Influence of Construction Schemes for a Non-compensatory Composite Indicator on Flood Vulnerability Assessments in the Korean Peninsula
- 12 Downloads
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.
KeywordsFlood 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.
- 2.MOIS (Ministry of the Interior and Safety of Korean government) (2017). http://www.mois.go.kr/frt/a01/frtMain.do. Accessed 15 Aug 2018
- 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. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=0. Accessed 15 Aug 2018
- 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
- 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
- 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.KOSIS (Korean Statistical Information Service) (2017). http://kostat.go.kr/portal/korea/index.action. Accessed 15 Aug 2018
- 15.OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development) (2012) OECD urban policy reviews: Korea. OECD Urban Policy Reviews. http://www.oecd.org/cfe/regional-policy/oecdurbanpolicyreviewskorea.htm. Accessed 15 Aug 2018