water

Article
A Flood Risk Assessment of Quang Nam, Vietnam
Using Spatial Multicriteria Decision Analysis
Chinh Luu 1,2, * ID
and Jason von Meding 1
1 School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia;
jason.vonmeding@newcastle.edu.au
2 Faculty of Hydraulic Engineering, National University of Civil Engineering, Hanoi 112000, Vietnam
* Correspondence: thidieuchinh.luu@uon.edu.au; Tel.: +61-424-415-715




Received: 9 February 2018; Accepted: 8 April 2018; Published: 11 April 2018


Abstract: Vietnam is highly vulnerable to flood and storm impacts. Holistic flood risk assessment
maps that adequately consider flood risk factors of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability are not
available. These are vital for flood risk preparedness and disaster mitigation measures at the local
scale. Unfortunately, there is a lack of knowledge about spatial multicriteria decision analysis and
flood risk analysis more broadly in Vietnam. In response to this need, we identify and quantify
flood risk components in Quang Nam province through spatial multicriteria decision analysis.
The study presents a new approach to local flood risk assessment mapping, which combines historical
flood marks with exposure and vulnerability data. The flood risk map output could assist and
empower decision-makers in undertaking flood risk management activities in the province. Our study
demonstrates a methodology to build flood risk assessment maps using flood mark, exposure and
vulnerability data, which could be applied in other provinces in Vietnam.

Keywords: flood risk assessment; flood risk map; AHP; GIS; Quang Nam; Vietnam

1. Introduction
A flood is a complex phenomenon that links the natural environment, people, and the social
system [1]. Flood exposure and flood frequency are forecasted to increase, particularly in the low
latitudes of Asia and Africa [2]. The impacts of flood risk are expected to increase globally due to
population growth, economic development, and climate change [3,4]. Despite efforts to reduce adverse
impacts through structural and non-structural measures, flooding remains a significant threat to
communities [5].
Vietnam is located in tropical monsoon zone with more than 3450 rivers and streams and 3260 km
of coastline. Many inhabitants live in riverine and coastal areas, and their livelihoods are dependent
on the natural world; therefore, they are vulnerable to the impacts of climate-related hazards. Between
1989 and 2014, floods caused significant damages in Vietnam, with at least 14,867 people dead and
missing, and total economic losses being equivalent to 1% of the nation’s gross domestic product [6].
It is critical that Vietnamese decision-makers in flood-prone areas are equipped with the best
tools that are available to prepare communities and mitigate disaster losses. Flood risk mapping is a
particularly valuable activity. The primary objective of flood risk maps is to provide information on
flood hazards combined with other relevant information that can support decision-making process in
flood risk management [7].
The incorporation of flood risk assessment into a Geographic Information System (GIS) framework
has been applied at global, regional, and local scales in many recent studies. GIS can process the spatial
data, is a beneficial tool to handle spatial data on flood risks [8]. GIS has been widely applied to flood
risk assessments as a critical instrument for spatial analysis [9]. Spatial flood risk assessment is a useful

Water 2018, 10, 461; doi:10.3390/w10040461 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2018, 10, 461 2 of 16

tool to indicate risk levels and an essential reference to define specific flood risk management action
plans [10–12].
At the global scale, Jongman et al. [13] used two approaches, the population method and land-use
method, to estimate global flooding exposure; while Winsemius et al. [14] proposed a river flood
risk assessment framework on a global scale. At the regional level, de Moel et al. [15] developed
a framework for assessing and mapping flood risk for Europe. At the local level, Ward et al. [16]
established a GIS-based model to simulate flooded areas and exposed assets to evaluate the current
and future coastal flood hazard of northern Jakarta, and Budiyono et al. [17] investigated flood risk
assessment in Jakarta by using Damagescanner model, which combined three flood risk components
in a flood risk map.
Flood risk can be measured by determining the three flood risk components of hazard, exposure
and vulnerability [7,14,15,17–19]. A comprehensive flood risk assessment takes into account all
the constituents of flood risk, combining many individual parameters [15,20]. Spatial multicriteria
decision analysis can combine and transform different geographical data layers into a decision map [21].
Geospatial techniques have significant potential support in the field of flood risk assessment in a spatial
context [22]. Geospatial multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods have been investigated
and applied, including Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Weighted Linear Combination (WLC),
outranking methods, and ideal point methods [23].
Spatial multicriteria decision analysis has been gaining more and more attention in the field of
flood risk assessment. Meyer et al. [8] used the analysis for assessing flood risk for River Mulde
in Saxony, Germany. Kubal et al. [24] built criteria for three dimensions of economic, social, and
ecological indicators to assess the urban flood risk of Leipzig, Germany. Scheuer et al. [25] measured
flood risk by integrating multicriteria of flood vulnerability. Dewan [22] utilised AHP and WLC to
assess flood vulnerability by combining physical vulnerability, social vulnerability, and coping capacity.
Hansson et al. [26] proposed a MCDM framework for flood risk management in Bac Hung Hai polder.
Studies on flood risk analysis have been increasing in Vietnam (e.g., Tran et al. [27],
Razafindrabe et al. [28], Chau et al. [29], Chau et al. [30], Chinh et al. [31], Vu et al. [32], and Dang et al. [33]).
Tran et al. [27] and Razafindrabe et al. [28] adapted a flood risk management framework of AS/NZS
4360:1999 standard for Thua Thien Hue province and Da Nang city, respectively. Chau et al. [29] applied
GIS techniques to map flood impacts on agriculture in Quang Nam province. Chau et al. [30] used a
cost-benefit analysis tool to assess the economic impact of floods on agricultural production in Quang Nam
province. Chinh et al. [31] built a flood loss model for residential buildings in Can Tho city. Vu et al. [32]
integrated an FLO-2D hydraulic model with several indicators (residential area and road network)
to assess the annual flood damage for Quang Ngai province. Dang et al. [33] used AHP approach to
assess flood risk for Day river flood diversion area; however, a flood risk map was not displayed in
this research.
This study aims to produce a detailed assessment of flood risk levels for Quang Nam province
using a spatial multicriteria decision analysis approach. Quang Nam province is selected as the case
study given its particular vulnerability and exposure to flood hazards in Vietnam. Severe floods
frequently occur and seriously impact communities [28]. The core approach of this study is to integrate
AHP with GIS mapping to create a flood risk assessment map. AHP is an analytical decision-making
method established by Saaty [34] and is the most applied MCDM method for flood risk analysis [35].
The study first identifies components of flood risk including hazard, exposure, and vulnerability
indicators; and then integrates these components into a hierarchy model using AHP method. Second,
the scores of flood risk components are measured by decision-makers’ judgements via AHP pairwise
comparisons. Finally, a flood risk assessment map is generated from the integration of spatial data on
flood hazard, exposure, and vulnerability.
Water 2018, 10, 461 3 of 16

2. Research Area and Data Used

2.1. Research Area

Quang Nam province is located at 14◦ 570 1000 N to 16◦ 030 5000 N and 107◦ 120 5000 E to 108◦ 440 2000 E
on the south-central coast of Vietnam (Figure 1), with the area of 10,440 km2 , and the population of
over 1.4 million in 2015. The province has Vu Gia-Thu Bon river basin with the area of 5290 km2 and
over 100 km of coastline. Dense hydropower reservoirs are allocated along this river basin. The west of
Quang Nam is mountainous and sparsely populated, while the east is flat plains that are favourable for
agricultural population and urban development. The province has a high exposure to climate events
(mainly storms, floods, flash floods, and typhoons) and a relatively high level of poverty at 28% [36].

Figure 1. The location of study area, Quang Nam province and flood hazard mapping created by
Luu et al. [37].

Vu Gia-Thu Bon river basin’s tributaries originate in elevated mountain ranges and then flow
through narrow plains before emptying into the sea (Figure 1). Due to the increase of rainfall
intensity, water-related disasters are growing in the river basin, such as large-scale floods in the rainy
season [38]. Floods have severely affected communities’ livelihood and social-economic development
in Quang Nam province over the years (Figure 2). Severe floods are increasing due to the pressure of
population growth and economic development, with the human interference leading to environmental
damage and the influence of climate change [39].
Water 2018, 10, 461 4 of 16

Figure 2. Flood impacts in Quang Nam province between 1997 and 2015 (compiled from flood
damage data provided by Quang Nam Provincial Steering Committee on Natural Disaster Prevention
and Control).

2.2. Data Used

The input data was collected via fieldwork in Quang Nam province in June and August 2016
by the first author. The field work had three main tasks: (1) semi-structured interviews with local
staff working in Steering Committees on Natural Disaster Prevention and Control at commune,
district and provincial levels to investigate flood risk management activities at their localities, (2) AHP
questionnaires with the local staff for their judgements on flood risk factors, and (3) the collection
of secondary data, including flood marks, flood damage data, and GIS data. The data of population
density, poverty rate, and numbers of doctors and nurses were collected from 2015 Statistical Yearbooks
of 17 districts in Quang Nam province. This study was approved by the University of Newcastle
Human Research Ethics Committee in June 2016, approval No. H-2016-0125.

3. Methodology

3.1. AHP Method

AHP was initially developed by Thomas L. Saaty [34]. It is a flexible technique for facilitating
the process of setting priorities and decision-making. AHP has been broadly applied in making
Water 2018, 10, 461 5 of 16

decisions in economics, education, transportation, planning, resources allocation, and integrated

management [40,41], and more recently in flood risk management [35].
Several of the advantages of using AHP include direct Decision-Makers (DMs) or experts’ opinion
involvement, simple GIS integration [21], criteria and sub-criteria systematisation [42], and consistency
in judgement [43]. Besides these advantages, this approach has three main limitations. The first one
relates to the evaluation and ranking of indicators based on the personal choice and the knowledge of
DMs or experts, which lead to subjectivity in evaluation [44]. The second weakness is that this approach
requires a large number of pairwise comparisons and the high number of alternatives or criteria can
make it overwhelming for participants [45,46]. The third drawback is that the pairwise comparisons of
this method are based on very general and vague criteria [47]. However, these shortcomings present
in almost MCDM methods [42].
AHP can be summarised in the following main steps:

• Step 1: Creating a hierarchical system by decomposing the goal into a hierarchy of

interrelated clusters;
• Step 2: Making pairwise comparisons between criteria of the decision clusters to form pairwise
comparison matrix A = [aij ]; and,
• Step 3: Synthesizing individual subjective judgments and computing relative weights.

The assignment of weights has a fundamental role in risk decision-making process. Weighting
articulates the importance or preference of criteria and is often a subjective process [48]. The weights
of criteria can be determined by direct judgements of an expert group [49,50] or by statistical methods,
such as linear regression [51], non-parametric resampling [52], and principal component analysis.
AHP operates by setting priorities for multi-criteria, which are judged by groups (DMs, experts,
or stakeholders) involved in decision-making process to derive the best decision [53]. The weights of
criteria in AHP method rely upon the judgment of experts or DMs, so the method focuses on quality
instead of quantity of experts. AHP assessment could operate with a small group of experts, for
example, one expert [54], three experts [49], four experts [50], five experts [55], six experts [56], and
nine experts [57]. AHP could also run with the author experience-based assessment, for example,
Kandilioti and Makropoulos [58], Li et al. [59], and Dewan [22].

3.2. Flood Risk Components

Flood risk is a common threat to many populous cities, and riverine and coastal regions [60].
Flood risk was first quantified by a combination of flood hazard, exposure, and vulnerability, as
in Equation (1) in the studies of Crichton [61] and Kron [18]. After that, the application has been
formalised in many studies and frameworks, such as Winsemius et al. [14], Budiyono et al. [17],
Jongman et al. [3], and UNISDR [62]. Flood hazard can be determined as the probability of
occurring a certain level of danger at one location and as natural and man-made triggers [18,63].
Exposure is defined by the extent to which people, property, and infrastructure are exposed to a hazard
event [14,61,63]. Vulnerability is specified by the extent to which people are susceptible to, or unable
to cope with, the impacts [13,18,60,64].

Flood risk = Hazard ∗ Exposure ∗ Vulnerability (1)

This study aims to incorporate flood hazard information within the context of data on flood
exposure and vulnerability to a hazard event as in Equation (1). A hierarchy model using AHP method
is designed to integrate the three components. Each component has several criteria; in turn, each
criterion contains several sub-criteria. The criteria of flood risk components are adapted from the
various studies that are cited in Table 1. The hierarchy framework is used to assess flood risk (Figure 3).
Criteria are weighted based on DMs’ judgment via AHP pairwise comparisons.
Water 2018, 10, 461 6 of 16

Table 1. Criteria and its sources for assessing flood hazard, vulnerability, and exposure.

Component Criteria Source

Zou et al. [56], Dewan [22], Foudi et al. [10],
Depth
Flood hazard Gain et al. [65], Ronco et al. [66]
Duration Boudou et al. [67], Chinh et al. [31]
te Linde et al. [68], Zou et al. [56], Dewan [22],
Land-use
Ouma and Tateishi [69], Gain et al. [65], Ronco et al. [66]

Flood exposure Distance to rivers Penning-Rowsell et al. [70], Dewan [22], Terti et al. [71]
Wang et al. [72], Peduzzi et al. [73], Zou et al. [56],
Population density
Dewan [22], Gain et al. [65], Ronco et al. [66]
Poverty rate Tran et al. [27], Dewan [22], Winsemius et al. [74]
Flood vulnerability Road density Scheuer et al. [25], Dewan [22], Ronco et al. [66]
Number of doctors and nurses Scheuer et al. [25], Dewan [22]

Figure 3. Decision hierarchy model to measure the flood risk for Quang Nam province.

Flood hazard data, including flood depth and flood duration data, from Luu et al. [37] (Figure 1)
is used in conjunction with flood exposure and vulnerability data to provide a flood risk map for
Quang Nam province.
Three criteria—land-use categories, distance to rivers, and population density—were considered
in this study in order to estimate flood exposure. Land-use categories are often used to calculate the
losses in flood risk assessment models [75]. The distance to rivers criteria is derived from river network
data. It is assumed that people living close to river systems are at higher risk than those who do
not [22]. The population density is the most critical criterion in assessing flood risk since it is defined
by human settlements. More densely populated areas are at higher risk when floods occur [73].
Three criteria are also used in this study to estimate vulnerability; poverty rate, road density, and
the number of doctors and nurses. The poor are more likely to be affected by disasters [74], and poverty
is often seen as a structural cause of vulnerability. The poverty rate criterion is therefore critical to this
study. Infrastructure, such as roads, play a significant role in response (e.g., evacuation) and recovery
activities [22], and locations without infrastructure suffer. Meanwhile, understanding the number of
healthcare facilities in flood-prone areas is critical to our knowledge of the level of preparedness in an
area [22]. Quang Nam province lacks data on the number of hospitals but has data on the number of
doctors and nurses in each commune, so this criterion is considered in analysing flood vulnerability.
Water 2018, 10, 461 7 of 16

More criteria could be added to analyse flood vulnerability, such as gender, age and persons with
disabilities; however, such data is lacking in the research area.

3.3. AHP Judgements

Staff that were working in the local Steering Committees of Natural Disaster Prevention and
Control in Quang Nam province were invited to participate in the study and asked to judge the criteria.
The invited staff were the heads or vice-heads of committees. The rationale for this is that they are
the most knowledgeable and have the most responsibility for local flood risk management activities.
The information statements informed invitees that their participation was entirely voluntary and
anonymous. We could only recruit two staff suitable for participation; however, AHP can work with a
small group. The staff completed the pairwise comparisons via a questionnaire (Figure 4).

Figure 4. An example of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) pairwise comparisons.

After pairwise comparison judgements of each DM meet the consistency requirement of less than
0.1 [76], it is required to combine the judgements of the group. The AHP allows for each DM to specify
a value and then combine all of the individual judgements for the final assessment result according to
the geometric mean rule of Saaty [77] as in Equation (2).
h i1/N
N
a12 = a112 × a212 × . . . × a12 (2)

where
1 . . . N are decision makers.
N are judgements of decision makers from 1 to N.
a112 . . . a12
AHP algorithms are calculated via Supperdecisons software [78]. The flood risk indicators
weighted by AHP are to be integrated into GIS framework using spatial analysis techniques to produce
mapping outputs. WLC is used to aggregate all of the weighted layers by the corresponding criteria
and sub-criteria weights [22]. The integrated AHP-WLC approach is employed for creating flood
hazard, exposure, vulnerability, and risk maps in the present study.

4. Results

4.1. Flood Exposure

The flood exposure criteria and sub-criteria are displayed in Figure 5, and their weights from
AHP judgements are shown in Table 2. The distance to rivers is derived from river network data.
The distance to rivers is calculated via the Euclidian Distance tool in ArcGIS software (Figure 5).
The more close to rivers is the more severe for flood exposure. Therefore, the highest score is given to
Water 2018, 10, 461 8 of 16

the distance of less than 1 km from river systems, and the lowest score is allocated to the distance of
greater than 3 km (Table 2). The land-use data contained four categories of homestead and built-up,
agricultural land, forest and vegetation, and water bodies. The potential impact of floods is high for
homestead and built-up regarding humans and infrastructure, so its relative weight is the highest
for this land-use category. The agricultural land has the second highest weight when considering
the impact on the community’s livelihood. The water bodies and forest and vegetation have the
lowest weights since they do not pose a threat to residents. The population density is calculated as the
total population of a commune over its total area (km2 ). This criterion is directly related to human
populations, so it is judged to be more important than the other criteria of the land-use category and
distance to rivers. The higher the population density, the higher weight is allocated (Table 2).

Figure 5. Distribution of flood exposure criteria and sub-criteria.

Table 2. Decision hierarchy model for flood exposure indicators.

Component Criteria Weight Sub-Criteria Weight

Homestead and built-up 0.670
Agricultural land 0.201
Land-use category 0.135
Water bodies 0.082
Forest and vegetation 0.047
<1 0.608
1–2 0.229
Flood exposure Distance to rivers (km) 0.253
2–3 0.110
>3 0.053
<=50 0.042
51–200 0.065
Population density (km2 ) 0.612 201–500 0.114
501–1000 0.250
>1000 0.529
Water 2018, 10, 461 9 of 16

4.2. Flood Vulnerability

The flood vulnerability criteria and sub-criteria are shown in Figure 6, and their weights from the
AHP judgements are presented in Table 3. Poverty and vulnerability to floods are closely related and
mutually reinforced in Vietnam [79]. Table 3 shows that the higher relative importance is allocated
to higher poverty rate. The road density is calculated by intersecting road network database with
commune boundary feature. The lower road density areas have higher vulnerability scores (Table 3).
The lower number of doctors and nurses that the areas has, the higher the vulnerability (Table 3).

Figure 6. Distribution of flood vulnerability criteria and sub-criteria.

Table 3. Decision hierarchy model for flood vulnerability indicators.

Component Criteria Weight Sub-Criteria Weight

<5 0.062
5–10 0.097
Poverty rate (%) 0.577 10–20 0.160
20–40 0.262
>40 0.419
<20 0.438
Flood vulnerability 20–50 0.256
Road density (m/km2 ) 0.298 50–100 0.149
100–400 0.096
>400 0.061
0 0.467
1–2 0.277
Number of doctors and nurses 0.125
3–4 0.160
5–7 0.096
Water 2018, 10, 461 10 of 16

4.3. Flood Risk Assessment

The AHP assessments are integrated into a GIS environment using the Weighted Sum technique in
ArcGIS software to create flood hazard, exposure, and vulnerability maps, as in Figure 7. A flood risk
map is generated based on a combination of flood hazard, exposure, and vulnerability maps.

Figure 7. Spatial analysis of flood hazard, exposure and vulnerability for Quang Nam province.

The final flood risk assessment map (Figure 8) is created by integrating flood hazard, exposure,
and vulnerability maps. In the map, flood risk scores are normalised to a range of 0–1. Areas that are
located near and along rivers are at higher risk of flooding. The total inundation area is 60,327 ha, in
which 3291 ha of low risk (0.264–0.411), 16,608 ha of medium risk (0.412–0.558), 25,193 ha of high risk
(0.559–0.706), 13,163 ha of very high risk (0.707–0.853), and 2071 ha of extremely high risk (0.854–1.000).
Water 2018, 10, 461 11 of 16

Figure 8. Spatial flood risk assessment of Quang Nam province.

5. Discussion
Flood risk assessment is required to develop effective flood mitigation measures [11].
Understanding risk through risk assessments is essential to the field of disaster risk management.
The spatial flood risk assessment is a useful tool for flood risk mitigation measures since the at-risk
areas are prioritised [10]. The present study provides a new approach to assess flood risk for a local
area, which combines historical flood marks with exposure and vulnerability data in the assessment
using spatial multicriteria decision analysis. The applicability of this approach is demonstrated in a
case study of Quang Nam, Vietnam in relation to the 2013 flood event.
In this study, flood risk is assessed with the integration of various indicators of flood depth,
duration, population density, land use category, distance to rivers, poverty rate, number of doctors
and nurses, and road density using AHP and spatial analysis techniques. The AHP model is
selected to combine the flood risk components for four reasons: (1) direct DMs opinion involvement,
(2) criteria and sub-criteria systematisation, (3) multicriteria decision analysis and GIS combination,
and (4) consistency in judgement. Dang et al. [33] used the AHP approach to assess the flood risk for
Day river flood diversion area in the North of Vietnam, however, this work did not extend to flood risk
mapping. Chau et al. [29] used 86 flood marks of the hazardous 2009 flood and a 30 m DEM resolution
to produce a flood inundation map for Quang Nam province, and applied the result for assessing the
agricultural impacts. The present study goes further, using the AHP method and spatial techniques to
assess flood hazard with flood depth and duration indicators, and combining with flood exposure and
vulnerability data to provide an integrated flood risk assessment map.
Floods have severely affected people’s livelihoods and socio-economic development in
Quang Nam over the years (Figure 2). Low-land areas along Vu Gia-Thu Bon river basin, including
agricultural areas with high population densities, are often subjected to flooding in annual rainy
seasons (Figure 8). A local flood risk assessment map is essential, since it can support decision-makers
Water 2018, 10, 461 12 of 16

and planners to recognise high-risk areas, develop flood risk management strategies, have appropriate
flood risk mitigation measures, and raise public awareness on flood risk [80]. Flood hazard maps can
be created via a hydraulic modelling approach, which requires various input data, such as updated
river cross-sections and time series meteorological and streamflow data. This is hardly ever applied to
data-scarce areas, especially in developing countries, which often lack gauging stations. The present
study uses spatial multicriteria decision analysis to integrate historical flood mark data with flood
exposure and vulnerability data into a flood risk assessment map. The final flood risk assessment map
can enable policy makers and government departments to make judgments about setting priorities for
flood mitigation works and to provide potential support for the preparation of flood risk management
plans. The map is also essential for accurate communication about the local flood risk situation within
floodplain areas; this affects not only government managers but also the affected communities.
This study combines flood mark data with flood exposure and vulnerability data to produce a
flood risk assessment map for Quang Nam province. This province is lacking this kind of assessment
map [81], and it can be used by local decision-makers in defining specific flood risk management plans.
The methodology can also potentially be applied to other provinces to generate flood risk assessment
maps using flood mark data.
However, the present study must be interpreted in the context of three main limitations, similar
to other MCDM models. First, we could only recruit two DMs in the local steering committees that are
suitable for participation, but this limitation is within the acceptable limits of other published studies.
The reason is that the AHP model requires a significant number of pairwise comparisons of 55 for our
model. This requires much time to read and answer the questionnaires and is particularly difficult for
non-academic participants. In Vietnam, the staff working in the local steering committees are local
government officials, who work in the committees as a part-time job. While they make key decisions
on local flood risk management activities, and always take cognisance of the local flood hazard features
to make the most appropriate assessment, they are not academic persons. Second, our model lacks
validation, which belongs to the MCDM approach of subjective judgments in weighting indicators [44]
and subjective model validation [82]. Third, more data could be added to analyse flood vulnerability,
such as gender and persons with disabilities; however, such data is not available in the research area.

6. Conclusions
This study provides a new approach to assess flood risk for Quang Nam province and present the
analysis on a GIS-based map, which combines historical flood marks with exposure and vulnerability
data in the assessment using spatial multicriteria decision analysis. We develop a flood risk assessment
model that is capable of rapidly simulating a flood risk map. The result produces a comprehensive
flood risk assessment map for Quang Nam province, which can be utilised by planners and managers
to develop flood risk mitigation measures. Our study contributes to a methodology to build
flood risk assessment maps using flood mark data, which can be applicable to other provinces in
Vietnam. This approach is potentially of particular interest in areas where there is inadequate data for
hydraulic modelling.

Acknowledgments: We thank the Quang Nam Provincial Steering Committee of Natural Disaster Prevention
and Control and Search and Rescue for providing us with the valuable data. Further thanks go to the officers in
the steering committees at provincial, district and commune levels for their sharing of practices and experiences
in flood risk management activities. Chinh Luu acknowledges the University of Newcastle International
Postgraduate Research Scholarship for her research.
Author Contributions: Chinh Luu developed the concept of this study under the supervision of Jason von Meding.
The analysis was carried out by Chinh Luu. Chinh Luu drafted the first version of the manuscript; both authors
worked on improving and finalising the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Water 2018, 10, 461 13 of 16

References
1. Slobodan, P.S. Floods in a Changing Climate: Risk Management; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
UK, 2012.
2. Hirabayashi, Y.; Mahendran, R.; Koirala, S.; Konoshima, L.; Yamazaki, D.; Watanabe, S.; Kim, H.; Kanae, S.
Global flood risk under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 816–821. [CrossRef]
3. Jongman, B.; Winsemius, H.C.; Aerts, J.C.J.H.; Coughlan de Perez, E.; van Aalst, M.K.; Kron, W.; Ward, P.J.
Declining vulnerability to river floods and the global benefits of adaptation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015,
112, 2271–2280. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Tanoue, M.; Hirabayashi, Y.; Ikeuchi, H. Global-scale river flood vulnerability in the last 50 years. Sci. Rep.
2016, 6, 36021. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Brody, S.D.; Zahran, S.; Highfield, W.E.; Grover, H.; Vedlitz, A. Identifying the impact of the built environment
on flood damage in Texas. Disasters 2008, 32, 1–18. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Luu, C.; Von Meding, J.; Kanjanabootra, S.; Pham, D. A Proposed Flood Risk Assessment Method for Central
Vietnam. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Building Resilience, Newcastle, Australia,
10–15 July 2015.
7. WMO. Flood Mapping—Integrated Flood Management Tools Series No. 20; World Meteorological Organization
(WMO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
8. Meyer, V.; Scheuer, S.; Haase, D. A multicriteria approach for flood risk mapping exemplified at the Mulde
river, Germany. Nat. Hazards 2009, 48, 17–39. [CrossRef]
9. Finn, M.P.; Thunen, D. Recent literature in cartography and geographic information science. Cartogr. Geogr.
Inf. Sci. 2014, 41, 393–410. [CrossRef]
10. Foudi, S.; Osés-Eraso, N.; Tamayo, I. Integrated spatial flood risk assessment: The case of Zaragoza.
Land Use Policy 2015, 42, 278–292. [CrossRef]
11. Directive 2007/60/EC. On the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks; European Commission: Brussels,
Belgium, 2007.
12. Dewan, A.; Islam, M.M.; Kumamoto, T.; Nishigaki, M. Evaluating Flood Hazard for Land-Use Planning in
Greater Dhaka of Bangladesh Using Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques. Water Resour. Manag. 2007, 21,
1601–1612. [CrossRef]
13. Jongman, B.; Ward, P.J.; Aerts, J.C.J.H. Global exposure to river and coastal flooding: Long term trends and
changes. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2012, 22, 823–835. [CrossRef]
14. Winsemius, H.C.; Van Beek, L.P.H.; Jongman, B.; Ward, P.J.; Bouwman, A. A framework for global river flood
risk assessments. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 17, 1871–1892. [CrossRef]
15. De Moel, H.; van Alphen, J.; Aerts, J.C.J.H. Flood maps in Europe methods, availability and use. Nat. Hazards
Earth Syst. Sci. 2009, 9, 289–301. [CrossRef]
16. Ward, P.J.; Marfai, M.A.; Yulianto, F.; Hizbaron, D.R.; Aerts, J.C.J.H. Coastal inundation and damage exposure
estimation: A case study for Jakarta. Nat. Hazards 2010, 56, 899–916. [CrossRef]
17. Budiyono, Y.; Aerts, J.; Brinkman, J.; Marfai, M.A.; Ward, P. Flood risk assessment for delta mega-cities:
A case study of Jakarta. Nat. Hazards 2014, 75, 389–413. [CrossRef]
18. Kron, W. Flood Risk = Hazard • Values • Vulnerability. Water Int. 2005, 30, 58–68. [CrossRef]
19. De Moel, H.; Jongman, B.; Kreibich, H.; Merz, B.; Penning-Rowsell, E.; Ward, P.J. Flood risk assessments at
different spatial scales. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2015. [CrossRef]
20. De Bruijn, K.M.; Klijn, F.; van de Pas, B.; Slager, C.T.J. Flood fatality hazard and flood damage hazard:
Combining multiple hazard characteristics into meaningful maps for spatial planning. Nat. Hazards Earth
Syst. Sci. 2015, 15, 1297–1309. [CrossRef]
21. Malczewski, J. GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
22. Dewan, A. Floods in a Megacity: Geospatial Techniques in Assessing Hazards, Risk and Vulnerability; Springer:
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013.
23. Malczewski, J.; Rinner, C. Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Geographic Information Science; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015.
24. Kubal, C.; Haase, D.; Meyer, V.; Scheuer, S. Integrated urban flood risk assessment—Adapting a multicriteria
approach to a city. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2009, 9, 1881–1895. [CrossRef]
Water 2018, 10, 461 14 of 16

25. Scheuer, S.; Haase, D.; Meyer, V. Exploring multicriteria flood vulnerability by integrating economic, social
and ecological dimensions of flood risk and coping capacity: From a starting point view towards an end
point view of vulnerability. Nat. Hazards 2011, 58, 731–751. [CrossRef]
26. Hansson, K.; Danielson, M.; Ekenberg, L.; Buurman, J. Multiple Criteria Decision Making for Flood Risk
Management. In Integrated Catastrophe Risk Modeling; Amendola, A., Ermolieva, T., Linnerooth-Bayer, J.,
Mechler, R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; Volume 32, pp. 53–72.
27. Tran, P.; Marincioni, F.; Shaw, R.; Sarti, M.; Van An, L. Flood risk management in Central Vietnam: Challenges
and potentials. Nat. Hazards 2008, 46, 119–138. [CrossRef]
28. Razafindrabe, B.H.N.; Kada, R.; Arima, M.; Inoue, S. Analyzing flood risk and related impacts to urban
communities in central Vietnam. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2012, 19, 177–198. [CrossRef]
29. Chau, V.N.; Holland, J.; Cassells, S.; Tuohy, M. Using GIS to map impacts upon agriculture from extreme
floods in Vietnam. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 41, 65–74. [CrossRef]
30. Chau, V.N.; Cassells, S.; Holland, J. Economic impact upon agricultural production from extreme flood
events in Quang Nam, central Vietnam. Nat. Hazards 2014, 75, 1747–1765. [CrossRef]
31. Chinh, D.T.; Dung, N.V.; Gain, A.K.; Kreibich, H. Flood Loss Models and Risk Analysis for Private
Households in Can Tho City, Vietnam. Water 2017, 9, 313. [CrossRef]
32. Vu, T.V.; Nguyen, H.T.; Nguyen, T.V.; Nguyen, H.V.; Pham, H.T.T.; Nguyen, L.T. Effects of ENSO on Autumn
Rainfall in Central Vietnam. Adv. Meteorol. 2015, 2015, 264373. [CrossRef]
33. Dang, N.M.; Babel, M.S.; Luong, H.T. Evaluation of flood risk parameters in the Day River Flood Diversion
Area, Red River Delta, Vietnam. Nat. Hazards 2010, 56, 169–194. [CrossRef]
34. Saaty, T.L. What is the Analytic Hierarchy Process? In Mathematical Models for Decision Support; Mitra, G.,
Greenberg, H., Lootsma, F., Rijkaert, M., Zimmermann, H., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
1988; Volume 48, pp. 109–121.
35. De Brito, M.M.; Evers, M. Multi-criteria decision-making for flood risk management: A survey of the current
state of the art. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2016, 16, 1019–1033. [CrossRef]
36. Bruun, O. Sending the Right Bill to the Right People: Climate Change, Environmental Degradation, and
Social Vulnerabilities in Central Vietnam. Weather Clim. Soc. 2012, 4, 250–262. [CrossRef]
37. Luu, C.; Von Meding, J.; Kanjanabootra, S. Assessing flood hazard using flood marks and analytic hierarchy
process approach: A case study for the 2013 flood event in Quang Nam, Vietnam. Nat. Hazards 2018, 90,
1031–1050. [CrossRef]
38. Nam, D.H.; Mai, D.T.; Udo, K.; Mano, A. Short-term flood inundation prediction using hydrologic-hydraulic
models forced with downscaled rainfall from global NWP. Hydrol. Process. 2014, 28, 5844–5859. [CrossRef]
39. Duc Le, A.; Thi Thu Vu, L. Climate Change’s Impact on Natural Hazards in Quang Nam Province,
Mid-Central Vietnam. In On the Frontiers of Climate and Environmental Change; Bruun, O., Casse, T., Eds.;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 91–98.
40. Ramanathan, R. A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment.
J. Environ. Manag. 2001, 63, 27–35. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Vaidya, O.S.; Kumar, S. Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2006, 169,
1–29. [CrossRef]
42. Ishizaka, A.; Labib, A. Analytic Hierarchy Process and Expert Choice: Benefits and limitations. OR Insight
2009, 22, 201–220. [CrossRef]
43. Koczkodaj, W.W.; Magnot, J.P.; Mazurek, J.; Peters, J.F.; Rakhshani, H.; Soltys, M.; Strzałka, D.; Szybowski, J.;
Tozzi, A. On normalization of inconsistency indicators in pairwise comparisons. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 2017,
86, 73–79. [CrossRef]
44. Schmoldt, D.; Kangas, J.; Mendoza, G.A. Basic Principles of Decision Making in Natural Resources and
the Environment. In The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making;
Schmoldt, D., Kangas, J., Mendoza, G., Pesonen, M., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2001;
Volume 3, pp. 1–13.
45. Carmone, F.J., Jr.; Kara, A.; Zanakis, S.H. A Monte Carlo investigation of incomplete pairwise comparison
matrices in AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1997, 102, 538–553. [CrossRef]
46. Harker, P.T. Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Math. Model. 1987, 9,
837–848. [CrossRef]
Water 2018, 10, 461 15 of 16

47. Velasquez, M.; Hester, P.T. An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. Int. J. Oper. Res. 2013, 10,
56–66.
48. Chen, K.; Blong, R.; Jacobson, C. MCE-RISK: Integrating multicriteria evaluation and GIS for risk
decision-making in natural hazards. Environ. Model. Softw. 2001, 16, 387–397. [CrossRef]
49. Kokangül, A.; Polat, U.; Dağsuyu, C. A new approximation for risk assessment using the AHP and Fine
Kinney methodologies. Saf. Sci. 2017, 91, 24–32. [CrossRef]
50. Kienberger, S.; Lang, S.; Zeil, P. Spatial vulnerability units—Expert-based spatial modelling of socio-economic
vulnerability in the Salzach catchment, Austria. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2009, 9, 767–778. [CrossRef]
51. Olson, D.L. Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models. Math. Comput. Model. 2004, 40, 721–727. [CrossRef]
52. Mojtahedi, S.M.H.; Oo, B.L. Coastal buildings and infrastructure flood risk analysis using multi-attribute
decision-making. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2016, 9, 87–96. [CrossRef]
53. Saaty, T.L. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990, 48, 9–26.
[CrossRef]
54. Godfrey, A.; Ciurean, R.L.; van Westen, C.J.; Kingma, N.C.; Glade, T. Assessing vulnerability of buildings to
hydro-meteorological hazards using an expert based approach—An application in Nehoiu Valley, Romania.
Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2015, 13, 229–241. [CrossRef]
55. Plattner, T.; Plapp, T.; Hebel, B. Integrating public risk perception into formal natural hazard risk assessment.
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2006, 6, 471–483. [CrossRef]
56. Zou, Q.; Zhou, J.; Zhou, C.; Song, L.; Guo, J. Comprehensive flood risk assessment based on set pair
analysis-variable fuzzy sets model and fuzzy AHP. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2012, 27, 525–546.
[CrossRef]
57. Papaioannou, G.; Vasiliades, L.; Loukas, A. Multi-Criteria Analysis Framework for Potential Flood Prone
Areas Mapping. Water Resour. Manag. 2014, 29, 399–418. [CrossRef]
58. Kandilioti, G.; Makropoulos, C. Preliminary flood risk assessment: The case of Athens. Nat. Hazards 2012, 61,
441–468. [CrossRef]
59. Li, G.-F.; Xiang, X.-Y.; Tong, Y.-Y.; Wang, H.-M. Impact assessment of urbanization on flood risk in the
Yangtze River Delta. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2013, 27, 1683–1693. [CrossRef]
60. Maaskant, B.; Jonkman, S.N.; Bouwer, L.M. Future risk of flooding: An analysis of changes in potential loss
of life in South Holland (The Netherlands). Environ. Sci. Policy 2009, 12, 157–169. [CrossRef]
61. Crichton, D. The Risk Triangle. In Natural Disaster Management; Ingleton, J., Ed.; Tudor Rose Holdings
Limited: Leicester, UK, 1999; pp. 102–103.
62. UNISDR. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. 2015. Available online: https://www.unisdr.
org/we/inform/publications/42809 (accessed on 5 June 2017).
63. Field, C.B.; Barros, V.; Stocker, T.F.; Qin, D.; Dokken, D.J.; Ebi, K.L.; Mastrandrea, M.D.; Mach, K.J.;
Plattner, G.-K.; Allen, S.K.; et al. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate
Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC); Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2012.
64. Kobayashi, Y.; Porter, J.W. Flood Risk Management in the People’s Republic of China: Learning to Live with Flood
Risk; Asian Development Bank: Mandaluyong City, Philippines, 2012.
65. Gain, A.K.; Mojtahed, V.; Biscaro, C.; Balbi, S.; Giupponi, C. An integrated approach of flood risk assessment
in the eastern part of Dhaka City. Nat. Hazards 2015, 79, 1499–1530. [CrossRef]
66. Ronco, P.; Bullo, M.; Torresan, S.; Critto, A.; Olschewski, R.; Zappa, M.; Marcomini, A. KULTURisk regional
risk assessment methodology for water-related natural hazards—Part 2: Application to the Zurich case
study. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2015, 19, 1561–1576. [CrossRef]
67. Boudou, M.; Lang, M.; Vinet, F.; Cœur, D. Comparative hazard analysis of processes leading to remarkable
flash floods (France, 1930–1999). J. Hydrol. 2016, 541, 533–552. [CrossRef]
68. Te Linde, A.H.; Bubeck, P.; Dekkers, J.E.C.; de Moel, H.; Aerts, J.C.J.H. Future flood risk estimates along the
river Rhine. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 11, 459–473. [CrossRef]
69. Ouma, Y.; Tateishi, R. Urban Flood Vulnerability and Risk Mapping Using Integrated Multi-Parametric AHP
and GIS: Methodological Overview and Case Study Assessment. Water 2014, 6, 1515–1545. [CrossRef]
70. Penning-Rowsell, E.; Floyd, P.; Ramsbottom, D.; Surendran, S. Estimating Injury and Loss of Life in Floods:
A Deterministic Framework. Nat. Hazards 2005, 36, 43–64. [CrossRef]
Water 2018, 10, 461 16 of 16

71. Terti, G.; Ruin, I.; Gourley, J.J.; Kirstetter, P.; Flamig, Z.; Blanchet, J.; Arthur, A.; Anquetin, S. Toward
Probabilistic Prediction of Flash Flood Human Impacts. Risk Anal. 2017. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
72. Wang, Y.; Li, Z.; Tang, Z.; Zeng, G. A GIS-Based Spatial Multi-Criteria Approach for Flood Risk Assessment
in the Dongting Lake Region, Hunan, Central China. Water Resour. Manag. 2011, 25, 3465–3484. [CrossRef]
73. Peduzzi, P.; Dao, H.; Herold, C.; Mouton, F. Assessing global exposure and vulnerability towards natural
hazards: The Disaster Risk Index. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2009, 9, 1149–1159. [CrossRef]
74. Winsemius, H.C.; Jongman, B.; Veldkamp, T.; Hallegatte, S.; Bangalore, M.; Ward, P. Disaster Risk, Climate
Change, and Poverty: Assessing the Global Exposure of Poor People to Floods and Droughts; The World Bank:
Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
75. Bouwer, L.M.; Bubeck, P.; Aerts, J.C.J.H. Changes in future flood risk due to climate and development in a
Dutch polder area. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010, 20, 463–471. [CrossRef]
76. Saaty, T.L. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 1977, 15, 234–281.
[CrossRef]
77. Saaty, T.L. Group Decision Making and the AHP. In The Analytic Hierarchy Process; Golden, B., Wasil, E.,
Harker, P., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1989; pp. 59–67.
78. Whitaker, R.; Adams, W. Developers of Superdecisions Software; Decisions Foundation: Pittsburgh, PA,
USA, 2005.
79. Tran, P.; Shaw, R.; Chantry, G.; Norton, J. GIS and local knowledge in disaster management: A case study of
flood risk mapping in Viet Nam. Disasters 2009, 33, 152–169. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
80. Vojinovic, Z. Flood Risk: The Holistic Perspective—From Integrated to Interactive Planning for Flood Resilience;
IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2015.
81. Luu, C.; Von Meding, J.; Kanjanabootra, S. Flood risk management activities in Vietnam: A study of local
practice in Quang Nam province. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018. [CrossRef]
82. De Brito, M.M.; Evers, M.; Almoradie, A.D.S. Participatory flood vulnerability assessment: A multi-criteria
approach. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 22, 373–390. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).