Influence of Construction Schemes for a Non-compensatory Composite Indicator on Flood Vulnerability Assessments in the Korean Peninsula

  • Jong Seok Lee
  • Hyun Il ChoiEmail author
Research paper


This study aims to investigate the influence of construction schemes for non-compensatory composite indicators by multiplicative utility functions on the flood vulnerability assessment. The flood vulnerability outcomes are evaluated and compared for the 231 administrative districts in the Republic of Korea, based on the two composite indicators by different aggregation schemes from the three assessment components such as exposure, sensitivity, and coping, presented in The IPCC Third Assessment Report. The one scheme uses the coping component having a negative functional relationship with vulnerability as a divisor, and the other scheme employs the lack of coping component in the opposite concept to coping as a multiplier. As a result of comparison analysis, some districts show markedly large differences in the flood vulnerability ranking orders by the two different aggregation schemes using the same proxy variables. For robustness of flood vulnerability assessment outcomes, it is necessary to compile a non-compensatory composite indicator under the condition that all constituent assessment components have the same directional elasticity to vulnerability. This study can help to select a proper aggregation framework in constructing flood vulnerability indicators to provide useful information for supporting policy and decision-making on complex issues.


Flood vulnerability assessment Non-compensatory composite indicator Multiplicative utility function Elasticity to vulnerability 



This subject is supported by Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE) as “Water Management Research Program” (18AWMP-B079625-05).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Hay JE, Easterling D, Ebi KL, Kitoh A, Parry M (2015) Introduction to the special issue: observed and projected changes in weather and climate extremes. Weather Clim Extrem 11:1–3. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    MOIS (Ministry of the Interior and Safety of Korean government) (2017). Accessed 15 Aug 2018
  3. 3.
    IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2001) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. In: McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) Contribution of Working Group II to the Third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, New York. Accessed 15 Aug 2018
  4. 4.
    Hinkel J (2011) Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity: towards a clarification of the science-policy interface. Glob Environ Change 21:198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development) (2004) The OECD-JRC handbook on practices for developing composite indicators. Paper presented at the OECD Committee on Statistics, 7–8 June, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jun KS, Chung ES, Kim YG, Kim YA (2013) Fuzzy multi-criteria approach to flood risk vulnerability in South Korea by considering climate change impacts. Expert Syst Appl 40:1003–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yang L, Scheffran J, Qin H, You Q (2014) Climate-related flood risks and urban responses in the Pearl River Delta, China. Reg Environ Change 15(2):379–391. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ryu J, Lee D, Park C, Ahn Y, Lee S, Choi K, Jung T (2016) Assessment of the vulnerability of industrial parks to flood in South Korea. Nat Hazards 82:811. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Balica SF, Popescu I, Beevers L, Wright NG (2013) Parametric and physically based modelling techniques for flood risk and vulnerability assessment: a comparison. Environ Model Softw 41(3):81–92Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chang LF, Huang SL (2015) Assessing urban flooding vulnerability with an emergy approach. Landsc Urban Plan 143:11–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yang W, Xu K, Lian J, Ma C, Bin L (2018) Integrated flood vulnerability assessment approach based on TOPSIS and Shannon entropy methods. Ecol Indic 89:269–280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Munda G, Nardo M (2009) Noncompensatory/nonlinear composite indicators for ranking countries: a defensible setting. Appl Econ 41:1513–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pareto A, Mazziotta M (2013) A non-compensatory composite index for measuring well-being over time. Cogito Multidiscip Res J 4:93–104Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    KOSIS (Korean Statistical Information Service) (2017). Accessed 15 Aug 2018
  15. 15.
    OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development) (2012) OECD urban policy reviews: Korea. OECD Urban Policy Reviews. Accessed 15 Aug 2018
  16. 16.
    Kablan MKA, Dongo K, Coulibaly M (2017) Assessment of social vulnerability to flood in urban Côte d’Ivoire using the MOVE framework. Water 9:292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu D, Hao S (2017) Ecosystem health assessment at county-scale using the pressure-state-response framework on the Loess Plateau, China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 14:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nasiri H, Mohd Yusof MJ, Mohammad Ali TA (2016) An overview to flood vulnerability assessment methods. Sustain Water Resour Manag 2:331. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringYeungnam UniversityGyeongsanSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations