bs_bs_banner

A comparative evaluation of flood mitigation alternatives using

GIS-based river hydraulics modelling and multicriteria
decision analysis
M.R. Ghanbarpour1, S. Salimi2 and K.W. Hipel3
1 Global Institute for Water Security, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
2 Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Mazandaran, Sari, Iran
3 Department of Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada

Correspondence
M. Reza Ghanbarpour, Global Institute for
Water Security, University of
Saskatchewan, 11 Innovation Boulevard,
Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7H 1A4
Email: ghanbarpour.m.reza@gmail.com
DOI: 10.1111/jfr3.12017
Key words
Decision analysis; flood mitigation; flood
plain; HEC-RAS; TOPSIS.
Abstract
A multicriteria framework is developed for the selection of optimal flood miti-
gation and river training measures in a selected reach of Zaremroud River in
Northern Iran. A river model, Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis
System, combined with geographic information system analysis is used to simu-
late water levels for steady, gradually varied flow and mapping inundated flood
extents. The modelling is performed for four different alternatives, considering
various channel modifications with different dimensions and levee construc-
tion. Flood inundation area, flood level, flow velocity and stream power on the
downstream and outside of the river bend are used as decision criteria for each
alternative. Economic analysis is conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of
each alternative. The decision analysis method, technique for order of prefer-
ence by similarity to ideal solution, is used to compare different flood hazard
mitigation measures based on risk, and environmental and economic impacts
criteria. The findings of the analysis are that a levee construction at the right side
of the river bank adjacent to the residential area is superior to the other three
alternatives, which is confirmed using a scenario analysis of different flood
mitigation measures.

Introduction the negative consequences. Structural measures, including

The hazard of flooding is receiving increasing attention
in both the public and professional arenas. Flooding is a
disastrous natural phenomenon, producing many socio-
economic and environmental consequences within the
affected flood plain. Flood risks are rising in many parts of
the world owing to continually increasing populations and
rapidly escalating land developments (Walker and Maid-
ment, 2006; Chang et al., 2009). Studies have shown that
more than one third of the world’s land area is flood prone,
and about 196 million people in more than 90 countries are
exposed to catastrophic flooding (United Nation Develop-
ment Programme (UNDP), 2004; Dilley et al., 2005). As a
result, the frequency, extent and subsequent hazards associ-
ated with flooding are global concerns.
Flood hazard mitigation plans could be implemented as
either structural or non-structural measures, depending on
the particular case (Correia et al., 1999). These measures
involve managing the effects of flooding and preventing
levees, high flow diversion, channel modification and dams,
could be implemented to mitigate flood risk by reducing the
volume of run-off, water level or extent of the area of flood-
ing. However, non-structural methods, such as flood insur-
ance, land use regulation and flood forecasting, serve as
preventive measures for reducing flood hazards.
Structural measures are favoured in situations in which
portions of adjacent residential areas are situated about the
maximum flood level, or when it is important to protect land
adjoining a river from inundations due to an existing flood
risk. By implementing structural measures, flood hazards for
these kinds of areas are reduced. However, structural flood
control methods like channelisation have some predictable
negative effects. Studies have shown that sediment loads may
increase below channelisation works and other river training
measures (Hill, 1976). Moreover, changes may occur in dis-
charge characteristics below channelisation works; in par-
ticular, flood levels may be increased downstream (Brookes,
1987).

J Flood Risk Management •• (2013) ••–•• © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM)
2 Ghanbarpour et al.

Interaction between river flow and stream channel is economic cost. An MCDA method, technique for order of
dynamic, constantly responding to natural and human- preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), is
induced river and flood plain changes. Finding sustainable employed to find the best flood control measure, one which
mitigation measures for flood hazards is made difficult by protects residential areas from flood hazards while mini-
the complex and dynamic interrelationships of environmen- mising the economic costs and downstream effects. This
tal, technical, economic and managerial factors in river decision analysis method is used to integrate economic
systems. Therefore, accurate simulation of water surface pro- analysis with the results of the river model, HEC-RAS,
files and reliable delineation of flood extents and depths combined with geographic information system (GIS)
within the flood plain (Pappenberger et al., 2005), as well as analysis.
an understanding of the complex interaction between flood
mitigation measures and river systems, combined with
socio-economic impacts (Simonovic and Carson, 2003; Yi Materials and methods
et al., 2010), are necessary for flood mitigation planning and
flood plain management. Study area
Although some studies have been conducted to model
Zaremroud River is a major tributary river in Tajan Basin,
flood hazards and flood plain mapping (e.g. Correia et al.,
which lies about 15 km southeast of Sari, Mazandaran,
1999; Noman et al., 2003; Pappenberger et al., 2005;
Iran, between 36° 26′ 15″ and 36° 26′ 44″ N latitude, and
Ghanbarpour et al., 2011), less effort has been done on the
53° 8′ 23″ and 53° 9′ 52″ E longitude (Figure 1). Tajan River
topic of modelling best river engineering and training meas-
flows south of Sari City and drains into the Caspian Sea. The
ures. Bana e Costa et al. (2004) have used a multicriteria
length of the river is approximately 95 km, flowing westward
process to evaluate flood control options for the catchment
to join Tajan River, and ultimately draining into the Caspian
of the Livramento Creek in the peninsula of Setúbal, in
Sea. The section of the Zaremroud River flood plain chosen
Portugal. They have demonstrated a quantitative evaluation
for this research lies adjacent to the village and residential
model based on qualitative value judgments formulated by a
area called Garm Roud (Figure 1). The altitude of the
group of experts to integrate socio-economic criteria into
selected reach ranges from 145 to 162 m above mean sea
technical and environmental objectives. Williams (2006)
level. The climate is extremely humid, and the maximum
carried out a study on Santee River to evaluate the impact of
precipitation occurs in autumn and minimum precipitation
the Santee River rediversion. The flooding pattern within the
in summer. The maximum and minimum temperatures in
Santee flood plain has been altered by rediversion and opera-
Zaremroud Watershed are 20.4 °C and 8.95 °C, respectively,
tion of the hydroelectric plant on the rediversion canal.
and the mean annual temperature is about 14.5 C. The
Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System
length of river reach selected in this study is about 3 km of
(HEC-RAS) and the HEC-GeoRAS extension for ArcView
Zaremroud River. Figure 1 shows the Tajan River Watershed
were used to examine the flooding regime prior to and sub-
and the location of the Garm Roud reach, which was selected
sequent to rediversion operations.
in this research. The dangerous flood events of this river
However, performance analysis of any flood mitigation
caused considerable losses, such as damages to two bridges,
measure should be considered before its implementation
the destruction of the Garm Roud hydrometric station and
using simulation models and decision analysis methods.
other similar cases during recent years, according to a report
Moreover, economic analysis along with river hydraulic
from the Mazandaran Agricultural Organisation (Salimi
simulation play important roles in formulating measures for
et al., 2008). Garm Roud residential areas have seriously have
flood hazard mitigation (Simonovic and Carson, 2003).
been affected by flood hazards recently, as the river stream
Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods (Hwang
causes bank undercutting, which has resulted in landslides in
and Lin, 1987; Ghanbarpour and Hipel, 2011) could be
some parts of the village in the long term.
employed to integrate technical, environmental and socio-
economic objectives to reach an optimal decision.
Data
In this research, the 3-km end of Zaremroud River,
upstream of Tajan River in northern Iran, was selected. The In this research, three types of information, namely hydro-
main objective of this study is to compare different river logical data, GIS-based spatial layers, and cost and quantity
training measures, such as channel modifications and levee estimation of engineering practices are used. Hydrological
construction, to find the optimal approach for meeting data include annual maximum river flow obtained from
technical, environmental and economic criteria among the the Regional Water Company of Mazandaran. Annual
various alternatives. The core concern is to minimise the maximum river flow data recorded at the Garm Roud hydro-
effects of the floods on the residential areas and environ- metric station, located upstream of the selected river reach, is
ment, through a technically sound measure, at a reasonable used for this study. The length of the selected data set is 24

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) J Flood Risk Management •• (2013) ••–••
Comparative evaluation of flood mitigation alternatives 3

Figure 1 Location of study area and selected reach of Zaremroud River in Northern Iran.

years, from 1986–1987 to 2000–2001, based on the consist-
ency and availability of data during that time period. Flood
frequency analysis is conducted using various statistical dis-
tributions by selecting annual maximum discharge at the
Garm Roud hydrometric station. The most commonly used
statistical distributions for flood frequency analysis used in
this research include Log-Normal, Log-Normal III, Pearson
III, Log-Pearson III and Gumbel. Peak river flow in 2-, 5-,
10-, 20-, 50- and 100-year return periods is estimated based
on the selected most accurate statistical distribution.
The GIS data include cross section profiles of Garm Roud
River, elevation points and a topographical map collected
from the Regional Water Company, resulting from a survey
conducted in May 2000. There are 32 river cross section
profiles available in AutoCAD format, which is converted
into standard shapefiles layers that can be used in ArcGIS. A
topographical map of the area with a scale of 1:25000 and a
river plan with a scale of 1:1000 was applied for triangulated
irregular network generation, using the 3D analyst capability
of ArcGIS. Field and lab analysis were conducted to obtain
other spatial information for modelling purposes, which
include the Manning’s roughness coefficient for river and
flood plains, land use, vegetation and flow conditions, and
channel obstruction. Whereas the surveyed points of the
Zaremroud River plan have relative elevation, global posi-
tioning system has been used for determining absolute and
correct positioning of all river cross sections and elevation
points.

J Flood Risk Management •• (2013) ••–•• © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM)
4 Ghanbarpour et al.
An economic analysis is conducted to determine the cost
of different river training measures. The cost of implemen-
tation and maintenance of flood mitigation alternatives,
including engineering, design and supervision cost, are cal-
culated based on an economic analysis and a review of tech-
nical reports (Deputy of Technical Affairs (DTA), 2009), and
previous related projects in the study area.
Steady flow water surface simulation
A simulation of water surface profiles for steady, gradually
varied flow is conducted using the HEC-RAS model. The
HEC-RAS computational procedure is based on the solution
of the one-dimensional steady flow calculations using an
energy equation. The HEC-RAS model was developed at the
HEC, which is a division of the Institute for Water Resources,
US Army Corps of Engineers (Hydrologic Engineering
Center (HEC), 2010). The steady flow component is capable
of modelling subcritical, supercritical and mixed flow
regimes water surface profiles. The basic computational pro-
cedure for water surface profiles computation is based on
solving the energy equation from one cross section to the
next using an interactive procedure called the standard step
method ( HEC, 2010). The energy equation is written as
follows:
a2v 22 a1v12
y2 + z2 + = y1 + z1 + + he
2g 2g
where y1 and y2 are depth of water at two adjacent cross
sections, z1 and z2 are elevation of the main channel inverts,
v1 and v2 are average velocities (total discharge divided by
total flow area), a1 and a2 are velocity-weighting coefficients,
g is gravitational acceleration and he is energy head loss
between two cross sections.
Cross sectional geometry of the channel, river system
schematics, ineffective flow areas, reach lengths, energy loss,
Manning’s coefficient and steady flow input are the basic
data requirements for water surface simulations. The rough-
ness coefficients, which represent the surface’s resistance to
flow, were estimated using reliable literature showing a set of
roughness values for various surface materials, including
descriptions and photographs (Chow, 1959; Sellin et al.,
2003). Boundary conditions are specified to establish the
starting water surface in a subcritical, critical and mixed flow
regime. After completing all essential data inputs, the model
could be run.
The HEC-GeoRAS extension is used as an interface to
visualise flood extents and water depth, and conduct pre-
and post-processing of flood plain mapping (HEC, 2009;
Ghanbarpour and Hipel, 2011).
A fieldwork was conducted to collect some pieces of evi-
dence on the historical flood extent in the area because of the
lack of observed flood level data and no available concurrent
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM)
satellite-derived data in the Zaremroud River flood plain.
Few points were recognised based on silt lines on the outcrop
rocks and trees that were believed to be the stage indicators
of the 1999 flood in the study reach (274 m3/s). We were not
able to prepare continuous-observed flood level because of
very few reliable pieces of evidence. Therefore, only three
acceptable points were used as observed control points for
calibration of the model. It is noticeable that many opera-
tional flood inundation predictions are made in situations
when the observation data to calibrate and evaluate the
model performance are limited (Beven, 2002; Pappenberger
et al., 2005). Calibration of the model was started from the
well-estimated values of the Manning’s n based on filed
works and well-known literatures (Hicks and Mason, 1991).
The initial n-value is changed until an acceptable simulation
is achieved based on a trial and error method. The percent-
age of correct overlap between predicted and observed flood
level data was used as a criterion to find an optimal n-value.
Flood mitigation alternatives
The effects of various river training measures can be ana-
lysed based on their environmental and socio-economic
impacts. Regarding the urgent requirement of resolving the
flood hazard to residential areas, the structural measures
were proposed as the main strategy and the non-structural
(1) measures, such as flood warning system, retarding basin,
land use planning and integrated watershed management,
should be adopted as supplements to strengthen flood
hazard mitigation. For this study, four flood mitigation alter-
natives, including levee construction and different scale of
channel modification along with dredging river channel of
debris and sediment, are proposed in order to reduce flood
hazards in a residential area and its surrounding flood plain,
as described later.
Alternative 1: A levee is an earthen embankment sup-
ported by Gabion-type revetments (riprap) and is con-
structed on the right side of the river bank adjacent to the
residential area, with the capability of withstanding a 100-
year flood. Levees are chosen for this reach because they
seem to be an effective solution for reducing flood damage
and are practical because of the availability of materials and
cost-effectiveness. Dimensions of the levee considered have
an average elevation of 2 m and length of 250 m. Riprap
revetment with an additional 1-m foundation form a steep
slope in the riverside to prevent any limitation in the cross
sectional area of the river channel.
Alternative 2: In this alternative, river bed elevation
should be set to 157.5 m with a slope of 0.0065. River width
is widened an average of 25 m in the main channel using
channel excavation and dredging.
Alternative 3: Channel modification is conducted in two
stages to construct a compound river channel. First, river
J Flood Risk Management •• (2013) ••–••
Comparative evaluation of flood mitigation alternatives
width is widened an average of 50 m in the main channel
without considerable deepening but more dredging. Second,
the main channel is deepened by an elevation of 157.5 m
with a slope of 0.0065 and a 20 m width using machinery-
based channel excavation.
Alternative 4: Channel modification is conducted as the
combination of alternatives 1 and 3. In this case, a levee as an
earthen embankment supported by rock-type revetments
(riprap) is constructed.
Channel modification for flood control is based upon the
idea that widening and deepening of the channel by sedi-
ment removal will provide a substantially larger channel
capacity to allow a greater volume of water to flow down-
stream without causing an impact on the adjacent flood
plain. In proposed alternatives, no channel straightening is
considered in order to prevent any negative erosion effects
downstream (Wyzga, 1993), as there is a natural bend in the
river reach that is thought to be more effective in decreasing
the energy and velocity of flow, and thereby prevent any
further erosion. Removing the natural bend of a river usually
leads to stream bank erosion and often requires costly pro-
tection measures. No water detention basins or flood diver-
sion structures are considered in this study area because of
limited land availability.
The selected flood mitigation alternatives could be posi-
tioned at appropriate locations along the Zaremroud River
reach in HEC-RAS model runs to extract model results for
comparison. Flood level, flow velocity and stream power at
various locations along the river and flood plain are pre-
dicted based on proper flood plain inundation analysis in the
50- and 100-year flood associated with the four proposed
alternatives, including current condition (baseline). Imple-
mentation of river training practices would likely alter flow
characteristics along the river system including flood level,
flow velocity and stream power. Therefore, changes in flood
level and flow characteristics, including velocity and total
stream power (total cross section shear stress multiplied by
total cross section average velocity), are adopted as decision
criteria along the selected reach for selecting a reliable and
environmentally sound flood control alternative. Two spe-
cific control cross sections on the downstream and outside of
the river bend are considered for comparison purposes. The
downstream of the residential area after the river bend is
considered to control impacts of flood control measures on
different hydraulics parameters in the downstream of the
river system. The outside of the river bend adjacent to the
residential area is also considered as the second control
point, which is important in terms of higher risk of erosion
and flood hazard.
Cost of implementation and maintenance of flood miti-
gation alternatives is calculated based on economic analysis
and a review of previous related projects in the study area.
Rock-type and Gabion riprap construction cost $US10 and
J Flood Risk Management •• (2013) ••–•• © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM)
5
$US30 per cubic meter, respectively, in the region, and
embankment for construction of the levee costs $US8 per
cubic meter (DTA, 2009). Channel excavation cost depends
on such factors as the size of the channel, the type of equip-
ment required, access problems and river flow diversion. In
order to develop an estimate of cost, volumes of excavation
were calculated per meter of length for the various channel
sizes. An average machinery excavation and disposal cost of
$US12 per cubic meter (DTA, 2009) was used as an estimate
of excavation costs. Engineering, design and supervision
costs, such as preliminary surveys, formulation, documenta-
tion, construction drawings and surveying, are assumed to be
equal for all alternatives. In the study area, dredging is often
a locally initiated operation where bulldozers, end loaders,
backhoes or other excavators are used to remove deposited
sediment and rock materials, and reconfigure the stream into
a trapezoidal channel. Soil material removed from the river
channel is often used to raise the level of the adjacent flood
plain or used as construction materials. As a result, the reduc-
tion in flood levels, flow velocity and stream power at two
selected control points, and the cost of implementation of the
alternatives were adopted as the criteria for evaluating flood
mitigation performance for each proposed measure.
Decision analysis
An MCDA method, TOPSIS (Hwang and Lin, 1987;
Ghanbarpour and Hipel, 2011), was used to find an optimal
flood mitigation alternative considering different criteria. In
this method, the optimal alternative could be found based on
the shortest distance from the ideal solution and the farthest
distance from the anti-ideal solution. As Chen and Hwang
(1992) have shown, a decision matrix is a two-dimensional
(m*n) matrix for which A1, A2, . . ., Am are m possible alter-
native among which decision makers have to choose, and C1,
C2, . . . , Cn are n decision criteria which flood mitigation
alternatives are compared based. xmnindicates the perform-
ance rating of alternative Am with respect to criterion Cn. The
relative importance of each criterion is usually given by a set
of weights that are normalised to sum to one. In the case of
n criteria, a weight set is:
n
w = (w1, w2, … , wn ) when ∑ w j = 1 (2)
j =1
Then, the normalised value xij is calculated as:
xij
rij = , i = 1, 2, … , m; j = 1, 2, … , n
m
(3)
∑x 2
ij
i =1
The weighted normalised value vij is calculated as:
vij = w j xij , i = 1, 2, … , m; j = 1, 2, … , n. (4)
6 Ghanbarpour et al.

Table 1 Weight of all decision-making criteria based on different scenarios

Decision criteria Decision-making scenarios for flood risk mitigation
Criteria Subcriteria Risk-oriented Environmental-oriented Economic-oriented Balance
Flood risk Inundation area (ha) 0.286 0.143 0.1666 0.2
Flood level (m) 0.286 0.143 0.1666 0.2
Environmental impact Flow velocity (m/s) 0.143 0.286 0.1666 0.2
Stream Power (N.m/s) 0.143 0.286 0.1666 0.2
Economic impact Cost (1000 $US) 0.143 0.143 0.333 0.2

n
where wj is the weight of the jth criterion and ∑w j = 1 . The
j =1
-
ideal A* and anti-ideal A solution can be determined as:
A* = {(max i vij j ∈ J ) , (mini vij j ∈ J ′ ) i = 1, 2, … , m}
= {v1*, v 2*, … , v *j , … , v n* }
A − = {(mini vij j ∈ J ) , (max i vij j ∈ J ′ ) i = 1, 2, … , m}
= {v1−, v 2−, … , v −j , … , v n− }
where J = {j = 1, 2, . . . , n|j} is associated with benefit criteria,
and J- = {j = 1, 2, . . . , n|j} is associated with cost criteria. The
separation of each alternative from the ideal and anti-ideal
solutions can be measured by the n-dimensional Euclidean
distance:
n
Si* = ∑ (v ij − v *j )2 , i = 1, 2, … , m.
j =1
n considered in this research. It should be noted that the sum
∑ (v − v −j ) , i = 1, 2, … , m.
2
Si− = ij
j =1
At the final stage, the relative closeness of Ai with respect to
A* is defined as:
Ci* = Si− /(Si* + Si− ), 0〈Ci* 〈1, i = 1, 2, … , m.
Three main decision criteria and their subcriteria including
flood risk (inundation area and flood level), environmental
impact (flow velocity and stream power) and economic
impacts (construction cost) are considered for comparison
of flood mitigation measures (Table 1). For all decision cri-
teria and subcriteria, a set of weights should be assigned to
reflect the importance of that particular decision variable,
regarding Eqn (2) and Eqn (4). In this research, a scenario-
based decision analysis is conducted to show the importance
of each criterion and to integrate them into the decision
process. The sensitivity of final decision to the criterion
weightings could be assessed by varying the weight of each
criterion. Scenario analysis could indicate how the variation
of the weights of the criteria would affect the final decision.
This is essential to guarantee that the proposed alternative is
optimal in terms of different considerations and point of
views.
For this purpose, four decision-making scenarios are con-
sidered for comparison, which are shown in Table 1. The first
scenario is flood risk-oriented decision making in which
higher weight are given to flood risk criteria (flood inunda-
(5) tion area and flood level). Therefore, the safety of residential
area is the main concern in this scenario. The second sce-
nario is defined as environmental-oriented in which higher
(6) weight is given to environmental criteria (flow velocity and
stream power). Therefore, higher priorities are given to envi-
ronmental issues such as erosion and bank cutting in the
river bend and downstream as a result of flood control
measures implementation. The third scenario is defined as
economic-oriented decision-making option in which the
construction cost of alternatives is given higher weight. The
last scenario is defined as a balance decision-making option,
which is considered as the balance between all decision cri-
(7)
teria with equal weight and priorities. Table 1 shows details
of criteria and subcriteria weighting for different scenarios
(8) of all criteria weights equals one. Therefore, the original
weight is divided by two if there are two subcriteria. For
example, in risk-oriented scenario, flood level criteria
(0.286) have two subcriteria at two control points on the
downstream and outside of the river bend. Therefore, the
(9) weight of 0.143 is considered for each of the two control
points.
Results and discussion
Flood inundation analysis
The HEC-RAS model in combination with GIS analysis was
used to simulate steady flow along the selected reach of
Zaremroud River. The HEC-GeoRAS extension is used in
conjunction with spatial and three-dimensional analyst for
interpolation of digital terrain data, and proper display of
flood water depth and inundated areas using GIS. Flood
frequency analysis was conducted to select the most accurate
input for the hydraulic simulation of the river reach. It is
shown that Log-Normal III, Pearson III and Log-Normal
II are the best statistical distributions to estimate peak flow
in different return periods with 9.97, 11.30 and 15.25

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) J Flood Risk Management •• (2013) ••–••
Comparative evaluation of flood mitigation alternatives
mean relative deviation errors, respectively. Therefore, Log-
Normal III is used to estimate the flood peak flow design for
the Zaremroud River reach, as it demonstrated the least dif-
ferences between observed and estimated peak flows. Results
of flood frequency analysis showing a magnitude of 50- and
100-year peak flows are 378.8 and 479.7 m3/s, respectively,
which are used as a base to run the model and compare
different flood control alternatives. The calibration of the
model was conducted to find the optimal values of Man-
ning’s roughness by comparing simulated and observed
flood water depths at three selected points. The least differ-
ence between the simulated and observed flood levels were
used as calibration criterion. Based on trial and error model
runs, a Manning’s roughness coefficient of 0.041 and 0.053
produced the best fit against the observed data for the river
main channel and flood plain, respectively. The flood water
depths from the optimal Manning’s n are in a relative agree-
ment with those simulated ones (with 26% error of estima-
tion). Although the error of estimation is high, it is the most
achievable calibration run because of the lack of observed
flood level data in the river basin. This large discrepancy is
most likely due to the changes in topography and hydraulic
characteristics of the river system, especially as a result of
development and man-made activities. The calibrated model
is considered as a baseline for comparison purposes, in spite
of the high degree of uncertainty involve in the model. In
fact, all flood mitigation alternatives are compared based on
similar model settings.
The selected flood mitigation alternatives are positioned
at appropriate locations along the Zaremroud River reach in
HEC-RAS model runs. Delineation of flood extents and
depths within the flood plain of Zaremroud River was con-
ducted in different return periods based on the integration
of hydraulic simulation results and GIS analysis using the
HEC-GeoRAS. Flood inundation extents, including different
model outputs in all cross sections, are extracted after
running the model for each alternative. Figures 2 and 3 show
subsequent maps of predicted 50- and 100-year flood inun-
dation extents and depths for all proposed flood mitigation
alternatives. The flood boundary is delineated in blue, with
gradations of blue corresponding to different flood depths.
As can be seen in Figure 3, flood-affected areas for the 100-
year flood event are of larger extent than the 50-year flood
(Figure 2), as it has affected some parts of Garm Roud resi-
dential areas.
Comparison of flood mitigation alternatives
All proposed flood mitigation alternatives have different
environmental and socio-economic consequences. In this
part of the paper, we analyse individual impacts of flood
control alternatives. However, the final decision should be
made with the consideration of all evaluation criteria
J Flood Risk Management •• (2013) ••–•• © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM)
7
together to reach an optimal and cost-effective alternative,
which will be discussed in the next section. The evaluated
results for all measures can be summarised as follows.
Flood inundation area, flood level, flow velocity and
stream power at two control points along the Zaremroud
River system are extracted based on flood plain inundation
analysis for the 50- and 100-year floods associated with the
four proposed alternatives using the HEC-RAS simulation
combined with GIS (Figures 2 and 3). Table 2 is determined
based upon flood inundation layers in GIS depicted in Fig-
ures 2 and 3. Table 2 shows a simple comparison of the inun-
dation area (ha) and flood depth (m) for each alternative
under the 50- and 100-year floods. Without any flood miti-
gation measure (baseline), the total inundation areas are
44.4 and 49.5 ha, under the 50 and 100-year floods, respec-
tively, including 16.2 and 20.1 ha with an inundation depth
over 1.5 m. For the measures of alternatives 3 (channel
modification by widening and deepening) and 1 (levee con-
struction), the total inundation areas are 38 and 44 ha for a
50-year flood and 43.1 and 49.3 ha for a 100-year flood,
respectively, which are less than those of the other alterna-
tives including baseline. Alternative 3 has the smallest areas
of inundation, showing significant diminution for areas of a
depth over 1.5 m (Table 2). As a result, it can be found that
alternatives 3 and 1 are superior to the other two measures in
terms of flooded area protection.
Table 3 compares hydraulics parameters in baseline con-
ditions with those reconstructed from flood mitigation alter-
natives under 50- and 100-year floods at two specific control
sections. The effects on flood level reduction by the different
alternatives are presented in Table 3. Alternatives 3 and 4
have better performance in terms of flood level reduction
than the other alternatives on the downstream and the
outside of the river bend control points, respectively.
However, baseline and levee construction have the highest
flood levels in selected cross sections. There is no major
improvement in flood level reduction using construction of
a levee in comparison with the baseline. Although the high-
protection levee may not decrease river flood stages, it could
decrease the risk of an overbank flooding disaster in residen-
tial areas.
Comparisons between all alternatives in terms of
changes in flow velocity under 50- and 100-year floods are
presented in Table 3 at two selected control points. There is
a variation of flow velocity among the alternatives, depend-
ing on the local river geometry and hydraulic conditions of
river flow. As can be seen in Table 3, alternative 1 causes a
significant decrease in flow velocity on downstream cross
section in comparison with the baseline. Generally, levee
construction has the lowest negative effects on flow velocity
on the downstream (Table 3) and is superior to other alter-
natives for erosion control and river bank protection. Alter-
native 2 performs better than other options in terms of
8 Ghanbarpour et al.

Figure 2 Flood inundation areas and depths for 50-year flood in different flood mitigation alternatives.

flow velocity on the outside of the river bend. However,
alternatives 4 and 2 have the highest downstream flow
velocity, which could accelerate downstream river bank
erosion. Alternative 3 has highest flow velocity at the river
bend control point, which could cause progressive river
bank cut and erosion towards residential area. Table 3
shows a simple comparison of the stream power change on
the downstream and the outside of the river bend cross
sections for each alternative under 50- and 100-year floods.
As can be seen in Table 3, there are critical and extreme
stream power changes in alternatives 4 and 2 on the down-
stream. Generally, alternatives 1 and 2 show better results
for stream power change on control points, respectively.
Results show that changes in hydraulic parameters of

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) J Flood Risk Management •• (2013) ••–••
Comparative evaluation of flood mitigation alternatives 9

Figure 3 Flood inundation areas and depths for 100-year flood in different flood mitigation alternatives.

stream flow occurred as a direct consequence of the
channel modification practices.
Trade-offs analysis between different decision variables to
find the optimum flood control measure is a difficult task, as
there is conflict between different variables in two control
points. Figure 4 shows some examples for comparison of
flood control alternatives using trade-offs between pairs of
decision variables. For example, alternative 1 is the most
preferred option in terms of downstream flow velocity
and stream power (Figure 4B) and construction cost

J Flood Risk Management •• (2013) ••–•• © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM)
10 Ghanbarpour et al.

Table 2 Comparisons of inundation areas (ha) for proposed flood mitigation alternatives based on flood depth in 50- and 100-year floods

Return Flood mitigation alternatives

period (year) Flood depth (m) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Baseline
50 D < 0.5 10.5 10.8 8.4 10.8 10.8
0.5 < D < 1.5 17.3 17.4 14.5 17.4 17.4
1.5 < D 16.2 16.2 15.1 16.2 16.2
Total 44 44.4 38 44.4 44.4
100 D < 0.5 11.1 11.6 9.6 11.6 11.6
0.5 < D < 1.5 17.8 17.8 14.4 17.8 17.8
1.5 < D 20.4 20.1 19.1 20.1 20.1
Total 49.3 49.5 43.1 49.5 49.5

Table 3 Comparisons of hydraulics parameters for proposed flood mitigation alternatives based on 50- and 100-year floods at some
selected control cross sections

Hydraulics Return period Control cross Flood mitigation alternatives

parameter (year) sections Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Baseline
Flood level (m) 50 (1)* 159.07 158.80 158.07 158.23 159.01
(2) 157.45 156.85 157.03 156.56 157.47
100 (1) 159.20 159.06 158.45 158.53 159.12
(2) 157.62 157.30 157.17 156.93 157.64
Flow velocity (m/s) 50 (1) 1.25 1.26 2.16 1.97 1.30
(2) 2.84 4.40 3.26 4.86 2.73
100 (1) 1.41 1.25 2.05 1.95 1.48
(2) 3.19 3.93 3.72 4.77 3.06
Stream power (N.m/s) 50 (1) 32.07 15.51 74.29 55.94 36.25
(2) 216.99 615.46 244.61 1134.13 196.74
100 (1) 57.22 17.25 44.65 40.43 54.96
(2) 285.25 430.30 355.46 785.99 248.29

*(1) on the outside of the river bend; (2) on the downstream of the residential area.

(Figure 4C). However, alternative 2 is better than other alter-
natives in terms of outside river bend flow velocity
(Figure 4A) and stream power (Figure 4D). As another
example, alternative 3 has the highest flow velocity on the
outside of the river bend. But it has the lowest flood level in
the same control point, which are obviously in conflict
(Figure 4A). It can be concluded that an MCDA analysis is
needed in this case, as there is conflicting criteria that make
it difficult for an accurate trade-offs analysis. It should be
noted that all variables used in Figure 4 were resulted from
100-year flood inundation analysis in previous sections.
Application of TOPSIS as an MCDA method is discussed in
the next section.
Scenario-based flood mitigation
decision analysis
TOPSIS, an MCDA method, is used for prioritising the best
flood mitigation alternatives. Results of a decision analysis
based on four different scenarios for criteria weighting are
shown in Table 4. Only those criteria for 100-year flood
in two selected control points are considered for decision
analysis. A scenario analysis was conducted to show the
importance of each criterion and how they are integrated in
the decision process. The performance of flood mitigation
measures, in terms of preventing flood risk and the resulting
damage and in terms of their economic and environmental
benefits, is important to be considered for an overall
appraisal of acceptability of the alternatives (Bana e Costa
et al., 2004). In this section, we examined the effect of vari-
ations in criterion weightings on the final decision. This will
have practical implications to show how to incorporate
stakeholders’ preferences in decision making, which are
most of the time in conflict. Therefore, it is demonstrated
how final decision is sensitive to different stakeholders’ or
policy makers’ points of view. In this case, stakeholders
involved in the decision-making process could include local
residents, non-governmental organisations and governmen-
tal agencies.
The first scenario was based on the fact that the most
important criterion in flood mitigation plans is flood risk
including flood level and flood inundation area. Therefore,
in this scenario, flood level and flood inundation area were
assigned a weight twice as high as the other criteria in the

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) J Flood Risk Management •• (2013) ••–••
Comparative evaluation of flood mitigation alternatives 11

Figure 4 Comparison of flood mitigation alternatives using pair-wise trade-offs between decision criteria.

Table 4 Priority rating and rank of proposed flood mitigation alternatives based on different decision-making scenarios
Decision-making scenarios for flood risk mitigation
Flood mitigation alternatives Risk-oriented Environmental-oriented Economic-oriented Balance
Alternative 1 (levee construction) 0.716 [1]* 0.637 [2] 0.838 [1] 0.735 [1]
Alternative 2 (channel modification) 0.556 [2] 0.661 [1] 0.518 [2] 0.571 [2]
Alternative 3 (channel modification) 0.298 [3] 0.395 [3] 0.167 [3] 0.278 [3]
Alternative 4 (combination of alternatives 1 and 3) 0.124 [4] 0.184 [4] 0.073 [4] 0.125 [4]

*Numbers in brackets show the rank of each flood mitigation alternative.

decision matrix (Table 1). For the first scenario with higher
weight to flood risk criteria (inundation area and flood
level), construction of the levee along Zaremroud River is the
highest rated alternative (0.716). Alternative 4 is the least
preferred practice (0.124), which is the combination of a
levee construction and two stages channel modification.
Channel modifications alternatives 2 and 3 are the second
and third rated alternatives (0.556 and 0.298) (Table 4). In
the second scenario, a higher weight was assigned to envi-
ronmental impact criteria, which included flow velocity and
stream power at the river bend and downstream control
points. In this case, alternatives 2 (0.661) and 1 (0.637) are
two more preferred options, respectively. However, channel
modification based on alternative 2 performs slightly better
than the levee construction option (Table 4). In the third
scenario, equal weight was assigned to flood risk and envi-
ronmental impact criteria, but higher weight was considered
for economic impact criterion. In this case, levee construc-
tion is rated as the most preferred flood mitigation alterna-
tive (0.838). Scenario four is considered as a balance between
all decision criteria including flood risk, environmental and
economic impacts. In this case, alternative 1 is the most rated
option (0.735). In all scenarios, alternative 4 is the least pre-
ferred option among flood control measures (Table 4).
It is shown that the different form of proposed channel
modifications is not a preferred alternative for this river

J Flood Risk Management •• (2013) ••–•• © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM)
12
reach under study, with the exception in environmental-
oriented scenario. Scenario analysis confirms the superiority
of alternative 1 to the other proposed alternatives as well as
the strong weakness of alternative 4. On the other hand,
channel modification practices with less volume of machin-
ery channel excavation are more preferred, as alternative 2 is
superior to alternative 3, considering all weighting scenarios
(Table 4). Although increasing the size or depth of the
channel or decreasing its roughness can lead to a reduction
in flood levels because of the additional channel capacity,
channel modifications can also have negative effects, such as
an increase in flow velocity and stream power (Table 3). As
Wyzga (1993) stated, an increase in flow velocity and stream
power owing to river modification results in a progressive
outwashing of finer grains from bed material, which causes
negative impacts near residential area and downstream.
From this synthetic assessment, we can conclude that the
levee construction plan is superior to the other three flood
mitigation measures. As a result, when taking risk, environ-
mental and economic impact considerations into account,
alternative 1 is beneficial in protecting residential areas and
contributes less to sedimentation and increasing down-
stream stream power and flow velocity. However, in terms of
economic considerations, the construction of a levee adja-
cent to the residential area may not cost as much as the
channel excavation for river reach widening and deepening.
Different criteria-weighting scenarios enable us to take into
consideration all of the evaluation criteria, such as cost-
effectiveness and least environmental impact as well as effec-
tiveness in reducing the flood hazard in residential areas.
Conclusions
This paper focused on integrating flood plain inundation
mapping and MCDA. As flood hazard control measures are
complex, they require a comprehensive evaluation frame-
work. The appropriate flood mitigation alternatives in
reducing the flood risk along Zaremroud River were sug-
gested, modelled and compared. The first step was the devel-
opment of flood hazard maps, which show inundated areas
and flood depths. The second step was to select the most
appropriate alternative based on a multicriteria approach.
The effects of the suggested alternatives were evaluated in
terms of flood hazard reduction, and environmental and
economic impacts under 50- and 100-year flood inundation
areas and depths. The most appropriate measure to tackle
flood problems along Zaremroud River and Garm Roud
residential area is to construct a levee as a structural flood
mitigation measure. However, it is important to apply the
best management practice and watershed management as
long-term non-structural measures (Simonovic and Carson,
2003; Ghanbarpour et al., 2005) because intensive watershed
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM)
Ghanbarpour et al.
developments alter streamflow and sediment loads, causing
channel degradation or sedimentation.
Other proposed alternatives, such as channel modifica-
tion with different dimensions, failed to be optimal options
in the study area. Although simple dredging as a short-term
solution for reducing flood damages could be considered
annually, it is neither effective nor cost-efficient. As the
results of this study show, channel modification activities
change the upstream and downstream stream power balance
and bring about a greater possibility of channel degradation
downstream because of an increase in flow velocity
(Brookes, 1987). Moreover, channel modification activities
diminish the quality and diversity of aquatic and streamside
habitats by altering river beds and channels, and increase
sediment loads below channelisation works (Schoof, 1980;
Sherwood et al., 1990). Such negative impacts of channel
modification support the superiority of levee construction.
The application of the hydraulic model, HEC-RAS, com-
bined with GIS analysis and an MCDA method has allowed
for the efficient analysis of proposed flood hazard mitigation
alternatives. The combination of GIS analysis and hydraulic
simulation facilitates the process of producing flood hazard
maps (Salimi et al., 2008) and other hydraulics parameters
like flow velocity, stream power and flood level at any cross
section point along the river reach. The outputs can be trans-
ferred to an MCDA approach, which provides a basis for
applying a scenario analysis. The proposed approach in this
research can be used for flood risk assessment under climate
change and urban development scenarios with the improv-
ing of flood damage details (Veerbeek and Zevenbergen,
2009). Moreover, further analysis, such as flood damage
assessment, can be carried out for insurance studies, land use
planning and hydraulics design purposes. The multicriteria
approach allows us to include different objectives in the
decision-making process. Therefore, the evaluation of flood
mitigation measures performed in this study not only per-
tains to flood risk reduction but also covers economic and
environmental objectives.
References
Bana e Costa C.A., Antao de Silva P. & Correia F.N. Multicrite-
ria evaluation of flood control measures: the case of Ribeira
do Livramento. Water Resour Manag 2004, 18, 263–283. doi:
10.1023/B:WARM.0000043163.19531.6a.
Beven K.J. Towards a coherent philosophy for modelling the
environment. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 2002, 458, (2026), 2465–
2484.
Brookes A. River channel adjustments downstream from chan-
nelization works in England and Wales. Earth Surf Process
Landf 1987, 12, 337–351. doi: 10.1002/esp.3290120402.
Chang H., Franczyk J. & Changhwan K. What is responsible for
increasing flood risks? The case of Gangwon Province, Korea.
J Flood Risk Management •• (2013) ••–••
Comparative evaluation of flood mitigation alternatives
Nat Hazards 2009, 48, 339–354. doi: 10.1007/s11069-008-
9266-y.
Chen S.J. & Hwang C.L. Fuzzy multiple attribute decision
making, methods and applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag,
1992, 536.
Chow V.T. Open channel hydraulics. New York: McGraw-Hill,
Inc., 1959.
Correia F.N., Saraiva M.G., Nunes da Silva F. & Ramos I. Flood-
plain management in urban developing areas. Part II. GIS-
based flood analysis and urban growth modeling. Water
Resour Manag 1999, 13, 23–37. doi: 10.1023/
A:1008045419517.
Deputy of Technical Affairs (DTA). Cost and quantity estimat-
ing manual, for watershed management and natural
resources. National Deputy of Planning and Monitoring
Technical Report No. 100/86952, 146, 2009. (in Persian).
Dilley M., Chen R.S., Deichmann U., Lerner-Lam A.L., Arnold
M., Agwe J. Natural disaster hotspots: a global risk analysis.
Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstructionand
Development/The World Bank and Columbia University,
2005.
Ghanbarpour M.R. & Hipel K.W. Multi-criteria planning
approach for ranking of land management alternatives at
different spatial scales. Res J Environ Earth Sci 2011, 3, (2),
168–177.
Ghanbarpour M.R., Hipel K.W. & Abbaspour K.C. Prioritizing
long-term watershed management strategies using group
decision analysis. Int J Water Resour Dev 2005, 21, (2), 297–
309. doi: 10.1080/07900620500108528.
Ghanbarpour M.R., Salimi S., Saravi M.M. & Zarei M. Calibra-
tion of river hydraulic model combined with GIS analysis
using ground-based observation data. Res J Appl Sci Eng
Technol 2011, 3, (5), 456–463.
Hicks D.M. & Mason P.D. Roughness characteristics of New
Zealand rivers. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand National Insti-
tute of Water and Atmospheric Research, (Also published by
Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, CO, 1998).
(1991).
Hill A.R. The environmental impacts of agricultural land drain-
age. J Environ Manage 1976, 4, 251–274.
Hwang C. & Lin M. Group decision making under multiple crite-
ria. Berlin: Springer, 1987.
Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC). HEC-GeoRAS, GIS
tools for support of HEC-RAS. User’s Manual (version: 4.2),
U.S. Army Corps of Engineering, Davis, CA., September
2009. 2009.
Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC). HEC-RAS river analysis
system. Hydraulic Reference Manual (version: 4.1), U.S.
Army Corps of Engineering, Davis, CA., January 2010. 262.
2010.
J Flood Risk Management •• (2013) ••–•• © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM)
13
Noman N.S., Nelson E.J. & Zundel A.K. Improved process for
floodplain delineation from digital terrain models. J Water
Resour Plan Manage 2003, 129, 427–436. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9496(2003)129:5(427).
Pappenberger F., Beven K., Horritt M. & Blazkova S. Uncer-
tainty in the calibration of effective roughness parameters in
HEC-RAS using inundation and downstream level observa-
tions. J Hydrol 2005, 302, (1–4), 46–69. doi: 10.1016/
j.jhydrol.2004.06.036.
Salimi S., Ghanbarpour M.R., Solaimani K. & Ahmadi M.Z.
Floodplain mapping using hydraulic simulation model in
GIS. J Appl Sci 2008, 8, (4), 660–665.
Schoof R. Environmental impact of channel modification.
Water Resour Bull 1980, 16, (4), 697–701.
Sellin R.H.J., Bryant T.B. & Loveless J.H. An improved method
for roughening floodplains on physical river models. J
Hydraul Res 2003, 41, 3–14. doi: 10.1080/
00221680309499924.
Sherwood C.R., Jay D.A., Harvey R., Hamilton P. & Simenstad
C. Historical changes in the Columbia River Estuary. Progr
Oceanogr 1990, 25, 299–352. doi: 10.1016/0079-
6611(90)90011-P.
Simonovic S.P. & Carson R.W. Flooding in the Red River Basin
– lessons from post flood activities. Nat Hazards 2003, 28,
(2–3), 345–365. doi: 10.1023/A:1022921823614.
United Nation Development Programme (UNDP). Reducing
disaster risk: a challenge for development. New York: United
Nations Development Programme, Bureau for Crisis Preven-
tion and Recovery, 2004, 146.
Veerbeek W. & Zevenbergen C. Deconstructing urban food
damages: increasing the expressiveness of food damage
models combining a high level of detail with a broad
attribute set. J Flood Risk Management 2009, 2, 45–57. doi:
10.1111/j.1753-318X.2009.01021.x.
Walker W.S. & Maidment D.R. Geodatabase design for FEMA
flood hazard studies, CRWR. Online report 06-10, Center for
Research in Water Resources, University of Texas at Austin.
2006.
Williams T.M. Incorporating GIS in river hydraulic modeling:
assessing the ability to predict ecological consequences of
river modification on floodplain forests. Hydrology and
Management of Forested Wetlands Proceedings of the Inter-
national Conference, 8–12 April. 2006.
Wyzga B. River response to channel regulation: case study of the
Raba River, Carpathians, Poland. Earth Surf Process Landf
1993, 18, 541–556. doi: 10.1002/esp.3290180607.
Yi C., Lee J. & Shim M. GIS-based distributed technique for
assessing economic loss from flood damage: pre-feasibility
study for the Anyang Stream Basin in Korea. Nat Hazards
2010, 55, 251–272. doi: 10.1007/s11069-010-9524-7.