Investigating floodproofing strategies for historic settlement areas of the Fraser River Basin, British Columbia, Canada : a complementary application of multi attribute decision making and stated preference discrete choice modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Floodproofing is a non-structural flood mitigation method often used as a secondary flood protection for homes located in floodplains that are already protected by dykes.In the Fraser River Basin, since 1973, floodproofing has been required for all new residential developments in the floodplain, except those located in "urban exempt zones" of hstorically settled areas.Consequently, many communities in the lower Fraser Rrver floodplain rely solely on the dyking system for flood protection.Governments would hke to encourage floodproofing in existing residential developments of hstoric settlement areas but are concerned about potential impacts, such as aesthetics and costs, and lack knowledge about public preferences regardmg potential floodproofing programs.Academically, this resource management problem presents an interesting challenge.Tradtional methods for addressing multiple objective decision problems of public concern are deficient: they either lack the abhty to adequately address multi-variate decisions requiting quantitative value trade-offs, or are &equipped to deal with public preference elicitation on a large scale.To address these h t a t i o n s , a complementary methodology was devised that combined the structured decision framework and analysis tools of multiple attribute decision analysis with the public preference survey elicitation methods of stated preference choice modehng.The results showed that t h s novel combination of tradtionally &sparate research parahgms can produce important academic insights as well as relevant management fmdmgs.The study found that floodproofing can be an acceptable approach for acheving key flood management objectives, from the perspective of both floodplain managers and the public.Once informed about the community flood management context, homeowners preferred to make trade-offs with regards to concerns, such as aesthetics and costs, to promote floodproofmg in the community, rather than maintain the status quo.In addition, homeowners would prefer to floodproof their own homes, even if floodproofmg requires significant personal investment, but at the same time they would Me to see an active and positive government role in fundmg and providing direction for such a program.I would not have been able to successfully complete such an exciung and ambitious research project without the support and assistance of many inlviduals.First of all, my senior supervisor, Dr. Wolfgang Haider, deserves a tremendous amount of c r e l t for h s constant guidance and advice, unwavering enthusiasm for my work, and superior editing abibties.Despite hls demanding schedule, Wolfgang always made time to help me.I would also like to thank Dr. IGistina Rothley for fachtating my understandmg of the larger context and for helping me to articulate and define the research rational.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".