sustainability

Article
Examining Vulnerability Factors to Natural Disasters
with a Spatial Autoregressive Model: The Case of
South Korea
Seunghoo Jeong 1 and D. K. Yoon 2, * ID

1 School of Urban and Environmental Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and
Technology (UNIST), Ulsan 44919, Korea; shjeong@unist.ac.kr
2 Department of Urban Planning and Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul 03722, Korea
* Correspondence: dkyoon@yonsei.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-2-2123-5893




Received: 15 April 2018; Accepted: 18 May 2018; Published: 20 May 2018


Abstract: Socially and economically marginalized people and environmentally vulnerable areas are
disproportionately affected by natural hazards. Identifying populations and places vulnerable
to disasters is important for disaster management, and crucial for mitigating their economic
consequences. From the fields of geography, emergency management, and urban planning, several
approaches and methodologies have been used to identify significant vulnerability factors affecting
the incidence and impact of disasters. This study performs a regression analysis to examine
several factors associated with disaster damage in 230 local communities in South Korea, using
ten vulnerability indicators for social, economic, and environmental aspects, and a single indicator
for disaster characteristics. A Lagrange Multiplier diagnostic test-based spatial autoregressive model
(SAM) was applied to assess the potential spatial autocorrelation in the ordinary least squares (OLS)
residuals. This study compared the OLS regression results with those of a spatial autoregressive
model, for both presence of spatial autocorrelation, and model performance. The conclusion of
this study is that Korean communities with a higher vulnerability to disasters, as a result of their
socioeconomic and environmental characteristics, are more likely to experience economic losses from
natural disasters.

Keywords: natural disasters; vulnerability; spatial autoregressive model (SAM); South Korea

1. Introduction
Despite similar magnitudes, the impact of natural disasters is unevenly distributed among
communities with different social and physical aspects [1,2]. Economically low-income countries are
more vulnerable to natural disasters [3]. According to the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of
Disasters (CRED), disaster victims in developing countries accounted for 69.9% of the world’s total
damages from natural disasters [4].
The identification of vulnerable people and places is key to enabling local communities to assess
their vulnerability to natural disasters, improve their emergency management, and mitigate losses
when a natural disaster occurs [1,5,6]. In the fields of geography, urban planning, and emergency
management, a vulnerability index has been developed by combining vulnerability indicators to
identify areas having a high vulnerability to natural disasters [1,7,8]. Vulnerability factors related to
people and communities have been examined, and their relationship with disaster damages identified,
using traditional regression methods such as the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model [1,9].
In addition to the OLS regression analysis, machine-learning approaches were applied to identify
factors determining vulnerability to natural disasters, focusing on South Korea [2]. However, previous

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1651; doi:10.3390/su10051651 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1651 2 of 13

regression techniques tend to result in low model performance, and even misinterpretation, of the
model results when there is a spatial autocorrelation in the model residuals [10,11]. The existence of
spatial autocorrelation in the OLS regression model can be checked using the Global Moran’s I [12,13]
statistic. If the index is spatially autocorrelated, a Local Indicators of Spatial Association (LISA) analysis
can be used to identify significant clusters of regions with similar characteristics of vulnerability and
damage [12,13]. Recent disaster-related studies showed that spatial autoregressive models (SAM)
can deal with spatial autocorrelation in the model residuals [14,15]. The SAM results have shown an
improved model fit with respect to the OLS regression model, in terms of Akaike information criterion
(AIC), log-likelihood, and Schwarz criterion (SC) value [16,17].
The objective of this study is to identify several significant factors associated with damages
resulting from a natural disaster in South Korea. An OLS regression is performed to examine the
relationship between economic losses from a natural disaster, and vulnerability indicators representing
social, economic, and environmental features in South Korea in 230 local communities. As vulnerability
indicators are collected using spatial data, this study performs a Global Moran’s I test to examine
whether there is a spatial autocorrelation in the model residuals. The test results suggest the presence
of spatial autocorrelation; therefore, a Lagrange Multiplier (LM) diagnostic test was performed to
identify the appropriate SAM, choosing between a spatial error model (SEM) and spatial lag model
(SLM) [16]. The results of the SAM are then compared with those of the OLS regression analysis.
This study outlines some important implications for vulnerability studies and policy makers who are
responsible for disaster management in local communities.

2. Literature Review
Previous studies in the fields of geography, emergency management, and urban planning have
defined vulnerability in several ways; one definition is the probability that damage would be incurred,
in terms of both human lives and property [18]. Vulnerability has also been defined as a measure of the
potential loss from a hazard [7,19], an inherent predisposition to be exposed to disaster damage [20],
the extent of a community’s inability to manage stress from the outside and from shocks [21,22], and a
weakened adaptive capability [23]. Vulnerability has been understood as exposure and susceptibility
to disasters, and the community’s ability to prepare for and recover from a disaster [24,25].
The level of vulnerability is determined by the social and physical characteristics of a
community [1,2,26]. Demographic patterns and economic status are factors related to social
vulnerability [7,26], and geographic and intrinsically vulnerable traits lead physical vulnerability
to vary across different geographic regions [26,27]. Regions with a large portion of children, elderly,
less educated, and ethnic minorities tend to be more vulnerable to natural disasters, because they
seem to have less physical and mental capacity to cope with them [7,26]. Economic conditions also
affect the level of vulnerability. Low-income people tend to be more vulnerable to natural disasters,
due to limited access to the resources needed to recover from disaster losses [26]. The poor may have
difficulties in placing their dwellings in safe areas, leading them to live in hazard-prone areas [26].
Regarding the physical environment, building characteristics can also be a determinant of vulnerability
to natural disasters, especially earthquakes [26]. Construction materials, building size, and building
age are the main factors determining building vulnerability [1,26]. Geographical characteristics,
including forests, open spaces, buffer zones, and slopes, are also determinants of vulnerability to
natural disaster [26,28].
Among the various vulnerability studies to natural disasters worldwide, this study summarized
social (demographic and economic aspect) and physical (natural and build environment aspect)
vulnerability indicators from representative studies in the United States, South Korea, China, India,
Nigeria, and Germany in Table 1 [2,29–36].
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1651 3 of 13

Table 1. Social and physical vulnerability indicators from worldwide countries.

Social Aspects Physical Aspects

Country Author (Year)
(Demographic/Economic Aspect) (Natural/Built Environment Aspect)
United Brody et al. Dams, impervious surface, mean percent slope;
Household income, population density
States (2007) [29] precipitation; stream length
Discharge sites, oil and toxic facilities, roads
United Flax et al. Age, poverty, minority, public assistance, rental
and bridges, ports, schools,
States (2002) [30] households, types of job. female households
police/fire/hospital/shelter
South Yoon and Jeong Household size, small business, urban population, Greenhouse, industry density, low-lying area,
Korea (2016) [2] less educated and young people, property tax precipitation, old building, open space
Low-income household, senior citizens,
South Kim et al. manufacturing output, population density, Average building age, ratio of urban use, ratio
Korea (2012) [31] property tax, number of dwellings and population, of recreational use, underground dwellings
rental dwellings
Population growth rate, female, population density,
Water and energy use per capita, rate of
Yang et al. children and elderly, wage, income, GDP per
China construction land, transport and
(2015) [32] capita, female labors, social security recipients,
infrastructure density
employment rate, disadvantaged groups
Average wage, GDP per capita, illiteracy rate, Area of old housing, length of railways, length
income of rural households, population density, of waterway, length of roads, number of
Zhou et al.
China population growth rate, savings deposit, sex ratio, building floors, number of old housing, public
(2014) [33]
agricultural population, total investment in fixed transportation vehicles, reinforcement concrete
assets, unemployment rate building, urbanization rate
Road accessibility, land use residential area,
Budget and subsidy, education and awareness,
Prashar et al. sanitation and waste disposal, ecosystem
India employment, finance and savings, household
(2012) [34] service, intensity/severity/frequency of
assets, income, population, social capital
natural hazards, electricity/water
Occupation, awareness of flood hazard, education Depth of flood waters, distance from dwelling
Adelekan
Nigeria level, gender, age, monthly income, relief and to a river, past flood experience, types of the
(2011) [35]
assistance resources, perception of flood risks building structure
Dominating land use, organic farms, buffer
Age, apartment type, education level, GDP per
Fekete et al. capacity, percent of farmland, potential
Germany capita, living space per person, population density,
(2010) [36] contaminating sites, protected areas, soil
rate of farmers, unemployment
erosion potential, water-retaining capacity

Demographic and economic characteristics of communities effectively represent social vulnerability

in each country [1,2]. From previous studies, demographic indicators can be categorized into Age,
Minority, Gender, Population, Education, and Household [2,29–36]. The ratio of elderly and younger
people are representatives of Age; foreigners and ethnic minorities represent Minority; the sex ratio
indicates Gender; the number of dwellings, migration, population density, and growth rate are
related to Population; education level, illiteracy rate, and awareness and perception of hazards are
connected to Education; and household types (rental, female-only, underground, apartment), living
space, and household size comprise Household. Economic aspects are classified as Income, Social capital,
and Business [2,29–36]. The indicators poverty, unemployment rate, household income, household
assets, GDP, income of rural households, savings, and distribution of wealth comprise Income; Public
assistance, property tax, investments, medical services, budget, subsidies, and resources for disaster
prevention, relief, and assistance represent Social capital. Finally, business types (manufacturing,
agriculture, small business) and job types (farmer, fishermen) are used as indicators of Business.
Regarding physical aspects, the natural and built environments are used to demonstrate the
vulnerability of communities [1,2]. From the vulnerability literature, the natural environment can be
largely summarized as Geological characteristic, Meteorological characteristic, and Buffer area [2,29–36].
Mean slope, stream length, low-lying areas, proximity to higher ground, and distance to a river are
components of the Geological characteristic. Precipitation, past experiences, intensity and frequency
of natural hazards, and depth of flood waters represent the Meteorological characteristic; and open
space, ecosystem, degradation of the environment, soil erosion, rate of protected and organic farm
areas, filter and buffer capacity, and water retaining capacity are associated with Buffer area. The last
aspect, built environment, can be divided into Land use, Building characteristic, Infrastructure, and
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 13

ecosystem, degradation of the environment, soil erosion, rate of protected and organic farm areas,
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1651 4 of 13
filter and buffer capacity, and water retaining capacity are associated with Buffer area. The last aspect,
built environment, can be divided into Land use, Building characteristic, Infrastructure, and Urbanization
[2,29–36]. The[2,29–36].
Urbanization ratio of urban and recreational
The ratio of urban and use, industry density,
recreational residential
use, industry area, residential
density, and dominating
area,
typedominating
and of land use are
typerelated to Land
of land use use. Buildingtoage,
are related Landnumber of old buildings,
use. Building reinforcement
age, number concrete
of old buildings,
building, number
reinforcement of building
concrete building,floors,
number improper building
of building floors,construction, and building
improper building types and
construction, are
indicatorstypes
building of the
areBuilding
indicatorscharacteristic. Roads,
of the Building bridges, dams,
characteristic. Roads, schools, railways,
bridges, ports, emergency
dams, schools, railways,
facilities
ports, (police, facilities
emergency fire station,
(police,hospital, shelter),
fire station, hospital,energy supplies
shelter), energy (electricity, water), water),
supplies (electricity, public
transportation
public system,
transportation sanitation/waste
system, discharge
sanitation/waste sites,
discharge andand
sites, warning
warning systems
systemsare
arecomponents
components of of
Infrastructure;and
Infrastructure; and impervious
impervious surfaces,
surfaces, urbanurban population,
population, and urbanization
and urbanization rate representrate represent
Urbanization.
Urbanization.
Based Based on
on previous previous vulnerability
worldwide worldwide vulnerability
studies, thisstudies,
study this study
selects 10 selects 10 indicators
indicators to identifyto
identify vulnerability
vulnerability characteristics
characteristics in Korea,in Korea,
which arewhich are introduced
introduced in the next insection.
the next section.

3.
3. Materials
Materials and
and Methods
Methods

3.1.
3.1. Study
Study Area
Area
South Korea has
South Korea has aatwo-tier
two-tieradministrative
administrativestructure
structure comprising
comprising an an upper
upper andandlowerlower
level.level.
The
The upper-level
upper-level administrative
administrative government
government agencies
agencies include
include a special
a special city (Seoul),
city (Seoul), six metropolitan
six metropolitan cities
cities
(Busan,(Busan, Incheon,
Incheon, Daegu,
Daegu, Gwangju,
Gwangju, Daejeon,
Daejeon, andand Ulsan),eight
Ulsan), eightprovinces
provinces(Gyeonggi,
(Gyeonggi, Gangwon,
Gangwon,
Chungbuk,
Chungbuk, Chungnam, Jeonbuk, Jeonnam, Gyeongbuk, and Gyeongnam), a self-governing special
Chungnam, Jeonbuk, Jeonnam, Gyeongbuk, and Gyeongnam), a self-governing special
city
city (Sejong),
(Sejong), and
and one
one self-governing
self-governing special
special province
province (Jeju)
(Jeju) (Figure
(Figure 1).
1). The
The lower-level
lower-level administrative
administrative
government
government agencies
agencies are
are composed
composed ofof 230
230 local
local governments,
governments, including
including 7575 cities
cities (si),
(si), 69
69 districts
districts (gu),
(gu),
and 86 counties (gun) as of 2010. The study area includes all 230 local governments
and 86 counties (gun) as of 2010. The study area includes all 230 local governments (communities), (communities),
covering
covering the
the entire
entire country.
country.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Administrative
Administrative boundaries
boundaries of
of Korea.
Korea.

3.2. Methods
3.2. Methods
As vulnerability
As vulnerability assessments
assessments help
help planners
planners prepare
prepare disaster
disaster plans
plans [8]
[8] and
and improve
improve and
and increase
increase
the effectiveness of emergency management [6,12,37], strong efforts have been made to identify
the effectiveness of emergency management [6,12,37], strong efforts have been made to identify areas areas
that are
that are highly
highly vulnerability
vulnerability to
to natural
natural disasters
disasters [1,5,7,8,12,24,38–40].
[1,5,7,8,12,24,38–40]. The
The Social
Social Vulnerability
Vulnerability Index
Index
(SoVI) was developed based on 11 factors, using a principal component analysis to identify socially
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1651 5 of 13

vulnerable counties in the United States [7]. Zhou et al. applied the SoVI method to China to examine
the change in county-level social vulnerability in 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010 [12]. In Romania, Armas
and Gavris examined earthquake vulnerability using the SoVI, as well as the spatial multi-criteria
social vulnerability index (SEVI model) based on a weighting scheme [13]. Wood et al. employed
the social vulnerability index proposed by Cutter et al. [7], and analyzed vulnerability (in terms of
social aspects) to Cascadia-related tsunamis in the Pacific Northwest, United States [38]. Azar and
Rain used a social vulnerability index for evacuation (SVEI model) based on the SoVI, to identify
regions vulnerable to hydrological hazards [39]. Emrich and Cutter identified the spatial pattern of
social vulnerability to drought, floods, sea-level rise, and winds from hurricanes, using the SoVI in the
southern United States [5]. Myers et al. developed a regional index of social vulnerability based on the
SoVI method in the Gulf Coast region, United States [40]. Yoon examined social vulnerability in the
Gulf of Mexico, United States, based on the SoVI method, and compared SoVI-based vulnerability with
composite social vulnerability based on standardization [1]. Along with introducing a vulnerability
index, some studies also examined the Global Moran’s I to identify the existence of spatial clusters in
the vulnerability index [12,13].
In addition to the vulnerability index, the identification of vulnerability factors to natural disasters
is essential to effectively develop and implement mitigation strategies and disaster risk management [5,12].
In the field of geography, Uitto examined vulnerability factors in megacities with high exposures and
susceptibility, focusing on social and geographical aspects [8]. The effect of wetlands on flooding was
identified using an OLS regression, showing that federal permits allowing development in wetlands
can increase flood losses in the United States [29]. Natural wetlands are known to play a critical
role in the reduction of flood damage, controlling for biophysical and socio-economic factors [9].
In Tegucigalpa, Honduras, significant factors influencing social vulnerability were identified using
an OLS regression [41]. Burton proposed an index representing social vulnerability, and identified
the relationship between social vulnerability, hurricane characteristics (hurricane wind and storm
surge inundation), and hurricane impact in the Gulf Coast, United States, using multiple linear
regressions [42].
Although OLS regression is widely used in vulnerability studies, this method does not consider
the existence of spatial autocorrelation in the residuals of the regression model. To control for spatial
autocorrelation, Yoon included an adjacent property damage variable to assess the relationship between
vulnerability factors and disaster damage [1]. A geographically weighted regression (GWR) was
applied to find the spatially-varying relationship between water quality and land use, showing the
decrease of spatial autocorrelation in the model residuals [11]. A spatial autoregressive model (SAM)
has been used in disaster-related studies, including environmental justice, flood mitigation, and
social vulnerability, to account for the spatial autocorrelation in the model residuals or independent
variables [14,15,17,40]. Myers et al. identified the relationship between social vulnerability and
migration measures using a spatial lag model (SLM) after two hurricanes—Katrina and Rita [40].
This study aims to identify the relationship between vulnerability factors related to social,
economic, and environmental aspects, and economic losses from natural disaster. Disaster damage
and vulnerability factors are introduced in the following two subsections. This study performed
an OLS-based linear regression to examine vulnerability factors influencing the level of disaster
damage. Based on the regression results, several assumptions of the OLS regression were checked to
examine whether the model violates the assumptions of an OLS regression, such as the absence of
multicollinearity among the variables, normality of the errors, and variance homoscedasticity [16,43,44].
The Global Moran’s I statistic was used to identify the existence of spatial autocorrelation in the OLS
regression model, and a local indicators of spatial association (LISA) analysis was conducted to display
significant clusters in the spatially distributed vulnerability index and disaster damage. This study
used the SAM to reduce the level of spatial autocorrelation, using the open source program GeoDa
(available at https://geodacenter.asu.edu/). An LM diagnostic test was performed to choose the best
autoregressive model between the SLM and SEM. The SLM assumes that the dependent variable of
 x FOR PEER REVIEW
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1651 6 of 13

dependent
Sustainabilityvariable
2018, 10, xof
FORa region is related to that of neighboring regions, whereas the SEM supposes
PEER REVIEW 6 of 13
a region is related to that of neighboring
that the residuals of a region are influenced regions,
by thewhereas
residuals theofSEM supposes
neighbors [45].that
Thisthe residuals
study madeof a
a region are
dependentbetween
comparison influenced
variable the by the
of a results residuals
region ofis related
the OLS of neighbors
toregression [45].
that of neighboring This
model and study
regions, made
SAM, whereas a comparison
through thetheSEM between
valuesupposes
of the log-
thethat
results
likelihood, of the OLS
the residuals
Schwarz aregression
ofcriterion
region are model
(SC), andand
influenced SAM, through
residualsthe
by theinformation
Akaike of value of the
neighbors
criterion log-likelihood,
[45].
(AIC). This
Thestudy
SAMmadeSchwarz
showeda
criterion (SC),
comparison and Akaike
between the information
results of the criterion
OLS (AIC).
regression The
model SAMand showed
SAM,
improvements over the OLS model, as the log-likelihood increased, and the value of AIC and SC improvements
through the value over
of thethe OLS
log-
model,
decreased as the
likelihood, log-likelihood
Schwarz
[16,17]. increased,
criterion
The procedure (SC), andAkaike
and
of examining the value ofdetermining
AIC andcriterion
information
factors SCvulnerability
decreased
(AIC).[16,17].
The The showed
to aSAM
naturalprocedure
disaster
of improvements
examining over
factors the OLS
determining
with SAM is indicated in Figure 2. model, as the
vulnerability log-likelihood
to a natural increased,
disaster and
with the
SAM value
is of AIC
indicated and
in SC 2.
Figure
decreased [16,17]. The procedure of examining factors determining vulnerability to a natural disaster
with SAM is indicated in Figure 2.

Figure
Figure 2.
2. Flowchart
Flowchart of
of examining
examining vulnerability
vulnerability factors
factors to
to aa natural
natural disaster
disaster with
with SAM.
SAM.
Figure 2. Flowchart of examining vulnerability factors to a natural disaster with SAM.
3.3. Dependent Variable
3.3. Dependent Variable
3.3.Frequently
Dependent Variable
occurring natural disasters in South Korea include typhoons, heavy rains, heavy
Frequently occurring natural disasters in South Korea include typhoons, heavy rains, heavy snow,
snow, and snowfall. The dependent variable in
for this study isinclude
the totaltyphoons,
normalized economic damage
and snowfall. Theoccurring
Frequently dependent natural disasters
variable for this South
study Korea
is the total heavy
normalized economic rains, heavy
damage per
persnow,
capitaandfrom a natural
snowfall. The disaster
dependent over 10
variableyears
for (2001–2010)
this study is thein 230
total local communities.
normalized economic This
damagestudy
capita from a natural disaster over 10 years (2001–2010) in 230 local communities. This study collected
collected data
per capita on historical
from economic
a natural disaster losses
over caused
10 years by a natural
(2001–2010) disaster
local from the National Disaster
data on historical economic losses caused by a natural disaster in 230
from the communities.
National DisasterThis study
Information
Information
collected dataCenter website economic
on historical (availablelosses
at http://www.safekorea.go.kr),
caused by a natural disaster operated by the Ministry
from the National Disaster of
Center website (available at http://www.safekorea.go.kr), operated by the Ministry of the Interior and
theInformation
Interior and Center website
Safety (available
in Korea. at http://www.safekorea.go.kr),
Economic damages from a naturaloperated disaster by the Ministry
include of
losses from
Safety in Korea. Economic damages from a natural disaster include losses from building, shipments,
the Interior and Safety in Korea. Economic damages from
building, shipments, farmland, public facilities, and individual facilities. a natural disaster include losses from
farmland, public facilities, and individual facilities.
building,
Over the shipments,
10 years,farmland,
the top five public facilities, and
communities that individual
suffered the facilities.
most damage from natural disasters
Over the 10 years, the top five communities that suffered the most damage from natural disasters
were inOver the 10 years,
the Gangwon the top five
province, communities
incurring that suffered
over $12,000 USD perthe most
capitadamage
(Figurefrom
3). Innatural
the same disasters
period,
were
wereinin
the
theGangwon
Gangwon province,
province, incurring
incurring over
over $12,000USD
$12,000 USDper percapita
capita(Figure
(Figure3).3).
In In
the the
same same period,
period,
there was less disaster damage in Seoul special city, Gyeonggi province, and the metropolitan city of
there was
there was less disaster
less disaster damage
damage in Seoul
in Seoul special city, Gyeonggi province, and the metropolitan citycity of
Incheon, where 24 million people (aboutspecial
half ofcity,
theGyeonggi
population province,
of Korea,andasthe
ofmetropolitan
2010) live (Figure of 3).
Incheon,
Incheon,where
where2424million
millionpeople
people (about half of
(about half of the
thepopulation
population ofKorea,Korea, asas
of of 2010)livelive (Figure3). 3).
Damages were normalized for inflation rates (the inflation rate ofin 2010 was 1)2010)
and the (Figure
population in
Damages
Damages were normalized for inflation rates (the inflation rate in 2010 was 1) and the population in in
were normalized for inflation rates (the inflation rate in 2010 was 1) and the population
each community. The dependent variable was log-transformed to obtain a normal distribution.
each
eachcommunity.
community.The Thedependent
dependentvariable
variable was
was log-transformed
log-transformed to toobtain
obtainaanormal
normaldistribution.
distribution.

Figure3.3.Disaster
Figure Disaster economic
economic damages
damages(2001–2010)
(2001–2010)ininKorea.
Korea.
Figure 3. Disaster economic damages (2001–2010) in Korea.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1651 7 of 13

3.4. Independent Variables

This study selects 10 vulnerability indicators representing the social, economic, and environmental
characteristics of each community, based on previous vulnerability studies [2,29–36] (Table 2). These
indicators are standardized using z-score transformations to make all indicators equivalent units of
measurement. More detailed descriptions of the selected vulnerability indicators, expected sign for
disaster damage, and data sources are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Description of vulnerability factors and expected influence on disaster damage.

Indicators Description Year Effect Source

Social aspects
Less educated Percentage of population over age 15 without elementary
2010 + KOSIS 1
people school completion
Minority Percentage of foreigners 2010 + KOSIS 1
Economic aspects
Tax Amount of property tax per capita 2010 − KOSIS 1
Manufacturer Number of manufacturing establishments per square kilometer 2010 − KOSIS 1
Natural environmental aspects
Precipitation Average precipitation from 2001 to 2010 2001–2010 + KMA 2
Annual frequency of natural disasters including typhoon, heavy
Frequency 2001–2010 + MOIS 3
rain, heavy snow, and snowfall
Open space Green tract of land as a percent of a total land 2010 − KOSIS 1
Average slope Average slope 2010 + KOSIS 1
Built environmental aspects
Old building Percentage of housing units built before 1959 2005 + KOSIS 1
Housing density Number of housing units per square kilometer 2010 +/− KOSIS 1
Note: KOSIS 1 = Korea Statistical Information Service; KMA 2 = Korea Meteorological Administration; MOIS 3 =
Ministry of the Interior and Safety.

This study selects two vulnerability indicators to estimate the social aspects of vulnerability.
Less-educated people tend to be more vulnerable to natural disasters due to a lack of the knowledge
necessary for responding to disasters, which limits their capacity to understand warning information
and cope with, and recover from, natural disasters [1,2,5–7,12,13,34–36,46,47]. Education level is a
significant factor in determining income levels, health problems, quality of life, and employment
status [12,47]. The less-educated population was calculated as the percentage of the population
without elementary school education. In addition to educational levels, this study identifies minorities,
measured as the percentage of foreigners in Korea, as a vulnerable group. In the United States,
minorities, especially non-white people, are considered vulnerable to natural disasters because they
may have different languages and cultures, experience difficulties in receiving disaster recovery funds,
and live in hazardous areas [1,5,7,30].
Two indicators, property tax and manufacturer establishments, are used to represent the economic
aspects of community vulnerability [2,31]. These indicators are selected to represent a community’s
economic vulnerability as proxies. Communities with higher poverty have more difficulties in storing
emergency supplies, purchasing flood insurance, and recovering from disaster damage, which makes
them more vulnerable to the impact of a disaster [30,48]. The amount of property tax per capita was
used as the tax indicator, and the density of manufacturing establishments per square kilometer was
used as the manufacturer indicator.
This study measures four natural environmental indicators related to the degree of disaster
damage. The first, precipitation, is measured as the average precipitation from 2001 to 2010, as recorded
by 419 stations in the Automatic Weather Station (AWS) operated by the Korea Meteorological
Administration (KMA). A simple inverse distance weighting (IDW) method is used to interpolate
precipitation, as measured by the 419 stations, to the 230 local communities. The second indicator
is frequency, measured as the annual frequency of natural disasters (typhoons, heavy rain, heavy
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1651 8 of 13

snow, and snowfall), provided by the Korean Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS). Not only
precipitation, but also the frequency of natural disasters, are significant natural environment aspects
affecting the degree of disaster damage [2,29,34,48–50]. The third indicator was the extent of open
space, meaning the green tract of land as a percentage of total land. A green tract of land is a
space consisting of trees and other greens, which is called a buffer zone [2,28,36]. Providing a buffer
zone helps reduce vulnerability to future consequences of climate impact [48], and prevents surface
runoff [28]. The destruction of forest resources increases vulnerability and causes more runoff and
flooding [26]. As for the geographic factor related to the level of vulnerability, this study selected the
average slope in 230 communities. As a factor related to vulnerability, the location of a community is
known to be a determinant of disaster damage [2,26,29,35].
Two vulnerability indicators are used to represent the built environments related to disaster damage.
The first, old buildings, measured by the ratio of housing units built in 1959 or earlier, is an important
vulnerability indicator related to disaster damage, as old building codes are outdated [1,2,28,33].
The second indicator is housing density, measured as the number of homes per square kilometer.
Compact development based on dense housing can maximize open spaces, and is known to decrease
vulnerability to natural hazards [51].

4. Results
This study checked the assumptions of the OLS linear regression. The existence of multicollinearity
among independent variables was examined through the value of the multicollinearity condition.
As a multicollinearity problem occurs when the multicollinearity condition number is over 30 [16],
the OLS regression results showed no multicollinearity among vulnerability indicators (Table 3).
Two assumptions, the normality of errors and variance homoscedasticity, were also checked using
the Jarque-Bera test and Breusch-Pagan or Koenker-Bassett index, respectively, and showed the OLS
linear regression model had no violations. The final test is conducted to check the existence of spatial
autocorrelation in the regression residuals as one assumption of the OLS regression. As a frequently
used indicator for the presence of spatial autocorrelation, the Global Moran’s I was applied to assess
the spatial distribution of the model residuals in the 230 communities. The value of the Global
Moran’s I was calculated using a contiguity-based approach to define the neighbors of a spatial unit.
This study used the first-order “queen-based” contiguity approach, assuming that all adjacent regions
are considered neighbors. After the consideration of the scope of such neighbors, this study identified
the presence of spatial autocorrelation, showing that the Global Moran’s I in each model is 0.205, with
a 99% statistical significance level (Table 3). This result indicated that the OLS results are likely to be
biased because there is evidence of spatial autocorrelation.
In addition to the Global Moran’s I test, this study conducted a LISA analysis to identify the
degree of spatial autocorrelation in the model residuals in the 230 communities (Figure 4). The results
showed that a spatial cluster exists, with some regions (shown in red in the figure) indicating a hot
spot, and others (in dark blue) indicating cold spots for disaster damage.
This study employed a SAM to consider the spatial autocorrelation in the residuals of the OLS
regression model. The LM diagnostic test was used to identify a suitable model, showing the best fit
between the SEM and SLM. The test indicated that the standard versions of the LM-Lag and LM-Error
are statistically significant, whereas only a robust version of the LM-Error is statistically significant
(p < 0.01) (Table 3). Through the LM diagnostic test, the SEM was selected as the best model to account
for the spatial autocorrelation in the OLS regression residuals. This study performed two different
spatial error models, depending on the neighbor selection: queen-based and rook-based contiguity.
The two models solved the problem of spatial autocorrelation, showing that the value of Moran’s I
was statistically insignificant (p > 0.05) and close to zero, whereas the spatial error parameters were
statistically significant (p < 0.01) (Table 3). The significant vulnerability indicators in the two spatial
error models were the same as the OLS linear regression model, whereas the performance of spatial
error models was improved. This study showed an increase in the log-likelihood, and decrease in the
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1651 9 of 13

Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Schwarz criterion (SC), indicating a robust improvement with
respect to the OLS linear regression (Table 3).

Table 3. Results of OLS regression model and spatial error model (SEM).

OLS Regression Spatial Error Model Spatial Error Model

Variable Model (1st Order Queen-Based (1st Order Rook-Based
Coefficients Contiguity) Coefficients Contiguity) Coefficients
Social aspects
Less educated people 0.232 † 0.267 † 0.261 †
Minority 0.072 * 0.069 * 0.068 *
Economic aspects
Tax −0.001 0.024 0.018
Manufacturer −0.137 † −0.133 † −0.131 †
Natural environmental aspects
Precipitation 0.098 † 0.086 * 0.086 *
Frequency 0.104 † 0.118 † 0.117 †
Open space −0.201 † −0.176 † −0.180 †
Average slope 0.325 † 0.312 † 0.310 †
Built environmental aspects
Old building 0.050 0.048 0.050
Housing density −0.254 † −0.237 † −0.243 †
constant 2.343 † 2.346 † 2.345 †
Spatial error parameter(λ) - 0.427 † 0.379 †
Global Moran’s I 0.205112 † 0.000306125 −0.0168871
Adjusted R-squared
0.816 0.847 0.842
(Pseudo R-squared)
AIC 286.147 264.352 269.181
SC 323.966 302.17 307
Log likelihood −132.073 −121.176 −123.59
Multicollinearity Condition
4.852 - -
Number
Jarque-Bera 0.055 - -
Breusch-Pagan 15.12 19.979 * 17.786
Koenker-Bassett 15.37 - -
LM-Lag 4.574 * - -
Robust LM-Lag 0 - -
LM-Error 20.712 † - -
Robust LM-Error 16.138 † - -
Significance 0 - -
* p < 0.05, † p < 0.01.

This study analyzed the relationship between 10 vulnerability indicators regarding social,
economic, and environmental features and disaster damage using an OLS regression model and
spatial error models (Table 3). The results from the OLS regression model showed that the coefficient
on less-educated people is positively related to disaster damage. Minority is also associated with
disaster damage, with a positive coefficient (B = 0.072, p < 0.05). Both social aspects are positively
related to disaster damage, suggesting that socially vulnerable people are more likely to suffer from
disaster damage than others. Economic aspects indicated results in line with previous studies [12,52],
showing that poor communities are likely to experience more severe disaster damage. Although tax
was not related to disaster damage (B = −0.001, p > 0.05), communities with many manufacturing
establishments showed a negative correlation with the extent of disaster damage (B = −0.137, p < 0.01).
Regarding the natural environment, precipitation was positively related to disaster damage (B = 0.098,
p < 0.01), in line with previous results [49]. The frequency of natural disasters was also positively
and significantly associated with the extent of disaster damage (B = 0.104, p < 0.01). The regression
results showed that disaster damage is more severe in communities where annual precipitation is
high and natural disasters happen frequently. As a buffer zone, open space played a significant role
 SC 323.966 302.17 307
Log likelihood −132.073 −121.176 −123.59
Multicollinearity Condition
4.852 - -
Number
Jarque-Bera 0.055 - -
Breusch-Pagan 15.12 19.979 * 17.786
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1651 10 of 13
Koenker-Bassett 15.37 - -
LM-Lag 4.574 * - -
Robust LM-Lag 0 - -
in diminishing disaster damage, showing
LM-Error 20.712 a† negative correlation
- with disaster damage - in the OLS
regression model
Robust (B = −0.201, p < 0.01).
LM-Error 16.138Communities
† located- in steep slopes were more
- likely to
Significance 0 -
experience damage from natural disasters (B = 0.325, p < 0.01). The findings on built environments -
showed that communities with a high ratio * p < 0.05, † p < 0.01 older than 60 years showed a positive
of buildings
relationship
In addition to the Global Moran’s I test, this study was
with disaster damage, but this coefficient not statistically
conducted significant
a LISA analysis (B = 0.05,
to identify the
p > 0.05). Housing density, however, showed a statistically significant negative relationship
degree of spatial autocorrelation in the model residuals in the 230 communities (Figure 4). The results with
disaster that
showed damage (B = −
a spatial cluster p < 0.01),
0.254,exists, meaning
with that compact
some regions (showncommunities
in red in the experience less disaster
figure) indicating a hot
damage than sprawling communities.
spot, and others (in dark blue) indicating cold spots for disaster damage.

Figure 4. LISA
Figure 4. LISA cluster
cluster analysis
analysis map.
map.

This study employed a SAM to consider the spatial autocorrelation in the residuals of the OLS
In summary, the more communities there are with many less-educated people and minorities,
regression model. The LM diagnostic test was used to identify a suitable model, showing the best fit
high precipitation, fewer manufacturers, fewer open spaces, lower densities, and high slope, the more
between the SEM and SLM. The test indicated that the standard versions of the LM-Lag and LM-
those regions are exposed to economic losses from a natural disaster.
Error are statistically significant, whereas only a robust version of the LM-Error is statistically
significant (p <and
5. Discussion 0.01)Conclusions
(Table 3). Through the LM diagnostic test, the SEM was selected as the best model
to account for the spatial autocorrelation in the OLS regression residuals. This study performed two
The spatial
different aim of error
this study
models,is to analyze on
depending the the
relationship between disaster
neighbor selection: damage
queen-based andand several
rook-based
vulnerability indicators related to social, economic, and environmental features to pinpoint
contiguity. The two models solved the problem of spatial autocorrelation, showing that the value the factors
of
of uneven distribution of natural disaster impact among communities. The OLS regression
Moran’s I was statistically insignificant (p > 0.05) and close to zero, whereas the spatial error model was
employed towere
parameters examine the effect
statistically of 10 vulnerability
significant indicators
(p < 0.01) (Table onsignificant
3). The disaster damage. Several
vulnerability tests were
indicators in
performed to confirm the assumptions of the OLS regression model, and recognized the existence of
spatial autocorrelation in the OLS residuals. The LISA analysis showed a space cluster in the model
residuals, supporting the presence of spatial autocorrelation. Some regions (east of Gangwon province,
parts of Gyeongnam province, and parts of Jeonbuk province) indicated a hot spot, whereas other
areas (parts of Gyeonggi and Jeonnam provinces) showed cold spots for disaster damage (Figure 4).
The regions located in the same cluster are spatially autocorrelated, having similar features in terms of
economic losses. For the reduction of spatial autocorrelation and better model performance, the SAM
was employed, and the SEM was identified as the most suitable model, based on an LM diagnostic test.
The results of this study are in line with earlier studies in other fields [15–17], and confirm that the
SAM can be used to identify statistically significant relationships among variables, using the spatially
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1651 11 of 13

autocorrelated model residuals. Through a spatial error model, this study showed that vulnerable
people (less-educated people, minorities) and places (high precipitation, fewer manufacturers, fewer
open spaces, lower densities, and high slope) are more likely to experience disaster damage.
The findings of this study have value for policymakers who are developing vulnerability reduction
policies for populations and places considered at risk. First, identifying unique vulnerability factors
is important in predicting where disaster losses may occur, recognizing the relationship between
vulnerability factors and disaster damage. Second, providing education to less-educated people
and minorities is key for improving disaster awareness. More education helps vulnerable people
access and act on hazard information, which helps them to prepare for, respond to, and recover
from natural disasters [12,47]. Third, activities related to risk reduction are necessary to reduce
the degree of vulnerability. Risk itself can be removed by understanding the types of hazards in a
community, protecting the environment, and preventing development in hazardous areas. Protecting
the environment could reduce disaster risk by enlarging the open spaces which function as buffer
zones. If development is necessary, compact development in a safe area can be a way not only to
preserve open spaces, but also accommodate residents in a safe area.
Some significant limitations of this study need to be considered. First, this study has a limitation
stemming from its use of indicator-based approaches for the identification of vulnerability factors.
There is room for debate on what kinds of indicators should be used [47], and for the study’s
dependence on statistical analysis, such as the OLS linear regression [46]. Among the various types
of candidate indicators, this study selected 10 vulnerability indicators, not only representing social,
economic, and environmental aspects, but also satisfying the multicollinearity assumption. Second,
this study is limited to finding the local parameters of vulnerability indicators, although both the
OLS linear regression and SAM can examine global parameters of independent variables. Although
this study found that socially vulnerable people are likely to incur disaster damage, this does not
imply that minorities and those who are less educated in Korea are equally vulnerable to a natural
disaster [46]. Further studies are needed to examine local vulnerability indicators for local-based
disaster management. A GWR model could be an alternative tool for identifying locally vulnerable
people and places associated with disaster damage.

Author Contributions: Both authors contributed to the idea of the paper. S.J. analyzed the data, interpreted the
results, and drafted the article. D.K.Y. provided core advice and extensive revisions to the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Yonsei University Future-leading Research Initiative of 2017
[2017-22-0077].
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Yoon, D.K. Assessment of social vulnerability to natural disasters: A comparative study. Nat. Hazards. 2012,
63, 823–843. [CrossRef]
2. Yoon, D.K.; Jeong, S. Assessment of Community Vulnerability to Natural Disasters in Korea by Using
GIS and Machine Learning Techniques. In Quantitative Regional Economic and Environmental Analysis for
Sustainability in Korea; Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp. 123–140.
3. Toya, H.; Skidmore, M. Economic development and the impacts of natural disasters. Econ. Lett. 2007, 94,
20–25. [CrossRef]
4. Guha-Sapir, D.; Hoyois, P.; Wallemacq, P.; Below, R. Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2015: The Numbers and
Trends; Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED): Brussels, Belgium, 2015.
5. Emrich, C.T.; Cutter, S.L. Social vulnerability to climate-sensitive hazards in the southern United States.
Weather Clim. Soc. 2011, 3, 193–208. [CrossRef]
6. Gao, X.; Yuan, H.; Qi, W.; Liu, S. Assessing the social and economic vulnerability of urban areas to disasters:
A case study in Beijing, China. Int. Rev. Spat. Plan. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 2, 42–62. [CrossRef]
7. Cutter, S.L.; Boruff, B.J.; Shirley, W.L. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc. Sci. Q. 2003, 84,
242–261. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1651 12 of 13

8. Uitto, J.I. The geography of disaster vulnerability in megacities: A theoretical framework. Appl. Geogr. 1998,
18, 7–16. [CrossRef]
9. Brody, S.D.; Zahran, S.; Highfield, W.E.; Grover, H.; Vedlitz, A. Identifying the impact of the built environment
on flood damage in Texas. Disasters 2008, 32, 1–18. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Hamilton, L.C. Regression with Graphics: A Second Course in Applied Statistics; Duxbury Press: Belmont, CA,
USA, 1992.
11. Tu, J.; Xia, Z.G. Examining spatially varying relationships between land use and water quality using
geographically weighted regression I: Model design and evaluation. Sci. Total Environ. 2008, 407, 358–378.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Zhou, Y.; Li, N.; Wu, W.; Wu, J.; Shi, P. Local spatial and temporal factors influencing population and societal
vulnerability to natural disasters. Risk Anal. 2014, 34, 614–639. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Armas, I.; Gavris, A. Social vulnerability assessment using spatial multi-criteria analysis (SEVI model) and
the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI model): A case study for Bucharest, Romania. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst.
Sci. 2013, 13, 1481–1499. [CrossRef]
14. Grineski, S.; Collins, T.W.; Chakraborty, J.; Montgomery, M. Hazardous air pollutants and flooding:
A comparative interurban study of environmental injustice. GeoJournal 2014, 80, 145–158. [CrossRef]
15. Highfield, W.E.; Brody, S.D.; Blessing, R. Measuring the impact of mitigation activities on flood loss reduction
at the parcel level: The case of the clear creek watershed on the upper Texas coast. Nat. Hazards 2014, 74,
687–704. [CrossRef]
16. Anselin, L. Exploring Spatial Data with GeoDa: A Work Book; University of Illinois: Champaign, IL, USA, 2005.
17. Mitchell, B.C.; Chakraborty, J. Urban heat and climate justice: A landscape of thermal inequity in Pinellas
county, Florida. Geogr. Rev. 2014, 104, 459–480. [CrossRef]
18. Anderson, M.B. Disaster prevention for sustainable development: Economic and policy issues.
In Vulnerability to Disaster and Sustainable Development: A General Framework for Assessing Vulnerability;
World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; Chapter 3.
19. Boulle, P.; Vrolijks, L.; Palm, E. Vulnerability reduction for sustainable urban development. J. Conting.
Crisis Manag. 1997, 5, 179–188. [CrossRef]
20. Cardona, O.D. Mapping vulnerability: Disasters, development and people. In The Need for Rethinking the
Concepts of Vulnerability and Risk from a Holistic Perspective: A Necessary Review and Criticism for Effective Risk
Management; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; Chapter 3; p. 17.
21. Green, C. The evaluation of vulnerability to flooding. Disaster Prev. Manag. Int. J. 2004, 13, 323–329. [CrossRef]
22. Vatsa, K.S. Risk, vulnerability, and asset-based approach to disaster risk management. Int. J. Sociol. Soc. Policy.
2004, 24, 1–48. [CrossRef]
23. Hewitt, K. Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
24. Birkmann, J. Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: Towards disaster resilient societies. In Measuring
Vulnerability to Promote Disaster-Resilient Societies: Conceptual Frameworks and Definitions; United Nations
University Press: Tokyo, Japan, 2006; Chapter 1.
25. Pelling, M.; Uitto, J.I. Small island developing states: Natural disaster vulnerability and global change.
Glob. Environ. Chang. Part B Environ. Hazards 2001, 3, 49–62. [CrossRef]
26. McEntire, D. Understanding and reducing vulnerability: From the approach of liabilities and capabilities.
Disaster Prev. Manag. Int. J. 2012, 20, 294–313. [CrossRef]
27. Perrow, C. The Next Catastrophe: Reducing Our Vulnerabilities to Natural, Industrial, and Terrorist Disasters;
Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2011.
28. Schipper, L.; Pelling, M. Disaster risk, climate change and international development: Scope for, and
challenges to, integration. Disasters 2006, 30, 19–38. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Brody, S.D.; Highfield, W.E.; Ryu, H.C.; Spanel-Weber, L. Examining the relationship between wetland
alteration and watershed flooding in Texas and Florida. Nat. Hazards 2007, 40, 413–428. [CrossRef]
30. Flax, L.K.; Jackson, R.W.; Stein, D.N. Community vulnerability assessment tool methodology. Nat. Hazards Rev.
2002, 3, 163–176. [CrossRef]
31. Kim, Y.O.; Seo, S.B.; Jang, O.J. Flood risk assessment using regional regression analysis. Nat. Hazards 2012,
63, 1203–1217. [CrossRef]
32. Yang, S.; He, S.; Du, J.; Sun, X. Screening of social vulnerability to natural hazards in China. Nat. Hazards
2015, 76, 1–18. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1651 13 of 13

33. Zhou, Y.; Li, N.; Wu, W.; Wu, J. Assessment of provincial social vulnerability to natural disasters in China.
Nat. Hazards 2014, 71, 2165–2186. [CrossRef]
34. Prashar, S.; Shaw, R.; Takeuchi, Y. Assessing the resilience of Delhi to climate-related disasters: A comprehensive
approach. Nat. Hazards 2012, 64, 1609–1624. [CrossRef]
35. Adelekan, I.O. Vulnerability assessment of an urban flood in Nigeria: Abeokuta flood 2007. Nat. Hazards
2011, 56, 215–231. [CrossRef]
36. Fekete, A.; Damm, M.; Birkmann, J. Scales as a challenge for vulnerability assessment. Nat. Hazards 2010, 55,
729–747. [CrossRef]
37. Cutter, S.L.; Finch, C. Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 2301–2306. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Wood, N.J.; Burton, C.G.; Cutter, S.L. Community variations in social vulnerability to Cascadia-related
tsunamis in the US Pacific Northwest. Nat. Hazards 2010, 52, 369–389. [CrossRef]
39. Azar, D.; Rain, D. Identifying population vulnerable to hydrological hazards in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
GeoJournal 2007, 69, 23–43. [CrossRef]
40. Myers, C.A.; Slack, T.; Singelmann, J. Social vulnerability and migration in the wake of disaster: The case of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Popul. Environ. 2008, 29, 271–291. [CrossRef]
41. Ebert, A.; Kerle, N.; Stein, A. Urban social vulnerability assessment with physical proxies and spatial metrics
derived from air-and spaceborne imagery and GIS data. Nat. Hazards 2009, 48, 275–294. [CrossRef]
42. Burton, C.G. Social vulnerability and hurricane impact modeling. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2010, 11, 58–68.
[CrossRef]
43. Osborne, J.W.; Waters, E. Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers should always test.
Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2002, 8, 1–7.
44. Gujarati, D.N. Basic Econometrics; Tata McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
45. Baller, R.D.; Anselin, L.; Messner, S.F.; Deane, G. Structural covariates of US county homicide rates:
Incorporating spatial effects. Criminology 2001, 39, 561–588. [CrossRef]
46. Kuhlicke, C.; Scolobig, A.; Tapsell, S.; Steinführer, A.; De Marchi, B. Contextualizing social vulnerability:
Findings from case studies across Europe. Nat. Hazards 2011, 58, 789–810. [CrossRef]
47. Chen, W.; Cutter, S.L.; Emrich, C.T.; Shi, P. Measuring social vulnerability to natural hazards in the Yangtze
River Delta region, China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2013, 4, 169–181. [CrossRef]
48. Qiu, Z.; Prato, T.; Boehrn, G. Economic valuation of riparian buffer and open space in a suburban watershed.
J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2006, 42, 1583–1596. [CrossRef]
49. Zahran, S.; Brody, S.D.; Peacock, W.G.; Vedlitz, A.; Grover, H. Social vulnerability and the natural and built
environment: A model of flood casualties in Texas. Disasters 2008, 32, 537–560. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Felsenstein, D.; Lichter, M. Social and economic vulnerability of coastal communities to sea-level rise and
extreme flooding. Nat. Hazards 2014, 71, 463–491. [CrossRef]
51. Adie, C.E. Holistic Disaster Recovery: Ideas for Building Local Sustainability after a Natural Disaster;
DIANE Publishing: Collingdale, PA, USA, 2001.
52. Berke, P.R.; Campanella, T.J. Planning for post disaster resiliency. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 2006, 604,
192–207. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).