An integrated indicator framework for spatial assessment of industrial and social vulnerability to indirect disaster losses

Assessment of the vulnerability of industrial parks to flood in South Korea

“…Thus, when determining the industrial location, climate change must be considered. Vulnerability can be divided into event-based vulnerability and structural vulnerability (Hiete and Merz 2009;Khazari et al 2013). Both concepts are influenced by climate exposure and sensitivity and draw the degree of fragility by considering the ability to adapt.…”

“…The climate exposure, sensitivity and the adaptation ability required to draw the vulnerability value were composed of detailed variables, and the standardization was performed for each indicator, first. Then each variable was added up by indicator, for which the standardization was performed based on the maximum value and minimum value by industrial complex, and the vulnerability value by industrial complex was drawn (Khazari et al 2013;Merz et al 2013). …”

“…M i = sum of standardized value by each indicator, V i ¼ Indicies (v 1 = climate exposure, v 2 = sensitivity, v 3 = adaptation ability) (Khazari et al 2013). …”

“…However, it did not address the damage of the industrial factor according to the change of the flood by the overall climate change just mentioning the water supply and demand. Khazari et al (2013) assessed the industrial and social vulnerability using indicators with the loss by indirect natural disaster. But it does not reflect each climate esposure such as flooding, drought only mentioning about the overall industry even all climate exposure characteristics are different.…”

VuWiki: An Ontology-Based Semantic Wiki for Vulnerability Assessments

“…3 explicitly refers to four classes of vulnerable systems: (1) ''natural systems'' for vulnerability studies referring to a set of subclasses that include physical systems (Calvalieri et al 2012), biological systems (De Lange et al 2010), and/or biophysical systems (O'Brien et al 2004); (2) ''social systems'' for vulnerability studies referring to the subclasses of population in general (Adger 1999;Carreño et al 2007), social groups, for example, communities (Cutter et al 2003;Bollin and Hidajat 2006), functional systems, such as the economy (Patt et al 2010), the public financial sector (Mechler et al 2006) or the health sector (Hahn et al 2009;Few and Tran 2010); and (3) ''technical systems,'' such as vulnerability studies referring to critical infrastructure (Hellström 2007;Kröger and Zio 2011). In addition, the ontology also accounts for a separate class of hybrid concepts referring to interactions between and within systems, such as in societal and ecological (biophysical) subsystems (Turner et al 2003;Gallopín 2006) or societal and technical subsystems (Khazai et al 2013). Overall, the ontology on vulnerable systems shown in Fig.…”