اثر دوره بازگشت دبی در اعمال یکی از اقدامات طبیعی مدیریت سیل بر کاهش ریسک سیلاب

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه علوم و مهندسی آب، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان، کرمان، ایران.

2 گروه پژوهشی اکولوژی، پژوهشکده علوم محیطی، دانشگاه تحصیلات تکمیلی هایتک، کرمان، ایران.

10.22059/jwim.2024.372165.1144

چکیده

در این پژوهش میزان کاهش ریسک سیل در اثر پیاده‌سازی یکی از روش‌های مدیریت طبیعی سیل در یک منطقه مخروط‌افکنه موردبررسی قرار گرفته است. مدیریت سیل به روش‌های متداول سازه‌ای و غیرسازه‌ای انجام می‌شود که هزینه اجرای آن‌ها زیاد و عمر این پروژه‌ها کوتاه است. کاهش خسارت‌ ناشی از سیل و استفاده از روش‌هایی به‌منظور مدیریت پایدار و انعطاف‌پذیرتر سیل در سال‌های اخیر بیش‌تر مورد توجه پژوهش‌گران قرار گرفته است. استفاده از رویکرد‌های طبیعی کنترل سیل (NFM) یکی از روش‌های مدیریت پایدار سیل محسوب شده که در این پژوهش با ارائه یک راه‌کار طبیعی در قالب افزایش طول مسیر رودخانه با ایجاد خم در مسیر اصلی به بررسی اثرگذاری آن بر میزان خسارت مورد انتظار سیلاب نسبت به حالت اصلی پرداخته می‌شود. روش انجام این پژوهش بر پایه مدل‌سازی بوده که از سه مدل HEC-HMS، HEC-RAS 2D و ArcMap استفاده شده است. منطقه موردمطالعه حوضه آبریز رودخانه آببخشاء واقع در شهرستان بردسیر، استان کرمان به وسعت 1136 کیلومترمربع، دارای حالت مخروط‌افکنه که سیل‌های متعددی در آن اتفاق افتاده است. داده‌های توپوگرافی، بارش و دبی از مهم‌ترین داده‌های موردنیاز این پژوهش محسوب می‌شوند. براساس نتایج این پژوهش ایجاد خم در مسیر رودخانه باعث کاهش 5/15 درصدی خسارت موردانتظار سالیانه (EAD) می‌شود. نتایج این پژوهش می‌تواند در برنامه‌ریزی و سیاست‌گذاری راه‌کارهای بهینه مدیریت سیلاب در منطقه مؤثر باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The effect of return period discharge in applying one of the natural flood management measures on flood risk reduction

نویسندگان [English]

  • Soodeh Kalami 1
  • Mohammad Mahdi Ahmadi 1
  • Reza Hasanzade 2
1 Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman, Iran.
2 Department of Ecology, Research Institute of Environmental Sciences, Advanced Technology University, Kerman, Iran.
چکیده [English]

In this study, the amount of flood risk reduction due to applying one of natural flood management measures, in alluvial fans, was investigated. Usually, flood management is done by common structural and non-structural methods, which are expensive and short-lived. Flood damage reduction and using more stable and flexible solutions for flood management, have been received more attention from researchers in recent years. Using natural flood management (NFM) is considered stable methods of flood management, and in this study by presenting a natural solution in the form of increasing the length of the river by creating a meander, to investigate its effect on the expected flood damage compared to the base mode is paid. The method of conducting this study is based on modeling, which uses three models: HEC-HMS, HEC-RAS 2D and ArcMap. The study area is Abbakhsha River catchment located in Bardsir city, Kerman province, with an area of 1136 square kilometers, has the state of an alluvial fan that numerous floods have occurred. Topography, precipitation and discharge are the most important data required for this study. According to the results of this research, creating a meander in the river reduces the expected annual damage (EAD) by 15.5%. The results of this research can be effective in the planning and policy making of optimal flood management solutions in the region.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Expected Annual Damage (EAD)
  • Damage Reduction
  • Natural Flood Management (NFM)
  • Meander

مراجع

  1. Herrero, A. D., Huerta, L. L., & Isidro, M. L. (2009). A handbook on flood hazard mapping methodologies (Vol. 2). IGME.
  2. Merz, B., Blöschl, G., Vorogushyn, S., Dottori, F., Aerts, J.C., Bates, P., Bertola, M., Kemter, M., Kreibich, H., Lall, U., & Macdonald, E. (2021). Causes, impacts and patterns of disastrous river floods. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 2(9), 592-609.
  3. Lai, C., Chen, X., Wang, Z., Yu, H., & Bai, X. (2020). Flood risk assessment and regionalization from past and future perspectives at basin scale. Risk analysis, 40(7), 1399-1417.
  4. Wang, L., Cui, S., Li, Y., Huang, H., Manandhar, B., Nitivattananon, V., Fang, X., & Huang, W. (2022). A review of the flood management: from flood control to flood resilience. Heliyon, 8(11).
  5. Everard, M., & Moggridge, H. L. (2012). Rediscovering the value of urban rivers. Urban Ecosystems, 15, 293-314.
  6. Gilvear, D. J., Casas‐Mulet, R., & Spray, C. J. (2012). Trends and issues in delivery of integrated catchment scale river restoration: lessons learned from a national river restoration survey within Scotland. River Research and Applications, 28(2), 234-246.
  7. Ngai, R., Wilkinson, M., Nisbet, T., Harvey, R., Addy, S., Burgess-Gamble, L., Rose, S., Maslen, S., Nicholson, A., Page, T., Jonczyk, J., & Quinn, P. (2017).Working with natural processes–Evidence directory appendix 2: Literature review.
  8. Nardini, A., & Pavan, S. (2012). River restoration: not only for the sake of nature but also for saving money while addressing flood risk. A decision‐making framework applied to the C hiese R iver (P o basin, I taly). Journal of Flood Risk Management, 5(2), 111-133.
  9. Wohl, E., Lane, S. N., & Wilcox, A. C. (2015). The science and practice of river restoration. Water Resources Research, 51(8), 5974-5997.
  10. Forbes, H., Ball, K., & McLay, F. (2015). Natural flood management handbook, Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
  11. Wharton, G., & Gilvear, D. J. (2007). River restoration in the UK: Meeting the dual needs of the European Union Water Framework Directive and flood defence?. International Journal of River Basin Management, 5(2), 143-154.
  12. Acreman, M. C., Riddington, R., & Booker, D. J. (2003). Hydrological impacts of floodplain restoration: a case study of the River Cherwell, UK. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 7(1), 75-85.
  13. Liu, Y. B., Gebremeskel, S., De Smedt, F., Hoffmann, L., & Pfister, L. (2004). Simulation of flood reduction by natural river rehabilitation using a distributed hydrological model. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 8(6), 1129-1140.
  14. Sear, D. A., & Newson, M. D. (2004). The hydraulic impact and performance of a lowland rehabilitation scheme based on pool–riffle installation: the River Waveney, Scole, Suffolk, UK. River Research and Applications, 20(7), 847-863.
  15. Sear, D., Kitts, D., & Millington, C. E. (2006). New Forest LIFE-III Monitoring Report: the geomorphic and hydrological response of New Forest streams to river restoration.
  16. Kitts, D. R. (2010). The hydraulic and hydrological performance of large wood accumulation in a low-order forest stream (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton).
  17. Keesstra, S. D., Kondrlova, E., Czajka, A., Seeger, M., & Maroulis, J. (2012). Assessing riparian zone impacts on water and sediment movement: a new approach. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences, 91(1-2), 245-255.
  18. Lallemant, D., Hamel, P., Balbi, M., Lim, T. N., Schmitt, R., & Win, S. (2021). Nature-based solutions for flood risk reduction: A probabilistic modeling framework. One Earth, 4(9), 1310-1321.
  19. Dixon, S. J., Sear, D. A., Odoni, N. A., Sykes, T., & Lane, S. N. (2016). The effects of river restoration on catchment scale flood risk and flood hydrology. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 41(7), 997-1008.
  20. Brunner, G. W. (2016). HEC-RAS River Analysis System. 2D Modeling User’s Manual. Version 5.0. Davis, CA: US Army Corps of Engineers. Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center.
  21. Tariq, M. A. U. R. (2013). Risk-based flood zoning employing expected annual damages: the Chenab River case study. Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment, 27, 1957-1966.
  22. DHA, U. (1992). Internationally agreed glossary of basic terms related to disaster management. UN DHA (United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs), Geneva.
  23. Kron, W. (2005). Flood risk= hazard• values• vulnerability. Water international, 30(1), 58-68.
  24. Sayers, P. B., Gouldby, B., Simm, J. D., Hawkes, P. J., Ramsbottom, D. M., Meadowcroft, I. C., & Hall, J. W. (2002). Risk, performance and uncertainty in flood and coastal defence-a review.
  25. Yoe, C. E. (1994). Framework for estimating national economic development benefits and other beneficial effects of flood warning and preparedness systems (p. 116). US Army Corps of Engineers, Water Resources Support Center, Institute for Water Resources.
  26. Tariq, M. A., Hoes, O. A., & Van de Giesen, N. C. (2014). Development of a risk‐based framework to integrate flood insurance. Journal of Flood risk management, 7(4), 291-307.
  27. Ayyub, B. M., Foster, J., & McGill, W. L. (2009). Risk analysis of a protected hurricane-prone region. I: Model development. Natural Hazards Review, 10(2), 38-53.
  28. Yi, C. S., Lee, J. H., & Shim, M. P. (2010). GIS-based distributed technique for assessing economic loss from flood damage: pre-feasibility study for the Anyang Stream Basin in Korea. Natural hazards, 55, 251-272.
  29. Levy, J. K. (2005). Multiple criteria decision making and decision support systems for flood risk management. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 19, 438-447.
  30. Huizinga, J., De Moel, H., & Szewczyk, W. (2017). Global flood depth-damage functions: Methodology and the database with guidelines (No. JRC105688). Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
مدیریت آب و آبیاری
دوره 14، شماره 3
آذر 1403
صفحه 601-613

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار