The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0965-3562.htm
DPM
26,3
276
Received 8 October 2016
Revised 10 January 2017
Accepted 16 March 2017
Disaster Prevention and
Management
Vol. 26 No. 3, 2017
pp. 276-285
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0965-3562
DOI 10.1108/DPM-10-2016-0206
From K-Pop to K-Preparedness:
Korea confronts
disaster reduction
David Oliver Kasdan
Department of Public Administration, Sungkyunkwan University,
Seoul, Republic of Korea, and
Kyehyun Kim
Department of Geoinformatic Engineering, Inha University College of Engineering,
Nam-gu Incheon, Republic of Korea
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe a recent effort by the South Korean Government to
stimulate a domestic disaster risk reduction (DRR) technology industry for the export market. The project is a
novel form of public-private partnership (PPP) that simultaneously fulfills the mandates of the Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction while promoting Korea’s economic development agenda.
Design/methodology/approach – The research is primarily a review study of the Global DRR Technology
project as it is situated in the literature of PPP research from both the public administration and disaster
management disciplines.
Findings – Korea’s approach to address DRR through a PPP targeting the needs of East Asian countries is
unique. The overall effectiveness of the effort will take time to assess, but the model is an interesting and
potentially fruitful mean of advancing DRR technology dissemination.
Practical implications – Korea may position itself as a global leader of DRR technology through this effort
in terms of both market share and support of the Sendai Framework’s objectives. If successful, the PPP
approach may be adopted as a viable means of improving DRR for other countries.
Social implications – Using PPPs for various aspects of DRR can be win-win situation for economic
development and disaster management outcomes.
Originality/value – This paper presents a distinct application of the PPP model for DRR that other
countries may appreciate and/or adopt for their own DRR needs.
Keywords Public-private partnership, Disaster risk reduction, Technology transfer, Republic of Korea,
Sendai framework
Paper type Case study
Introduction
One only needs to reflect on the stunning progress of South Korea’s economic development
and cultural influence on the global community to realize that when this nation of 50 million
puts its collective mind to something, it achieves amazing things (Rhie, 2002).
The government’s sponsorship of large-scale modernization projects over the past several
decades has yielded enormous social benefits to the country. Yet as Korea has enjoyed
tremendous success in several ventures, it also has experienced remarkable setbacks that
exposed weaknesses in its development agenda (Toussaint, 2006). Civil issues, political
scandals, financial turmoil and fatal catastrophes remind Korea that the progress is not without
a price. With its graduation into the OECD ranks, Korea has assumed greater responsibility for
concerns outside of economic development, such as climate change, sustainability and
improved social welfare. To this end, Korea has taken on enhanced roles in the global effort for
climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR), such as hosting the
headquarters of the Green Coalition Fund and supporting the UN International Strategy on
Disaster Risk Reduction Global Education and Training Institute (www.unisdr.org/incheon).
The future of Korea is closely connected to its disaster management and CCA capacities that
must keep apace, if not lead, the continued progress worldwide.
 Korea’s disaster management is undergoing a process of modernization that is aimed to Korea
bring Korea up to the highest standard of preparedness and protection for its citizens confronts
(Ha, 2009, 2015). Like so many of Korea’s other national endeavors, this effort is being driven disaster
by government policy and funds, guided by academic research, and manufactured by
corporate interests. In other words, the twenty-first century model of disaster management reduction
in Korea is being realized through a multi-sector approach that the country has utilized
repeatedly with satisfactory results in an array of applications. This type of approach 277
coheres with the key principle of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
2015-2030 (UNISDR, 2015): government leadership of a multi-sector effort at all levels of
society. Like the automobile industry, consumer electronics and TV dramas, so too will the
disaster management industry be Koreanized. This is being realized as a concerted
collaboration of public and private sector entities to develop, commercialize, export and
compete in the global market for DRR technology.
The following research is a case study that may inform future DRR technology and
sharing models as more countries take a proactive attitude toward protecting their
populations. This paper discusses the unique form of public-private partnership (PPP) being
employed by Korea to propel its domestic DRR technologies into the regional – if not global –
market on the heels of the Sendai Framework. The modern Korean PPP model is derived in
part from its past practice of directing chaebols[1], the huge family owned conglomerates, to
undertake projects on behalf of the nation’s collective interests. An underlying consideration
of the study is the intersection of DRR technology development and commercializing the
resultant products for international markets. The paper proceeds by setting the context of
Korea’s DRR interests, discussing PPPs and their take-up in Korea, introducing the concept
of Koreanization, and then presenting the Global DRR Technology project as the embodiment
of the Koreanization process that hopes to build a nascent industry while simultaneously
serving the needs for DRR on a global scale.

The context of Korean DRR

While the types and frequencies of disasters in Korea are not nearly as varied as that of its
nearest neighbors Japan and China, the nation is still wary of the hazards that do exist
(Kim and Lee, 1998). With several tragic human-made disasters in its recent history, such as
the capsizing of the ferry MV Sewol in 2014 and the Daegu subway fire in 2003, Korea is
vigorously pursuing policies and practices to keep its citizens safe (Park, 2015). In what
is apparently becoming a model for promoting a national agenda, wherein the Korean
government stimulates an industry for domestic uses and then commoditizes it into
an export product, DRR technologies are the next “K-thing” to come out of the Northeast
Asian peninsula. This is being materialized in a project backed by the Ministry of Public
Safety and Security (MPSS) with input from academic and private sector collaborators.
As the Global Assessment Report (UNISDR, 2013) makes clear, private sector businesses
have vested interest in DRR efforts. Major Korean companies are well aware of this,
considering the nature of the dominant industries. The large-scale shipbuilding operations on
the country’s coasts, expansive automobile production facilities across the lands, delicate
precision equipment used in technology production and the overall human population density
make a strong case for Korea to have a proactive approach to DRR. While the government is
the driver of economic development and DRR in Korea, the companies are the engine behind
the intertwined concerns of having profitable enterprise with a sustainable and resilient
production environment. As Korea continues to grow and exert dominance in the East Asian
region, the national agenda to enhance self-sufficiency in all aspects of its existence naturally
stimulates an effort to protect itself with a viable DRR industry. Considering its high-tech
aptitude, orientation toward smart innovation and aspirations to global leadership[2], it is a
natural progression for Korea to promote a project for DRR technology.
DPM Before discussing the details of the project, it is necessary to situate the effort in the
26,3 broader context of Asian DRR. Although it may appear that Korea is just capitalizing on
another of its developmental advantages, the reality is that the explosive growth of human
populations and the material effects of climate change in Asia require a champion to protect
the populations. Whereas Japan has been at the forefront of disaster preparedness for
decades, given its extreme vulnerability to earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis and other
278 hazards, Japan has directly engaged in the export of its knowledge to regional neighbors.
Similarly, China has experience responding to earthquakes, landslides, floods and air
quality issues, but has not yet sought to expand its DRR industry to turn a profit on the
activity. One could also surmise that with the advent of DRR as the central theme of global
disaster management following the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster
Reduction (UNISDR) Sendai Framework (UNISDR, 2015), Japan’s strength in preparedness
and China’s experiences with response and recovery has left the expertise of mitigation
somewhat underserved for East Asia. As Asian population densities increase and
settlement in vulnerable areas continues to grow, the impetus for more effective DRR
measures increases as well.
This leaves Korea as the only country in the region with an exceptional ability and
opportunity to commoditize DRR technology to share with other Asian countries due to its
advanced economy and relatively low vulnerability to disasters. As an “Asian Tiger”
economy and active supporter of global initiatives for CCA and DRR, Korea is positioning
itself as a regional leader. Delicate developing countries need to protect their industry and
infrastructure from disaster and climate change (Linnerooth-Bayer and Mechler, 2007).
Diverting public and private resources to resilience and adaptation efforts can cost them
competitive advantage for their economies. The ability to access DRR technology from a
source that shares and understands their common hazard risks is a win-win scenario.
Korea has been steadily raising its status with certain target countries, such as Viet Nam,
Cambodia and the Philippines, by exporting cultural products (K-Pop) and technologies
(e.g. mobile phone market dominance), promoting manufacturing partnerships, and
importing students to study at Korean universities[3]. This model of Koreanization in other
sectors is replicable. In other words, the new thrust on mitigation for DRR is a natural fit for
Korea’s strengths, especially as mitigation is becoming a more technology-centric pursuit
(Basher, 2013; Ha, 2015; Schmitt et al., 2007). As Table I shows, save the wealthy Singapore
and remote Mongolia (neither of which is immune to disasters of their own right), Korea is
simultaneously one of the least risky nations in the region and also well-positioned to be a
leader in DRR, given its regional distribution infrastructure and political and economic
influence. Add in Korea’s prowess at technological development as evidenced by its global
leadership in several high-tech industries with its strategies of providing assistance to less
developed countries in the East Asian region (Kim et al., 2016, p. 431), and it appears that the
Koreanization of DRR may be inevitable.

PPPs and Korea

PPPs are “working arrangements based on a mutual commitment (over and above that
implied in any contract) between a public sector organization with any organization outside
of the public sector” (Bovaird, 2004, p. 200). PPP is a flexible concept that accommodates a
range of mixes between the public and the private in terms of the responsibility, benefits
and ownership for an endeavor. The growth of PPPs around the world has been largely
driven by economic interests, as the New Public Management paradigm set in the late 1980s
utilized PPPs to reduce costs to government and share responsibilities (Osborne, 2002).
A second-level motivation for governments to use PPPs is to leverage the capital and
expertise of private companies in technology-intensive endeavors where the dynamic risks
are beyond the management capacity of the bureaucracy (Bovaird, 2004). Special types of
Country Ranking (high is good) Risk Index 2015 Susceptibility 2015 Vulnerability 2015
Korea
confronts
Afghanistan 40 9.55 55.77 72.49 disaster
Bangladesh 6 19.26 39.05 60.76
Bhutan 58 7.71 30.35 52.07 reduction
Cambodia 8 16.82 39.50 60.84
China 80 6.80 25.27 47.10
Fiji 16 13.47 24.84 48.63 279
India 78 6.88 36.37 57.59
Indonesia 35 10.39 31.21 53.67
Japan 17 13.35 17.64 29.08
Republic of Korea 113 4.79 14.53 32.17
Laos 100 5.67 39.52 59.38
Malaysia 88 6.44 19.10 44.10
Mongolia 148 2.96 30.07 45.33
Myanmar 43 9.01 34.85 60.60
Nepal 108 5.23 40.97 57.09
Pakistan 72 7.03 36.71 61.91
Papua New Guinea 9 16.82 55.29 67.46
Philippines 3 27.98 32.00 53.33
Singapore 161 2.24 14.05 28.62
Solomon Islands 5 19.29 44.55 64.34
Sri Lanka 66 7.37 25.33 49.86
Thailand 89 6.38 19.63 46.55
Tonga 2 28.45 28.78 51.47
Vanuatu 1 36.72 35.69 57.68 Table I.
Viet Nam 18 12.89 25.90 50.87 World Risk Index
Note: A high ranking is good, whereas a lower value for the other columns is preferable scores for East Asia
Source: Mucke et al. (2014) and Oceana nations

PPPs are employed to spark various enterprises, particularly when governments

cannot feasibly serve a need that the private market has not adequately addressed
(Wettenhall, 2003).
Korea’s use of PPPs is an artifact of its governance development agenda. Following the
adoption of New Public Management by Korea in the 1990s, wherein government looked to
market mechanisms for opportunities to improve service delivery, PPPs became a
normalized practice. While Korea does not draw on an extensive nonprofit sector for PPPs
as some other OECD countries do[4], Korean PPPs proliferated nonetheless with private
sector corporations and research institutions doing the labor under the guidance of public
sector policies and funding support (Mitchell-Weaver and Manning, 1991). Korea’s past use
of PPPs also helped to spread the risk of new ventures, diversify the economic base, and
provide a semblance of legitimacy to chaebol favoritism by framing the projects as being in
the greater national interest. PPPs in Korea today include projects with domestic research
institutions, international humanitarian organizations, as well as the private sector.
For the context of disaster management, there is growing interest in the role of PPPs and
research on comparative models of PPP implementation. The current literatures span a range
of concerns, from the nature of the networks in PPPs for emergencies (Kapucu, 2006) to using
PPPs for investment and risk mitigation (Kunreuther, 2001; Linnerooth-Bayer and Mechler,
2007). A number of articles have investigated the use of PPPs to improve resilience
(Amaratunga, 2014; Busch and Givens, 2013; Chen et al., 2013; Stewart et al., 2009) with a
sub-field focused on the need for PPPs to effectively help developing countries in resilience
efforts (Kim and Kakimoto, 2016; Linnerooth-Bayer and Mechler, 2007). There has been
relatively little research on the nexus of PPPs, DRR and technology (Basher, 2013;
DPM Schmitt et al., 2007), and nothing to note about PPPs specifically formed to develop DRR
26,3 technology. Even the recent articles by Lee (2015) and Kim et al. (2016) that discuss the project
that is the topic of this research do not dwell on the nature of the project as a PPP, but rather
the technical aspects of its realization. There are opportunities for PPPs to confront the
mitigation and resilience issues of DRR; this case study illustrates the particular situation
where the effort is targeted in the technology realm for the Asian audience.
280
Koreanization of DRR
What exactly does this “Koreanization” mean? A brief history lesson can describe the term
and its effects. For the decade after the Korean War, the Republic of Korea was pitifully
poor and undeveloped by most measures. Following an aggressive – and perhaps
oppressive – push by the central government to modernize its industry (Toussaint, 2006),
Korea made phenomenal strides up to its global coming out part for the 1988 Olympics in
Seoul. Much of the economic success can be attributed to a model wherein the central
government directs and supports a private conglomerate to achieve some objective, such
as building a new city from swampland or establishing a shipbuilding enterprise.
Participation and sacrifice by the Korean people is complicit; the Confucian traditions of
collective social behavior run strong. Thus Koreanization is a national phenomenon of
concentrated productivity that has targeted a wide range of sectors: manufacturing
(automobiles and ships), technology (microprocessors and consumer electronics), culture
(television dramas and K-pop music), research (pharmaceuticals and universities) and now
disaster management.
In the not too distant past, Korea had neglected to give due attention to mitigation and
preparedness in disaster management (Kim and Lee, 1998). Partly an oversight during its
rapid development from one of the poorest nations on the planet to an OECD member in
half a century, partly an artifact of its cultural perspectives on disasters as being
inevitable occurrences, Korea was not entirely prepared for the twenty-first century
approach to disaster management (Ha, 2009). But like so many other aspects of its society,
Korea quickly learned what the global leaders in DRR were doing and applied itself to
being at the same level. It has now adopted a control-tower approach to coordinating
disaster management and employs the latest technologies for DRR in the country,
especially in civil engineering concerns (Ha, 2009; Park, 2015). The modernization upgrade
was necessitated by the significant increase in population density and Korea’s joining of
the OECD, in order to avoid any embarrassment for being unprepared in case of
emergency. The central government has driven emergency management in Korea through
several policy and agency iterations with a level of decisiveness and funding that could
only be achieved by a strong belief that government has the responsibility and requisite
authority for dealing with emergencies.
This is not to say that there were no setbacks or problems with Korea’s DRR. Indeed,
several unfortunate and notable disasters occurred in the last 20 years, from the Typhoon
Rusa in 2002 to the capsize and sinking of the MV Sewol ferry in 2014. Reorganizations,
agency renaming, policy changes, and regulatory oversight have been regular actions as
Korea finds its way to a safer society. Yet now the MPSS is one of the largest agencies in the
government with over 10,000 employees and a renewed sense of purpose on the eve of a
governmental regime change. Universities across the country are implementing disaster
management curricula and community centers are offering training courses in preparedness
and response skills. Korea is capitalizing on its strengths by pursuing a technological
approach to DRR both domestically (Ha, 2015) and for its burgeoning export industry.
Korea made a significant impact with the UNISDR Asian Ministerial Conference on
Disaster Risk Reduction in 2010, gaining endorsement for the Incheon Declaration Regional
Road Map and Action Plan (REMAP) on DRR through CCA. This plan calls for a
mainstreaming of DRR and CCA into development agendas in Asia-Pacific countries. Korea
The main themes of the REMAP (MPSS, 2011, p. 6) are: confronts
(1) raising awareness and building capacity for DRR and CCA; disaster
(2) developing and sharing information, technology, sound practices and lessons reduction
learned in climate and disaster risk management; and
(3) promoting integration of DRR and CCA into development for green growth. 281
In essence, Korea proposed a global, humanitarian, developmental initiative that would
provide a market for its own products (especially in line with Theme 2, above).
This motivation may look opportunistic in hindsight, but the overarching goals of the
declaration are aligned with the UNISDR and other global efforts: “The Sendai Framework
[…] emphasized the importance of enhancing technology transfer involving a process of
enabling and facilitating flows of skill, knowledge, ideas, expertise, and technology from
developed to developing countries” (Kim et al., 2016, p. 431). This could suggest that Korea’s
DRR industry is merely a fortunate benefactor of a trend and/or the country is hyper-reactive
to emerging disaster management needs. However, one may frame the convenient coincidence,
Korea is securing a future in DRR technology development and production.

The global DRR technology project

Where would an emergency management official go to find specialized products for DRR?
There are some repositories of sources scattered about the web, such as the now dormant
Disaster Reduction Hyperbase (http://drh.bosai.go.jp/) and the beta-version of the
UNISDR-Prevention Web Resilient Cities Connect marketplace (www.preventionweb.net/
rcc/en/services), but they are often obscured by other priorities or abstract leads. Yet if there
were an analog to the web-based retailers Amazon or Alibaba for DRR technology products,
then government agencies could procure systems, equipment and instruments from multiple
vendors with ease. In essence, Korea has addressed this shortfall of the market using
models of technology transfer and positioning it in the framework of an international aid
effort (Kim et al., 2016).
The most recent realization of Korea’s aspirations can be found in the Global DRR
Technology project sponsored by the MPSS[5] with an endorsement by the UNISDR.
This project is a mix of government, university and private sector inputs to create “an online
community of practice in disaster risk reduction” (www.pr4gdm.org) in order to, ultimately,
demonstrate and promote Korean DRR technology products. With a smattering of
educational and informative content, as well as a forum page for discussion of DRR issues,
the site is an innovative attempt to attract interest from East Asian disaster management
agencies. Paired with conferences and other promotional efforts, the Global DRR
Technology project is a slight modification to the more commercially oriented Koreanization
model used in the past. The site also aspires to promote a Community of Practice (CoP) that
will enable exchange of information and participation around the technology itself; this is an
innovation on other versions of CoP that discuss disaster management in more generalized
terms (Amaratunga, 2014).
Recent research on the project situates it as a response to the global call for DRR and
CCA technology sharing. Lee (2015) describes the project with specific focus on how the
“architecture and governance” platform is optimal to the objectives of sharing technology.
Kim et al. (2016) continue the research with more detail on the advantages of the web-based
platform for enhancing resilience in the East Asian region. An examination of the site itself
(www.pr4gdm.org) indicates how the sharing of technology is being realized; products are
situated in response to policies, research, and discussion of DRR issues with various
learning tools.
DPM Trillions of dollars will be invested over the next 15 years in socio-economic development,
26,3 particularly for urban areas in Asia. The level of disaster resilience of this investment will be a
key indicator of success in implementing the Sendai Framework. To ensure that this huge
investment is risk-resilient, strong partnerships are needed with the public and private
sectors. DRR is inherently a governmental function and responsibility due to the size and
scope of disaster hazards (Stewart et al., 2009). Yet without the leverage of private sector
282 partnerships, a government’s ability to adequately meet the challenges of effective DRR is
significantly limited by its budgetary resources and established technological innovations.
Knowing that these two key limitations are often far below practical needs, it is reasonable
that governments will demonstrate that a PPP is necessary not only for the welfare of
the nation’s citizens, but also for the interests of the private sector. Furthermore, private
participation in DRR is good for business, as the government’s ability to protect firms from
disaster will inevitably fall short if the private sector does not have a voice and an investment
in protecting their interests. Thus, the PPP paradigm is an optimal approach to advancing
DRR technology that is particularly well-suited to Korea’s industrial capacities and
aspirations for being a regional – if not global – leader in the DRR technology sector.
The Korean project is not a standard PPP; the unique approach whereby the government
employs the private sector to advance a national agenda has been used by this country for half
a century. And while PPPs have a place and history in disaster management, they tend to be
focused on resilience (Busch and Givens, 2013; Chen et al., 2013; Stewart et al., 2009), risk
(Linnerooth-Bayer and Mechler, 2007; Kunreuther, 2001) or local efforts (Kapucu, 2006). PPP as
an economic development tool under the umbrella of disaster management is a new application.
Korea’s DRR Technology promotion efforts should not be suspect as a selfish grab for
market share in a politically and economically sensitive global concern. The project can be
likened to how any other government agency around the world may encourage research and
production of a particular sector for the public good. For example, one would not criticize the
US National Institute of Health if it did a similar project to showcase cancer treatment or
disease control measures that were developed by American companies. Nor do we criticize
innovative companies that are promoted by governments or nonprofit organizations for
products that are energy efficient, environmentally friendly or otherwise beneficial to global
welfare. The Korean government’s sponsorship of DRR Technology is a global public good,
regardless of how the commercial benefits are distributed. It only contributes to the options
and opportunities of DRR to the world by making technologies available to countries that
can more readily afford to acquire such equipment and devices, rather than investing the
precious time and resources they can scarcely afford to develop the technology themselves.
Korea has been at the forefront in terms of catalyzing the nexus between science research
and technology innovation with evidence-based policymaking, leading to more informed
national and community action to strengthen disaster resilience. This is a key aspect to
preventing the creation of and reducing existing disaster risk, the overall aim of the Sendai
Framework. Again, this approach mirrors Republic of Korea’s established “development
model” and positions the country well to advance its own competence in this regard and to
share its expertise and experience regionally and globally. There is little doubt that Korea is
now expending a considerable amount of time and resources to developing DRR technology,
previously directed to its domestic market. Whether the Koreanization paradigm of global
export can be successfully applied to this purpose is subject to evaluation over time.
The benefits of sharing DRR technology may yield profits for Korean industry, but they
should also give returns to the international concerns of DRR and human welfare.

Conclusions and extensions

This paper has presented a case study of a PPP for DRR technology sharing that is
currently being conducted in Korea. The guiding theory is that the development of DRR
technologies is inherently a governmental responsibility, as disasters affect entire Korea
populations and are a bigger problem than any single private firm can reasonably confronts
undertake to mitigate for itself. Yet governments are hard-pressed to commit budgets to the disaster
dynamic conditions of technology innovation and are ill-equipped to compete in markets.
Thus, a PPP is a logical step and the commercialization of the technologies is a further reduction
benefit of the collective effort that a public agency can sponsor to justify the project at the
national level. In other words, Korea has made a clever pivot by not only addressing its own 283
needs of DRR and CCA, but it has simultaneously promoted a growth industry for export to
countries that have become accustomed to its cultural and technological influence.
Following on the past practice of a chaebol driven economy, Korea’s MPSS has translated
the concept into the Global DRR Technology project that is currently underway.
The potential for other governments to try a PPP approach to DRR technology
development is difficult to assess. Whereas there have been successful PPP efforts for
improving DRR resilience at local levels (Busch and Givens, 2013; Chen et al., 2013;
Linnerooth-Bayer and Mechler, 2007; Stewart et al., 2009), the national commercialization
approach has not been demonstrated before. To its credit, commercializing DRR in any
respect can be evaluated by monitoring sales, market share and profitability, as well as
metrics of general DRR progress related to mitigation and preparedness. Furthermore, the
website for the Global DRR Technology project has been continually updated with
case studies of the technology in action and opportunity for users to add comments or
have discussion about future DRR technology needs. In this sense, Korea is taking a
customer-service orientation to the idea and putting notable emphasis on meeting current
needs through market forces and feedback loops.
There is an inherent risk to investing in DRR technology that follows the long standing
resistance of governments to invest sufficient resources for disaster mitigation overall.
Although the UNISDR (2015) has been redoubling efforts to encourage mitigation, the usual
obstacles of budget constraints, moral hazard and short-sightedness preclude many
developing nations from adequately meeting DRR challenges. Supporting an entire sector to
develop DRR technology, or even promoting businesses to adapt vaguely related
technologies to DRR purposes, is beyond the abilities of many governments. In this sense,
Korea has shouldered a burden that it is well-positioned to carry and may reasonably
benefit from the venture while offering DRR technology products to countries that are not
suited to the expensive risks.
The extension of this research is context dependent in two respects: countries that are
looking for DRR solutions to common hazards, and countries that have the resources to
develop DRR technologies but need a model for realizing it in a practical and worthwhile
manner. In this case, the Korean domestic technology products are of interest to other
countries that have similar mitigation needs, while the model of the PPP may only be
adopted by countries that are similarly developed with a complimentary environment of
government-industry collaboration. As climate change and economic development increase
the threat to human life, DRR is becoming a more globalized threat that needs to take
advantage of any approach with promise.

Acknowledgments
For Professor Kasdan:
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea; and the
National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2016S1A3A2925463).
For Professor Kim:
This work was supported by INHA UNIVERSITY Research Grant.
The authors would like to thank Andrew McElroy of the UNISDR for his comments and
suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript.
DPM Notes
26,3 1. Chaebol is literally translated as “wealth clan” or “property family” and the concept is not without
its share of controversy in Korea and abroad. Many large Korean companies, such as Samsung,
Lotte, and Hyundai are still operated as veritable chaebol. There have been several instances and
claims of corruption, favoritism and unfair business practices levied against the chaebols, yet they
are also credited with completing some of the most significant economic development projects in
Korea. The Global DRR Technology project does not directly involve any chaebol at this time.
284
2. An explicit link between Ban Ki-Moon, the Korean UN General Secretary and the accelerating
emphasis on DRR in South Korea in the context of the significant increase in global concern for
disaster mitigation and CCA over the past decade is speculative, but not implausible.
3. Institutions such as the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA, www.koica.go.kr/) and
the Korea National Research Foundation (www.nrf.re.kr/) direct significant portions of their
funding to Southeast Asian countries for development assistance, education, and other efforts.
4. The relatively small nonprofit sector in Korea may be explained by both its Confucian cultural
basis and the fact that its status as a developed OECD peer was achieved very recently.
Social welfare has traditionally been part of the family and community realm of concern, as well as
the not-insignificant role of state-supported programs of late.
5. The Ministry of Public Safety and Security is the overarching disaster management agency of
South Korea. The former National Emergency Management Agency was the initial project
sponsor, but government reorganizations following the MV Sewol ferry boat disaster of 2014 has
resulted in a new ministerial organization with reconfigured responsibilities and authority.

References
Amaratunga, C.A. (2014), “Building community disaster resilience through a virtual community of
practice (VCOP)”, International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 66-78.
Basher, R. (2013), “Science and technology for disaster risk reduction: a review of application and
coordination needs”, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) Report,
UNISDR, Geneva.
Bovaird, T. (2004), “Public-private partnerships: from contested concepts to prevalent practice”,
International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 199-215.
Busch, N.E. and Givens, A.D. (2013), “Achieving resilience in disaster management: the role of public-
private partnerships”, Journal of Strategic Security, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Chen, J., Chen, T.H.Y., Vertinsky, I., Yumagulova, L. and Park, C. (2013), “Public-private partnerships
for the development of disaster resilient communities”, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 130-143.
Ha, K.M. (2009), “Chapter 24: emergency management in Korea: just started, but rapidly evolving”,
EMI’s Comparative Emergency Management Book Project, available at: https://training.fema.
gov/hiedu/aemrc/booksdownload/compemmgmtbookproject/
Ha, K.M. (2015), “Moving from a hardware-oriented to a software-oriented approach in Korean
emergency management”, Environmental Hazards, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 74-85.
Kapucu, N. (2006), “Public‐nonprofit partnerships for collective action in dynamic contexts of
emergencies”, Public Administration, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 205-220.
Kim, H. and Kakimoto, R. (2016), “An international comparative analysis of local hazard mitigation
plan evaluation for flood: the US, Japan, and Korea”, International Journal of Disaster Resilience
in the Built Environment, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 406-419.
Kim, P.S. and Lee, J.E. (1998), “Emergency management in Korea and its future directions”, Journal of
Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 189-201.
Kim, Y., Sohn, H.G., Lee, Y. and Chung, J.M. (2016), “DRR technology sharing and transfer through Korea
web-based platforms: lessons learned from Korean studies”, Disaster Prevention and confronts
Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 430-448.
Kunreuther, H. (2001), “Incentives for mitigation investment and more effective risk management: the
disaster
need for public-private partnerships”, Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 171-185. reduction
Lee, Y.J. (2015), “Developing a web-based platform to share disaster risk reduction technology”, Journal
of Disaster Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 189-195.
285
Linnerooth-Bayer, J. and Mechler, R. (2007), “Disaster safety nets for developing countries: extending
public-private partnerships”, Environmental Hazards, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 54-61.
Mitchell-Weaver, C. and Manning, B. (1991), “Public-private partnerships in third world development:
a conceptual overview”, Studies in Comparative International Development, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 45-67.
MPSS (2011), Disaster Risk Reduction through Climate Change Adaptation: Incheon Declaration,
REMAP and Action Plan, UNISDR AP, Seoul.
Mucke, P., Jeschonnek, L., Garschagen, M., Schauber, A., Seibert, T., Welle, T. and Matuschke, I. (2014),
World Risk Report, The City as a Risk Area, Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft, Berlin.
Osborne, S. (2002), Public-Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in International Perspective,
Routledge, London.
Park, S.E. (2015), “Disaster management in Korea”, working paper, International Institute of Global
Resilience, Bethesda, MD.
Rhie, W.B. (2002), Korea Unmasked: In Search of the Country, the Society and the People, trans, Jung Un
and Louis Choi, Gimm-Young Publishers Inc., Seoul.
Schmitt, T., Eisenberg, J. and Rao, R.R. (Eds) (2007), Improving Disaster Management: The Role of IT in
Mitigation, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Stewart, G.T., Kolluru, R. and Smith, M. (2009), “Leveraging public-private partnerships to improve
community resilience in times of disaster”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 343-364.
Toussaint, E. (2006), “South Korea: the miracle unmasked”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 41
No. 39, pp. 4211-4219.
UNISDR (2013), From Shared Risk to Shared Value – The Business Case for Disaster Risk Reduction.
Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk
Reduction, Geneva.
UNISDR (2015), The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, United Nations Office
for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva.
Wettenhall, R. (2003), “The rhetoric and reality of public-private partnerships”, Public Organization
Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 77-107.

About the authors

David Oliver Kasdan is an Associate Professor of Public Administration in the Graduate School of
Governance, Sungkyunkwan University, Korea. His research interests include disaster management,
behavioral administration and philosophy of social science.
Kyehyun Kim is a Professor in the Department of Geoinformatic Engineering, Inha University,
Korea. His research expertise includes advanced GIS applications for water resource and quality
management, environmental information systems and natural hazard mitigation. Kyehyun Kim is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: kyehyun@inha.ac.kr

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com