Analysis of spatial policy_making of flood risk management in the villages of Gorganrood watershed of Golestan province

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
S. M. mousavi parsaie 1
M. tavakoli 2
M. pourtaher 2
1 PhD student of Tarbiat Modares University
2 Faculty member of Tarbiat Modares University
Abstract
Introduction

Spatial policy regarding flood risk management is a series of actions that are aimed at achieving a logical solution in reducing the damage caused by floods and reducing the spread of floods (Sinha et al., 2020). The impact of devastating floods on global lives and livelihoods is growing. Large-scale floods caused 104 billion US dollars in damages globally between 2000 and 2015 (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015). As the climate changes, populations increase, and demand for housing and infrastructure grows, now more than ever, society needs to manage its flood risk and adapt to climate change. For this reason, achieving a spatial and logical comprehensive policy in flood risk management in a way that is efficient and sustainable, in research, policies and practice, requires (related program in flood management, 2017). Accordingly, the issue raised here is that; among the mentioned indicators, which of them is more important in making the spatial policy of rural flood risk management more efficient? Based on this, the necessity of research in this direction is that the present research has first identified all the items related to the indicators. Then he examines the importance of each of them in order to be able to answer this research problem.

Methodology

The method of the present research is applied in terms of purpose and descriptive-analytical in terms of the nature of information gathering. The method of data collection in this research will be both library and field. In the first step, library studies related to the research title will be used to compile the research literature, background, and theoretical foundations of the research. In addition, in the second step, it is used in the field and quantitatively by using the questionnaire tool to check the hypotheses of the research. The statistical population of this research consists of experts in the field, including faculty members specializing in this field, graduates and doctoral students with the title of a related thesis, and people in charge of the field, for this purpose, 70 samples have been selected (explained in the table below). From their point of view, the related questionnaire has a favorable level of validity and reliability with Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.97, which shows a very favorable level. Finally, one-way ANOVA (F) statistical test was used to analyze the data obtained from the mentioned questionnaire for the items of each index and finally all the indices.

Result and discussion

According to the problem stated in the introduction, in order to examine the importance of various indicators in the spatial policy of rural flood risk management, to examine the status of each of the five indicators (environmental, economic, social-cultural, managerial-institutional) and physical (land use)) deals with spatial policy of rural flood risk management To be able to identify the various aspects of the importance of each of the indicators and finally respond to the problem according to the opinions of the sample community.

To determine the importance of each of the indicators on the spatial policy of rural flood risk management, we have used Duncan's post hoc test, and the output of this test is grouped into three spectrums. They are classified according to their importance. So that the environmental index is the least important with a value of 2.9484 in spectrum one along with the economic index with a value of 3.1056, but the economic index is due to its proximity to social-cultural indicators with a value of 3.2381 and managerial-institutional indicators. With the value of 3105.3, they are the same shade in the spectrum and these two indicators (social-cultural and managerial-institutional) are placed in the third spectrum because of their proximity to the importance of the physical index (land use) and the only index that is the individual is placed in a spectrum and group. It is the physical index (land use) which is placed in the third group with the value of 3.4186 and has the largest sub-set for alpha, which shows the greater importance of this index on the spatial policy of management. The flood risk for the villages located in the watershed of Gorgan River in Golestan province has been that the following graph, which is the output of Duncan's post hoc test, also indicates the same performance of the indicators that as can be seen, environmental indicators are the least important. In addition, after that, the social-cultural index is the least important, and then the economic index and then the administrative-institutional index play a more important role. Finally, the physical indicators (land use) are the most important. The category of significance level, which is stated below the three groups, shows the lack of significance within the groups because of the closeness of their performance within each of the three spectrums.

Conclusion

According to the investigations carried out in the present study in two steps, first, through the study of available sources, the effective indicators and items in the spatial policy of rural flood risk management have been identified. Based on this, 5 indicators and 120 items have been identified. In order to check the importance of each of them, according to the type of indicators, ANOVA test (one-way analysis of variance) was used, the results of which can be summarized as follows: in the inter-group and intra-group sections. It is possible to understand the level of output desirability according to the average of squares and the sum of squares But what is important and effective in the ANOVA test output table is the F test statistic and the significance level value, which the test statistic number is 6.229 and the significance level value is 99 percent, which shows the very high importance of the five indicators on politics. Spatial planning is rural flood risk management. Based on this, Duncan's test was used to determine the importance of each of the indicators separately, and the results show that the output of this test is that the indicators are grouped into three spectrums, the reason for this problem Three spectrums are categorized according to their importance, So that the environmental index is the least important with a value of 2.9484 in spectrum one along with the economic index with a value of 3.1056, but the economic index is due to its proximity to social-cultural indicators with a value of 3.2381 and managerial-institutional indicators. With the value of 3105.3, they are the same shade in the spectrum and these two indicators (social-cultural and managerial-institutional) are placed in the third spectrum because of their proximity to the importance of the physical index (land use) and the only index that is Separately, it is placed in a spectrum and group, it is the physical index (land use), which is placed in the third group with a value of 3.4186, and has the largest subset for alpha.This shows the greater importance of this index on the spatial policy of flood risk management for the villages located in the Gorgan River watershed of Golestan province, and the following graph, which is the output of Duncan's post hoc test, also indicates the same performance of the indicators. As it can be seen, the environmental indicators are the least important, then the socio-cultural index is the least important, and then the economic index and then the administrative-institutional index play a more important role. Finally, physical indicators (land use) have the most importance in the spatial policy of rural flood risk management.

Keywords

Subjects

1. بدری سیدعلی ، رضوانی محمدرضا و خدادادی پروین، (1398)، طراحی الگوی چالش های تدوین سیاستگذاری فضایی مناطق روستایی کشور، فصلنامه مجلس و راهبرد، سال بیست وششم، شماره 99.
2. حاجی بیگلو، محبوبه ، شیخ واحدبردی،(1396)، تحلیل مدیریت ریسک سیلاب براساس مفاهیم خطر، مواجهه و آسیب پذیری با ارائه چارچوب‌ها و مدل‌ها، نشریه آب و توسعه پایدار، سال پنجم، شماره 1، ص 73-82
3. شکری، شهاب الدین و آرکیوف آلکسی، اوریج و فیلوننکوبولیا، ویاچسلاواونا و اسپیریدانوا بلوکریلوا، اولگا و مارینا، سانیکوا (1398)، تببین نقش سیاست‌گذاری بر نهادسازی مدیریت مخاطرات در مناطق روستایی و کشاورزی روستو آن دن در فدراسیون روسیه، پژوهش‌های تروجی و آموزش کشاورزی، دوره 12 شماره 1، صص 54-39.
4. Tempels B, Hartmann T (2014) A co-evolving frontier between land and water: dilemmas of flexibility versus robustness in flood risk management. Water Int 39: 872-883.
5. Saidi, A. (2013), Structural-functional dynamism, an alternative approach in apatial planning. Journal of Space economy and rural development, (1), pages 1-18.
6. Hartmann T, Spit T (2016a) Legitimizing differentiated flood protection levels – Consequences of the European flood risk management plan. Environ Sci Policy 55: 361-367.
7. Foudi S., Osés-Eraso N. and Tamayo I. 2015, Integrated spatial flood risk assessment: The case of Zaragoza,. Land Use Policy Journal, 42: 278–292.
8. Erdlenbruch K., Thoyer S., Grelot F., Kast R. and Enjolras G. 2009., Risk-sharing in the context of the French Flood Prevention Action Programmes, Environ. Manage Journal, 91: 363–369.
9. Evers M., Jonoski A., Almoradie A. and Lange L. 2016., Collaborative decision making in sustainable flood risk management: A socio-technical approach and tools for participatory governance, Environmental Science & Policy Journal, 55(1): 335–344
10. UNISDR. 2015. Making development sustainable: the future of disaster risk management. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.18356/bd3a73ea-en.
11. Associated Programme on Flood Management (APFM). 2017. Selecting measures and designing strategies for integrated flood management - a guidance document. Associated Programme on Flood Management.
12. Samuels P, van Os A (2008) Towards flood risk management in the EU: State of affairs with examples from various European countries. Int J River Basin Manage 6: 307-321.
13. de Bruijn, K., F. Klijn, M. Caroline, M. Marjolein, and W. Henk. 2008. Long-term strategies for flood risk management: scenario definition and strategic alternative design. Floodsite report T14-08-01.
14. WMO. 2009. Integrated Flood Management Concept Paper. Geneva.
15. Tanner, P.; Rentschler, T.; Davis, I.; Wisner, B. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters; Routledge: London, UK, 2015.
16. Cash, D. W., W. N. Adger, F. Berkes, P. Garden, L. Lebel, P. Olsson, L. Pritchard, and O. Young. 2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society 11(2):8.
17. Dore, J., and L. Lebel. 2010. Deliberation and scale in mekong region water governance. Environmental Management 46(1):60–80.
18. Mostert, E., M. Craps, and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2008. Social learning: The key to integrated water resources management? Water International 33(3):293–304.
19. Young, O. 2006. Vertical interplay among scale-dependent environmental and resource regimes. Ecology and Society 11(1).
20. Van Buuren, A., G. J. Ellen, and J. F. Warner. 2016. Path dependency and policy learning in the Dutch delta: toward more resilient flood risk management in the Netherlands? Ecology and Society 21(4):43. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08765-210443
21. Ran, J., and Z. Nedovic-Budic. 2016. Integrating spatial planning and flood risk management: A new conceptual framework for the spatially integrated policy infrastructure. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 57:68–79.
22. Carpenter, S., B. Walker, J. M. Anderies, and N. Abel. 2001. From Metaphor to Measurement: Resilience of What to What? Ecosystems 4:765–781
23. public, J.E., Booher, D.E., 2021. Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Plan. Theor. Pract. 5 (4), 419–436.
24. Statistical Center of Iran. 2020. Available online: https://www.amar.org.ir (accessed on 10 September 2020).
25. Report of East Azerbaijan Province. 2019. Available online: https://azsharghi.mporg.ir/ (accessed on 15 September 2020).
26. MohitPrakashMohanty,VittalH,VinayYadav,SubimalGhosh,GoruSrinivasaRao,SubhankarKarmakar.,(2020) A new bivariate risk classifier for flood management considering hazard and socio-economic dimensions, Journal of Environmental ManagementVolume 255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109733
27. Nordbeck Ralf , Steurer Reinhard & Löschner Lukas, (2019), The future orientation of Austria’s flood policies: from flood control to anticipatory flood risk management, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management ,Volume 62, Issue 11, PP 1864-1885.
28. Cumiskey, Lydia Ruth (2020), A framework for assessing integration in Flood Risk Management with applications to England and Serbia, Middlesex University London in partial fulfillment, Flood Hazard Research Centre, Department of Natural Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology.