Received: 12 March 2019 Revised: 6 January 2020 Accepted: 6 January 2020

DOI: 10.1002/joc.6473

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Drought risk assessment for future climate projections

in the Nakdong River Basin, Korea

Jong-Suk Kim1 | Seo-Yeon Park2 | Hyun-Pyo Hong2 | Jie Chen1 |

Si-Jung Choi3 | Tae-Woong Kim4 | Joo-Heon Lee2

1
State Key Laboratory of Water Resources
and Hydropower Engineering Science,
Abstract
Wuhan University, Wuhan, China To prepare for the potential of extreme drought caused by climate change, both
2
Department of Civil Engineering, physical and socioeconomic factors need to be considered. In this study, three gen-
Joongbu University, Gyeunggi-do,
eral circulation models were selected: IPSL-CM5A-LR, HadGEM2-AO, and Can-
South Korea
3 ESM2 as representative scenarios for severe, moderate, and relatively weak
Department of Land, Water and
Environment Research, Korea Institute of droughts to assess the risk of droughts for future climate projections. Drought haz-
Civil Engineering and Building ard was estimated using the meteorological drought index to determine drought
Technology, Gyeunggi-do, South Korea
4
frequency, severity, and probability. Population density, agricultural land area,
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Hanyang University, Ansan, and municipal, agricultural, and industrial water demand were used as drought
South Korea vulnerability indicators. The Analytical Hierarchy Process technique was applied
to determine the weight of each indicator, and the integrated drought risk was
Correspondence
Joo-Heon Lee, Department of Civil then estimated. HadGEM2-AO and CanESM2 projected that drought risk would
Engineering, Drought Research Center, be reduced in the far future. IPSL-CM5A-LR projected an increased drought risk
Joongbu University, Gyeunggi-do 10279,
Republic of Korea.
in the near and far future in the downstream area of the Nakdong River Basin.
Email: leejh@joongbu.ac.kr This study presented a quantitative approach to identify high drought-risk areas
that should be the focus of future extreme drought assessments and mid- to long-
Funding information
Korea Environmental Industry &
term drought mitigation strategies.
Technology Institute (KEITI), Grant/
Award Number: 18AWMP-B083066-05; KEYWORDS
National Research Foundation of Korea, analytical hierarchy process, climate change, drought Hazard, drought risk assessment, drought
Grant/Award Number: NRF- vulnerability
20171R1D1A1A02018546

1 | INTRODUCTION because they are continuous, wide-ranging, and long

Climate change is considered as one of the most danger-
ous risks facing the present and future generations and
can have significant impacts on both civilizations and
ecosystems (Pelt and Swart, 2011; Hao et al., 2017; Kang
et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2018; Choi et al.,
2018). Among the risks associated with climate change,
drought has been recognized as a serious disaster that is
widely spotlighted around the world. Droughts are cau-
sed by a shortage of water resources due to a lack of pre-
cipitation (Park et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2017). Droughts
are challenging to manage, particularly in the short term,
term. Furthermore, it is difficult to define the start and
end of drought (Gao et al., 2019). Consequently, strate-
gies to minimize drought damage and the development
of countermeasures for future drought-prone areas are
vital (Hong et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2018).
Many recent studies have shown that droughts can be
more frequent and severe due to global warming (Touma
et al., 2015; King et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2018; Lee et al.,
2018; Gao et al., 2019). For example, Touma et al. (2015)
used 15 general circulation models (GCMs) from the
Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) and
found that the spatial extent, duration, and occurrence of

Int J Climatol. 2020;1–13. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joc © 2020 Royal Meteorological Society 1

2 KIM ET AL.
drought will increase in subtropical and tropical regions in
the 21st century under the Representative Concentration
Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5). However, potential changes in
future droughts are controversial, mainly due to uncer-
tainties associated with climate change projections and
drought assessment methods (Dai, 2012; Chen et al., 2018;
Lee et al., 2018).
Various drought risk assessment studies have investi-
gated future drought scenarios (Park et al., 2012; Kim
et al., 2014; Yoo et al., 2015a, 2015b; Ahmadalipour,
2017; Lee et al., 2018). For example, Yoo et al. (2015a,
2015b) calculated drought risk based on drought duration
and severity by applying the bivariate Copula function.
Ahmadalipour (2017) used the Coordinated Regional
Climate Downscaling Experiment regional climate model
(RCM) framework to calculate the Standardized Precipi-
tation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) introduced by
Vicente-Serrano et al. (2010), drought hazard, and
drought vulnerability in Africa considering economic fac-
tors, energy, land use, and population density (PD).
These drought risk studies assessed drought risk by con-
sidering socio-economic vulnerability in addition to
meteorological drought factors; however, they were lim-
ited in assessing the drought risk for various future cli-
mate change scenarios. Furthermore, there is inherent
uncertainty in these assessments based on the GCM sim-
ulations used. Kim et al. (2014) calculated the severity-
duration-frequency (SDF) curve using historical observa-
tions and the drought frequency analysis using the future
rainfall data of four GCMs based on special report on
emergency scenario and identified the future drought-
prone areas of the Korean Peninsula. Yoo et al. (2015a,
2015b) assessed the selection of appropriate GCMs
related to agricultural water resources by analysing
trends in 25 GCM outputs based on RCP scenarios and
with RCM provided by the Korea Meteorological Admin-
istration (KMA).
Recently, Lee et al. (2018) conducted a conditional
analysis of future hydrological drought risk (HDR) in
South Korea. They calculated the exceedance probability
of long-term runoff using the Standardized Precipitation
Index (SPI) and Soil and Water Assessment Tool with
RCP scenario-based HadGEM2-AO data. They found that
using the short- and mid-term drought index, the HDR is
relatively high in central and southern regions during the
period 2011–2040, and significant in the Nakdong River
Basin (NRB) in the period 2014–2070.
Meteorological and drought risk assessment studies
using rainfall and temperature are relatively common;
however, social and economic hazards must be consid-
ered contemporaneously to determine the drought risk
accurately. Whilst meteorological droughts occur season-
ally or year-round, their societal impact lasts for many
years. Consequently, an assessment of drought risk
should consider the vulnerability of social structures. For
example, greater losses can be expected in areas of higher
socio-economic value as compared to other regions
(Mishra and Singh, 2010). Socio-economic aspects of a
river basin include its PD, agricultural land area, and
water usage. These factors should be considered in com-
prehensive drought risk assessment.
The choice of GCM is essential when carrying out
research on extreme hydrological events; however, the
ability of GCMs to represent extreme droughts has not
been fully investigated. In addition, it is important to con-
sider both physical and socio-economic factors to prevent
and prepare for extreme droughts in the future. The
socio-economic impact of drought can be profound and
long-lasting, so a thorough understanding of the future
risk posed by drought is important. Therefore, this study
proposed a quantitative approach to identify high
drought-risk areas considering both physical and socio-
economic hazards that should be the focus of future
extreme drought assessments and mid- to long-term
drought mitigation strategies in a changing climate.
2 | DATA AND M ETHOD
2.1 | Data and study area
According to an analysis of seasonal and regional
drought characteristics (Lee et al., 2018), spring droughts
were the most frequent, and the central and southern
regions of Korea are more vulnerable to drought. The
NRB in the southern parts of Korea was selected as the
target study area (Figure 1). The area of the NRB is
23.717 km2, accounting for 23.9% of South Korea's terri-
tory, including the longest river (521.5 km) that passes
through major cities such as Daegu and Busan. The NRB
is regarded as one of the most vulnerable basins to
drought in South Korea. The most severe droughts in the
F I G U R E 1 Location of the study area and sub-basin regions.
The numbers shown on the map indicate basin identification
numbers for the 33 sub-basins of the Nakdong River, Korea
KIM ET AL.
NRB occurred in 1988, with a 100-year frequency of
drought (magnitude: −15.5, duration: 11 months, and
average severity: −1.4), and the magnitude and duration
of the droughts have been increasing since the 2000s
(Kim et al., 2019). Of the precipitation data provided by
the KMA, precipitation data measured by the automated
synoptic observing system with more than 30 years of
data were used. To assess future drought risk, a historical
30-year period (S0: 1976–2005) and future 30-year
periods; S1 (2011–2040), S2 (2041–2070), and S3
(2071–2099) were investigated.
In this study, the SPI was selected as the variable for
the future extreme drought outlook. The SPI was devel-
oped by McKee et al. (1993, 1995), with a typical meteo-
rological drought index focusing on precipitation declines
that cause water shortages relative to water demand. The
drought index is calculated based on the normalized
probability distribution by setting a specific time unit
(months) and organizing a time series of cumulative pre-
cipitation by the time unit. SPI (1) and SPI (3) can be
used to evaluate short-term droughts caused by short-
term severe precipitation deficiencies, and SPI (6), SPI
(9), and SPI (12) can be used to evaluate long-term
drought caused by lack of continuous rainfall over a long
period of time.
2.2 | Quantile delta mapping for future
climate projections
The quantile delta mapping (QDM) is designed to bias-
correct climate projections through quantile mapping
while preserving long-term signals in quantiles projected
by a GCM (Cannon et al., 2015; Eum and Cannon, 2017).
The QDM can be started with the time-dependent cumu-
lative distribution functions (CDFs) of the model projec-
ted series (xm.f) at time t:
ðt Þ

τm:f ðt Þ =F m,f x m:f ðt Þ
where Fm.f is the time-dependent CDF of the model pro-
jected series, and τm.f is the non-exceedance probability
associate with the value at time t.
The corresponding modelled quantile (τm.f) in the ref-
erence period can be found in the historical inverse CDF
−1
(F m,r ) and the relative changes in quantiles between the
reference and future periods is given by
ðt Þ − 1
 where n is the number of objects compared in one stra-
F m,f τm:f ðtÞ x ðt Þ
Δ m ðt Þ = − 1
 = h m:f
F m,r τm:f ðtÞ F −1 F
ðt Þ
x m:f ðt Þ
m,r m,f
where the reference period is denoted by the subscript
r and the projected period is denoted by the subscript f.
3
The bias-corrected future projections x^m:f ðt Þ is given by
multiplying the relative changes Δm(t) to historical bias-
corrected value,
−1


x^m:f ðt Þ= F o,r τm:f ðt Þ  Δm ðt Þ ð3Þ
More information regarding the QDM procedure
can be found in Cannon et al. (2015). The climate
change scenario data applied in this study was provided
by the Korean research group of Climate Change Adap-
tation for Water Resources. CMIP5 GCM data (Table 1)
were statistically downscaled by combining Bias
Correction/Spatial Disaggregation and QDM, reflecting
long-term trends in climate scenarios (Eum and
Cannon, 2017).
2.3 | Weighting factor analysis based on
the AHP technique
The analysis hierarchy process (AHP) is a multicriteria
decision making (MCDM) tool developed by Saaty
(1987). AHP is a method of stratifying decision-making
elements and calculating the importance of components
through a pairwise comparison for each component.
The technique has been widely utilized and has the
advantage of ensuring the reliability of assessment
results through consistency verification (Kang et al.,
2014; Choi et al., 2018). AHP assessment consists of
four phases: determining the hierarchy of decision ele-
ments, pairwise comparison of decision elements, esti-
mation of relative weights, and aggregation of relative
weights. In the weight estimation process, the consis-
tency index (CI) and the consistency ratio (CR) were
used to examine whether the weights were logically
consistent (Saaty, 1987). First, for each evaluation item
to estimate its importance and to assess its consistency,
a comparison matrix consisting of pairs of survey data
ð1Þ is validated, and then a relative weight, maximum
eigenvalue (λmax), and CI are calculated to evaluate the
CR and to assess the reliability of the analysis results
(Equations (4 and 5).
CI= ðλmax – nÞ=ðn – 1Þ ð4Þ
CR = ðCI=RIÞ × 100 ð5Þ
tum, and RI is the random index. Generally, the closer a
i ð2Þ
CR is to zero, the more consistent it is thought to be. In
this study, CR values <0.2 were permitted. More informa-
tion regarding the AHP procedure can be found in Saaty
(1987). In this study, the survey was conducted by experts
4 KIM ET AL.

TABLE 1 Details of the general circulation models (GCMs) from phase five of the coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP5)

No. GCMs Resolution Institution

1 CMCC-CM 0.750 x 0.748 Centro Euro-Mediterraneo per I Cambiamenti
Climatici
2 CCSM4 1.250 x 0.942 National Center for Atmospheric Research
3 CESM1-BGC 1.250 x 0.942 National Center for Atmospheric Research
4 CESM1-CAM5 1.250 x 0.942 National Center for Atmospheric Research
5 BCC-CSM1-1-M 1.125 x 1.122 Beijing Climate Center, China Meteorological
Administration
6 MRI-CGCM3 1.125 x 1.122 Meteorological Research Institute
7 CNRM-CM5 1.406 x 1.401 Centre National de Recherches Meteorologiques
8 MIROC5 1.406 x 1.401 Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute (The
University of Tokyo)
9 HadGEM2-AO 1.875 x 1.250 Met Office Hadley Centre
10 HadGEM2-CC 1.875 x 1.250 Met Office Hadley Centre
11 HadGEM2-ES 1.875 x 1.250 Met Office Hadley Centre
12 INM-CM4 2.000 x 1.500 Institute for Numerical Mathematics
13 IPSL-CM5A-MR 2.500 x 1.268 Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace
14 MPI-ESM-LR 1.875 x 1.865 Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M)
15 MPI-ESM-MR 1.875 x 1.865 Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M)
16 FGOALS-s2 2.813 x 1.659 LASG, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese
Academy of Sciences
17 NorESM1-M 2.500 x 1.895 Norwegian Climate Centre
18 GFDL-ESM2G 2.500 x 2.023 Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
19 GFDL-ESM2M 2.500 x 2.023 Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
20 IPSL-CM5A-LR 3.750 x 1.895 Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace
21 IPSL-CM5B-LR 3.750 x 1.895 Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace
22 BCC-CSM1-1 2.813 x 2.791 Beijing Climate Center, China Meteorological
Administration
23 CanESM2 2.813 x 2.791 Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and
Analysis
24 MIROC-ESM-CHEM 2.813 x 2.791 Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and
Technology, Atmosphere and Ocean Research
Institute (The University of Tokyo), and
National Institute for Environmental Studies
25 MIROC-ESM 2.813 x 2.791 Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and
Technology, Atmosphere and Ocean Research
Institute (The University of Tokyo), and
National Institute for Environmental Studies

in drought-related fields with more than 10 years of expe- 3 | D R O UG HT RI S K AS S E S S ME N T

rience at research institutes, universities, and engineering
companies. Twenty-five responses were retrieved from
on/offline survey for a total of 30 experts (response rate:
83.3%). Based on the survey, the relative importance of
the assessment items was determined by applying a
17-point scale (16-grade classifications based on one
equivalence scale).
UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE
3.1 | Definition of drought risk
The definition of risk varies depending on the country or
the purpose of the risk assessment. For example, the
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster
KIM ET AL.
Reduction (UNISDR 2004) defines risk as a combination
of risk to natural hazards and losses caused by vulnerabil-
ity to humans. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC 2007) defines climate change risk by com-
bining the risk of natural disasters with the exposure and
vulnerability of socio-economic factors. Although the
definition of risk may vary, many studies assess risk by
combining hazards (e.g., drought and flood), vulnerability
(socio-economic factors), and adaptability (infrastructure).
Based on the various definitions of risk, this study defines
drought risk by combining the physical hazards of drought
with social and economic vulnerabilities caused by
drought. To quantify this concept, drought hazard and vul-
nerability were combined to determine the drought risk.
In this study, evaluation indicators were divided into haz-
ards and vulnerabilities for future drought risk assess-
ments, and the feasibility and suitability of the indicators
were reviewed based on expert opinions of the evaluation
items (Figure 2). Because the various indicators used to
assess drought risk have different units, a standardization
process is necessary. Here, the rescaling method was uti-
lized; each factor was adjusted, based on its range rather
than the standard deviation, to values from 0 to 1. This
rescaling process has the advantage of being able to com-
pare the relative size of the data by listing the rankings
within the overall scope of the data.
3.2 | Drought Hazard Index
Indicators for calculating the Drought Hazard Index (DHI)
were derived using the drought index to determine drought
occurrence frequency (DOF), average drought severity
(ADS), and probability drought severity (PDS). In this
F I G U R E 2 Integrated drought
risk assessment. Three evaluation
indicators are used for drought
hazard analysis and five evaluation
indictors are used for vulnerability
analysis
5
study, the DHI has estimated for different climate change
scenarios used a six-month time unit SPI (6), for the assess-
ment of mid- and long-term droughts in the NRB.
The dry spell method was used to estimate drought fre-
quency and ADS. The dry spell is a technique commonly
used to analyse drought frequency and is used to count and
analyse specific weather and hydrologic events based on
daily or monthly data (Lee and Kim, 2013; Kim et al., 2014).
To determine drought frequency, an SPI (6) <−1 was used,
and mean drought depth was determined by averaging
values of SPI (6) <−1. The sensitivity of our assumptions
was analysed utilizing the generalized extreme value distri-
bution, facilitating the analysis of extreme hydrometeoro-
logical data, with a 200-year return value from the SDF
curve determined by frequency analysis.
3.3 | Drought Vulnerability Index
To reflect the social and economic factors that may expe-
rience ongoing effects from drought, the following indica-
tors were selected to determine the drought vulnerability
index (DVI): PD, farmland area (FA), demand for munic-
ipal water (DMW), demand for industrial water (DIW),
and demand for agricultural water (DAW).
PD was investigated and collected by city and county
from 1993 to 2013, using data from the National Statisti-
cal Office (NSO; http://www.kostat.go.kr). Five univari-
ate time series estimation models were used to predict
water supply demand for the projected population of
each city and county. NSO data projects the future popu-
lation by the city until 2040, and this rate of increase was
used to determine population growth until 2060. After
2060, we assumed no population growth. FA data reflects
6 KIM ET AL.
the land forecast presented in the Agricultural Outlook of
the Korea Rural Economic Research Institute (KREI) in
2016, set at ±1.5% of the reference demand scenario
boundary, considering the decreased land area in 2020
(2.9% over 2015). The study assumes that S0 is the aver-
age value of the hard land area, S1 is the average value of
farmland in 2011 and 2025, and S2 and S3 are the same
as the 2025 FA.
Consultation with the Ministry of Environment and
local governments regarding plans for the readjustment
of water supply in metropolitan and industrial areas was
used to determine the DMW. Using historical data, the
future daily usage per person for each region was esti-
mated. DMW was calculated by multiplying the daily
usage for each person by their future target rate and mul-
tiplying the estimated population of each region by the
per capita DMW. The population of each sub-basins was
re-estimated as the NSO provided this information as an
administrative unit. Demand in unwatered areas was cal-
culated using the population of future feedwaters and the
undeveloped area water demand (215 L). Because future
demand for groundwater cannot be predicted accurately,
it was assumed to be the same as the groundwater
demand in 2013 (KME, 2013).
Changes in the DIW were determined using the com-
prehensive plan for long-term water resources (2011).
DIW for S0, S1, S2, and S3 were based on the assumption
that after 2025, the DIW will not increase, reflecting
trends in domestic and foreign industrial water demand,
which have stabilized despite increased GDP.
To determine DAW, a simulated system of repair facili-
ties developed by the Korea Rural Community Corpora-
tion was used to calculate the volume of catchment and
irrigation required. By analysing reservoir water balance
and calculating the unit water volume, potential evapora-
tion was estimated considering the actual evaporation
yield calculation, infiltration quantity, and effective rain
quantity. Then, DAW was estimated by multiplying
the unit water quantity and required quantity by the
farm-land area. Various climate change scenarios were
applied to reflect future weather conditions, and the aver-
age DAW value was used in each sub-basin for S0, S1, S2,
and S3.
Finally, the drought risk index (DRI) is calculated by
multiplying DHI and DVI for future climate projections
(Equations (6–8)),
X
n
DHIi,j = αk  H ki,j ð6Þ
k =1
X
m The weights given in Figure 4a were applied to reflect cli-
DVIi,j = βp  V pi,j ð7Þ
p=1
" # " #
X
n X
m
DRIi,j =DHIi,j × DVIi,j = αk  H ki,j  βp  V pi,j ð8Þ
k =1 p=1
where the subscripts i and j refer to the sub-basin number
and each climate projection period (S0, S1, S2, and S3), and
k and p represent the number of evaluation items, αk and βp
indicate the weights that are applied to each evaluation
item in DHI and DVI analysis, respectively.
4 | RESULTS
4.1 | GCMs evaluation
To select the best GCM for future drought projections, four
indicators (Case 1: average annual rainfall, Case 2: number
of dry days, Case 3: DOF, and Case 4: average drought
severity) were evaluated. In Case 3, a daily precipitation of
0 mm was considered to be a dry day. The drought spell
technique was applied to estimate drought frequency and
average severity in Cases 3 and 4, respectively. Because they
have different dimensions, the results of the evaluation
cases are standardized. For Cases 1 and 4 (2 and 3), the low-
est (highest) values are given as one and the highest (lowest)
as zero. Among 25 CMIP5 GCMs, IPSL-CM5A-LR, IPSL-
CM5A-LR, and IPSL-CM5A-MR project the most severe
droughts into future; moderate droughts are projected by
HadGEM2-CC, CMCC-CM, and HadGEM2-ES; and rela-
tively weak droughts are projected by CESM1-CAM5,
MIROC-ESM-CHEM, and CanESM2.
Figure 3 illustrates the evaluation of future projections
for the drought in four cases by applying 25 GCMs for the
RCP 8.5 scenario. In this study, representative GCMs were
selected by compiling four cases. The results of the selected
GCMs were the same for the RCP 4.5 scenario. Therefore,
in this study, among the various climate change simulations
suitable for future drought risk assessments, IPSL-CM5A-
LR, HadGEM2-AO, and CanESM2 were selected as repre-
sentative simulations for severe, moderate, and relatively
weak droughts, respectively.
4.2 | Drought hazard assessment
To determine the DHI, the weighting results by AHP
were applied to the three evaluation indicators (DOF,
ADS, and PSD; Figure 4). Weighting factors based on
AHP analysis showed that DOF was the highest (0.458)
followed by ADS (0.286) and PDS (0.256; CR = 0.001).
mate change scenarios, and the DHI was calculated for
each future period and GCM.
KIM ET AL.
Figure 5 shows the DHI under the RCP 4.5 and 8.5
emission scenarios. For IPSL-SM5A-LR under the
RCP4.5 scenario, drought worsens (relative to S0) during
S1 in the entire NRB and in the upper NRB during S3.
Under the RCP 8.5 scenario, the NRB can expect severe
droughts during S1 and S3 as compared to S0. Under the
RCP4.5 and 8.5 scenarios, both HadGEM2-AO and Can-
ESM2 project fewer droughts in the future. During S0,
the Huang River basin (sub-basin ID: 2016) showed a
high DHI of 0.516. The detailed DHI analysis results for
FIGURE 3 Assessment of the 25 CMIP5 GCMs under the RCP
8.5 scenario (2011–2099). Four cases (Case 1: average annual rainfall,
Case 2: number of dry days, Case 3: drought occurrence frequency, and
Case 4: average drought severity) were considered to select the
appropriate GCMs for future drought risk assessment. Boxplots show
the results for each case, and the violin plot combines the results of the
four cases. The three representative GCMs selected for severe, moderate,
and relatively weak drought conditions are shown on the violin plot
F I G U R E 4 Weighting factors
for the drought hazard index (DHI;
a) and drought vulnerability index
(DVI; b)
7
the sub-basins of the NRB according to the selected
GCMs and RCP scenarios are summarized as follows.
For IPSL-CM5A-LR under RCP 4.5, DHI peaked at
0.787 in the Milyang River basin (sub-basin ID: 2021) due to
a low DOF, at 0.477 in the Gaghwacheon basin (sub-basin
ID: 2501) during S2, and at 0.654 in the Andong Dam basin
(sub-basin ID: 2001) during S3. For HadGEM2-AO, DHI
peaked at 0.582 in the Byungseongcheon basin (sub-basin
ID: 2006) during S1, at 0.372 in the Taihua River basin (sub-
basin ID: 2201) during S2, and at 0.248 in the Nam River
Dam basin (sub-basin ID: 2018) during S3. For CanESM2,
DHI peaked at 0.442 in the Gaghwacheon basin (sub-basin
ID: 2501) during S1, at 0.259 in the Milyang River basin
(sub-basin ID: 2021) during S2, and at 0.306 in the
Gamcheon basin (sub-basin ID: 2010) during S3.
For IPSL-CM5A-LR under RCP 8.5, DHI peaked at
0.774 in the Andong dam downstream basin (sub-basin ID:
2003) due to a low DOF and PDS during S1, and at 0.589
and 0.851 in Gaghwacheon basin (sub-basin ID: 2501) dur-
ing S2 and S3, respectively. For HadGEM2-AO, DHI peaked
at 0.515 in the Andong Dam basin (sub-basin ID: 2001) dur-
ing S1, at 0.373 in the Byeongseongcheon basin (sub-basin
ID: 2006) during S2, and at 0.443 in the Milyang River basin
(sub-basin ID: 2021) during S3. For CanESM2, DHI peaked
at 0.527 in both the Nakdong Miryang (sub-basin ID: 2020)
and Milyang River basins (sub-basin ID: 2021) during S1, at
0.241 in the Andong Dam basin (sub-basin ID: 2001) during
S2, and at 0.258 in the Namhaedo basin (sub-basin ID:
2502) during S3.
4.3 | Drought vulnerability assessment
To determine the DVI, five detailed indicators (PD, FA,
DMW, DIW, and DAW) were weighted using the factors
shown in Figure 4b. AHP analysis showed that DMW
had the highest weighting (0.322), followed by PD
(0.236), DIW (0.186), FA (0.166), and DAW (0.089;
CR = 0.091). Figure 6 shows that DVI is projected to
8 KIM ET AL.
decrease into the future, and for most vulnerability fac-
tors, the future periods are similar to S0. However, the
DAW is projected to decrease over time.
The Sooyoung River basin (sub-basin ID: 2302) had
the highest PD for the entire period (S0, S1, S2, and S3).
During S0 and S1, the Changnyeong-Hapcheonbo basin
(sub-basin ID: 2014) had PDs of 1,360 and 1,525 people/
km2, respectively, and during S2 and S3, the Nakdong
River estuary basin (sub-basin ID: 2022) had PDs of 1,538
and 1,463 people/km2, respectively (Figure 6a). Figure 6b
shows that the Naeseongcheon (sub-basin ID: 2004),
Geumho River (sub-basin ID: 2012), Nam River Dam
(sub-basin ID: 2012), and Nakdong Milyang basins (sub-
basin ID: 2020) displayed high FA, the highest being the
Naeseongcheon basin. Figure 6c shows that the
Sooyoung River (sub-basin ID: 2302), Geumho River
(sub-basin ID: 2012), Nakdong River estuary (sub-basin
ID: 2022), and Nakdonggang South Sea basins (sub-basin
ID: 2504) displayed relatively high DMW during the
entire study period (S0, S1, S2, and S3), the highest being
the Sooyoung River basin (sub-basin ID: 2302). Figure 6d
shows projections of DIW. The Yeongdeokchen basin
(sub-basin ID: 2402) showed the highest DIW
(50.9 billion ton/year) during S0, while the Taehwa River
(sub-basin ID: 2201), Geumho River (sub-basin ID: 2012),
and Hoi River basins (sub-basin ID: 2301) displayed rela-
tively high DIW during S1, S2, and S3. The Myeongcheon
(sub-basin ID: 2004), Geumho River (sub-basin ID: 2012),
Namgang Dam (sub-basin ID: 2018), Nakdong Milyang
(sub-basin ID: 2020), and Nam River basins (sub-basin
ID: 2019) all showed relatively high DAW during
the entire study period (S0, S1, S2, and S3), the highest
being the Naeseongcheon basin (sub-basin ID: 2004;
Figure 6e).
F I G U R E 5 DHI results and
projections for the time periods, S0:
1976–2005; S1: 2011–2040; S2:
2041–2070; and S3: 2071–2099
[Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
In summary, the Sooyoung River basin (sub-basin ID:
2302) has the highest historical DVI and is projected to
have the highest DVI in the future. This is attributed to the
region's high DMW and PD because these factors carry a
high weighting. High DVI is also projected in the Geumho
River (sub-basin ID: 2012), Nakdong River estuary (sub-
basin ID: 2022), Taehwa River (sub-basin ID: 2201), and
Gangjeong-goryeong basins (sub-basin ID: 2011).
4.4 | Drought risk assessment under
different climate change scenarios
Figure 7 shows the results of the integrated DRI by com-
bining DHI and DVI data compared to the past. For refer-
ence period (S0: 1976–2005), the risk of the NRB was
average 0.085 (Coefficient of variation: 0.642, Interquartile
range: 0.064); the highest risk was in the Geumho River
(sub-basin ID: 2012, DRI: 0.254) and the relatively lowest
risk was in the Gumi-bo basin (sub-basin ID: 2009, DRI:
0.254). For IPSL-CM5A-LR, HadGEM2-AO, and Can-
ESM2 under RCP 4.5, the DHI was high in most areas
downstream of the Nakdong River, and DVI was high in
the Geumho River (sub-basin ID: 2012) and Sooyoung
River basins (sub-basin ID: 2302). Consequently, these
basins have the highest risk of drought in the future. These
results are similar to the RCP 8.5 scenario.
For IPSL-CM5A-LR during the S1 period under RCP
4.5, the risk of the NRB was found to increase by 21.8%
than the reference period to an average of 0.103
(Coefficient of variation: 0.760, Interquartile range:
0.103), from a minimum of 0.011 to a maximum of 0.347.
For the S2 and S3 periods, it was found a significant
reduction in the risk of drought up to 28.9 and 20.7%,
KIM ET AL.
F I G U R E 6 Results and projections of DVI indicators for S0: 1976–2005; S1: 2011–2040; S2: 2041–2070; and S3: 2071–2099 [Colour
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
respectively. The relatively high risk of the drought was
the Sooyoung River (sub-basin ID: 2302) and Geumho
River basins (sub-basin ID: 2012); the Sooyoung River
basin (sub-basin ID: 2302) had high DRIs of 0.347, 0.178,
and 0.160 during S1, S2, and S3, respectively. In the
Geumho River basin (sub-basin ID: 2012), DRI during S1
was relatively high (0.347), as compared to S2 (0.176) and
S3 (0.200). HadGEM2-AO and CanESM2 showed similar
results under RCP4.5. The Sooyoung River basin showed
the most significant risk change by the GCMs selection,
and in the IPSL-CM5A-LR, the drought risk for the S1
period was reduced by more than 53.4 from 0.347 to
0.160. This change was similar for the S2 period (reduced
risk by more than 40.4%). For the S3 period, the Geumho
River basin was analysed as having a drought risk of
more than 42.0% difference from 0.200 (IPSL-CM5A-LR)
to 0.116 (CanESM2).
For IPSL-CM5A-LR during the S1 period under RCP
8.5, the risk of the NRB was found to increase by 12.2%
than the reference period to an average of 0.095
9
(coefficient of variation: 0.704, interquartile range: 0.097)
ranging from 0.010 to 0.293. In the S2 period, the drought
risk is mitigated (average 0.076) and tends to be slightly
deepened in the S3 period (average 0.100). DRI was the
highest in the Sooyoung River basin (0.307) during S3,
followed by S1 (0.267) and S2 (0.228). DRI in the Geumho
River basin was relatively high during S1 (0.293), followed
by S3 (0.288) and S2 (0.210). For HadGEM2-AO, the
Sooyoung River basin had DRIs of 0.162, 0.125, and 0.168
during S1, S2, and S3, respectively, and the Geumho River
basin had DRIs of 0.167, 0.127, and 0.171, during S1, S2,
and S3, respectively. For CanESM2, the Sooyoung River
basin had DRIs of 0.230, 0.085, and 0.052 during S1, S2,
and S3, respectively, and Geumho River Basin had DRIs of
0.193, 0.079, and 0.056 for the periods S1, S2, and S3,
respectively. In addition, as with the results of the RCP
4.5, Sooyoung River basin (IPSL-CM5A-LR, S1: 0.267;
CanESM2, S1: 0.100) and Geumho River basin (IPSL-
CM5A-LR, S3: 0.307; CanESM2, S3: 0.052) showed the
most significant risk change by the GCMs selection.
10
Finally, eight evaluation indicators that contribute the
greatest to the determination of drought risk were analysed
for the 33 sub-basins of the Nakdong River by the detailed
factors in the DHI and DVI according to different climate
change projections (Figure 8). IPSL-CMSA-LR showed DHI
higher than DVI in all periods (S1, S2, and S3), and Can-
ESM2 had a more significant DVI impact as it progressed to
S3. As the weight per indicator was set as AHP in the DRI
analysis, the effects of DOF and drought severity were rela-
tively large, and the DAW was greatly affected in the DVI.
DHI's influence was greater in IPSL-CMSA-LR, where
KIM ET AL.
F I G U R E 7 DRI results and
projections for S1, S2, and S3 under
RCP 4.5 and 8.5 emission
scenarios. (a) Results of drought
risk assessment. (b) Percentile
change rate of DRI. For each panel,
the results were shown in the
percentile change rate to the
reference period (S0), and red
(blue) represents an increase
(decrease) in drought risk
compared to S0. S0: 1976–2005; S1:
2011–2040; S2: 2041–2070; and S3:
2071–2099 [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
severe drought occurs, and DRI determined in the S3 period
was analysed to have a relatively large effect on DVI rather
than DHI. For the CanESM2 model, the longer the future,
the higher the influence of the DVI. For HadGEM2-AO, it
can be seen in the RCP 4.5 scenario that the impact of DVI
increases over the S3 period. Most models were found to be
heavily influenced by the DHI in the S1, S2, and S3 periods.
However, for RCP 8.5 scenario-based CanESM2 and RCP
4.5 scenario-based HadGEM2-AO, the impact of DAW was
most significant as the future progressed. The reason why
DAW has contributed more to DRI than DHI in low and
KIM ET AL. 11

moderate drought risk models is that CanESM2 and
HadGEM2-AO models provide low and moderate levels of
droughts project an increase in average annual precipita-
tion (especially during the S3 period) as shown in Figure 9,
resulting in a less drought risk by natural climate change
and a relatively more contribution of DVI.
5 | S UM MA R Y A ND
C O N C L U S IO N S
Three CMIP5 GCMs were selected to assess future drought
risk under different climate change scenarios by combining
meteorological and socio-economic factors. AHP multi-
criteria decision-making techniques and expert opinions
were used to determine the validity and weight of the
selected factors. To assess the drought risk, the DHI used
the SPI (6) to calculate drought frequency, probability, and
severity, and the DVI used PD, FA, DMW, DIW, and DAW.
The DRI was then derived by combining DHI and DVI to
assess the future risk of drought in the NRB, Korea. The
results of the analysis can be summarized as follows.
DHI differed between GCMs. For example, IPSL-
CM5A-LR, which represented the extreme drought case,
projected an increase in severe droughts in the future under
both emission scenarios. Conversely, HadGEM2-AO and
CanESM2, which represented moderate and low drought
conditions, respectively, projected that future drought and
would be relatively moderate as compared to the recent
past. With the exception of DAW, the factors influencing
DVI did not change markedly in the future.
Under the RCP4.5 scenario, the projected drought
risk generally declined towards the end of the century.
The DHI tended to be high downstream of the Nakdong

F I G U R E 8 Analysis of indicator contributions for determining DRI. The indicators that contribute the greatest to the determination of
drought risk were analysed for the 33 sub-basins of the Nakdong River by the detailed factors in the DHI and DVI according to different
climate change projections [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

F I G U R E 9 Comparison of annual average precipitation during the three separated time periods according to the three GCMs with RCP
4.5 and 8.5 climate change scenarios [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
12
River, and DVI was high in the Geumho River and
Sooyoung River basins. Consequently, these two basins
have the highest risk from drought in the future, and the
risk remains relatively high at the end of the century.
Drought risk under the RCP8.5 scenario was fairly con-
sistent with the RCP4.5 scenario. It should also be noted
that the results of RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 for DHI in this
study can be different spatially. For example, in Figure 5,
the DHI in the northern part of the NRB in S3 under
RCP 4.5 for IPSL-SM5A-LR was shown to be higher than
that at the southern part, while the southern part showed
higher DHI according to RCP 8.5. These results are due
to different representative concentration scenarios, so
that spatial changes in droughts can occur differently,
even if the same GCM data are used.
The results presented in this study highlight the relative
sensitivity of drought risk on the Korean peninsula to differ-
ent emission scenarios. Furthermore, we have identified
high drought-risk areas, which should be the focus of future
extreme drought assessments and mid- to long-term drought
mitigation strategies. However, because the results of this
study were obtained from three GCMs as representative sim-
ulations for severe, moderate, and relatively weak droughts,
there is still some uncertainty with the limited number of
GCMs for future drought risk assessment. In addition, fur-
ther research should include not only meteorological
droughts but also agricultural droughts and hydrological
droughts for adapting climate change and variability.
ACK NO WLE DGE MEN TS
This work was supported by the Korea Environmental
Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI) grant funded by
the Ministry of Environment (18AWMP-B083066-05) and
Basic Science Research Program through the National
Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Min-
istry of Education (NRF-20171R1D1A1A02018546). The
authors highly appreciate the insightful comments and
suggestions of the two anonymous reviewers.
ORCID
Jong-Suk Kim https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5274-5085
Jie Chen https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8260-3160
Tae-Woong Kim https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1793-2483
Joo-Heon Lee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5540-1966
R EF E RE N C E S
Ahmadalipour, A. (2017) Multi-dimensional Drought Risk Assess-
ment based on Socio-economic Vulnerabilities and Hydro-
Climatological Factors. Dissertations and Theses, 4038.
Cannon, A.J., Sobie, S.R. and Murdock, T.Q. (2015) Bias correction of
GCM precipitation by quantile mapping: how well do methods
preserve changes in quantiles and extremes? Journal of Climate,
28(17), 6938–6959. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00754.1.
KIM ET AL.
Chen, S., Muhammad, W., Lee, J.H. and Kim, T.W. (2018) Assess-
ment of probabilistic multi-index drought using a dynamic
naïve Bayesian classifier. Water Resources Management, 32,
4359–4374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-2062-x.
Choi, J.H., Yoon, T.H., Kim, J.S. and Moon, Y.I. (2018) Dam reha-
bilitation assessment using the Delphi-AHP method for
adapting to climate change. Journal of Water Resources Plan-
ning and Management, 144(2), 06017007. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000877.
Dai, A. (2012) Increasing drought under global warming in observa-
tions and models. Nature Climate Change, 3(1), 52–58. https://
doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1633.
Eum, H.I. and Cannon, A.J. (2017) Intercomparison of projected
changes in climate extremes for South Korea: application of
trend preserving statistical downscaling methods to the CMIP5
ensemble. International Journal of Climatology, 37, 3381–3397.
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4924.
Gao, Q.G., Kim, J.S., Chen, J., Chen, H. and Lee, J.H. (2019) Atmo-
spheric teleconnection-based extreme drought prediction in the
core drought region in China. Water, 11(2), 232. https://doi.
org/10.3390/w11020232.
Hao, Z., Hao, F., Singh, V.P., Ouyang, W. and Cheng, H. (2017) An inte-
grated package for drought monitoring, prediction and analysis to
aid drought modeling and assessment. Environmental Modelling
and Software, 91, 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.
02.008.
Hong, Y., Lee, T. and Kim, J.S. (2019) Serial multiple mediation
analyses: how to enhance individual public health emergency
preparedness and response to environmental disasters. Interna-
tional Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16
(2), 223. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020223.
Huang, J., Zhai, J., Jiang, T., Wang, Y., Li, X., Wang, R., Xiong, M.,
Su, B. and Fischer, T. (2018) Analysis of future drought charac-
teristics in China using the regional climate model CCLM. Cli-
mate Dynamics, 50(1–2), 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00382-017-3623-z.
IPCC. (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Scientific Basis Summary
for Policy Makers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kang, D.H., Ko, E.S., Song, K.H., Kim, D.S. and Kim, J.N. (2014) A
study on the sales promotion functions of packaging elements
using AHP -focusing on vitamin water. Korean Journal of Pack-
aging Science & Technology, 20(3), 113–120 (in Korean).
Kang, H.Y., Kim, J.S., Kim, S.Y. and Moon, Y.I. (2017) Changes in
high- and low-flow regimes: a diagnostic analysis of tropical
cyclones in the western north pacific. Water Resources Manage-
ment, 31(12), 3939–3951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-
1717-3.
Kim, C.J., Park, M.J. and Lee, J.H. (2014) Analysis of climate
change impacts on the spatial and frequency patterns of
drought using a potential drought hazard mapping approach.
International Journal of Climatology, 34(1), 61–80. https://doi.
org/10.1002/joc.3666.
Kim, J.S., Seo, G.S., Jang, H.W. and Lee, J.H. (2017) Correlation
analysis between Korean spring drought and large-scale tele-
connection patterns for drought forecasting. KSCE Journal of
Civil Engineering, 21(1), 458–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12205-016-0580-8.
Kim, J.S., Jain, S., Lee, J.H., Chen, H. and Park, S.Y. (2019) Quanti-
tative vulnerability assessment of water quality to extreme
KIM ET AL.
drought in a changing climate. Ecological Indicators, 103,
688–697.
King, A.D., Karoly, D.J. and Henley, B.J. (2017) Australian climate
extremes at 1.5  C and 2  C of global warming. Nature Climate
Change, 7(6), 412–416. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3296.
KME (Korean Ministry of Environment). (2013) 2013 Groundwater
Annual Report. Korea: Ministry of Environment Available at:
http://www.gims.go.kr.
Lee, J.H. and Kim, C.J. (2013) A multimodel assessment of the cli-
mate change effect on the drought severity-duration-frequency
relationship. Hydrological Processes, 27, 2800–2813. https://doi.
org/10.1002/hyp.9390.
Lee, J.H., Park, S.Y., Kim, J.S., Sur, C. and Chen, J. (2018) Extreme
drought hotspot analysis for adaptation to a changing climate:
assessment of applicability to the five major river basins of the
Korean peninsula. International Journal of Climatology, 38
(1–4), 4025–4032. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5532.
McKee, T.B., Doesken, N.J., Kleist, J. (1993) The relationship of
drought frequency and duration of time scales. In: Proceedings
of the 8th conference on applied climatology, January. Ana-
heim, CA, 179–184.
McKee, T.B., Doesken, N.J., Kleist, J. (1995) Drought monitoring
with multiple time scales preprints. In: Proceedings of the 9th
conference on applied climatology, 15–20 January, Dallas, TX,
233–236.
Mishra, A.K. and Singh, V.P. (2010) A review of drought concepts.
Journal of Hydrology, 391, 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2010.07.012.
Park, J.Y., Yoo, J.Y., Lee, M.W. and Kim, T.W. (2012) Assessment
of drought risk in Korea: focused on data-based drought risk
map. Journal of the Korean Society of Civil Engineers, 32(4),
203–211. https://doi.org/10.12652/Ksce.2012.32.4B.203 (in
Korean).
Park, S.Y., Sur, C., Kim, J.S. and Lee, J.H. (2018) Evaluation of multi-
sensor satellite data for monitoring different drought impacts.
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 32(9),
2551–2563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-018-1537-x.
13
Pelt, S.C. and Swart, R.J. (2011) Climate change risk management
in transnational river basins: the Rhine. Water Resources Man-
agement, 25(14), 3837–3861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-
011-9891-1.
Saaty, T.L. (1987) Rank generation, preservation, and reversal in
the analytic hierarchy decision process. Decision Sciences, 18(2),
157–177.
Touma, D., Ashfaq, M., Nayak, M.A., Kao, S.C. and
Diffenbaugh, N.S. (2015) A multi-model and multi-index evalu-
ation of drought characteristics in the 21st century. Journal of
Hydrology, 526, 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.
12.011.
UNISDR. (2004) Living with risk: a global review of disaster reduc-
tion initiatives, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduc-
tion, Geneva. Available at: www.unisdr.org/files/657_lwr1.pdf
Vicente-Serrano, S.M., Beguería, S. and López-Moreno, J.I. (2010) A
multiscalar drought index sensitive to global warming: the stan-
dardized precipitation evapotranspiration index. Journal of Cli-
mate, 23, 1696–1718.
Yoo, J., Kwon, H.H., Lee, J.H. and Kim, T.W. (2015a) Influence of
evapotranspiration on future drought risk using bivariate
drought frequency curves. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering.,
20(5), 2059–2069. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015-0078-9.
Yoo, S.H., Kim, T., Lee, S.H. and Choi, J.Y. (2015b) Trend analysis of
projected climate data based on CMIP5 GCMs for climate
change impact assessment on agricultural water resources. Jour-
nal of the Korean Society of Agricultural Engineers, 57(5), 69–80.
How to cite this article: Kim J-S, Park S-Y,
Hong H-P, et al. Drought risk assessment for future
climate projections in the Nakdong River Basin,
Korea. Int J Climatol. 2020;1–13. https://doi.org/10.
1002/joc.6473