares University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

² Associate Professor, Department of Geography and Rural Planning, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

³ Professor, Department of Geography and Rural Planning, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

10.22067/geoeh.2022.76633.1222

Abstract

Spatial policy regarding flood risk management is a series of actions that aims at achieving a logical solution for reducing the damages caused by floods and reducing the spread of floods. Spatial policies for flood risk management in villages are at the intersection of many management considerations, and thus, when formulating spatial policies for flood risk management, several indicators including environmental, economic, social-cultural, managerial-institutional and physical indicators should be considered. In this regard, this research examined the importance of each of the indicators in formulating the spatial policy of flood risk management in villages. According to the purpose of the research, which is identifying the importance of indicators in spatial policy making, the statistical population of the research consisted of experts, including academic faculty members specializing in this field, graduates and doctoral students defending their theses on the issues, and the people in charge. For this purpose, 70 participants were selected. From their point of view, the relevant questionnaire has a good level of validity and reliability with Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.97, which shows a very good level, considering the type of indicators and the number of samples. ANOVA, statistical tests, and Duncan's post hoc statistical test were used. The results indicated that the environmental index has the least importance with the value of 2.9484 in spectrum one along with the economic index with the value 1056/3. Social-cultural indicators with a value of 3.2381 and managerial-institutional indicators with a value of 3.3105 are close. The two indicators (social-cultural and managerial-institutional), due to their closeness to the significance of physical index (land use), were placed in the third spectrum. The only index that was separately placed in one spectrum and group is the physical index (land use). This indicator with the value of 3.4186 is in the third group and has the largest sub-set, which shows the greater importance of this index on spatial policy of flood risk management in villages.

Keywords

• Indicators
• Policy Making
• Space
• Risk Management
• Flood
• Village

Main Subjects

• Rural environments hazard

---

©2024 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)

References

- بدری، سیدعلی؛ رضوانی، محمدرضا؛ خدادادی، پروین؛ 1400. طراحی الگوی چالش‌های تدوین سیاستگذاری فضایی مناطق روستایی کشور، فصلنامه مجلس و راهبرد، سال بیست وششم، شماره 99 https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.26455471.1399.7.1.2.9

- حاجی بیگلو، محبوبه؛ شیخ واحد، بردی؛ 1398. تحلیل مدیریت ریسک سیلاب براساس مفاهیم خطر، مواجهه و آسیب‌پذیری با ارائه چارچوب­ها و مدل­ها، نشریه آب و توسعه پایدار، سال پنجم، شماره 1،
صص 73-82.

  https://doi.org/10.22067/jwsd.v5i1.62313

- Associated Programme on Flood Management (APFM)., 2017. Selecting measures and designing strategies for integrated flood management - a guidance document. Associated Programme on Flood Management.

- Bormann Helge, Kebschull Jenny, Ahlhorn Frank., 2021. Challenges of Flood Risk Management at the German Coast, Water Resources Quality and Management in Baltic Sea Countries pp 141-155.

- Mohit Prakash Mohanty, Vittal H, Vinay Yadav, Subimal Ghosh, Goru Srinivasa Rao, Subhankar Karmakar., 2021. A new bivariate risk classifier for flood management considering hazard and socio-economic dimensions, Journal of Environmental ManagementVolume 255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109733.

- Hamid Reza Pourghasemia Seyed Vahid Razavi Termehb Narges Kariminejadc Haoyuan Hongd Wei Chene., 2020. An assessment of metaheuristic approaches for flood assessment, Journal of HydrologyVolume 582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124536.

- D. D. Sinha, A. N. Singh, U. S. Singh., 2020.

- Klijn F, Samuels P, van Os A., 2008. Towards flood risk management in the EU: State of affairs with examples from various European countries. Int J River Basin Manage 6: 307-321.

- de Bruijn, K., F. Klijn, M. Caroline, M. Marjolein, and W. Henk., 2008. Long-term strategies for flood risk management: scenario definition and strategic alternative design. Floodsite report T14-08-01.

- Concept Paper., 2004. Technical Document No. 1, WMO & GWP.

- Tanner and Rentschler., 2015. The Added Value of System Robustness Analysis for Flood Risk Management Illustrated by a Case on the IJssel River, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 15, PP. 213–223.

- Dore, J., and L. Lebel., 2010. Deliberation and scale in mekong region water governance. Environmental Management 46(1):60–80.

- UNISDR., 2015. Making development sustainable: the future of disaster risk management. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.18356/bd3a73ea-en.

- Mostert, E., M. Craps, and C. Pahl-Wostl., 2008. Social learning: The key to integrated water resources management? Water International 33(3):293–304.

- Young, O.,2006. Vertical interplay among scale-dependent environmental and resource regimes. Ecology and Society 11(1).

- Cash, D. W., W. N. Adger, F. Berkes, P. Garden, L. Lebel, P. Olsson, L. Pritchard, and O. Young., 2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society 11(2):8.

- Berry Gersonius, Chris Zevenbergen, Sebastian van Herk., 2008. Managing flood risk in the urban environment: linking spatial planning, risk assessment, communication and policy, Adaptive and Integrated Water Management pp 263-275.

- Van Buuren, A., G. J. Ellen, and J. F. Warner., 2016. Path dependency and policy learning in the Dutch delta: toward more resilient flood risk management in the Netherlands? Ecology and Society 21(4):43. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08765-210443.

- Jing Ran, Zorica Nedovic-Budic., 2016. Integrating spatial planning and flood risk management: A new conceptual framework for the spatially integrated policy infrastructure, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 57 (2016) 68–79.

- IPCC of East Azerbaijan Province., 2019. Available online: https://azsharghi.mporg.ir/ (accessed on 15 September 2020).

- Said, F.X.D.; Kpinpuo, S.D.; Hinson, R.E.,2019. Sustainable development in Ghana’s gold mines: Clarifying the stakeholder’s perspective. J. Sustain. Min, 18, 84–88.

- Kaewkitipong, J., Challies, E., Jager, N.W., Kochskaemper, E., Adzersen, A., 2018. The environmental