This paper presents the results of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach for flood risk and sediment management in dynamic alluvial fan. The study is based on real problems of Koshi River, Nepal. Criteria weighting for each measure were estimated using Entropy, AHP and AHP-Entropy techniques. Preference ranking of alternatives was prioritized using MCDM methods—ELECTRE, TOPSIS and SAW. Five alternate measures for flood risk management and eight alternate measures for sediment control with seven evaluation criteria comprising economic, social, environmental and political aspects were taken into account. The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between the criteria weighting techniques AHP and AHP-Entropy, Entropy and AHP-Entropy and AHP with Entropy were 0.964, 0.429 and 0.321 respectively. Preference ranks were determined using nine combinations of criteria weighting techniques and preference ranking methods. In the case of flood risk management, using of old Koshi channel was recommended as the highest prioritized solution. Similarly, for sediment control, reduction of upstream sediment supply was recommended as the top prioritized measures. The Euclidean distance test for each pairs of criteria weighting and prioritization methods showed all three MCDM methods of preference ranking were sensitive to weighting. On implementation of the recommended measures, local people of Sunsari, Saptari and Morang districts of Nepal will be highly benefited.
Nepal is one of the worst flood-affected countries and frequently suffers from different kinds of water-induced disasters like landslides, debris flow, flooding and sedimentation. Most of the major rivers, which flow through Nepalese territory, are of snow fed characteristics and trans-boundary type. They originate from the Himalayas; flows through Siwaliks and Terai plain before crossing the Nepal-India border and are taken as the boon to these areas. However, during the monsoon season these rivers suffering from flash flooding become devastatingly hostile, cause damages to the infrastructures, farmland, settlements, and lives, and thereby become curse to these regions at the same time. Flood control in Nepal especially in the Terai region (Southern flat plain of Nepal) is a relatively recent issue. Until the middle of the past century natural forests covered the Terai and population was limited, also because of the malaria risks. After the eradication of malaria and the related deforestation the population density of the Terai increased substantially, amongst by the migration from hill tribes into the Terai. The forests were cut to allow for amongst others indigo plantations [
The Koshi River is one of the major rivers in South Asia having snow fed characteristics. The Koshibasin is roughly located between 85˚ to 89˚ east longitude and 25˚ to 29˚ north latitude. The Koshi is a trans-boundary river, originating in Tibet, flowing through the Himalaya, through the eastern part of Nepal and the flat plain of Indian north territory [
Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) is a decision support tool that describes a set of methods for structuring and evaluating alternatives on the basis of multiple criteria and objectives [
Since 1960s, dozens of MCDM techniques have been developed [
The rest of this paper is structured in the following manner. A description of the study area is presented in Section 2. In Section 3, a brief review of materials and methods is provided. Section 4 summaries results. Analysis of results and discussion are dealt in Section 5. Finally, the conclusion is reported in section 7 followed by sensitivity analysis in Section 6.
The Koshi River is a trans-boundary river flowing through Tibet (China), Nepal and India. It is one of the largest tributaries of the Ganges River. The entire Koshi river basin has an area of 69,300 km2 up to its confluence with Ganges in India, out of which 29,400 km2 lies in China, 30,700 km2 in Nepal and 9200 km2 in India. The Koshi basin occupies eastern part of Nepal (
Koshi River in Nepal has seven major tributaries: Sunkoshi, Tamakoshi, Dudhkoshi, Indrawati, Likhu, Arun and Tamor. At Barahkshetra in Nepal it emerges from mountains and becomes the Koshi River. After flowing another 58 km it crosses into Bihar (India) near Bhimnagar and after another 260 km joins
the Ganges near Kursela. The river has a total length of 729 km. The study area (
The stretch between Chatara to Bhimnagar is steeply sloped. Downstream of Bhimnagar, the fan spreads out laterally with decreased slope having a radius of approximate 100 km. The Koshi fan covers both Nepal and Indian territory (North Bihar) extending to an area of about 11,000 km2. The Koshi alluvial fan is flat country like any other floodplain with its apex at Chatara (Nepal). Over 200 years, as the result of avulsions, the river has shifted its course over 120 km from east to west (
Annual rainfall in the Koshi plains is spatially distributed ranging from 1000 mm to 1600 mm. The average annual discharge at Chatara hydrological station (station no. 695) is recorded 1800 m3/s. At Chatara, total annual sediment load is estimated 100 million m3, out of which 60 million m3 is bed load and suspended load and rest 40 million m3 is considered wash load. Approximately 30 - 40 million m3 of sediment load is presumed to be deposited annually between Chatara to Kursela [
Long-term visions of flood management strategies are the starting point to reduce the problems of Koshi River system. Both structural and non-structural
flood risk management are the part of these management strategies. This study focuses on solutions of flood risk management incorporating both permanent and recurrent measures. The solutions are based on previous studies [
In this measure, the height of the embankments is designed to increase over time, following the increase of bed level and flood levels of the Koshi River as in Yelow River in China (
In this measure, a second line of defence (dark black line) is constructed as sleeper dikes (
Alternatives | ||
---|---|---|
Hydraulic measures | S.N | Sediment control measures |
Increasing the height of embankments over time (Q1) | 1 | Reduction of supply of sediments (S1) |
Sleeper dikes (Q2) | 2 | Koshi high dam (S2) |
The use of an old Koshi course (Q3) | 3 | Narrowing of the river with permanent structures (S3) |
Controlled flooding, flood storage (Q4) | 4 | Narrowing of the river with recurrent measures (S4) |
Koshi high dam (Q5) | 5 | Dredging (S5) |
6 | Controlled flooding using old course (S5) | |
7 | Controlled flooding with storage areas (S6) | |
8 | Removing embankments and Koshi barrage (S7) |
In this intended solution, the flood peak is lowered by extracting discharge by the use of an old course during the flood (
In this measure, the flood peak is supposed to be lowered by extracting discharge using selected and prepared inundation areas (
and rebuilt later on. Merits of this intended solution are the reduction of discharge downstream, which results in smaller loads on the embankments, and people are prepared with known location of inundation. However, it requires construction of levees around villages and there is risk to destroy other levee by people to protect their own land.
In this measure, a high dam is constructed, located somewhere between Tribeni and Chatara, to control the floods (
The different regions including the high Himalaya, Mountains, Siwaliks and Terai which the Koshi River passes (
slopes and weakly consolidated layers of bedrock, subject to severe surface erosion. High intensity rainfall produces high erosion and torrent flows. Mass wasting is exceptionally high throughout the Siwalik. The Terai region is the flat land as in
Possible measures to reduce such sediment supply are bottom or bank protection; check dams and reforestation to decrease the supply of sediment at its origin. The processes which are responsible for the high sediment load of the river i.e. landslides, bank and bottom erosion and GLOFs, have to be reduced.
This alternative is common to hydraulic measures (
In this measure, permanent structures are constructed narrowing the river to close off channels (
In this measure, certain channels are closed off and the river is narrowed by recurrent river training measures (
flow velocities and the sediment load is transported over longer distances. The channels are also diverted away from the embankments. This solution isn’t so expensive. It’s a flexible application, learning by doing. There may uncertainty about effectiveness and may be risk of bypassing. Experienced people are needed for effective implementation.
In this measure, annual deposited sediment between Chatara to the Koshi barrage is dredged and deposited elsewhere thus maintaining the riverbed at a constant level. The merit of this measure is that it is workable and has no impact on nature. Only the deposited sediments of around 20 million m3 have to be dredged annually. Managing the space to store the dredged sand is a big challenge. It is expensive and spending huge amount annually may be difficult for local authority.
In this measure, discharge and sediment are extracted out of the embanked system and flushed away by the use of an old course in high discharge (
In this measure, water and sediment are temporarily stored with regulating system in low areas (
In this measure, embankments and the Koshi barrage are supposed to be removed without regulation of the Koshi River. Additional measures should be taken to build shelter areas, raising villages or construct embankments around villages thus marking valuable or less valuable areas and to sacrifice the less valuable areas in case of a flooding or an avulsion. This solution provides a lot of space for sediment deposition resulting the formation of inland delta. No disaster on the scale of 2008 flood is envisaged. However, many smaller floods over the alluvial fan may cause big damage. Removing of embankments will cause instant flooding. Indian government may also be reluctant to implement this measure as Koshi barrage has helped to flood control during monsoon reducing the damage due to flood in northern Bihar, India.
Flood imposes destruction effects on social, ecological and economic environment and threatens sustainable development of flood prone areas. Flood management can be an integrated solution if social, environmental and economical instabilities of the region due to destruction of floods are controlled. So, each alternative should be evaluated with economic, technical, social and environmental aspects. In addition, in this particular case being a trans-boundary river and treaty between two sovereign government authorities, political cooperation is also considered a criterion. Based on stakeholder’s opinion, the considered criteria are discussed briefly as below:
1) Costs: It includes design, construction, maintenance and expropriating of land costs as well.
2) Technical complexity: Feasibility of the solution is analyzed under these criteria. If it is very complex the uncertainty and risk of failure of intended solution presumed to be increased resulting unfeasible solution.
3) Social impact: This criterion indicates safety of the local people and impact on society thus reducing the risk of flooding under the implementation of intended solution as both for short and long term solution.
4) Time for implementation: This criterion discusses the required time of implementation of the intended solution for its effectiveness.
5) Environmental impact: This criterion deals with the impact of intended solution on environment especially focusing on influence of intended solution to local people, their lives, land and displacements if any. It also covers impacts on the flora and fauna after the implementation of intended solution.
6) Impact on irrigated area: This criterion covers the impact on existing irrigation facilities especially head works, canals under Morang-Sunsari irrigation project which currently serving thousands of hectares of command area both in Nepal and India.
7) Cooperation with India: -being a trans-boundary river both governments of India and Nepal have signed a treaty on Koshi River in 1953. For the implementation of any intended solution needs cooperation in political level between both government authorities.
The methodology of this study is basically formulated in the sequences of criteria weighting, preference ranking of alternatives and recommendation of optimal alternatives with established MCDM techniques. Based on advantages and disadvantages, stakeholder’s opinion, each criteria are valued in very positive (+++) to very negative (−−−). Indicators for each alternative and criteria for both hydraulic measures and sediment control measures are summarized in
Alternatives | Criteria | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Short description | Costs | Technical complexity solution | Social impact | Time for implementation | Environmental impact | Impact on irrigated area | Cooperation with India | |||
Hydraulic measures | Q1 | Raising embankments | +++ | ++ | −−− | +++ | +++ | +++ | − | |
Q2 | Sleeper dikes | + | +++ | ++ | ++ | −− | − | +++ | ||
Q3 | Use of old Koshi channel | −− | ++ | − | − | − | − | −− | ||
Q4 | Flood storage | − | + | + | − | − | + | ++ | ||
Q5 | Koshi High Dam | −−− | −− | ++ | −−− | −− | −−− | +/− | ||
Sediment control measures | S1 | Reduction of upstream sediment supply | −−− | +++ | − | −−− | + | − | +++ | |
S2 | Koshi High Dam | −−− | −− | +++ | −−− | −−− | − | −−− | ||
S3 | Narrowing of river by permanent structures | −− | +++ | − | −− | +++ | +/− | −− | ||
S4 | Narrowing of river by recurrent measures | +/− | ++ | +/− | ++ | +++ | ++ | − | ||
S5 | Dredging | −−− | + | − | + | ++ | − | −− | ||
S6 | Controlled flooding and sedimentation using old course | −− | − | ++ | − | −− | − | −− | ||
S7 | Controlled flooding, with deposition areas | −− | −− | −−− | −− | −− | −− | ++ | ||
S8 | Removing embankments and Koshi barrage | −− | + | + | −− | −−− | −−− | −− |
Definition | Intensity of Importance |
---|---|
Equal Importance | 1 |
Moderate Importance | 3 |
Strong Importance | 5 |
Very Strong Importance | 7 |
Extreme Importance | 9 |
Can be used to express intermediate values | 2, 4, 6, 8 |
hydraulic measures and sediment control measures for all criteria weighting indexes estimated from entropy, AHP and combination of both are assessed by three MCDM methods―ELECTRE, TOPSIS and SAW. Results for combinations of criteria weighting techniques and preference ranking methods are averaged and final preference ranking is determined.
w j = v j u j ∑ j = 1 n v j ∗ u j (1)
where, wj = final weight of the composition of Entropy and AHP, vj = Entropy weighting index, uj = AHP weighting index.
ELECTRE is a family of MCDM methods that originated in Europe and was first proposed by Bernard Roy in mid-1960s [
TOPSIS is a MCDM method originally developed by Hwang and Yoon in 1981 with further developments by Yoon in 1987, and Hwang, Lai and Liu in 1993 [
SAW abbreviated for Simple Additive Weighting, which is also known as, weighted linear combination or scoring methods is a simple and most often used multi attribute decision technique. The method is based on the weighted average. It is one of the simplest methods of the MCDM methods [
Altogether nine combinations of criteria weighting and preference ranking MCDM methods are analyzed to prioritize alternatives for both hydraulic measures and sediment control measures and results are presented in tabular form (
From the final ranking of alternatives the preferred solutions for hydraulic measures can be prioritized as follow:
Q3 > Q5 > Q2 > Q4 > Q1
Where, AE-E = weighting by AHP and Entropy and preference ranking by ELECTRE method, AE-T = Weighting by AHP and Entropy and preference ranking by TOPSIS method, AE-S = Weighting by AHP and Entropy and
Indicator | Score | Criteria | Weightage | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Entropy | AHP | AHP & Entropy | |||
Positive (+) | 50 | Cost (C1) | 0.360 | 0.434 | 0.602 |
More positive (++) | 75 | Social impact (C2) | 0.383 | 0.225 | 0.333 |
Very positive (+++) | 100 | Technical complexity solution (C3) | 0.054 | 0.036 | 0.008 |
Negative (−) | 40 | Time for implementation (C4) | 0.043 | 0.147 | 0.024 |
More negative (−−) | 20 | Environmental impact (C5) | 0.057 | 0.047 | 0.010 |
Very negative (−−−) | 10 | Impact on irrigated area (C6) | 0.050 | 0.049 | 0.010 |
Cooperation with India (C7) | 0.053 | 0.061 | 0.013 |
Alternatives | Combination of weightage and preference ranking methods | Average | Final Preference Rank | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AE-E | AE-T | AE-S | EE | ET | ES | AE | AT | AS | |||
Q1 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4.00 | 5 |
Q2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2.67 | 3 |
Q3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1.67 | 1 |
Q4 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2.78 | 4 |
Q5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2.11 | 2 |
Alternatives | Combination of weightage and preference ranking methods | Average | Final Preference Rank | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AE-E | AE-T | AE-S | EE | ET | ES | AE | AT | AS | |||
S1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1.89 | 1 |
S2 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.33 | 5 |
S3 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 4.00 | 4 |
S4 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 3.00 | 2 |
S5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3.44 | 3 |
S6 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 5.00 | 6 |
S7 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 5.56 | 7 |
S8 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 5.89 | 8 |
preference ranking by SAW method, EE = Weighting by Entropy and preference ranking by ELECTRE method, ET = Weighting by Entropy and preference ranking by TOPSIS method, ES = Weighting by Entropy and preference ranking by SAW method, AE = Weighting by AHP and preference ranking by ELECTRE method, AT = Weighting by AHP and preference ranking by TOPSIS method, AS = Weighting by AHP and preference ranking by SAW method.
From the final ranking of alternatives the preferred solutions for sediment control measures can be prioritized as follow:
S1 > S4 > S5 > S3 > S2 > S6 > S7 > S8
Based on this study, it is evident that different alternative solutions of flood risk and sediment control measures of Koshi alluvial fan have different prioritization levels (
For sediment control measures, among nine combinations of criteria weighting and preference ranking methods, an alternate measure, reduction of upstream sediment supply (S1) is first prioritized with all combinations of criteria weighting techniques Entropy, AHP, AHP & Entropy and preference ranking method SAW (
The recommended measures are also assessed against sustainability. Fairness, reversibility, risk and consensus are four conceptual criteria recommended by Simonovic [
The results of this study can be utilized by local authority as base line information for the structural measures for sustainable flood risk management and sediment control. On implementation of the recommended measures, local people of Saptari, Sunsari and Morang districts of Nepal will be highly benefited. The surrounding areas can be protected from inundation thus ensuring safety of local people. More agricultural lands can be reclaimed enhancing local people’s economic condition. Moreover, the recommended measures protect the environment and using embanked old Koshi channel creates opportunity to flora and fauna as well.
The weighting indexes are estimated using Entropy, AHP and combination of Entropy and AHP methods. The correlation between these indexes is determined by Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. The Spearman correlation between two variables is equal to the Pearson correlation between the rank values of those two variables. If there are no repeated data values, a perfect Spearman correlation of +1 or −1 occurs when each of the variables is a perfect monotone function of the other. Intuitively, the Spearman correlation between two variables will be high when observations have a similar rank between the two variables, and low when observations have a dissimilar rank between the two variables. Mathematically, Spearman correlation coefficient (γs) is computed as:
γ s = 1 − 6 ∑ d i 2 n ( n 2 − 1 ) (2)
where, di = difference between the two ranks of each observation, n = number of observation.
The results (
The correlation status shows that results of the two techniques, Entropy and AHP, are not correlated. In other words, the results of these techniques are very different from each other. On the other hand, the combination of weighting techniques AHP and AHP-Entropy possess high correlation showing the closer results. Moreover, a combination of Entropy and AHP-Entropy possess low correlation.
Weighting technique | Spearman’ rank correlation coefficient |
---|---|
AHP and Entropy | 0.321 |
Entropy and AHP-Entropy | 0.429 |
AHP and AHP-Entropy | 0.964 |
Correlation status | Weighting technique |
---|---|
Lack of correlation | AHP and Entropy |
Correlation | Entropy and AHP-Entropy |
Correlation | AHP and AHP-Entropy |
Sensitivity analysis of the preference raking results is carried out determining and comparing Euclidean distance for each pairs of criteria weighting and prioritization techniques. Altogether 36 pairs are formed and Euclidean distance for each pair is determined (
In
Multi-criteria decision making approaches were applied to assess prioritization of technical measures for flood risk management and sediment control in Koshi alluvial fan. Criteria weighting indexes were estimated using weighting techniques Entropy, AHP and AHP-Entropy. Preference ranking of alternatives of technical measures was completed using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods―ELECTRE, TOPSIS and SAW. Five alternate measures for flood risk management and eight alternate measures for sediment control with seven evaluation criteria comprising economic, social, political and environmental aspects were taken into account. The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient and t-test showed strong correlation between the criteria weighting techniques AHP and AHP-Entropy, weak correlation between Entropy and AHP-Entropy and no correlation between AHP and Entropy. Preference ranks were determined using nine combinations of criteria weighting techniques and preference ranking methods. Considering average value of results for all nine combinations, alternate measures were prioritized and recommended. In the case of flood risk management, among intended hydraulic measures, using of old Koshi channel was recommended as the highest prioritized and raising embankments, the least prioritized measure. Similarly, for sediment control, reduction of upstream sediment supply and removing embankments and Koshi barrage were recommended as top and least prioritized measures respectively. The Euclidean distance test for each pair of criteria weighting and prioritization
S.N | Techniques compared | Euclidean distance | S.N | Techniques compared | Euclidean distance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | (AE-E)-(AE-T) | 4.243 | 19 | (AE-S)-(AE) | 4.243 |
2 | (AE-E)-(AE-S) | 4.472 | 20 | (AE-S)-(AT) | 2.000 |
3 | (AE-E)-(EE) | 0.000 | 21 | (AE-S)-(AS) | 0.000 |
4 | (AE-E)-(ET) | 4.243 | 22 | EE-ET | 4.243 |
5 | (AE-T)-(ES) | 4.690 | 23 | EE-ES | 4.690 |
6 | (AE-E)-(AE) | 2.000 | 24 | EE-AE | 2.000 |
7 | (AE-E)-(AT) | 4.243 | 25 | EE-AT | 4.243 |
8 | (AE-E)-(AS) | 4.472 | 26 | EE-AS | 4.472 |
9 | (AE-T)-(AE-S) | 2.000 | 27 | ET-ES | 3.742 |
10 | (AE-T)-(EE) | 4.243 | 28 | ET-AE | 3.162 |
11 | (AE-T)-(ET) | 2.828 | 29 | ET-AT | 2.828 |
12 | (AE-T)-(ES) | 4.243 | 30 | ET-AS | 3.464 |
13 | (AE-T)-(AE) | 3.162 | 31 | ES-AE | 5.099 |
14 | (AE-T)-(AT) | 0.000 | 32 | ES-AT | 4.243 |
15 | (AE-T)-(AS) | 2.000 | 33 | ES-AS | 2.828 |
16 | (AE-S)-(EE) | 4.472 | 34 | AE-AT | 3.162 |
17 | (AE-S)-(ET) | 3.464 | 35 | AE-AS | 4.243 |
18 | (AE-S)-(ES) | 2.828 | 36 | AT-AS | 2.000 |
S.N | Techniques compared | Euclidean distance | S.N | Techniques compared | Euclidean distance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | (AE-E)-(AE-T) | 9.434 | 19 | (AE-S)-(AE) | 10.630 |
2 | (AE-E)-(AE-S) | 11.358 | 20 | (AE-S)-(AT) | 5.831 |
3 | (AE-E)-(EE) | 7.810 | 21 | (AE-S)-(AS) | 3.464 |
4 | (AE-E)-(ET) | 9.950 | 22 | EE-ET | 7.746 |
5 | (AE-T)-(ES) | 11.358 | 23 | EE-ES | 8.845 |
6 | (AE-E)-(AE) | 4.899 | 24 | EE-AE | 8.307 |
7 | (AE-E)-(AT) | 9.000 | 25 | EE-AT | 8.000 |
8 | (AE-E)-(AS) | 10.440 | 26 | EE-AS | 8.718 |
9 | (AE-T)-(AE-S) | 5.831 | 27 | ET-ES | 4.899 |
10 | (AE-T)-(EE) | 7.746 | 28 | ET-AE | 10.630 |
11 | (AE-T)-(ET) | 1.414 | 29 | ET-AT | 2.449 |
12 | (AE-T)-(ES) | 5.831 | 30 | ET-AS | 4.472 |
13 | (AE-T)-(AE) | 10.344 | 31 | ES-AE | 10.360 |
14 | (AE-T)-(AT) | 2.000 | 32 | ES-AT | 5.831 |
15 | (AE-T)-(AS) | 4.899 | 33 | ES-AS | 3.464 |
16 | (AE-S)-(EE) | 8.485 | 34 | AE-AT | 9.950 |
17 | (AE-S)-(ET) | 4.899 | 35 | AE-AS | 10.909 |
18 | (AE-S)-(ES) | 0.000 | 36 | AT-AS | 4.690 |
methods showed all three MCDM methods of preference ranking ELECTRE, TOPSIS and SAW were sensitive to weighting.
The results of this study can be utilized by local authority as base line information for the structural measures for sustainable flood risk management and sediment control. The methodology used in this study can be applied to other rivers having similar physical characteristics and dynamic alluvial fan. On implementation of the recommended measures, local people of Saptari, Sunsari and Morang districts of Nepal will be highly benefited. The study didn’t incorporate non-structural measures of flood risk management including mapping vulnerable areas, changing cropping pattern and establishment of flood early warning system (FEWS) and recommended for further study.
This work is self-funded by the authors. It is a part of PhD program of correspondent author.
Mukesh Raj Kafle was responsible for this current research article in the framework of his PhD program and initially wrote the manuscript. Narendra Man Shakya directed the study by helping to interpret the results and improving the quality of manuscript.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Kafle, M.R. and Shakya, N.M. (2018) Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach for Flood Risk and Sediment Management in Koshi Alluvial Fan, Nepal. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 10, 596-619. https://doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2018.106034