Multi-Criteria Analysis
Prioritising investments under the Belize Climate Resilience
Infrastructure Project (BCRIP)
From Data to Decision-Making:
Presentation of Preliminary Results and Discussion
05 December 2013
Image: River Crossing Spanish Lookout, May 2013
0. Process so far
Components
CRITICALITY
Criticality of transportation
infrastructure
HAZARD
Simplified flood susceptibility
evaluation
Using an indicator-based
approach
Using a Multi-Criteria Evaluation
process
Approach
Participatory approach carried out in
multiple workshops by Belizean key
stakeholders
Based on past events, existing
studies and simple additional
analyses with available baseline
data
Including the expertise of the
Ministry of Works and Transport
Prioritization of road segments requiring interventions in
order to INCREASE RESILIENCE
2
0. Process so far
FEBRUARY:
Workshop to “Establish an Information Baseline and identify the most important
Actors, Processes and Risks related to the Transport Sector”
MAY:
“Multi-Criteria Evaluation Workshop” in which the criteria were identified
JULY:
Workshop “Weighting of Criteria to Prioritise Road Infrastructure”
AUGUST-SEPTEMBER:
Consultation of indicators with the respective ministries
Creation of the Criticality Model
Flood susceptibility evaluation
OCTOBER:
Presentation of a preliminary criticality analysis result, the consolidation of all
pieces of information and discussion with the Belize delegation in Washington DC
TODAY:
Presentation of the final criticality result, discussion on the flood susceptibility
evaluation, consolidation of all pieces of information and discussion
3
Content
1. Criteria and Weights
2. Indicators and Data
3. Criticality Modelling
4. Hazard Evaluation
5. From Data to Decision-Making
4
1. Criteria
Physical
vulnerability
Characterization
(1)
Condition (2)
Adequacy to
withstand
flooding (3)
Use &
Operational
Characteristics
Adequacy
regarding the
current
demand / level
of use (4)
Adequacy
regarding
future /
projected
demand / level
of use (5)
Dependency on
the road (6)
Economic
Parameters
Connectivity
between Industrial,
Production sites, raw
material extraction
areas Ports, Airports
and Border Crossings
(7)
Connectivity
between Touristic
Facilities, Touristic
Destinations, and
Ports/ Airports/
Border Crossings (8)
Access to existing
and planned Markets
(9)
Access to identified
development sites
related to tourism,
industry, markets
etc. (10)
Social
Parameters
Access to
educational
facilities (11)
Access to
workplaces (12)
Access to services
(13)
Access of mobile
utilities, food and
relief services to
the communities
(14)
Access to Socially
Vulnerable
population (15)
Health
Access to
communities
for primary
care (16)
Access to
health
facilities (17)
Access to
disease prone
areas (18)
Safety and
Security
Compliance
with design
standards (20)
Adequate
placement of
signs and
speed humps
(21)
Essential part
of the
evacuation
network (22)
Environment
and Ecology
Local
Values
Ensure
adequate
crossing of
wildlife along
their
traveling
corridors (23)
Rerouting
required to
protect
archeological
sites (24)
Connectivity
within the
health system
(19)
5
1. Criteria
Physical
vulnerability
Characterization
(1)
Condition (2)
Adequacy to
withstand
flooding (3)
Use &
Operational
Characteristics
Adequacy
regarding the
current
demand / level
of use (4)
Adequacy
regarding
future /
projected
demand / level
of use (5)
Dependency on
the road (6)
Economic
Parameters
Connectivity
between Industrial,
Production sites, raw
material extraction
areas Ports, Airports
and Border Crossings
(7)
Connectivity
between Touristic
Facilities, Touristic
Destinations, and
Ports/ Airports/
Border Crossings (8)
Access to existing
and planned Markets
(9)
Access to identified
development sites
related to tourism,
industry, markets
etc. (10)
Social
Parameters
Access to
educational
facilities (11)
Access to
workplaces (12)
Access to services
(13)
Access of mobile
utilities, food and
relief services to
the communities
(14)
Access to Socially
Vulnerable
population (15)
Health
Access to
communities
for primary
care (16)
Access to
health
facilities (17)
Access to
disease prone
areas (18)
Safety and
Security
Compliance
with design
standards (20)
Adequate
placement of
signs and
speed humps
(21)
Essential part
of the
evacuation
network (22)
Environment
and Ecology
Local
Values
Ensure
adequate
crossing of
wildlife along
their
traveling
corridors (23)
Rerouting
required to
protect
archeological
sites (24)
Connectivity
within the
health system
(19)
6
1. Weights
Criteria
number
Average weights from
technical team’s evaluation
Average weights from
CEO evaluation
Essential part of the evacuation network
c22
8.55%
8.06%
Adequacy of design to withstand flooding
c03
5.30%
7.61%
Condition
c02
8.93%
7.44%
Dependency of the road
c06
7.65%
7.43%
Compliance with design standards
c20
8.75%
7.32%
Adequacy regarding the current demand / level of use
c04
6.06%
6.56%
Access of mobile utilities, food and relief to the communities
Connectivity between industrial & production sites & markets and (air)ports and border
crossings
Access to health facilities
c14
7.16%
6.21%
c07
5.02%
5.11%
c17
5.71%
4.73%
Access to existing and planned Markets
c09
4.75%
4.43%
Access to socially vulnerable population
c15
6.85%
4.22%
Connectivity within the health system
c19
3.80%
3.46%
Access to workplaces
c12
2.22%
3.27%
Adequacy regarding future / projected demand / level of use
c05
1.88%
3.22%
Characterization
c01
3.89%
3.21%
Access to services
c13
3.09%
2.96%
Access to communities for primary health care
c16
2.90%
2.80%
Access to educational facilities
c11
1.41%
2.65%
Connectivity between tourist destinations & facilities and (air)ports and border crossings
c08
1.46%
2.64%
Access to identified development sites related to tourism, industry and markets
c10
1.50%
2.36%
Adequate placement of signs and speed humps
c21
2.49%
1.94%
Rerouting required to protect archeological sites
c24
0.11%
0.98%
Access to disease prone areas
c18
0.20%
0.76%
Ensure adequate crossing of wildlife along their traveling corridors
c23
0.31%
0.75%
Criteria name (ranked on the basis of the CEOs evaluation)
7
1. Weights – Sensitivity Analysis
Calculation of the Criticality with different sets of weights:
• Full set of criteria with CEO weights
• Full set of criteria with weights of the technical team
• Full set of criteria without weights
• Criteria summing to the upper 50% of the overall weight – CEO weights
• Criteria summing to the upper 50% of the overall weight – technical team’s weights
8
1. Weights – Sensitivity Analysis
Calculation of the Criticality with different sets of weights:
• Full set of criteria with CEO weights
• Full set of criteria with weights of the technical team
• Full set of criteria without weights
• Criteria summing to the upper 50% of the overall weight – CEO weights
• Criteria summing to the upper 50% of the overall weight – technical team’s weights
9
1. Weights – Sensitivity Analysis
Criteria
Tech. Team’s weights
CEO’s weights
Essential part of the evacuation network
18.92%
19.75%
Condition
19.76%
18.23%
Dependency of the road
16.92%
18.21%
13.41%
16.07%
15.84%
15.22%
-
12.52%
15.15%
-
Adequacy regarding the current demand / level of
use
Access of mobile utilities, food and relief to the
communities
Connectivity between industrial & production sites &
markets and (air)ports and border crossings
Access to socially vulnerable population
10
2. Indicators and Data
For each criterion one or more indicators were identified in order to measure the criterion:
Example “Condition of the transport infrastructure”
1. Pavement maintenance condition (roads) & general condition (bridges)
2. Drainage channel condition
3. Shoulder condition
4. Time required for reconstruction
Average
Condition
11
2. Indicators and Data
Ref.
Technical Staff
Ministry
MoWT
Mr. Irving Thimbriel
Ministry of Works and Transport
(MoWT)
MoFED
Mr. Duane Belisle
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED)
NEMO
Ms. Noreen Fairweather
National Emergency Management Organisation (NEMO)
MoH
Ms. Lizett Bell
Mr. John Bodden
Ministry of Health
(MoH)
MoE
Mr. Bernaldino Pech
Ministry of Education
(MoE)
MoNRA
Ms. Gina Young
Physical Planning – Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture
(MoNRA)
MoHDPR
Mr. Mark Anthropus
Ministry of Human Development & Poverty Reduction (MoHDPR)
12
2. Indicators and Data
Ministries:
• Location of economic activities
• Characteristics of “socially vulnerable population”
• Location of satellite warehouses
• Etc.
RMSI:
• Roads location and characteristics
• Bridge and culvert location and characteristics
• Drainage characteristics
• etc.
13
4. Criticality Modelling
Average
Essential part
of the road
network
Condition
Dependency
on the road
19.8%
18.2%
18.2%
Adequacy
regarding
current/
future
demand
Access of
mobile
utilities …
Connectivity
in economic
network
16.1%
15.2%
12.5%
Criticality Value
14
4. Criticality Modelling
15
4. Criticality Modelling
16
4. Criticality Modelling
17
3. Criticality Modelling
Outstanding step:
Finalize the Validation and calculation of the full criteria set
18
4. Hazard Evaluation – Riverine flooding
Objective: Assign country-wide a level of flood susceptibility to the road network
Data limitations
• Digital Elevation Model (30m resolution) is not suitable for detailed flood hazard assessments
• Limited a existence of hydro-met data
→
Data limitations did not allow for hydrological nor hydraulic analyses
→ An Indicator-Based Approach resulting in an Simplified Flood Susceptibility Evaluation was applied
Main assumptions:
• High frequency floods are often related to insufficient capacity of the road drainage structures.
→ High importance was given to the crossings of the road network with water bodies
• Many drainage structures are clogged or broken even reducing the often too limited dimensions
→ Condition of culverts is an important indicator for potential flooding
19
4. Hazard Evaluation – Riverine flooding
Methodology:
Flooding at
crossings
Number or
streams crossing
the road
Conditions of the
crossings
Susceptibility
5km stretches
Flood
susceptibility
(King et al, 1993)
Indications of
river floods
Flood records
Type of Flooding
20
4. Hazard Evaluation – Riverine flooding
Methodology:
Flooding at
crossings
Number or
streams crossing
the road
Conditions of the
crossings
Susceptibility
Flood
susceptibility
(King et al, 1993)
Indications of
river floods
Flood records
Type of Flooding
21
4. Hazard Evaluation – Riverine flooding
Methodology:
CONDITION
SCORE
Culvert or bridge in good condition and clean
stream.
0
Partially damaged culvert or bridge and/or partially
clogged stream.
50
Heavily or completely damaged culvert or bridge
and/or clogged stream
100
22
4. Hazard Evaluation – Riverine flooding
Methodology:
Flooding at
crossings
Number or
streams crossing
the road
Conditions of the
crossings
Susceptibility
Flood
susceptibility
(King et al, 1993)
Indications of
river floods
Flood records
Type of Flooding
23
4. Hazard Evaluation – Riverine Type
flooding
of flood
Methodology:
Not in flood prone area according to
susceptibility and previous recorded flood
events.
Flash flood
50
Slow onset floods (flat area)
100
Flood records (TD 16, newspapers, MoW
indications)
In area previously flooded
SCORE
0
SCORE
100
In area not previously flooded
0
Flood susceptibility according to King et al.
SCORE
(1993)
Stretch not in susceptibility area
Stretch in susceptibility area
0
100
24
4. Hazard Evaluation – Riverine flooding
Methodology:
Flooding at
crossings
0.6
Susceptibility
Classification based on
the sites indicated as
susceptible by the
Ministry of Works
Indications of
river floods
Number or
streams crossing
the road
0.7
Conditions of the
crossings
0.3
Flood
susceptibility
(King et al, 1993)
0.45
Flood records
0.45
Type of Flooding
0.1
0.4
25
4. Hazard Evaluation – Riverine flooding
26
4. Hazard Evaluation – Riverine flooding
27
4. Hazard Evaluation – Riverine flooding
28
4. Hazard Evaluation – Riverine flooding
29
4. Hazard Evaluation – Riverine flooding
Limitations:
• Simple analysis approach due to limited data availability
• Primarily based on the assumption of high importance of road network crossings with water
bodies
• Coastal flooding could not be addressed due to the current data situation
30
4. Hazard Evaluation – Riverine flooding
Recommendations for more in-depth flood hazard assessments:
• Creation of a detailed DEM and river profiles (at least for catchments of specific interest)
• Creation of bathymetric information for storm surge modeling
• Collection and analysis of hydro-meteorological data
• Hydrological and hydraulic modeling of the rivers of special interest
• Hydraulic assessment of river crossing structures to estimate the probability of occurrence of
floods at crossings
31
5. From Data to Decision-Making
32
5.
33
5. Combining Data for Interpretation
34
5. Combining Data for Interpretation
35
5.
36
5.
37
5.
38
5.
39
Multi-Criteria Analysis
Prioritising investments under the Belize Climate Resilience
Investment Project (BCRIP)
From Data to Decision-Making:
Presentation of Preliminary Results and Discussion
05 December 2013
Image: River Crossing Spanish Lookout, May 2013
5.
41
5.
42
5.
43
5.
44
5.
45
Multi-Criteria Analysis
Prioritising investments under the Belize Climate Resilience
Investment Project (BCRIP)
From Data to Decision-Making:
Presentation of Preliminary Results and Discussion
05 December 2013
Image: River Crossing Spanish Lookout, May 2013
4. Criticality Modelling
47
4. Criticality Modelling
48
5. From Data to Decision-Making
49
5. From Data to Decision-Making
50
5. From Data to Decision-Making
51