IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i11p2005-d117197.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Flood Risk Assessment Model for Companies and Criteria for Governmental Decision-Making to Minimize Hazards

Author

Listed:
  • Jieun Ryu

    (Ojeong Eco-Resilience Institute Environmental GIS/RS Center, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea)

  • Eun Joo Yoon

    (Interdisciplinary Program in Landscape Architecture, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea)

  • Chan Park

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Seoul, Seoul 02504, Korea)

  • Dong Kun Lee

    (Department of Landscape Architecture and Rural System Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea)

  • Seong Woo Jeon

    (Department of Environmental Science and Ecological Engineering, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea)

Abstract

Flood risks in the industrial sector and economic damages are increasing because of climate change. In addition to changes in precipitation patterns due to climate change; factors that increase flood damage include infrastructure deterioration and lack of storage facilities. Therefore; it is necessary for companies and the government to actively establish flood management policies. However; no evaluation method is currently available to determine which items should be invested in first by small and medium-sized enterprises that have limited finances. Because the government should make comprehensive and fair decisions; the purpose of this study is to propose priority investment risk items and an assessment method to decide which companies should be invested in first in flood risk management due to climate change. The multispatial scale of the method takes both the location and characteristics of the company into account. Future climate change scenarios were used to evaluate the changing patterns of flood risks. We developed the relative Flood Risk Assessment for Company (FRAC model) methodology to support the government’s policymaking. This method was applied to four companies belonging to four different industries and three risk items were derived that are likely to harm the company owing to flooding.

Suggested Citation

  • Jieun Ryu & Eun Joo Yoon & Chan Park & Dong Kun Lee & Seong Woo Jeon, 2017. "A Flood Risk Assessment Model for Companies and Criteria for Governmental Decision-Making to Minimize Hazards," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-26, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:11:p:2005-:d:117197
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/11/2005/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/11/2005/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ortwin Renn, 1998. "Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 49-71, January.
    2. Mirjam Merz & Michael Hiete & Tina Comes & Frank Schultmann, 2013. "A composite indicator model to assess natural disaster risks in industry on a spatial level," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(9), pages 1077-1099, October.
    3. Zhongyi Sun & Jiquan Zhang & Qi Zhang & Yue Hu & Denghua Yan & Chunyi Wang, 2014. "Integrated risk zoning of drought and waterlogging disasters based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation in Anhui Province, China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 71(3), pages 1639-1657, April.
    4. Bijan Khazai & Mirjam Merz & Carola Schulz & Dietmar Borst, 2013. "An integrated indicator framework for spatial assessment of industrial and social vulnerability to indirect disaster losses," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 67(2), pages 145-167, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Henrich Grežo & Matej Močko & Martin Izsóff & Gréta Vrbičanová & František Petrovič & Jozef Straňák & Zlatica Muchová & Martina Slámová & Branislav Olah & Ivo Machar, 2020. "Flood Risk Assessment for the Long-Term Strategic Planning Considering the Placement of Industrial Parks in Slovakia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-20, May.
    2. Yeora Chae & Seo Hyung Choi & Yong Jee Kim, 2020. "Climate Change Policy Implications of Sustainable Development Pathways in Korea at Sub-National Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, May.
    3. Sunmin Lee & Saro Lee & Moung-Jin Lee & Hyung-Sup Jung, 2018. "Spatial Assessment of Urban Flood Susceptibility Using Data Mining and Geographic Information System (GIS) Tools," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gundula Glowka & Andreas Kallmünzer & Anita Zehrer, 2021. "Enterprise risk management in small and medium family enterprises: the role of family involvement and CEO tenure," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 1213-1231, September.
    2. Aistė Dirzytė & Ona Gražina Rakauskienė & Vaida Servetkienė, 2017. "Evaluation of resilience impact on socio-economic inequality," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 4(4), pages 489-501, June.
    3. Moumita Palchaudhuri & Sujata Biswas, 2016. "Application of AHP with GIS in drought risk assessment for Puruliya district, India," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 84(3), pages 1905-1920, December.
    4. O. Ionuş & M. Licurici & M. Pătroescu & S. Boengiu, 2015. "Assessment of flood-prone stripes within the Danube drainage area in the South-West Oltenia Development Region, Romania," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 75(1), pages 69-88, February.
    5. Tao Ye & Yangbin Liu & Jiwei Wang & Ming Wang & Peijun Shi, 2017. "Farmers’ crop insurance perception and participation decisions: empirical evidence from Hunan, China," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 664-677, May.
    6. Scott, Susan V. & Perry, Nicholas, 2006. "The enactment of risk categories: organizing and re-organizing risk management practices in the energy industry," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 37868, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Birgit M Beisswingert & Keshun Zhang & Thomas Goetz & Urs Fischbacher, 2016. "Spillover Effects of Loss of Control on Risky Decision-Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-19, March.
    8. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2012. "On the Risk Management and Risk Governance of Petroleum Operations in the Barents Sea Area," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1561-1575, September.
    9. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    10. Volker Meyer & Sally Priest & Christian Kuhlicke, 2012. "Economic evaluation of structural and non-structural flood risk management measures: examples from the Mulde River," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 62(2), pages 301-324, June.
    11. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    12. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    13. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    14. Andrea Cerase & Lorenzo Cugliari, 2023. "Something Still Remains: Factors Affecting Tsunami Risk Perception on the Coasts Hit by the Reggio Calabria-Messina 1908 Event (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-26, February.
    15. Susan V. Scott & Geoff Walsham, 2005. "Reconceptualizing and Managing Reputation Risk in the Knowledge Economy: Toward Reputable Action," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(3), pages 308-322, June.
    16. Wei Jian & Shanshan Li & Chengguang Lai & Zhaoli Wang & Xiangju Cheng & Edmond Yat-Man Lo & Tso-Chien Pan, 2021. "Evaluating pluvial flood hazard for highly urbanised cities: a case study of the Pearl River Delta Region in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(2), pages 1691-1719, January.
    17. Suvojit Dhara & Adrijit Goswami, 2023. "Causal Relationship and Ranking Technique (CRRT): A Novel Group Decision-Making Model and Application in Students’ Performance Assessment in Indian High School Context," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 835-870, August.
    18. Junfei Chen & Menghua Deng & Lu Xia & Huimin Wang, 2017. "Risk Assessment of Drought, Based on IDM-VFS in the Nanpan River Basin, Yunnan Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-16, June.
    19. Hannah A D Keage & Tobias Loetscher, 2018. "Estimating everyday risk: Subjective judgments are related to objective risk, mapping of numerical magnitudes and previous experience," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, December.
    20. Timotijevic, Lada & Barnett, Julie & Brown, Kerry & Raats, Monique M. & Shepherd, Richard, 2013. "Scientific decision-making and stakeholder consultations: The case of salt recommendations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 79-86.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:11:p:2005-:d:117197. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.