ArticleScientific reports2025
Collaborative spatial decision making empowering urban flood governance toward city resilience.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Flood hazard assessment and zonal prioritization through an LR-bipolar triangular fuzzy hybrid decision-making approach.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urban flood management increasingly relies on adaptive and integrated systems alongside conventional structural measures. Rapid urbanization has escalated the complexity of managing floods. This paper proposes a novel, integrated spatial decision-making approach to enhance flood governance. The study emphasizes the collaborative engagement of stakeholders, including municipal authorities, water agencies, and local communities, within a GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework. A toolbox developed in ArcGIS incorporates the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). While previous studies often treat spatial analysis and stakeholder participation separately, our model integrates these within a spatial planning support system (SPSS). Results from a case study in Tehran, Iran, demonstrate the model's practical effectiveness in supporting urban flood governance. A final flood hazard map classified the study area into six distinct risk levels: approximately 6% of the area fell into the very-high-risk category, mainly in low-slope, high-density zones with limited drainage capacity, whereas 43% represented moderate-to-high risk and 42% low risk. Least cost path (LCP) analysis, informed by land use, slope, and geology criteria, was applied to delineate optimal urban runoff collection routes, minimizing construction costs by leveraging existing channels and natural gradients. Overall, the proposed model advances data-driven and participatory flood governance by providing a transparent, reproducible, and governance-oriented framework that supports resilient infrastructure planning and policy decision-making in complex urban environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.