沿海洪水和侵蚀控制决策支持工具的评价:多标准视角。

IF 8.4 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Journal of Environmental Management Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-04 DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123924
Andrés M Enríquez-Hidalgo, Andrés Vargas-Luna, Andrés Torres
{"title":"沿海洪水和侵蚀控制决策支持工具的评价:多标准视角。","authors":"Andrés M Enríquez-Hidalgo, Andrés Vargas-Luna, Andrés Torres","doi":"10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123924","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Coastal areas face significant challenges due to natural and anthropogenic changes, such as sea level rise, extreme events and coastal erosion. The coastal management requires the consideration of socioeconomic and environmental factors to address these variables. The selection of an appropriate Decision Support Tool (DST) based on decision matrix method plays a crucial role in implementing coastal management strategies to tackle climate change-related issues. This has posed considerable challenges for decision-makers, aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). This review provides an overview of the practical experience in the application of DSTs for coastal erosion and flood risk, emphasizing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). DST choice depends on the coastal archetype, including its geographical features and sociocultural context. The purpose is to clarify how the integration of DSTs maximizes flexibility and supports the implementation of future Decision Support System (DSS) tailored to the needs of coastal cities with development pathways (DP). This review assesses different MCDA methods, highlighting their applicability, utility, and integration in coastal management, while evaluating each method's strengths, weaknesses, and specific applications, with a focus on sustainability and resilience. The review highlights the necessity of expert knowledge in accurately defining criteria and weighting factors to ensure that the chosen MCDA method reflects the complexities of the coastal environment. Depending on the scenario, methods like PROMETHEE and ELECTRE are recommended for their flexibility and robustness in handling complex decision-making processes, especially in data-rich and well-structured environments. In contrast, TOPSIS and AHP are suitable for scenarios with limited information or requiring minimal interaction with decision-makers. For more challenging contexts, where computational resources and expertise are constrained, methods like MAUT, VIKOR, and TODAIM emerge as viable alternatives due to their adaptability and reduced reliance on extensive datasets.</p>","PeriodicalId":356,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Management","volume":"373 ","pages":"123924"},"PeriodicalIF":8.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of decision-support tools for coastal flood and erosion control: A multicriteria perspective.\",\"authors\":\"Andrés M Enríquez-Hidalgo, Andrés Vargas-Luna, Andrés Torres\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123924\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Coastal areas face significant challenges due to natural and anthropogenic changes, such as sea level rise, extreme events and coastal erosion. The coastal management requires the consideration of socioeconomic and environmental factors to address these variables. The selection of an appropriate Decision Support Tool (DST) based on decision matrix method plays a crucial role in implementing coastal management strategies to tackle climate change-related issues. This has posed considerable challenges for decision-makers, aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). This review provides an overview of the practical experience in the application of DSTs for coastal erosion and flood risk, emphasizing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). DST choice depends on the coastal archetype, including its geographical features and sociocultural context. The purpose is to clarify how the integration of DSTs maximizes flexibility and supports the implementation of future Decision Support System (DSS) tailored to the needs of coastal cities with development pathways (DP). This review assesses different MCDA methods, highlighting their applicability, utility, and integration in coastal management, while evaluating each method's strengths, weaknesses, and specific applications, with a focus on sustainability and resilience. The review highlights the necessity of expert knowledge in accurately defining criteria and weighting factors to ensure that the chosen MCDA method reflects the complexities of the coastal environment. Depending on the scenario, methods like PROMETHEE and ELECTRE are recommended for their flexibility and robustness in handling complex decision-making processes, especially in data-rich and well-structured environments. In contrast, TOPSIS and AHP are suitable for scenarios with limited information or requiring minimal interaction with decision-makers. For more challenging contexts, where computational resources and expertise are constrained, methods like MAUT, VIKOR, and TODAIM emerge as viable alternatives due to their adaptability and reduced reliance on extensive datasets.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":356,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Environmental Management\",\"volume\":\"373 \",\"pages\":\"123924\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Environmental Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123924\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123924","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于海平面上升、极端事件和海岸侵蚀等自然和人为变化,沿海地区面临着重大挑战。沿海管理需要考虑社会经济和环境因素来解决这些变量。基于决策矩阵方法选择合适的决策支持工具(DST)对于实施沿海管理战略以应对气候变化相关问题起着至关重要的作用。这给与可持续发展目标保持一致的决策者带来了相当大的挑战。本文综述了在海岸侵蚀和洪水风险中应用DSTs的实践经验,重点介绍了多准则决策分析(MCDA)的使用。DST的选择取决于沿海原型,包括其地理特征和社会文化背景。目的是阐明决策支持系统的整合如何最大限度地提高灵活性,并支持针对具有发展路径的沿海城市需求的未来决策支持系统(DSS)的实施。本文评估了不同的MCDA方法,强调了它们在沿海管理中的适用性、效用和整合性,同时评估了每种方法的优势、劣势和具体应用,重点是可持续性和复原力。审查强调了专家知识在准确定义标准和加权因素方面的必要性,以确保所选择的MCDA方法反映了沿海环境的复杂性。根据具体情况,PROMETHEE和ELECTRE等方法在处理复杂决策过程中具有灵活性和稳健性,特别是在数据丰富且结构良好的环境中。相比之下,TOPSIS和AHP适用于信息有限或与决策者交互最少的场景。对于更具挑战性的环境,在计算资源和专业知识受到限制的情况下,像MAUT、VIKOR和TODAIM这样的方法由于其适应性和对大量数据集的依赖减少而成为可行的替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of decision-support tools for coastal flood and erosion control: A multicriteria perspective.

Coastal areas face significant challenges due to natural and anthropogenic changes, such as sea level rise, extreme events and coastal erosion. The coastal management requires the consideration of socioeconomic and environmental factors to address these variables. The selection of an appropriate Decision Support Tool (DST) based on decision matrix method plays a crucial role in implementing coastal management strategies to tackle climate change-related issues. This has posed considerable challenges for decision-makers, aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). This review provides an overview of the practical experience in the application of DSTs for coastal erosion and flood risk, emphasizing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). DST choice depends on the coastal archetype, including its geographical features and sociocultural context. The purpose is to clarify how the integration of DSTs maximizes flexibility and supports the implementation of future Decision Support System (DSS) tailored to the needs of coastal cities with development pathways (DP). This review assesses different MCDA methods, highlighting their applicability, utility, and integration in coastal management, while evaluating each method's strengths, weaknesses, and specific applications, with a focus on sustainability and resilience. The review highlights the necessity of expert knowledge in accurately defining criteria and weighting factors to ensure that the chosen MCDA method reflects the complexities of the coastal environment. Depending on the scenario, methods like PROMETHEE and ELECTRE are recommended for their flexibility and robustness in handling complex decision-making processes, especially in data-rich and well-structured environments. In contrast, TOPSIS and AHP are suitable for scenarios with limited information or requiring minimal interaction with decision-makers. For more challenging contexts, where computational resources and expertise are constrained, methods like MAUT, VIKOR, and TODAIM emerge as viable alternatives due to their adaptability and reduced reliance on extensive datasets.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Environmental Management
Journal of Environmental Management 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
5.70%
发文量
2477
审稿时长
84 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Environmental Management is a journal for the publication of peer reviewed, original research for all aspects of management and the managed use of the environment, both natural and man-made.Critical review articles are also welcome; submission of these is strongly encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信