Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Robustness, Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses of the TOPSIS Method for Quantitative Climate Change Vulnerability: a Case Study of Flood Damage

  • Published:
Water Resources Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques have been used to evaluate and rank the spatial flood vulnerability to climate change. However, various sources of uncertainty, such as the determination of evaluation criteria, the assignment of criteria weights and performance values, exist in the application of MCDM methods. In this study, three existing methods were combined to quantify the risk and uncertainties inherent to the process of climate change vulnerability assessment, which is called the TOPSIS-based Robustness-Uncertainty-Sensitivity (RUS) approach. The A1B scenario was used to assess the vulnerability of seven metropolitan cities in South Korea to climate change. Twenty indicators that are closely related to the cause of and deterioration from the flood risk and the resulting damages were selected by two surveys of experts, and the weights of these factors were determined by using the Delphi technique, which can derive the subjective weights. Based on the derived weights, the vulnerability ranking was calculated using the TOPSIS method, one of the most popular MCDM methods. This TOPSIS-based RUS approach was used to analyze the robustness of the vulnerability rankings for the assessed cities, to derive the minimum changed weights of the single and multiple criteria that determine the rank equivalence (or reversal) between any two cities and to check the sensitivities of the performance values to the vulnerability rankings. This study showed the effectiveness of the RUS approach for assessing the vulnerability to climate change, demonstrating the application of flood vulnerability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang 16:268–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adger WN, Brooks N, Kelly M, Bentham G, Agnew M, Eriksen S (2004) New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Technical report 7, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Univ. of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

  • Adler M, Ziglio E (1996) Gazing into the Oracle: the Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks N, Adger WN, Kelly PM (2005) The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Glob Environ Chang 15:151–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung ES, Lee KS (2009) Identification spatial ranking of hydrologic vulnerability using multi-criteria decision making techniques: case of Korea. Water Resour Manag 23(12):2395–2416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung ES, Park K, Lee KS (2011) The relative impacts of climate change and urbanization on the hydrological response of a Korean urban watershed. Hydrol Process 25(4):544–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung ES, Won K, Kim Y, Lee H (2014) Water resource vulnerability characteristics by district’s population size in a changing climate using subjective and objective weights. Sustain For 6:6141–6157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey N, Helmer O (1963) An experimental application of the DELPHI method to the use of experts. Manag Sci 9(3):458–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fussel HM, Klein RJT (2006) Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Clim Chang 75:301–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guillen ST, Trejos MS, Canales R (1998) A robustness index of binary preferences. 14th International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Charlotte, Virginia, 8–12 June 1998.

  • Hajikowicz S, Collins K (2007) A review of multiple criteria analysis for water resource planning and management. Water Resour Manag 21:1553–1566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamouda MA, MM N e-D, Moursy FI (2009) Vulnerability assessment of water resources system in the eastern Nile basin. Water Resour Manag 23:2697–2725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde KM, Maier HR, Colby CB (2005) A distance-based uncertainty analysis approach to multi-criteria decision analysis for water resource decision making. J Environ Manag 77:278–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jun KS, Sung JY, Chung ES, Lee KS (2011) Development of spatial water resources vulnerability index considering climate change impacts. Sci Total Environ 409(24):5228–5242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jun KS, Chung E-S, Kim YG, Kim Y (2013) A fuzzy multi-criteria approach to flood risk vulnerability in South Korea by considering climate change impacts. Expert Syst Appl 40:1003–1013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang BS, Lee JH, Chung ES, Kim DS, Kim YD (2013) A sensitivity analysis approach of multi-attribute decision making technique to rank flood mitigation projects. KSCE J Civil Eng 17(6):1529–1539

  • Kim Y, Chung ES (2012) Integrated assessment of climate change and urbanization impact on adaptation strategies: a case study in two small Korean watersheds. Clim Chang 115:853–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim Y, Chung ES (2013a) Assessing climate change vulnerability with group multi-criteria decision making approaches. Clim Chang 121:301–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim Y, Chung ES (2013b) Fuzzy VIKOR approach for assessing the vulnerability of the water supply to climate change and variability in South Korea. Appl Math Model 37:9419–9430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larichev OI, Moshkovich HM (1995) ZAPROS-LM: a method and system for ordering multi-attribute alternatives. Eur J Oper Res 82:503–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee GM, Jun KS, Chung ES (2013) Integrated multi-criteria flood vulnerability approach using fuzzy TOPSIS and Delphi technique. Nat Hazard Ear Sys 13:1293–1312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee GM, Jun KS, Chung ES (2014) Robust spatial flood vulnerability assessment for Han river using fuzzy TOPSIS with alpha-level sets. Expert Syst Appl 41(2):644–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee GM, Jun KS, Chung ES (2015) Group decision making approach for flood vulnerability identification with the fuzzy VIKOR method. Nat Hazard Ear Sys 15:863–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linstone HA, Turoff M (1975) The Delphi method: techniques and application. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Advanced Book Program, Boston, MA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (2001) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss R, Brenkert A, Malone E (2002) Vulnerability to climate change: a quantitative approach. US Department of Energy, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institute Environmental Research (2011) Sectoral climate change vulnerability map for guiding the development of climate change adaptation action plan at district level. NIER, Incheon, South Korea In Korean

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey JS, Mar BW, Horner RR (1985) The Delphi technique in environmental assessment implementation and effectiveness. J Environ Manag 21:135–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe G, Wright G (1999) The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. Int J Forecasting 15:353–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seager J (2001) Perspectives and limitations of indicators in water management. Reg Environ Chang 2:85–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triantaphyllou E, Sanchez A (1997) A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi-criteria decision making methods. Decis Sci 28(1):151–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Won KJ, Chung ES, Choi SU (2015) Parametric assessment for water use vulnerability using fuzzy entropy-coupled TOPSIS method. Sustain For 7(9):12052–12070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ye F, Li Y (2014) An extended TOPSIS model based on the possibility theory under fuzzy environment. Knowl-Based Syst 67:263–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng F, Jai C, Wang Z (2012) Flood risk assessment based on principal component analysis for Dongjiang river basin. 2nd International Conference on Remote Sensing, Environment and Transportation Engineering, Nanjing, China.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a grant (11-TI-C06) from Advanced Water Management Research Program funded by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport of Korea government. Also, this study was supported by a grant (NRF-2014R1A1A2056153) from Development of Integrated Water Resources Planning and Management Considering Uncertainty funded by National Research Foundation of Korea.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eun-Sung Chung.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Song, J.Y., Chung, ES. Robustness, Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses of the TOPSIS Method for Quantitative Climate Change Vulnerability: a Case Study of Flood Damage. Water Resour Manage 30, 4751–4771 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1451-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1451-2

Keywords

Navigation