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

Yeonjoo Kim, Eun Sung Chung

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)301-315
Number of pages15
JournalClimatic Change
Volume121
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013 Nov 1

Fingerprint

vulnerability
decision making
climate change
water resource
ranking
method
flood control
water supply
water quality

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Global and Planetary Change
  • Atmospheric Science

Cite this

@article{c15729b155464fc88f90626dde8e532e,
title = "Assessing climate change vulnerability with group multi-criteria decision making approaches",
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.",
author = "Yeonjoo Kim and Chung, {Eun Sung}",
year = "2013",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10584-013-0879-0",
language = "English",
volume = "121",
pages = "301--315",
journal = "Climatic Change",
issn = "0165-0009",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "2",

}

Assessing climate change vulnerability with group multi-criteria decision making approaches. / Kim, Yeonjoo; Chung, Eun Sung.

In: Climatic Change, Vol. 121, No. 2, 01.11.2013, p. 301-315.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing climate change vulnerability with group multi-criteria decision making approaches

AU - Kim, Yeonjoo

AU - Chung, Eun Sung

PY - 2013/11/1

Y1 - 2013/11/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84887618147&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84887618147&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10584-013-0879-0

DO - 10.1007/s10584-013-0879-0

M3 - Article

VL - 121

SP - 301

EP - 315

JO - Climatic Change

JF - Climatic Change

SN - 0165-0009

IS - 2

ER -