International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 19 (2016) 118–132

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Quantitative assessment of national resilience: A case study of Mount

Paektu eruption scenarios on South Korea
Soonyoung Yu a, Seong-Min Yoon b,n, Eun-Kyeong Choi c, Su-Do Kim d, Yun-Jung Lee e,
Yeonjeong Lee f, Ki-Hong Choi b
a
Korea CO2 Storage Environmental Management (K-COSEM) Research Center, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Economics, Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Republic of Korea
c
Gi Co. Ltd., Geo-Information Institute, Busan 611-839, Republic of Korea
d
Research Institute for Social Criticality, Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Republic of Korea
e
Research Institute for Computer and Information Communication, Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Republic of Korea
f
The Center of Advanced Education and Research for Creative Economy in the South-Eastern Mega-city Region and Economic Cooperation in Korea, China,
and Japan, Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Republic of Korea

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study estimated South Korea's resilience to volcanic eruption scenarios by summing direct and
Received 6 July 2016 indirect losses in industrial sectors, health damages, and costs to clean roads of volcanic ash. This resi-
Received in revised form lience assessment aimed to compare eruption scenarios from a socio-economic perspective and prepare
1 September 2016
mitigation strategies. Direct losses were estimated using vulnerability functions in agriculture and in-
Accepted 1 September 2016
terruption times in air transportation and manufacturing. Indirect losses were estimated using input–
Available online 2 September 2016
output tables on South Korea. Health damages were estimated using the unit damage cost of particulate
Keywords: matter studied in the European Union and the United States. Resilience assessment results depended on
Mount Paektu eruption scenarios and the locations of vulnerable items. The industrial sectors had indirect losses that
Eruption scenario
were larger than direct losses, suggesting the inclusion of indirect losses in economic impact assessments
Resilience
of natural hazards. This study indicated that the community resilience cost index (CRCI) is useful in
Loss
Recovery cost assessing community resilience to hazards. The CRCI quantified the economic differences in eruption
scenarios, and could lead an optimal hazard mitigation to enhance resilience. The CRCI can be applied to
other hazards by defining and measuring losses and recovery strategies using appropriate data and to
develop mitigation strategies by defining the interaction between losses and recovery costs.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Mount Paektu is a 2744-m-high active volcano on the border
between North Korea and China (Fig. 1). Scientists have investigated
Mount Paektu to determine when the next eruption will occur be-
cause geophysical anomalies, including elevated temperatures of hot
springs and deflation of the caldera rim, were observed. The next
eruption may be explosive given that the silica-rich magma is viscous
and gassy, allowing pressure to build [36,52]. Historical records and
ash layers indicate that Mount Paektu explodes to life every 100
years. Especially, around 1000 years ago, the volcano ejected pumice
and ash across 33,000 km2 of northeast China and Korea, dumping
5 cm of ash as far away as Japan. The millennium eruption was one of
the largest of the past few thousand years, rivalling the 1815 Tambora
eruption in Indonesia [36].
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: smyoon@pusan.ac.kr (S.-M. Yoon).
Eruption signals and potential explosivity have raised the concern
of governments over the economic and social impacts of an eruption.
In particular, the South Korean government is concerned about the
impact of volcanic ash given the geographical distance from the
volcano. Mount Paektu is 500 km from Seoul (the capital of South
Korea). Wind mobilizes the volcanic ash from deposits that accu-
mulate along the main transport directions of the volcanic cloud, and
spreads it over hundreds and thousands of kilometres, depending on
wind speed, ash size, ash density, and eruption magnitude [18,34].
For instance, the volcanic ash ejected during the 2010 eruptions of
Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland affected economic, political, and cultural
activities in Europe and across the world. In South Korea, which is
halfway around the world from Eyjafjallajökull, approximately
30,000 passengers and 4060 t of cargos were affected by the volcanic
ash from Iceland. Altogether, the losses caused by the volcanic ash
cloud from Iceland, including airlines’ losses of $1.7 billion in missed
revenues and airports’ losses of €250 million [38], were estimated at
higher than that of the three-day worldwide shutdown after the 11
September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States [11–13].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.09.002
2212-4209/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Yu et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 19 (2016) 118–132
Fig. 1. Location of Mount Paektu (black triangle) and the surrounding countries. The solid line box is the area for modelling ash dispersion scenarios using Fall3D [5] of the
volcanic disaster preparedness research centre (VDPRC) of South Korea.
In the meantime, as economic losses from natural hazards have
increased [25], assessment of the economic impact from natural
hazards has become a research topic of significant interest to
governments to ensure hazard mitigation and preparedness
[20,49] and to individuals regarding risk transfer [49]. The eco-
nomic impacts are assessed in various ways, including direct and
indirect losses [33], social costs [26], cost-benefit analysis [23,47],
and disaster resilience [4,6]. In particular, considerable research
interest exists on measuring community resilience from hazards/
disasters [6,37,45]. In general, resilience is defined as the ability to
survive and cope with a disaster with minimum impact and da-
mage in hazards research, while the global environmental change
community defines it as a system's capacity to absorb disturbance
and reorganize into a fully functioning system [6].
This study intended to quantitatively assess the national resi-
lience to volcanic ash dispersion scenarios, given that volcanolo-
gists warn that Mount Paektu is poised for eruption and public
concern over the impact of an explosive eruption is growing. In
this study, the resilience assessment converted scientific results as
shown in Figs. 2 and 3 into economic values to assist governments
and the public sector in better understanding the hazard. In ad-
dition, quantifying the resilience can be used to develop appro-
priate strategies to mitigate the eruption impacts on South Korea.
To address these objectives, resilience was defined more con-
cretely in Section 2.2. The community resilience cost index (CRCI)
was introduced in Section 2.2, and its applicability to hazard mi-
tigation was discussed in Section 4.
119
The resilience assessment in this study is distinct in that in-
direct losses and recovery costs are included, as are direct losses.
In engineering fields in general, indirect losses from natural dis-
asters are excluded in the economic impact assessment of natural
hazards, probably because structural countermeasures are used to
reduce physical damage and engineers are unfamiliar with indirect
losses. However, according to Hallegatte and Przyluski [10], a di-
rect loss is not a sufficient indicator of disaster seriousness, and
estimating indirect losses is crucial to assessing the consequences
of a disaster on welfare. In fact, indirect losses were larger than
direct losses in various natural disasters, including volcanic ha-
zards [15] because of the broader economic impacts and the long-
term effects. Additionally, some regulations propose including
recovery costs when estimating mitigation activities [16,24,25,50];
however, recovery cost estimation is more difficult than loss es-
timation and is frequently ignored in resilience assessment, which
in result underestimates damages of natural disasters.
2. Methods
2.1. Ash dispersion scenarios
Eruption scenarios in Figs. 2 and 3 were evaluated using Fall3D
[5] of the volcanic disaster preparedness research centre (VDPRC)
of South Korea. The VDPRC has been simulating thousands of
eruption scenarios by making various assumptions of wind fields
120 S. Yu et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 19 (2016) 118–132

Fig. 2. Volcanic ash deposits (mm) 48 h after an eruption: (a)–(h) eight wind fields (Table 1). (i) indicates the average ash thickness in 16 provinces in South Korea in eruption
scenario (h).

and the volcanic explosivity index (VEI) given the unpredictability
of wind and explosivity when Mount Paektu erupts. The possibility
of each scenario is still under review. In this study, eight eruption
scenarios were randomly selected (Table 1, Figs. 2 and 3). Volcanic
ash deposits (Fig. 2) and particulate matter (PM) concentrations in
the air (Fig. 3) were used to assess the national resilience to an
eruption scenario because volcanic ash damage from these two
hazard types was reported throughout the world [15,48].
2.2. Community Resilience Cost Index (CRCI)
2.2.1. Resilience
Resilience becomes highlighted when the impacts of hazards
are analysed. However, there is no broadly accepted single defi-
nition of resilience, and multiple definitions exist within the
literature [6]. Various quantitative models have been suggested for
measuring the resilience [30,37,45]. In common, the definitions of
resilience all include withstanding change, by reducing the impact
of the change, adapting to the change, or recovering from the
change [45].
Vugrin et al. [45] defined resilience as the ability of a system to
efficiently reduce both the magnitude and the duration of a de-
viation from the targeted levels of performance given the occur-
rence of an event, and invented the resilience cost index (RCI) to
quantitatively assess the resilience of critical infrastructure sys-
tems. The RCI was verified for chemical supply chains [42,44,46].
The RCI is measured as the sum of the system impact (SI) and the
recovery effort (RE) of an incident (Fig. 4). To compare different
size systems, the RCI is divided by the magnitude of the target
system performance (TSP).
 S. Yu et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 19 (2016) 118–132 121

Fig. 3. Particulate matter (PM) concentrations in air (μg/m3) 48 h after an eruption: (a)–(h) eight wind fields (Table 1). The PM concentrations include particulate matter
5 mm or less in diameter (PM5), 10 mm or less in diameter (PM10) and 20 mm or less in diameter (PM20).

The RCI is distinct from other resilience quantification methods
(e.g., [37]) in that it includes RE and SI to quantify resilience. Thus, the
RCI concludes that two systems have different resilience to a hazard
when the two systems require different recovery efforts for the same
loss recovery path. The RCI tells that the system requiring more RE is
less resilient to the hazard than the system requiring less RE, al-
though the two systems show the same SI. The other quantification
methods (e.g., [6,30,37]) measure SI only and would conclude that
the two systems have the same resilience. Moreover, the RCI can be
used to investigate an optimal recovery effort that minimizes this
index [41,43]. In summary, the RCI includes the restorative capacity
(e.g. easy recovery), absorptive capacity (e.g. internal robustness),
and adaptive capacity (e.g. self-organization for recovery) of a system
to quantify resilience (Fig. 4). The absorptive, adaptive and restorative
capacity is respectively corresponding to prevention/preparedness,
response and recovery phase of the disaster management cycle [29].
2.2.2. Community Resilience Cost Index (CRCI)
The concept of RCI was applied by Yu et al. [55] to assess the
community resilience cost index (CRCI), whose applicability to
assess the national or regional resilience to natural disasters (e.g.
heavy rain, typhoon) was verified using disaster statistics of South
Korea [55] and Fiji [54]. The CRCI is evaluated using the sum of
losses and recovery costs – called resilience costs (Fig. 4) – divided
by exposure levels (e.g. population, gross domestic product) to
compare the resilience among different communities. A higher
CRCI indicates less resilience. The losses included in CRCI are from
the physical damages of inventory items or victims because they
reflect the absorptive (robust) and adaptive (endogenous change)
capacities, whereas the recovery costs include monetary support
for reconstruction and financial compensation for the loss of fa-
mily members or income. The CRCI addresses that the more ab-
sorptive and adaptive community will experience the less
122 S. Yu et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 19 (2016) 118–132

Table 1
Community resilience cost index (CRCI) of eight eruption scenarios.

Wind Field (VEI 7) Lossesa Recovery costsa CRCIb Percentage of GDP in 2011

Agriculturec Air Transportationd Manufacturee Extra costf Clean-up costg

Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect

January 30, 2011 106,916 157,041 854 1245 97,600 150,433 35,351 123,036 672,476 0.05
April 12, 2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
October 6, 2011 3015 4428 0 0 0 0 74 0 7517 0.00
February 1, 2012 4412 6513 0 0 200 248 566 0 11,939 0.00
May 9, 2012 767,089 1,132,332 0 0 0 0 7925 47,449 1,954,795 0.05
July 27, 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 24 0.00
November 5, 2012 80,390 4,303,006 44,867 65,165 653,919 974,026 293,734 201,569 6,616,676 0.50
June 7, 2013 4,518,938 6,670,595 61,127 88,782 2,375,606 3,560,897 2,770,486 383,252 20,429,683 1.53
Average 685,095 1,534,239 13,356 19,399 390,916 585,701 388,520 94,413 3,711,639 0.28

a
Unit: Million South Korean Won (Million KRW); 1 USD ¼ 1,142.86 KRW as of July 2015.
b
CRCI ¼Resilience Cost ¼ Lossþ Recovery cost, as shown in Fig. 4 in this study because different counties were not compared.
c
Including agricultural products in Table 4.
d
Airport corporations in Fig. 7 and six airlines of South Korea.
e
Including 14 semiconductors, five automobile, and 11 shipbuilding companies in Fig. 8.
f
Health damages from particulate materials in the air.
g
Clean-up cost of volcanic ash from roads.

Fig. 4. Resilience, resilience cost index (RCI) of Vugrin et al. [45], community resilience cost index (CRCI), and the CRCI to volcanic ash dispersion scenarios. The RCI (CRCI) is
an index because the sum of system impact and recovery effort (the sum of loss and recovery cost) is divided by the target system performance (exposure levels) to compare
different size systems.

economic impacts (losses), while the more restorative community
will require the less recovery costs for the same loss recovery path.
The loss and recovery costs included for volcanic ash dispersion
scenarios were discussed in detail in Sections 2.3 and 2.4,
respectively.
It should be noted that losses and recovery costs can be mea-
sured using the same data for an inventory item. For instance, if a
building is damaged, the CRCI measures the direct loss and the
recovery cost by the current value of the building and the re-
placement cost, respectively. The current value and the replace-
ment cost can be measured based on the same data (e.g., RSMeans
Square Foot Costs in Hazus-MH). However, the CRCI includes in-
direct losses. Moreover the recovery cost not only comprises the
replacement cost but also reflects the restorative capacity (e.g.,
time to rebuild or restoration duration) in the resilience assess-
ment framework in Fig. 4. Besides, the recovery cost varies de-
pending on a disaster mitigation plan. For example, a community
may recover the building to the original state with requiring a
replacement cost, while another community plans to enhance
resilience to future hazards during recovery phase and requires
recovery costs more than the replacement cost, which ultimately
reduces future system impacts (losses).
In this study, note that the resilience cost (the sum of losses and
recovery costs) was not divided by exposure levels because dif-
ferent counties were not compared. Thus, in Table 1, the CRCI is
equal to the resilience cost. The resilience cost in this study is si-
milar to the economic resilience of Rose [30] in that the economic
impacts and costs were measured. However, Rose [30] measured
the system impact (losses) and the loss reducing effect of recovery
efforts, and did not include the magnitude of the recovery effort
(recovery costs) in the economic resilience.
The absolute values of the CRCI can differ for the same eruption
scenario depending on the types of losses, the recovery strategies
considered, and the data used to measure the losses and recovery
costs, which also affect the upper bound of the CRCI. The lower
bound of the CRCI is zero (no loss and no recovery cost). For instance,
the regional resilience of South Korea to heavy rain events was up to
0.00374 (dimensionless) in Yu et al. [55] who divided the sum of
losses and recovery costs (South Korean Won; KRW) by the gross
regional domestic product (GRDP) (KRW) to compare the regional
 S. Yu et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 19 (2016) 118–132
resilience. The maximum of 0.00374 indicates that the resilience cost
reached up to 0.374% of GRDP in a region. In contrast, when the
resilience cost (thousand KRW) was divided by population, the CRCI
was up to 71.7 (thousand KRW/person) in another region [55]. In fact,
the absolute value itself is not important in resilience assessment. It
is vital that the appropriate data are used to represent losses, re-
covery costs, and exposure levels to measure the impact and to
compare systems of different size.
This study included losses in the agriculture, air transportation,
electronic and electrical equipment, and transportation equip-
ment, health damages, and the costs to clean volcanic ash from
roads (Fig. 4) because of the limited data available to quantify
losses and recovery costs and the difficulty in defining recovery
strategies. A consistent methodology was applied to the eight
scenarios in Table 1 for comparison. Relevance was discussed
in Section 4.
2.3. Losses
Losses can be divided into direct losses, indirect losses, and
external costs. Direct losses result from the physical damage of
inventory items or victims and immediately occur after a hazard
event, whereas indirect losses represent the consequences of
physical destruction and are prolonged and often hidden. External
costs include damages that are not included in direct and indirect
losses and in this study were primarily damages related to health.
2.3.1. Direct losses
Volcanic ash can cause direct losses in various sectors [38,39].
This study included losses in the agriculture [48], air transporta-
tion [12,14], and manufacturing sectors based on the industrial
structure of South Korea and its vulnerability to ash.
Previous experience with volcanic eruptions (e.g. the 1995/96
Ruapehu eruptions; the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption; [15])
clearly shows that a Mount Paektu eruption could have significant
effects on the agricultural sector and the broader economy. The
impacts vary with the thickness of the ash fall. Jiang et al. [15]
summarized the impacts with respect to volcanic ash thickness/
weight for each sector. Wilson and Kaye [48] developed fragility
curves for the agricultural sector that are similar to Fig. 5, which
indicates that root vegetables are less vulnerable to ash deposits
while graph is more vulnerable. In addition, volcanic ash causes
damage to airplane engines [14] and interrupts airport operations
[12,13]. According to IATA [12,13], the ash plume from Iceland's
Eyjafjallajökull volcano in mid-April 2010 led to the progressive
closure of a significant portion of Europe's airspace in a period of
seven days, causing more than 100,000 flights to be cancelled. The
European Commission estimated the total number of passengers
unable to travel during the entire period at 10 million.
Fig. 5. Fragility curves of grain crops, leafy vegetables, fruit vegetables, root ve-
getables, fruits, and graphs (after [48]).
123
Meanwhile, the impact of volcanic ash on the global manu-
facturing sector has not been well reported, probably because the
volcanoes throughout the world are located far from the manu-
facturing industry, whereas the losses in the manufacturing sector
from yellow dust and particulate matter (PM) have been observed
in semiconductors, displays, automobiles, shipbuilding, iron and
steel, petrochemistry, and machinery. The defective fraction in-
creased in precision industries (e.g. semiconductors), and outdoor
work (e.g. painting in the automobile and shipbuilding industries)
was interrupted. Similar damage from yellow dust and PM can be
caused by volcanic ash because the ash increases the PM con-
centration in the air (e.g. Fig. 3) and has similar properties to
mineral dust [18]. This study estimated the direct losses in semi-
conductor, shipbuilding, and automobile companies, given the
significant proportion of those industries in South Korea and their
vulnerability to dust.
The physical damage to inventory items in each sector pre-
viously mentioned can be evaluated using catastrophe risk models
(cat models) [9], which requires hazard characterization, a list of
the inventory items, and information on their vulnerability (Fig. 6).
In particular, the information on vulnerability should be given as
vulnerability functions or fragility curves [32] for each inventory
item, which are developed from historical damage data or nu-
merical modelling. This study assessed the loss in agriculture using
cat models because the vulnerability curves are available (Fig. 5).
In contrast, given the scant information on the vulnerability
functions, the direct losses in the air transportation and manu-
facturing sectors were assessed on the basis of business inter-
ruption times. For the air transportation sector, PM in the air
(Fig. 3), operational procedures for flights (Table 2), and the con-
sequent interruption times at each airport (Fig. 7) were used to
estimate the direct losses to airports and airlines. For the manu-
facturing sector, business interruption times were estimated for
individual inventory items (Fig. 8), assuming that a PM con-
centration higher than 400 mg/m3 interrupts the manufacturing
business. In South Korea, a PM reading of more than 400 mg/m3 for
more than two hours prompts a yellow dust advisory, and a PM
reading of 800 mg/m3 for more than two hours prompts a warning.
The impact of volcanic ash deposits on lifeline systems (high-
ways, railways, water supply, electric power) was reviewed but not
included in this paper because little data was available in Korea to
measure the monetary value of the impact. Scawthorn et al. [33]
estimated the flood damage to infrastructure using vulnerability
curves, and Vugrin et al. [44] assessed petrochemical supply chain
impacts of a hurricane using a petrochemical supply chain model.
A primary component of the supply chain model was a database of
domestic and foreign chemical plants, chemical productions,
commodity flows, and chemical infrastructure. Besides, physical
damages to houses and other infrastructure were not considered
in this study because ash deposits estimated using Fall3D of the
VDPRC were not thick enough to destroy buildings. Subsequently
recovery costs with respect to these inventory items were not
considered in Section 2.4. The physical damages to buildings by
volcanic ash can be measured, with following Fig. 6, if vulner-
ability functions for each building type are available as in Wilson
and Kaye [48].
Fig. 6. Structure of catastrophe risk models [9].
124 S. Yu et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 19 (2016) 118–132

Table 2
Operational procedures for flights in the vicinity of high ash concentration areas [1].

Volcanic ash zone Volcanic ash concentration Operational procedures

No Fly Zone (NFZ)
Time Limited Zone (TLZ)
Enhance Procedure Zone
(EPZ)
Normal Zone
Greater than 4000 μg/m3 – This zone is an area of potentially serious damage to aircraft and engines. Aircraft and engines in-
advertently flown into this region would be subject to immediate inspection and maintenance
actions.
– Airport and airspace closed.
3
Between 2000 μg/m and – This zone is an area determined safe to fly in but may be time in zone limited and may require
4000 μg/m3 additional monitoring and special inspections of the engine after exposure.
– Long-term exposure to this region could result in accumulated damage, which could result in safety
concerns if not properly addressed.
– To operate in this zone, airlines need to present the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) with a safety case
that includes the agreement of their aircraft and engine manufacturers.
Between 200 μg/m3 and 2000 μg/ – This zone is an area determined safe to fly in but requiring enhanced procedures – additional
3
m monitoring, inspection and maintenance actions.
– Long-term exposure to this region could result in accumulated damage, which could result in safety
concerns if not properly addressed.
– This zone requires no additional maintenance actions.

2.3.2. Indirect losses
Many possible definitions exist for indirect losses, which can be
market or non-market losses and sometimes include non-mone-
tary indirect consequences [10]. Thus, various economic models
are used to assess indirect losses at the regional or national level,
including econometrics models; input–output (I–O) models; and
Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) models. At present, I–O
models, CGE models, and hybrid models (between CGE and I–O
models) are more frequently used [51].
In this study, the indirect losses were assessed using an input–
output (I–O) model developed by Lee et al. [19], as shown in Fig. 9.
In the model, 30  30 sector input–output (I–O) tables of South

Fig. 7. Eight international and seven domestic airports in South Korea.

 S. Yu et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 19 (2016) 118–132 125

Fig. 8. Geographical distribution of 14 semiconductors, 5 automobile, and 11 shipbuilding companies.

Fig. 9. Flowchart of the indirect loss estimation model.

126 S. Yu et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 19 (2016) 118–132
Korea for 2010 and extended I–O tables for 2011 and 2012 were
used to calculate induced coefficients. In I–O models, indirect
losses are defined as the change in other sectors resulting from the
exogenous change in a sector through input–output relationships.
In the exogenous specification step in Fig. 9, exogenous variables
(i.e. agriculture, forestry, and fishing in Section 3.2, transportation
in Section 3.3, electronic and electrical equipment and transpor-
tation equipment in Section 3.4) were specified on the basis of the
I–O tables of South Korea.
I–O models are powerful tools to assess how a shock – on one
or several sectors – is propagated into the economy through in-
termediate consumption and demand. The I–O models have been
widely applied to assess the indirect losses from natural disasters,
e.g. Hazus-MH [17,33,53], and Xie et al. [51], despite the limita-
tions. For example, the linear character of I–O models cannot re-
flect the substitution elasticity in the economic system. The po-
pularity of I–O models for disaster-related research is primarily
based on the ability to reflect in detail economic inter-
dependencies within a regional economy to derive higher-order
effects and is partly based on its simplicity [27]. Using world in-
put-output tables for countries [7], the effects that the damages in
a country have on the world economy can be assessed.
2.3.3. External costs
Natural disasters cause various external costs, including human
health costs, ecosystem damages [26], and climate effects [18]. In
the long term positive externalities (benefits) may occur, e.g.,
creation of a productive environment after ash deposition [35].
This study assessed health damages from airborne PM only as
external costs, similar to Markandya [21], given that these da-
mages were not included in the direct and indirect losses in Sec-
tions 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. Note that external costs addressed health
damages and were considered losses in Fig. 4 and Table 1 – but
were called costs.
Many researchers, including Markandya [21], Rosendahl [31],
and Vlachokostas et al. [40], estimated health damages from PM
and their social costs using dose-response functions. Pervin et al.
[28] summarized their methods and estimates of social costs from
air pollutants, including PM. According to Pervin et al. [28], many
studies used a willingness-to-pay (WTP) approach to assess in-
tangible costs, i.e. health damages. In particular, Markandya [21]
adjusted the health damages from PM studied in the European
Union and the United States ($15,530 to $59,420 per tonne) for
other countries, including South Korea, by using the ratio of pur-
chasing power parity (PPP) estimates of GNP (PPP GNP) in the
concerned country to PPP GNP in the United States or the Eur-
opean Union. Income elasticity was assumed to be 1 and 0.35,
respectively, because of uncertainty. This study averaged the va-
lues of PM health damage for South Korea in Markandya [21] and
used the average as the unit damage cost of PM, given that par-
ticulate damage is controversial and income elasticity is highly
uncertain.
2.4. Recovery costs
Recovery costs are more difficult to estimate than losses be-
cause a variety of recovery methods exist to recover from damage,
each of which requires different times, costs, and data to quantify.
Additionally, the degree of recovery support varies according to
legal, social, or political philosophies. Cimellaro et al. [3] discussed
the complexity of the recovery process. However, recovery pro-
cesses are very important in resilience assessment because of the
interaction between losses and recovery costs [55], and should be
included in the assessment of resilience. For instance, Fig. 2 in Yu
et al. [55] illustrated that the duration of losses and the con-
sequent magnitude of economic losses and recovery costs vary
depending on the recovery method and the time to allocate re-
covery resources.
Yu et al. [55] found that the ratio of recovery costs to economic
losses depends on the hazard type (0.99–1.8 for typhoons, 1.93–
3.83 for heavy rains, 0.39–1.37 for snowfall, and 0.61 for wind
waves) and suggested that recovery costs can be estimated using
the ratio. However, no historical data exist to define the ratio of
recovery costs to losses for volcanic ash. In contrast, Cimellaro
et al. [2,3] assumed a simplified recovery function model, such as
linear, exponential, and trigonometric, but no evidence existed to
select one of these models for this study.
Given the difficulty in defining recovery processes and esti-
mating their costs, this study included the costs to clean up vol-
canic ash from roads only in the recovery cost (Fig. 4). Cleaning up
volcanic ash from roads is very important for quick recovery from
volcanic ash damage, which minimizes the total loss or the resi-
lience cost (i.e., the sum of losses and recovery costs in Fig. 4). In
fact, the VDPRC of South Korea realized the importance of volcanic
ash clean-up from roads from previous experiences in Japan and
surveyed the available resources for cleaning up volcanic ash from
roads. This study used the information on the available clean-up
resources that VDPRC found, e.g. the number of water spray trucks
and road sweepers, as noted in Section 3.6. Using previous ex-
periences in Japan, the criterion for cleaning up volcanic ash from
roads was assumed to be ash thickness of 0.5 mm. Fujisan HM [8]
reported that road lanes were invisible and ash removal was
needed when ash thickness exceeded 0.5 mm.
Cleaning up volcanic ash from roads is akin to removing debris
after a hurricane or tornado. These tasks may fall into the response
phase of the disaster management cycle, and therefore the adaptive
capacity rather than the restorative capacity in Fig. 4. However, re-
sponse and recovery are not distinct, excluding emergency response
and long-term recovery. Disaster management activities usually cover
more than one phase and the boundaries between phases are seldom
precise [29]. Moreover, volcanic eruptions are rare and cannot be
forecasted unlike a hurricane or tornado, and cleaning up volcanic ash
from roads is not emergency response. Rather cleaning roads of vol-
canic ash requires external effort in case of volcanic eruptions. Thus,
how easily a community can clean up volcanic ash from roads reflects
the restorative capacity of a community. This study considered the cost
to clean up volcanic ash from roads as the recovery cost in Fig. 4.
The VDPRC of South Korea is investigating appropriate recovery
strategies based on volcanic ash dispersion scenarios, as shown in
Figs. 2 and 3. Once a new recovery strategy is developed, it will be
added to the resilience cost in the future.
3. Results
The resilience of South Korea to volcanic ash dispersion sce-
narios was assessed with following the procedure in Fig. 10. The
monetary values were evaluated based on the wind field dates in
Figs. 2 and 3. 1 USD¼1142.86 KRW as of July 2015.
3.1. Volcanic ash dispersion scenarios
Eight scenarios in Figs. 2 and 3 were randomly selected from
the VDPRC database, with considering that Korea has four distinct
seasons. Thus it can be assumed that these scenarios provide a
potential envelope of what could be expected from an eruption in
terms of wind fields. The VDPRC simulated thousands of eruption
scenarios, assuming that a volcano will erupt in one of the pre-
vious wind fields. Figs. 2 and 3 show that ash deposits and PM
concentrations vary with wind fields despite the same explosivity,
e.g. VEI 7. In fact, the wind field is one of the most important
factors in estimating the impact of volcanic ash [22,34].
 S. Yu et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 19 (2016) 118–132 127

Fig. 10. The procedure to assess resilience in this study. Fig. 10 also illustrates the interaction between losses and recovery costs and the balance between benefits (reduction
in losses) and mitigation costs. The dotted lines are not considered in this study.

Figs. 2 and 3 show that volcanic ash can transport to South Table 3
Korea in some wind fields. In particular, the scenario in Fig. 2 Average ash thickness in the eruption scenario in Fig. 2(i), agricultural production,
and the consequent direct loss by province.
(h) resulted in the average ash thickness of up to 103 mm in a
province (Gangwon in Table 3), and ash thickness in the tens (mm) Province Ash thick- Agricultural pro- Direct loss Loss
was estimated in other provinces, particularly in the east, as ness (mm) duction (Billion (Billion ratio
shown in Fig. 2(i). However, the possibility is unknown that these KRW) KRW) (%)
thick ash deposits in South Korea are from Mount Paektu erup-
Seoul 5.74 4.094 1.285 31.40
tions. Rather, the possibility that volcanic ash is transported to Busan 4.64 51.730 12.517 24.20
South Korea seems low because an explosive eruption causes Daegu 9.08 62.627 34.936 55.78
volcanic ash to reach the stratosphere, where the ash moves to the Incheon 3.01 135.199 11.354 8.40
east, thus affecting Japan. For instance, 5 cm of volcanic ash from a Gwangju 0.23 81.184 222 0.27
Daejeon 3.72 30.442 6.385 20.97
Mount Paektu eruption approximately 1000 years ago had been
Ulsan 9.62 96.530 54.089 56.03
found as far away as the southern part of Hokkaido in Japan [36]; Gyeonggi 7.01 1213.193 444.943 36.68
however, no such ash has been found in South Korea. Gangwon 102.58 571.677 565.451 98.91
This study did not consider the possibility of eruption scenarios Chungcheongbuk 13.68 838.006 631.069 75.31
because it is still under review and the period of 48 h after an Chungcheongnam 2.47 2072.905 116.479 5.62
Chollabuk 1.47 1801.896 32.914 1.83
eruption was selected to compare the economic impact of the Chollanam 0.19 2335.812 5.916 0.25
eight scenarios. Gyeongsangbuk 24.72 2660.324 2471.810 92.91
Gyeongsangnam 2.74 1327.885 129.568 9.76
3.2. Agriculture Jeju 0.00 1296.698 0.000 0.00
Total 14,580.202 4518.938 30.99

To estimate the direct loss to agriculture, the geographical

distribution of agricultural inventory items and their values are
needed in the inventory step in Fig. 6. The Korean statistical in-
formation service (KOSIS) provides agricultural output (tonnes)
from 16 provinces and total sales (South Korean Won; KRW) for
South Korea for each product (e.g. Table 4). Provincial sales (KRW)
of each item, as the value of an agricultural inventory item in a
province, were estimated by multiplying the total sales of South
Korea by the provincial proportion of the total output for a pro-
duct. The sum of the provincial sales (KRW) of agricultural pro-
ducts in Table 4 was summarized in Table 3 by province and in-
cluded rice/barley, leafy vegetables, fruit vegetables, root vege-
tables, and fruits grown outdoors. Graphs were included for the
fruits in Table 4 because of the low output, although its damage
function was available in Fig. 5.
Vulnerability information (Fig. 5), provincial distribution of agri-
cultural production (Table 3), and ash fall thickness (Fig. 2) were used
to estimate the direct loss in agriculture of the eight scenarios, re-
sulting in Tables 1,3. Table 3 shows the result of the worst-case
scenario in Figs. 2(h) and 2(i). The comparison in Table 1 indicates
the degree to which the scenario in Fig. 2(h) was worse from an
economic perspective. In Table 3, Gyeongsangbuk experienced the
largest loss because it had the largest agricultural production that is
vulnerable to thick volcanic ash. In Gangwon, 98.9% of agricultural
production was damaged from up to 103 mm of thick ash that was
deposited. In total, 31% of agricultural production in South Korea was
physically damaged in the scenario in Fig. 2(h). Tables 1,3 indicate
that the direct loss to agriculture depended on agricultural produc-
tion, vulnerability to volcanic ash, ash thickness, and the geographical
location of vulnerable products.
Table 4
Agricultural products.
Category Agricultural products
Grain crops Rice, Barley
Leafy vegetables Chinese cabbage, cabbage, spinach, lettuce, water dropwort,
crown daisy, leeks
Root vegetables white radish, carrot, burdock, taro, lotus root, potato
Fruit vegetables Water melon, cucumber, squash, tomato, strawberry, melon,
green chilli peppers, eggplant, paprica.
Fruits apple, pear, peach, Tangerine, plum, Japanese apricot, citron,
kiwi fruit, fig, persimmon, grapes
The resolution of the assessment results by province in Table 3
is relatively low compared with the grid sizes used in Fall3D to
estimate Fig. 2. This low resolution was the result of limited data
on agricultural production, with only provincial data available.
The indirect loss induced by physical damage to agriculture was
estimated using the I–O model in Fig. 9. Table 5 summarizes the
resultant effects on production, imports, and value-added in South
Korea in the scenario in Fig. 2(h). The production inducement
consists of the effect on direct inducement and the effect on in-
direct inducement. The effect on direct inducement is a reduction
in production in the sector including agriculture, or Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries in 30 sectors. The effect on indirect in-
ducement is a reduction in production in the other 29 sectors gi-
ven a production reduction in the Agriculture, Forestry and Fish-
eries sector. In addition, the reduction in agricultural production
(i.e. Table 3) affects imports in the Agriculture, Forestry and
128 S. Yu et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 19 (2016) 118–132

Table 5 addition, the provincial production data or the fragility curves vary
Indirect losses caused by the direct loss in Table 3 (Unit: Billion KRW). by season, e.g. planting/growing/harvest. However, seasonal ef-
fects were not considered in this study. Wilson and Kaye [48]
Induced impacts in Production inducement Difference
production developed seasonality coefficients to address seasonality.
Before volcano After volcano
eruption eruption 3.3. Air transportation
Effect on direct 56,451.093 51,932.155 4518.938
inducement South Korea has eight international and seven domestic air-
Effect on indirect 34,866.920 32,075.805 2791.114 ports (Fig. 7), and seven airlines operate in the country. This study
inducement estimated the impact of the eight eruption scenarios on these 15
Total 91,318.013 84,007.960 7310.052 airports and six airlines on the basis of the PM concentrations in
Induced impacts in Import inducement Difference
imports Before volcano After volcano
Fig. 3 and the flight operating procedures (Table 2). A small airline
eruption eruption was excluded because of insufficient data, and foreign airlines
Effect on direct 1828.791 1682.395 146.396 were excluded because of the difficulty in accessing data. The loss
inducement estimation steps were as follows. First, the average PM con-
Effect on indirect 6764.975 6223.436 541.540
centration within 10 km around each airport was calculated using
inducement
Total 8593.766 7905.831 687.935 Fig. 3. Second, the airports were zoned on the basis of Table 2 and
Induced impacts in va- Value-added inducement Difference the average PM concentration within 10 km, resulting in Table 6.
lue-added Before volcano After volcano Third, direct losses to six airlines were estimated using the re-
eruption eruption ductions in passengers and airfreight. Fourth, direct losses to 15
Effect on direct 30,717.345 28,258.406 2458.939
inducement
airport corporations were estimated using reductions in landing
Effect on indirect 9151.799 8419.193 732.606 fees, passenger charges, and lighting charges. Fifth, the losses to
inducement airports and airlines were summed, resulting in Table 7, in which
Total 39,869.144 36,677.599 3191.545 interruption times were based on the time in the no fly zone (NFZ)
in Table 2. Time spent cleaning up was not considered.
The losses in Table 7 can vary depending on when an eruption
Fisheries sector (146.396 billion KRW in Table 5) and in the other
event occurs, e.g. season/off-season, week/weekend, or day/night,
29 sectors (541.540 billion KRW in Table 5). Additionally, the re-
because such timing affects sales at airports and for airlines. This
duction in agricultural production affects the value added in the
study used average sales per unit. In addition, the losses in Table 7
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries sector (2458.939 billion KRW in
vary with the standard for operational procedures. For instance, if
Table 5) and the value added in the other 29 sectors (732,606
the ash concentration in NFZ is greater than 2000 μg/m3, the in-
billion KRW in Table 5). As a result, the reduction in agricultural
terruption time increases. Consequently, the losses increase.
production of 4518.938 billion KRW (Table 3) may cause indirect Similar to Section 3.2 and Table 5, indirect losses induced by
losses of 6670.595 billion KRW. The ratio of direct loss to indirect sales reductions at airports and for airlines were estimated using
loss was approximately 2:3 in Table 1 for the eight scenarios. This the I–O model. Table 1 shows that the indirect loss was approxi-
result implies that the indirect loss caused by the physical damage mately 145% of the direct loss.
in a sector is significant and should not be ignored when assessing
the economic impact of hazards, particularly in South Korea. Note 3.4. Manufacturing
that the magnitude of the indirect losses depends on inducement
coefficients, which reflect the industrial structure of a country. To estimate the direct losses, the geographical distribution of
In this study, the direct loss included the physical damage of inventory items vulnerable to volcanic ash was surveyed (Fig. 8),
agricultural products grown outdoors in Table 4 for only one year, and their daily sales were collected. Business interruption times
and the direct loss and the subsequent indirect loss would increase were then estimated assuming that a high PM concentration of
when considering other damages, such as soil and groundwater more than 400 μg/m3 stops outdoor work, such as painting. In fact,
contamination and the time to recover from the contamination. In there is no standard for manufacturing in terms of volcanic ash

Table 6
Designation of volcanic ash contamination zones in the eight scenarios based on Table 2.

Eruption scenarios (wind field)

Airport January 30, 2011 April 12, 2011 October 6, 2011 February 1, 2012 May 9, 2012 July 27, 2012 November 5, 2012 June 7, 2013

Inchon – – – – – – ● ●
Kimpo ◉ – – – – – ● ●
Gimhae ● – – – – – ● ●
Jeju – – – – – – ◉ ◉
Daegu ● – – ◉ – – ● ●
Chungju ● – – ◉ – – ● ●
Muan – – – – – – ● ●
Yangyang ● – ◉ ● – ◉ ● ●
Gwangju – – – – – – ● ●
Yeosu – – – – – – ● ●
Ulsan ● – – – – – ● ●
Sacheon ▲ – – – – – ● ●
Pohang ● – – ◉ – – ● ●
Gunsan – – – – – – ● ●
Wonju ● – – ◉ – – ● ●

(-: Normal Zone, ◉: Enhance Procedure Zone (EPZ), ▲: Time Limited Zone (TLZ), : No Fly Zone (NFZ)).
 S. Yu et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 19 (2016) 118–132 129

Table 7 Table 8
Direct losses (thousand KRW) in the air transportation sector. Numbers in par- Total particulate matter entering South Korea (kg) for 48 h after an eruption.
entheses represent the time (hours) in the no-fly zone (NFZ).
Scenario Cumulative sum of hourly measurements Annual average
Airport Eruption scenarios (wind field)
January 30, 2011 10,834,248,663 1,236,786
January 30, February 1, November 5, June 7, 2013 April 12, 2011 0 0
2011 2012 2012 October 6, 2011 22,597,765 2580
February 1, 2012 173,547,720 19,811
Inchon 0 0 36,088,269 (25) 47,636,516 (33) May 9, 2012 2,428,934,935 277,276
Kimpo 0 0 4,829,147 (25) 6,760,805 (35) July 27, 2012 7,221,093 824
Gimhae 788,900 (5) 0 3,313,378 (21) 5,680,077 (36) November 5, 2012 90,022,488,906 10,276,540
Jeju 0 0 0 0 June 7, 2013 849,087,039,991 96,927,744
Daegu 27,304 (4) 0 150,171 (22) 252,560 (37)
Chungju 12,106 (1) 0 278,441 (23) 435,821 (36)
Muan 0 0 4109 (4) 8218 (8) climate change in the long run that can generate additional ex-
Yangyang 299 (8) 150 (4) 823 (22) 1572 (42)
ternal costs but that was not considered in this study. A study si-
Gwangju 0 0 52,607 (8) 98,638 (15)
Yeosu 0 0 37,379 (14) 58,739 (22) milar to that of Markandya [21] is needed to estimate the unit
Ulsan 14,854 (6) 0 51,989 (21) 94,075 (38) damage cost of volcanic ash, including the climate change effect.
Sacheon 0 0 11,889 (19) 18,146 (29)
Pohang 8242 (7) 0 24,726 (21) 45,919 (39)
Gunsan 0 0 15,416 (22) 21,723 (31) 3.6. Clean-up costs
Wonju 1798 (5) 0 8271 (23) 14,024 (39)
Total 853,503 150 44,866,615 61,126,832 Table 9 shows the costs to clean up volcanic ash from roads in
the province that had thickness of deposited ash of more than
0.5 mm 48 h after the eruption in Fig. 2, which ranged from 47
concentrations, unlike the flight operation procedure in Table 2. billion KRW to 383 billion KRW. These costs included those for
The concentration of 400 μg/m3 of PM is the criterion for a yellow road sweepers and water spray trucks. Road areas and lines in
dust advisory in South Korea. each province, daily fees of road sweepers and water spray trucks,
The scenarios of November 5, 2012 in Fig. 3(g) and June 7, 2013 and their daily capacity were used to calculate the clean-up costs
in Fig. 3(h) show that high PM concentrations continued after in Table 9. According to the VDPRC of South Korea, water spray
48 h. Thus, business interruption times at the companies in Fig. 8 trucks should be used together with road sweepers when cleaning
were determined using the simulation results until 96 h and 240 h up volcanic ash from roads because the ash can be suspended in
after the eruption for these two scenarios, respectively. As a result, the air in dry conditions. The VDPRC also warns that too much
the worse scenario in Fig. 3(h) caused a shipping company to stop water makes clean-up difficult because the volcanic ash becomes
operating for five days. heavy and hard after absorbing water.
Table 1 shows the direct loss in 14 semiconductor, 5 auto- Cleaning up volcanic ash from roads may reduce direct or in-
mobile, and 11 shipbuilding companies, and the indirect losses direct losses in sectors built on roads as shown in Fig. 10; however,
induced by the business interruptions at those companies. The this analysis was not included in this study and briefly discussed
indirect loss is approximately 148% of the direct loss. Note that in Section 4.
semiconductors are included in the electronic and electrical
equipment sector, whereas automobile and shipbuilding compa- 3.7. Resilience cost
nies are included in the transportation equipment sector in the I–O
tables of South Korea. Different inducement coefficients were used Table 1 summarizes the results of estimating losses and re-
for the different sectors, as shown in Fig. 9. covery costs, and the resulting CRCI. Note that the resilience cost
was not divided by exposure levels because different counties
3.5. Health damages
Table 9
To estimate the health damages of an eruption scenario, it was Cost to clean up volcanic ash from roads (million KRW) based on average ash
assumed that PM damages have a linear effect, although the dose- thickness 48 h after an eruption.
response curve is not linear. Then the total amount of PM entering
Scenario Province January 30, May 9, 2012 November 5, June 7, 2013
South Korea was summed up from Fig. 3. The cumulative PM of the 2011 2012
hourly measurements for 48 h after the eruption was converted to
the annual PM emissions in Table 8, which was multiplied by the Seoul 2748.698 2748.698
PM unit damage cost for South Korea (28,583 KRW/kg), resulting Busan 3474.88
Daegu 3986.369
in the health damages in Table 1. In the several scenarios noted in
Incheon 4693.239 4693.239
Section 3.4, the PM concentrations remained in the air in South
Gwangju
Korea after 48 h, which implies more significant health damages
Daejeon 2436.617 2436.617
than the estimation in Table 1. Ulsan 4775.607
As noted in Section 2.3.3, the unit damage cost of PM for South Gyeonggi 45814.86 45814.86
Korea was estimated from the results of studies conducted in the Gangwon 75587.33 75587.33 75587.33
United States and the European Union, and included the health Chungcheongbuk 33347.96 33347.96
Chungcheongnam 36940.31 36940.31
damage from particulate matter 10 mm or less in diameter (PM10).
Chollabuk 36327.11
However, the health damage of volcanic ash may be different from
Chollanam
that of PM due to its sharp surface structures. For instance, small
Gyeongsangbuk 47449.09 47449.09 47449.09
ash particles can abrade the front of the eye under windy condi- Gyeongsangnam 85669.65
tions and lead to silicosis in the worst case [18]. Inhalation of ash
Jeju
100 mm or less in diameter may cause upper airways irritation Total cost 123036.4 47449.09 201569 383251.7
[39]. In addition, the high concentrations of volcanic ash can affect
130 S. Yu et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 19 (2016) 118–132
were not compared, and thus the CRCI is equal to the resilience
cost in Table 1.
The wide range of CRCI was between 0 and 20 trillion KRW
despite the same VEI. The difference was primarily from the wind
field. The worst case in Figs. 2(h) and 3(h) resulted in a CRCI of 20
trillion KRW, which is much larger than the sum of the total loss
(6.115 trillion KRW) and recovery cost (9.049 trillion KRW) in
South Korea in 2002. In 2002, South Korea suffered from the long-
term impact of disasters and introduced a declaration of national
disasters.
As noted in Section 3.1, the possibility may be low that the
wind field is towards the south, as shown in Figs. 2(h) and 3(h),
because of the westerlies. The 20 trillion KRW result over-
estimated the national resilience cost of a volcanic eruption. To
assess the risk, the result in Table 1 should be combined with the
probability for various eruption scenarios. With assuming that the
eight eruption scenarios have equal probability of occurring, the
average resilience cost for the eight scenarios is 3.7 trillion KRW,
which is approximately 0.28% of the nominal Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) in South Korea in 2011 (1,332,681 billion KRW).
In Table 1, the agricultural sector was the most affected by
volcanic ash because of the geographical distribution of inventory
items and the wind field. For instance, the largest airport (Fig. 7)
and the largest manufacturing companies (Fig. 8) in South Korea
are located in the west, whereas agricultural production is rela-
tively large in the east. The volcanic ash in the scenarios in
Figs. 2 and 3 mainly dispersed towards the east because of the
wind field. As a result, the May 9, 2012 scenario in Figs. 2(e) and 3
(e) caused large losses in agriculture and significant health da-
mages but had no impact on the air transportation and manu-
facturing sectors. Additionally, only losses to airports and South
Korean airlines were included in Table 1. Excluded were foreign
airlines and other airline industry damage, such as airplane da-
mage. Only semiconductors, automobile, and shipbuilding com-
panies were included in the manufacturing sector in Table 1. Be-
sides, volcanic ash can damage power supply, water supply, for-
estry and fisheries and subsequent secondary and tertiary in-
dustries [15,39], but they were excluded in the loss estimation.
Moreover, only the costs to clean up volcanic ash from roads
were included in the recovery cost, which was underestimated in
the resilience assessment. The recovery cost was up to 22.4% of the
total losses, and up to 18.3% of the CRCI in Table 1. According to Yu
et al. [55], the total post-disaster recovery costs in Korea are on
average one and a half times the losses.
4. Discussion
Resilience assessment results largely depend on eruption sce-
narios. However, no information yet exists on a highly possible
eruption scenario or the probability of each eruption scenario. In
fact, unlike other natural disasters, e.g. heavy snow, it is almost
impossible to predict when an eruption will occur and how ex-
plosive it will be, making volcano hazard mitigation and pre-
paredness difficult. Given no information on probability, the resi-
lience assessment results in Table 1 may not be informative. Ad-
ditionally, the absolute value of the resilience costs varies de-
pending on the types of losses and the recovery strategies con-
sidered in the resilience assessment and the data to measure the
losses and recovery costs, as noted in Section 2.2.2. Moreover, the
resilience results in Table 1 were not verified using a real volcanic
eruption case.
However, the methodology presented in this study was verified
using other hazards in South Korea [55] and Fiji [54]. The differ-
ence in the resilience assessment between scenarios is still re-
levant for a comparison of the eruption scenarios from an
economic perspective and helps decision makers understand the
social impact of eruption scenarios.
In addition, the resilience assessment method in this study
(Fig. 10) can be used to find an optimal recovery strategy for a
community to minimize resilience costs if the interaction between
losses and recovery costs can be defined. For instance, the recovery
effort, such as cleaning up volcanic ash from roads, may reduce
direct or indirect losses as noted in Section 3.6. In order to assess
the loss reduction from a quick clean-up and to determine the
optimal recovery strategy, such as time to clean-up and clean-up
resources, the dynamic interaction between losses and recovery
costs should be quantified in the framework in Fig. 10. Their in-
teraction remains for future work.
Similarly, the methodology presented in this study (Fig. 10) can
be used to assess the effects of disaster mitigation management.
For instance, agricultural products that are less vulnerable to
volcanic ash reduce direct losses and, consequently, indirect losses.
Relocating vulnerable inventory items also reduces the losses. The
framework in Fig. 10 can help to understand the effect of these
strategies or to estimate the reduction in losses.
In contrast, these mitigation strategies require costs, and the
balance between the reduction in losses (benefits) and the in-
crease in mitigation costs (costs) should be quantified through
resilience costs when making decisions. In particular, recovery
strategies should be added to Fig. 4 and Table 1 once the VDPRC of
South Korea develops appropriate recovery strategies, because the
recovery costs were underestimated in Table 1 and consequently
the benefit of a mitigation strategy can be underestimated in a
cost-benefit analysis. Additionally, mitigation strategies can be
short term or long term, and time-variant parameters need to be
included in certain dynamic systems. For instance, to mitigate the
intensity of hazard types, e.g. ash fall thickness and PM con-
centrations, long-term strategies are needed, whereas changes in
agricultural products are relatively short term.
This paper aimed to quantitatively measure the impacts and
subsequent recovery costs for eruption scenarios, and many vulner-
able sectors (e.g., transportation, water, and power infrastructures)
were excluded because little data was available to assess their
monetary values. However, it does not mean that these factors can-
not be measured. For instance, the number of hospitals and doctors
can be counted to assess the recovery cost to deal with health im-
pacts. Measuring these factors remains for future work to authors.
5. Conclusions
National resilience to a volcanic eruption scenario was assessed
by summing the direct and indirect losses in four vulnerable in-
dustrial sectors, health damages, and road clean-up costs. The
resultant resilience costs ranged from 0 to 20 trillion KRW for
eight scenarios, with the average of 3.7 trillion KRW (0.28% of
GDP). Given the limited data and the difficulty in defining losses
and recovery strategies, only losses in several vulnerable sectors
and a recovery method (cleaning up volcanic ash from roads) were
included in the resilience assessment. However, the results of this
study showed that the CRCI, or resilience cost in this study, was a
good method for comparing eruption scenarios from a socio-eco-
nomic perspective and could be used to find a disaster manage-
ment strategy to minimize resilience costs. The CRCI method well
represents the interaction between losses and recovery costs and
the balance between the benefits and additional costs of a miti-
gation strategy. This resilience assessment framework can be ap-
plied to other hazards to quantify a community's resilience to
hazards and to develop a hazard mitigation strategy.
The study results indicated that indirect losses should be in-
cluded in the economic impact assessment of natural hazards
 S. Yu et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 19 (2016) 118–132
because indirect losses that occur through numerous economic
sectors can be much larger than the exogenous direct losses in a
sector due to the interdependencies between sectors. It should be
noted that direct losses in a sector cause different magnitudes of
indirect losses in the sectors (e.g. 30 sectors in South Korea) de-
pending on inducement coefficients. Inducement coefficients re-
flect the industrial structure of a country, and indirect losses
caused by the same physical damage can differ depending on the
country's industrial structure. In addition, from a global point of
view, natural hazards can cause indirect losses without direct
losses in a small region because the interdependencies between
the small region and the region are directly affected by a natural
hazard.
This study showed the importance of defining vulnerable in-
ventory items, locating their geographical distributions, and de-
fining the types of losses and subsequent recovery methods when
assessing national resilience to a natural hazard. Care should be
taken not to double count the losses and the recovery costs when
defining losses and recovery strategies and selecting the estima-
tion methods. In addition, selecting socio-economic data to re-
present the loss and the recovery costs is relevant, particularly in
terms of resolution. For instance, in this study, the resolution of
agricultural losses was the size of the province, whereas the re-
solution of manufacturing was the same as the resolution of the
volcanic ash dispersion model because of the resolution of avail-
able economic data. Based on the resolution of available socio-
economic data and model outputs, it will become more difficult to
assess the resilience of a smaller community in a meaningful way.
Moreover, a large volume of socio-economic data is needed to
include many types of losses and recovery methods and their in-
teractions. However, because the available data are limited, re-
searchers should use such data effectively. The results of this study
represent the best given the available information on the eruption
scenarios and the economic data. Finally, researchers should be
familiar with the scientific results and the socio-economic data to
estimate the social-economic impacts of natural disasters, and
should be aware that impacts that arise from unknown unknowns
are excluded in the assessment.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of
Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-
2013S1A3A2042747), and partially supported by a Grant [MPSS-NH-
2015-81] through the Disaster and Safety Management Institute
funded by Ministry of Public Safety and Security of Korean
government.
References
[1] CAA (Civil Aviation Authority), Changes to the Operating Procedures in the
Vicinity of High Ash Concentration Areas, 2010. 〈http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/
Letter%20to%20NSAs%20re%20Volcanic%20Ash-%20Creation%20of%20TLZ.pdf〉.
(accessed 14.09.15).
[2] G.P. Cimellaro, A.M. Reinhorn, M. Bruneau, Framework for analytical
quantification of disaster resilience, Eng. Struct. 32 (11) (2010)
3639–3649.
[3] G.P. Cimellaro, A.M. Reinhorn, M. Bruneau, Seismic resilience of a hospital
system, Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 6 (1) (2010) 127–144.
[4] Committee on Increasing National Resilience to Hazards and Disasters, Dis-
aster resilience: a national imperative, Natl. Acad. (2012).
[5] A. Costa, G. Macedonio, A. Folch, A three-dimensional Eulerian model for
transport and deposition of volcanic ashes, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 241 (3–4)
(2006) 634–647.
[6] S.L. Cutter, L. Barnes, M. Berry, C. Burton, E. Evans, E. Tate, J. Webb, A place-
based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters,
Glob. Environ. Change 18 (4) (2008) 598–606.
131
[7] A.A. Erumban, R. Gouma, B. Los, U. Temurshoev, G.J. de Vries, I. Arto, V.A.A.
Genty, F. Neuwahl, J.M. Rueda-Cantuche, A. Villanueva, J. Francois, O. Pindyuk,
J. Pöschl, R. Stehrer, G. Streicher, The World Input-Output Database (WIOD):
Contents, Sources and Methods, 2012.
[8] H.M. Fujisan (Mt. Fuji Hazard Map Committee), Review on Mt. Fuji Hazard
Map, 2004, p. 138. (in Japanese).
[9] P. Grossi, H. Kunreuther, Catastrophe modeling: a new approach to managing,
Risk, Springer, New York, 2005.
[10] S. Hallegatte, V. Przyluski, The economics of natural disasters: concepts and
methods, World Bank. WPS5 507 (2010).
[11] N. Kumar, D.N. Tzou, L. Xu, Y.J. Chen, J.S. Xia, The Economic Impact of Sep-
tember 11, 2001 on the Aviation Industry, Global Trade, Transportation and
Logistics (502), Seattle: The University of Washington, 2003. (depts. wa-
shington. edu/gttl/EconomicImpactAviationIndustry. pdf, 22.01. 2004).
[12] IATA, The Impact of Eyjafjallajokull’s Volcanic Ash Plume, 2010. 〈https://www.
iata.org/whatwedo/Documents/Economics/Volcanic-ASH-Plume-May 2010.
PDF〉. (accessed 14.09.15).
[13] IATA, The Impact of September 11, 2001 on Aviation, 2010. 〈http://www.iata.
org/pressroom/documents/impact-9-11-aviation.pdf〉. (accessed 14.09.15).
[14] IMechE, Volcanic ASH to Fly or Not Fly: The Bac㎏round Science and En-
gineering, 2010. 〈http://www.imeche.org/docs/default-source/reports/IM
echE_Volcanic_Ash_Report.pdf?sfvrsn ¼0〉.
[15] Z. Jiang, S. Yu, S.-M. Yoon, K.-H. Choi, Damage and socio-economic impact of
volcanic ash, J. Korean Earth Sci. Soc. 34 (6) (2013) 536–549.
[16] KDI (Korea Development Institute), A Guideline to Feasibility Study of Water
Resource Projects, 2008. (in Korean).
[17] E.E. Koks, M. Thissen, The Economic-Wide Consequences of Natural Hazards:
An Application of a European Interregional Input-output Model, 2014. 〈https://
www.iioa.org/conferences/22nd/papers/files/1479_20140509071_Koks_IIOA_
ID1479.pdf〉. (accessed 14.09.15).
[18] B. Langmann, Volcanic ash versus mineral dust: atmospheric processing and
environmental and climate impacts, ISRN Atmos. Sci. (2013) 2013.
[19] Y.J. Lee, Y.J. Lee, S.D. Kim, J.S. Chun, S.M. Yoon, Simulation of economic losses
based on the eruption scenario of baekdusan volcano, J. Int. Area Stud. 18 (3)
(2014) 79–108 (in Korean).
[20] M.K. Lindell, C.S. Prater, Assessing community impacts of natural disasters,
Nat. Hazards Rev. 4 (4) (2003) 176–185.
[21] A. Markandya, The indirect costs and benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation,
in: Regional Conference on Climate Change Mitigation in Asia and Financing
Mechanisms, Goa (India); 4–6 May, 1998.
[22] L.G. Mastin, A.R.V. Eaton, J.B. Lowenstern, Modeling ash fall distribution from a
yellowstone supereruption, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 15 (8) (2014)
3459–3475.
[23] R. Mechler, Cost-benefit Analysis of Natural Disaster Risk Management in
Developing Countries, 2005.
[24] MMC (Multihazard Mitigation Council), Natural hazard mitigation saves: An
Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities,
2005. 〈http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.nibs.org/resource/resmgr/MMC/hms_
vol2_ch1-7.pdf〉. (accessed 16.07.13).
[25] Re Munich, Economic consequences of natural catastrophes: emerging and
developing economies particularly affected – Insurance cover is essential,
Munich RE Economic Research, 9 October, 2013.
[26] OECD, Costs of Inaction on Key Environmental Challenges, OECD Publishing,
Paris 2008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264045828-en.
[27] Y. Okuyama. Critical review of methodologies on disaster impacts estimation,
Background Paper for EDRR Report, 2008.
[28] T. Pervin, U.-G. Gerdtham, C.H. Lyttkens, Societal costs of air pollution-related
health hazards: a review of methods and results, Cost. Eff. Resour. Alloc.: C./E 6
(2008) 19.
[29] I. Kozine and H.B. Andersen, Integration of resilience capabilities for cri-
tical infrastructures into the emergency management set-up, In: L. Po-
dofillini L, B. Sudret, B. Stojadinovic, E. Zio, W. Kröger (Eds.), Safety and
Reliability of Complex Engineered Systems: ESREL 2015, 2015, CRC Press
LLC, 171-176.
[30] A. Rose, Economic resilience to disasters, CAPRRI Res. Rep. (2009) 8.
[31] K.E. Rosendahl Health effects and social costs of particulate pollution – a case
study for Oslo Environ. Model. Assess., vol. 3(1–2), 1998, pp. 47–61.
[32] T. Rossetto, I. Ioannou, D.N. Grant, Existing empirical fragility and vulnerability
relationships: compendium and guide for selection, GEM Technical Report
2013-X, GEM Foundation, Pavia, Italy, 2013.
[33] C. Scawthorn, N. Blais, H. Seligson, E. Tate, E. Mifflin, W. Thomas, J. Murphy,
C. Jones, HAZUS-MH flood loss estimation methodology. i: overview and flood
hazard characterization, Nat. Hazards Rev. 7 (2) (2006) 60–71.
[34] S. Self, The effects and consequences of very large explosive volcanic erup-
tions, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 364 (1845) (2006)
2073–2097.
[35] S. Shoji, T. Takahashi, Environmental and agricultural significance of volcanic
ash soils. GLOBAL, Environ. Res. – Engl. Ed. 6 (2) (2002) 113–135.
[36] R. Stone, Vigil at North Korea's mount doom, Science 334 (2011) 584–588.
[37] P. Tamvakis, Y. Xenidis, Comparative evaluation of resilience quantification
methods for infrastructure systems, Procedia – Soc. Behav. Sci. 74 (29) (2013)
339–348.
[38] The Telegraph, How the 2010 Ash Cloud Caused Chaos: Facts And Figures,
2011. 〈http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/8531152/
How-the-2010-ash-cloud-caused-chaos-facts-and-figures.html〉. (accessed
14.09.15).
132 S. Yu et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 19 (2016) 118–132
[39] USGS 2010 Volcanic ash 〈http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/ash/〉. (accessed 14.09.15).
[40] C. Vlachokostas, C. Achillas, N. Moussiopoulos, K. Kalogeropoulos, G. Sigalas,
E.-A. Kalognomou, G. Banias, Health effects and social costs of particulate and
photochemical urban air pollution: a case study for Thessaloniki, Greece. Air
Qual. Atmos. Health 5 (3) (2010) 325–334.
[41] E.D. Vugrin, R.C. Camphouse, Infrastructure resilience assessment through
control design, Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. 7 (3) (2011) 243–260.
[42] E.D. Vugrin, R.C. Camphouse, P.S. Downes, M.A. Ehlen, D.E. Warren DE, Mea-
surement of system resilience: application to chemical supply chains, in:
Proceedings of the Fourth SIAM Conference on Mathematics for Industry,
October 2009.
[43] E.D. Vugrin, M.A. Turnquist, N.J.K. Optimal Recovery Sequencing for Critical
Infrastructure Resilience Assessment. Sandia report, SAND2010-6237, 2010.
[44] E.D. Vugrin, D.E. Warren, M.A. Ehlen, A resilience assessment framework for
infrastructure and economic systems: quantitative and qualitative resilience
analysis of petrochemical supply chains to a hurricane, Process Saf. Prog. 30
(3) (2011) 280–290.
[45] E.D. Vugrin, D.E. Warren, M.A. Ehlen, R.C. Camphouse, A Framework for as-
sessing the resilience of infrastructure and economic systems, in:
K. Gopalakrishnan, S. Peeta (Eds.), Sustainable and Resilient Critical Infra-
structure Systems: Simulation, Modeling, and Intelligent Engineering,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 77–116.
[46] D.E. Warren, E.D. Vugrin, Assessment of the resilience of chemical supply
chains following hurricane IKE, in: Proceedings of the Annual Infrastructure
and Regional Resilience Conference, Dallas, TX December 8–9, 2010.
[47] B.A. White, M.M. Rorick, Cost-benefit analysis for community-based disaster
risk reduction in Kaliali, Nepal Mercy Corps Nepal, Lalitpur, Nepal, 2010.
[48] T.M. Wilson, G.D. Kaye, Agricultural fragility estimates for volcanic ash fall
hazards. GNS Sci. Rep. 2007/37, 2007.
[49] World Bank, Natural hazard risk management in the Caribbean: revisiting the
challenge, Caribbean Group for Cooperation in Economic Development
(CGCED), World Bank, Washington, DC, 2002.
[50] J. Wu, N. Li, S. Hallegatte, P. Shi, A. Hu, X. Liu, Regional indirect economic
impact evaluation of the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake, Environ. Earth Sci. 65
(1) (2012) 161–172.
[51] W. Xie, N. Li, J.-D. Wu, X.-Q. Liu, Evaluation of indirect loss from hypothetical
catastrophes in two regions with different economic development levels in
China, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 12 (2012) 3325–3335.
[52] J. Xu, G. Liu, J. Wu, Y. Ming, Q. Wang, D. Cui, Z. Shangguan, B. Pan, X. Lin, J. Liu,
Recent unrest of Changbaishan volcano, northeast China: A precursor of a
future eruption? Geophys. Res. Lett. 39 (2012) L16305.
[53] N. Yamano, Y. Kajitani, Y. Shumuta, Modeling the regional economic loss of
natural disasters: indirect loss diffusion due to the electricity disruptions and
interindustry economic activities, Regional Economic Applications Laboratory
Discussion Paper, 2004..
[54] S. Yu, S.-W. Kim, K.-H. Park, C.-W. Oh, D. Park, C.-Y. Kim, Fiji quantitative re-
silience analysis of fiji to cyclones, J. Korean Soc. Hazard Mitig. 12 (2) (2012)
55–63.
[55] S. Yu, S.-W. Kim, C.-W. Oh, H. An, J.-M. Kim, Quantitative assessment of dis-
aster resilience: an empirical study on the importance of post-disaster re-
covery costs, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 137 (2015) 6–17.