Advertisement

Assessment of Community Vulnerability to Natural Disasters in Korea by Using GIS and Machine Learning Techniques

  • Dong Keun YoonEmail author
  • Seunghoo Jeong
Chapter
Part of the New Frontiers in Regional Science: Asian Perspectives book series (NFRSASIPER, volume 25)

Abstract

Despite similar natural hazard magnitudes, the economic losses and fatalities due to natural disasters are usually unevenly distributed among nations, regions, communities, and individuals. Socially, economically, and environmentally vulnerable communities are more likely to suffer disproportionately from disasters. Identifying vulnerability factors to disasters is critical information for disaster managers and planners to make disaster-related policy and strategies for mitigating the negative impacts of disasters. This study constructs an index of disaster vulnerability of local communities in Korea. Twelve indicators including social, economic, and natural environment and built environment aspects are selected to assess 230 local communities’ vulnerability to disasters. Economic losses from disasters from 2001 to 2010 in Korea are analyzed using GIS. Moreover, this study examines the relationships between the constructed vulnerability indicators and economic damage from natural disasters. Machine learning techniques including Cubist and Random Forest are applied to examine what vulnerability indicators are statistically associated with disaster damage in Korea.

Keywords

Community vulnerability Disaster damages GIS Machine learning 

References

  1. Armaș, I., and A. Gavriș. 2013. Social vulnerability assessment using spatial multi-criteria analysis (SEVI model) and the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI model) – A case study for Bucharest, Romania. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 13(6): 1481–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biass, S., C. Frischknecht, and C. Bonadonna. 2013. A fast GIS-based risk assessment for tephra fallout: The example of Cotopaxi volcano, Ecuador. Natural Hazards 65(1): 497–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breiman, L. 2001. Random forests. Machine Learning 45(1): 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burton, C., and S.L. Cutter. 2008. Levee failures and social vulnerability in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area, California. Natural Hazards Review 9(3): 136–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chang, S.E., J.Z. Yip, S.L.V.Z. de Jong, R. Chaster, and A. Lowcock. 2015. Using vulnerability indicators to develop resilience networks: A similarity approach. Natural Hazards 78(3): 1827–1841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cutter, S.L., and C. Finch. 2008. Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105(7): 2301–2306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cutter, S.L., B.J. Boruff, and W.L. Shirley. 2003. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly 84(2): 242–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Díaz-Uriarte, R., and S.A. De Andres. 2006. Gene selection and classification of microarray data using random forest. BMC Bioinformatics 7(1): 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Emrich, C.T., and S.L. Cutter. 2011. Social vulnerability to climate-sensitive hazards in the southern United States. Weather, Climate and Society 3(3): 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Esnard, A.M., A. Sapat, and D. Mitsova. 2011. An index of relative displacement risk to hurricanes. Natural Hazards 59(2): 833–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Felsenstein, D., and M. Lichter. 2014. Social and economic vulnerability of coastal communities to sea-level rise and extreme flooding. Natural Hazards 71(1): 463–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fengqing, J., Z. Cheng, M. Guijin, H. Ruji, and M. Qingxia. 2005. Magnification of flood disasters and its relation to regional precipitation and local human activities since the 1980s in Xinjiang, Northwestern China. Natural Hazards 36(3): 307–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flax, L.K., R.W. Jackson, and D.N. Stein. 2002. Community vulnerability assessment tool methodology. Natural Hazards Review 3(4): 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gao, X., H. Yuan, W. Qi, and S. Liu. 2014. Assessing the social and economic vulnerability of urban areas to disasters: A case study in Beijing, China. International Review for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development 2(1): 42–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grömping, U. 2009. Variable importance assessment in regression: Linear regression versus random forest. American Statistician 63(4): 308–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hair, J.F., R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, and W.C. Black. 1998. Multivariate data analysis with readings. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Hamilton, L.C. 1992. Regression with graphics: A second course in applied statistics. Belmont: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
  18. Im, J., J.R. Jensen, M. Coleman, and E. Nelson. 2009. Hyperspectral remote sensing analysis of short rotation woody crops grown with controlled nutrient and irrigation treatments. Geocarto International 24(4): 293–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Im, J., Z. Lu, J. Rhee, and L.J. Quackenbush. 2012. Impervious surface quantification using a synthesis of artificial immune networks and decision/regression trees from multi-sensor data. Remote Sensing of Environment 117: 102–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim, Y.O., S.B. Seo, and O.J. Jang. 2012. Flood risk assessment using regional regression analysis. Natural Hazards 63(2): 1203–1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim, Y.H., J. Im, H.K. Ha, J.K. Choi, and S. Ha. 2014. Machine learning approaches to coastal water quality monitoring using GOCI satellite data. GIScience & Remote Sensing 51(2): 158–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Korean Statistical Information Service. 2011. http://kosis.kr/. Accessed 22 Aug 2015.
  23. Kuhlicke, C., A. Scolobig, S. Tapsell, A. Steinführer, and B. De Marchi. 2011. Contextualizing social vulnerability: Findings from case studies across Europe. Natural Hazards 58(2): 789–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Li, M., J. Im, L.J. Quackenbush, and T. Liu. 2014. Forest biomass and carbon stock quantification using airborne lidar data: A case study over Huntington wildlife forest in the Adirondack Park. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 7(7): 3143–3156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liaw, A., and M. Wiener. 2002. Classification and regression by randomForest. R news 2(3): 18–22.Google Scholar
  26. Malhotra, N.K., M. Peterson, and S.B. Kleiser. 1999. Marketing research: A state-of-the-art review and directions of the twenty-first century. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27(2): 160–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martins, V.N., D.S. e Silva, and P. Cabral. 2012. Social vulnerability assessment to seismic risk using multicriteria analysis: The case study of Vila Franca do Campo (São Miguel Island, Azores, Portugal). Natural Hazards 62(2): 385–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McEntire, D. 2012. Understanding and reducing vulnerability: From the approach of liabilities and capabilities. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 21(2): 206–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Minasny, B., and A.B. McBratney. 2008. Regression rules as a tool for predicting soil properties from infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 94(1): 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Myers, C.A., T. Slack, and J. Singelmann. 2008. Social vulnerability and migration in the wake of disaster: The case of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Population and Environment 29(6): 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Perrow, C. 2011. The next catastrophe: Reducing our vulnerabilities to natural, industrial, and terrorist disasters. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Richter, K., C. Atzberger, T.B. Hank, and W. Mauser. 2012. Derivation of biophysical variables from earth observation data: Validation and statistical measures. Journal of Applied Remote Sensing 6(1): 063557–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Runyan, R.C. 2006. Small business in the face of crisis: Identifying barriers to recovery from a natural disaster. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 14(1): 12–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schipper, L., and M. Pelling. 2006. Disaster risk, climate change and international development: Scope for, and challenges to, integration. Disasters 30(1): 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tu, J., and Z.G. Xia. 2008. Examining spatially varying relationships between land use and water quality using geographically weighted regression I: Model design and evaluation. The Science of the Total Environment 407(1): 358–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Uitto, J.I. 1998. The geography of disaster vulnerability in megacities: A theoretical framework. Applied Geography 18(1): 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yoo, S., J. Im, and J.E. Wagner. 2012. Variable selection for hedonic model using machine learning approaches: A case study in Onondaga County, NY. Landscape and Urban Planning 107(3): 293–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yoon, D.K. 2012. Assessment of social vulnerability to natural disasters: A comparative study. Natural Hazards 63(2): 823–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yu, D., and C. Wu. 2006. Incorporating remote sensing information in modeling house values. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 72(2): 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zahran, S., S.D. Brody, W.G. Peacock, A. Vedlitz, and H. Grover. 2008. Social vulnerability and the natural and built environment: A model of flood casualties in Texas. Disasters 32(4): 537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhou, Y., N. Li, W. Wu, and J. Wu. 2014. Assessment of provincial social vulnerability to natural disasters in China. Natural Hazards 71(3): 2165–2186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urban Planning and EngineeringYonsei UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.School of Urban and Environmental Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and TechnologyUlsanSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations