Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 121, Issue 2, pp 301–315 | Cite as

Assessing climate change vulnerability with group multi-criteria decision making approaches

  • Yeonjoo Kim
  • Eun-Sung Chung
Article

Abstract

This study developed an approach to assess the vulnerability to climate change and variability using various group multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods and identified the sources of uncertainty in assessments. MCDM methods include the weighted sum method, one of the most common MCDM methods, the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), fuzzy-based TOPSIS, TOPSIS in a group-decision environment, and TOPSIS combined with the voting methods (Borda count and Copeland’s methods). The approach was applied to a water-resource system in South Korea, and the assessment was performed at the province level by categorizing water resources into water supply and conservation, flood control and water-quality sectors according to their management objectives. Key indicators for each category were profiled with the Delphi surveys, a series of questionnaires interspersed with controlled opinion feedback. The sectoral vulnerability scores were further aggregated into one composite score for water-resource vulnerability. Rankings among different MCDM methods varied in different degrees, but noticeable differences in the rankings from the fuzzy- and non-fuzzy-based methods suggested that the uncertainty with crisp data, rather widely used, should be acknowledged in vulnerability assessment. Also rankings from the voting-based methods did not differ much from those from non-voting-based (i.e., average-based) methods. Vulnerability rankings varied significantly among the different sectors of the water-resource systems, highlighting the need to assess the vulnerability of water-resource systems according to objectives, even though one composite index is often used for simplicity.

Keywords

Vulnerability Assessment Triangular Fuzzy Number Negative Ideal Solution Borda Count Positive Ideal Solution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by grants from the Climate Change Correspondence R&D Program funded by Korea Ministry of Environment (RE201206045) and the Advanced Water Management Research Program funded by Korea Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (12-TI-C01)

Supplementary material

10584_2013_879_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (968 kb)
ESM (PDF 968 kb)

References

  1. Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Change-Human Policy Dimens 16(3):268–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adger W, 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, UKGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellman RE, Zadeh LA (1970) Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manag Sci 17(4):141–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 Change-Human Policy Dimens 15(2):151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chu TC (2002) Facility location selection using fuzzy TOPSIS under group decisions. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowledge-Based Syst 10(6):687–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chung ES, Lee KS (2009) Identification of spatial ranking of hydrological vulnerability using multi-criteria decision making techniques: case study of Korea. Water Resour Manag 23(12):2395–2416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eriksen S, Kelly P (2007) Developing credible vulnerability indicators for climate adaptation policy assessment. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 12(4):495–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fu GT (2008) A fuzzy optimization method for multicriteria decision making: an application to reservoir flood control operation. Expert Syst Appl 34(1):145–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fussel HM, Klein RJT (2006) Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Clim Chang 75(3):301–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gleick PH (1990) Global climatic changes. Civ Eng Practice 5(1):53–68Google Scholar
  11. Hamouda MA, El-Din MMN, Moursy FI (2009) Vulnerability assessment of water resources systems in the Eastern Nile Basin. Water Resour Manag 23(13):2697–2725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attributes decision-making methods and applications. Heidelberg, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  13. Jun KS, Chung ES, Sung JY, Lee KS (2011) Development of spatial water resources vulnerability index considering climate change impacts. Sci Total Environ 409(24):5228–5242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jun KS, Chung ES, 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(4):1003–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim Y, Chung ES (2013) Fuzzy VIKOR approach for assessing the vulnerability of the water supply to climate change and variability in South Korea. doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2013.04.040
  16. Lee G, Jun KS, Chung ES (2013) Integrated multi-criteria flood vulnerability approach using fuzzy TOPSIS and Delphi technique. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13:1293–1312Google Scholar
  17. McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (2001) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Moss R, Brenkert A, Malone E (2002) Vulnerability to climate change: a quantitative approach. US Department of Energy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. NIER (2011) Sectoral climate change vulnerability map for guiding the development of climate change adaptation action plan at district level. National Institute of Environmental Research, Kyungseo-Dong, Seo-Gu, Incheon, Korea Google Scholar
  20. O’Brien K, Leichenko R, Kelkar U, Venema H, Aandahl G, Tompkins H, Javed A, Bhadwal S, Barg S, Nygaard L, West J (2004) Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and globalization in India. Glob Environ Change-Human Policy Dimens 14(4):303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Saari D (1995) Mathematical complexity of simple economics. Not Am Math Soc 42(2):222–230Google Scholar
  22. Seager J (2001) Perspectives and limitations of indicators in water management. Reg Environ Chang 2(2):85–92Google Scholar
  23. Shih HS, Wang CH, Lee ES (2004) A multiattribute GDSS for aiding problem-solving. Math Comput Model 39(11–12):1397–1412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shih H-S, Shyur H-J, Lee ES (2007) An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Math Comput Model 45(7–8):801–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zhou HC, Wang GL, Yang Q (1999) A multi-objective fuzzy pattern recognition model for assessing groundwater vulnerability based on the DRASTIC system. Hydrols Sci 44(4):611–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Korea Environment InstituteSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringSeoul National University of Science and TechnologySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations