This paper provides a review of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) applications to flood risk management, seeking to highlight trends and identify research gaps. A total of 128 peer-reviewed papers published from 1995 to June 2015 were systematically analysed. Results showed that the number of flood MCDM publications has exponentially grown during this period, with over 82 % of all papers published since 2009. A wide range of applications were identified, with most papers focusing on ranking alternatives for flood mitigation, followed by risk, hazard, and vulnerability assessment. The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) was the most popular method, followed by Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and Simple Additive Weighting (SAW). Although there is greater interest in MCDM, uncertainty analysis remains an issue and was seldom applied in flood-related studies. In addition, participation of multiple stakeholders has been generally fragmented, focusing on particular stages of the decision-making process, especially on the definition of criteria weights. Therefore, addressing the uncertainties around stakeholders' judgments and endorsing an active participation in all steps of the decision-making process should be explored in future applications. This could help to increase the quality of decisions and the implementation of chosen measures.

This paper presents a participatory multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach for flood vulnerability assessment while considering the relationships between vulnerability criteria. The applicability of the proposed framework is demonstrated in the municipalities of Lajeado and Estrela, Brazil. The model was co-constructed by 101 experts from governmental organizations, universities, research institutes, NGOs, and private companies. Participatory methods such as the Delphi survey, focus groups, and workshops were applied. A participatory problem structuration, in which the modellers work closely with end users, was used to establish the structure of the vulnerability index. The preferences of each participant regarding the criteria importance were spatially modelled through the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and analytical network process (ANP) multi-criteria methods. Experts were also involved at the end of the modelling exercise for validation. The final product is a set of individual and group flood vulnerability maps. Both AHP and ANP proved to be effective for flood vulnerability assessment; however, ANP is preferred as it considers the dependences among criteria. The participatory approach enabled experts to learn from each other and acknowledge different perspectives towards social learning. The findings highlight that to enhance the credibility and deployment of model results, multiple viewpoints should be integrated without forcing consensus.

Despite the increasing body of research on flood vulnerability, a review of the methods used in the construction of vulnerability indices is still missing. Here, we address this gap by providing a state-of-art account on flood vulnerability indices, highlighting worldwide trends and future research directions. A total of 95 peer-reviewed articles published between 2002–2019 were systematically analyzed. An exponential rise in research effort is demonstrated, with 80 % of the articles being published since 2015. The majority of these studies (62.1 %) focused on the neighborhood followed by the city scale (14.7 %). Min–max normalization (30.5 %), equal weighting (24.2 %), and linear aggregation (80.0 %) were the most common methods. With regard to the indicators used, a focus was given to socioeconomic aspects (e.g., population density, illiteracy rate, and gender), whilst components associated with the citizen's coping and adaptive capacity were slightly covered. Gaps in current research include a lack of sensitivity and uncertainty analyses (present in only 9.5 % and 3.2 % of papers, respectively), inadequate or inexistent validation of the results (present in 13.7 % of the studies), lack of transparency regarding the rationale for weighting and indicator selection, and use of static approaches, disregarding temporal dynamics. We discuss the challenges associated with these findings for the assessment of flood vulnerability and provide a research agenda for attending to these gaps. Overall, we argue that future research should be more theoretically grounded while, at the same time, considering validation and the dynamic aspects of vulnerability.

Index-based approaches are widely employed for measuring flood vulnerability. Nevertheless, the uncertainties in the index construction are rarely considered. Here, we conducted a sensitivity analysis of a flood vulnerability index in the Maquiné Basin, Southern Brazil, considering distinct normalization, aggregation, classification methods, and their effects on the model outputs. The robustness of the results was investigated by considering Spearman’s correlations, the shift in the vulnerability rank, and spatial analysis of different normalization techniques (min-max, z-scores, distance to target, and raking) and aggregation methods (linear and geometric). The final outputs were classified into vulnerability classes using natural breaks, equal interval, quantiles, and standard deviation methods. The performance of each classification method was evaluated by spatial analysis and the Akaike’s information criterion (AIC). The results presented low sensitivity regarding the normalization step. Conversely, the geometric aggregation method produced substantial differences on the spatial vulnerability and tended to underestimate the vulnerability where indicators with low values compensated for high values. Additionally, the classification of the vulnerability into different classes led to overly sensitive outputs. Thus, given the AIC performance, the natural breaks method was most suitable. The obtained results can support decision-makers in reducing uncertainty and increasing the quality of flood vulnerability assessments.

This data paper describes the multinational Database of Flood Fatalities from the Euro-Mediterranean region FFEM-DB that hosts data of 2,875 flood fatalities from 12 territories (nine of which represent entire countries) in Europe and the broader Mediterranean region from 1980 to 2020. The FFEM-DB database provides data on fatalities’ profiles, location, and contributing circumstances, allowing researchers and flood risk managers to explore demographic, behavioral, and situational factors, as well as environmental features of flood-related mortality. The standardized data collection and classification methodology enable comparison between regions beyond administrative boundaries. The FFEM-DB is expandable, regularly updated, publicly available, and with anonymized data. The key advantages of the FFEM-DB compared to existing datasets containing flood fatalities are its high level of detail, data accuracy, record completeness, and the large sample size from an extended area.