All Issue

2025 Vol.21, Issue 4 Preview Page

Research Article

Structural Differences Between Quantitative and Qualitative Indicators of Korea’s Social Safety Index and a Regional Safety Cluster Analysis

한국 사회안전지수의 객관적 지표–주관적 지표 간 구조적 차이와 지역별 안전 클러스터 분석

박현수1ㆍ권설아2*

Hyun Soo Park1, Seol A Kwon2*

1Chief, National Crisisonomy Institute (NCI), Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea
2Chief, National Crisisonomy Institute (NCI), Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea
31 December 2025. pp. 966-974
PDF Citation
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to analyze the differences between quantitative and qualitative indicators of the Korean Social Safety Index and to explore how diverse aspects of safety and security assessment can be more comprehensively considered. Method: The study collected various indicators related to economic activity, life safety, health and well-being, and the housing environment. Both quantitative analysis and qualitative evaluation methods were applied to examine interactions among indicators and to identify regional patterns and clusters across Korea. Result: The analysis revealed notable interactions and similar patterns among economic activity, life safety, health and well-being, and housing environment indicators. Furthermore, the regional clustering results demonstrated clear differences in safety levels across Korea’s regions, reflecting spatial disparities in social safety conditions. Conclusion: The findings underscore the importance of safety management assessments that account for the distinct characteristics of quantitative and qualitative indicators. By highlighting regional differences, this study contributes to enhancing safety and disaster management in Korea through the development of customized, region-specific improvement strategies.
Keywords
Disaster Management
Crisis Management
Qualitative Indicators
Quantitative Indicators
Social Safety Index
연구목적: 본 연구는 한국 사회안전지수에 포함된 객관적 지표와 주관적 지표 간의 차이를 분석하고, 안전 및 보안 평가에서 다양한 평가 측면을 종합적으로 고려할 수 있는 방안을 제시하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 연구방법: 경제활동, 생활안전, 건강 및 복지, 주거환경과 관련된 다양한 지표를 수집하였으며, 이를 바탕으로 객관적 분석과 주관적 평가를 병행하여 분석을 수행하였다. 또한 지표 간 상호작용과 지역별 특성을 파악하기 위해 지역 클러스터 분석을 실시하였다. 연구결과: 분석 결과, 경제활동 지표는 생활안전, 건강 및 복지, 주거환경 지표와 상호작용하며 유사한 패턴을 보이는 것으로 나타났다. 아울러 지역별로 형성된 클러스터는 한국의 지역 간 안전 수준에 뚜렷한 차이가 존재함을 보여주었다. 결론: 본 연구는 객관적 지표와 주관적 지표 간의 차이를 고려한 안전관리 평가의 중요성을 강조한다. 또한 지역별 안전 수준의 특성을 반영한 맞춤형 개선 전략을 제시함으로써, 향후 한국의 안전 및 재난관리 수준을 제고하는 데 기여할 것으로 기대된다.
키워드
재난관리
위기관리
주관적지표
객관적지표
사회안전지수
References
  1. Choi, E., Song, J. (2022). “Clustering-based disaster resilience assessment of South Korea communities building portfolios using open GIS and census data.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 71, 102817. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102817
  2. Chun, H., Chi, S., Hwang, B.G. (2017). “A spatial disaster assessment model of social resilience based on geographically weighted regression.” Sustainability, Vol. 9, No. 12, 2222. 10.3390/su9122222
  3. Diener, E. (2000). “Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index.” American Psychologist, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 34-43. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34
  4. Dos Santos, P.P., Tavares, A.O., and Zêzere, J.L. (2014). “Risk analysis for local management from hydro- geomorphologic disaster databases.” Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 40, pp. 85-100. 10.1016/j.envsci.2013.12.007
  5. Estoque, R.C., Togawa, T., Ooba, M., Gomi, K., Nakamura, S., Hijioka, Y., Kameyama, Y. (2019). “A review of quality of life (QOL) assessments and indicators: Towards a “QOL-Climate” assessment framework.” Ambio, Vol. 48, No. 6, pp. 619-638. 10.1007/s13280-018-1090-3 30206898 PMC6486941
  6. Heo, G., Baek, S., Kwon, D., Kim, H., Park, J. (2021). “Recent research towards integrated deterministic–Probabilistic safety assessment in Korea.” Nuclear Engineering and Technology, Vol. 53, No. 11, pp. 3465-3473. 10.1016/j.net.2021.05.015
  7. Jeong, M.G., Lee, S.H., Kim, C.S. (2020). “A study on the safety index service model by disaster sector using big data analysis” Journal of the Society of Disaster Information. Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 682-690. 10.15683/KOSDI.2020.12.31.682
  8. Kahneman, D., Krueger, A.B. (2006). “Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 3-24. 10.1257/089533006776526030
  9. Kim, H., Park, J., Yoo, J., Kim, T.W. (2015). “Assessment of drought hazard, vulnerability, and risk: A case study for administrative districts in South Korea.” Journal of Hydro-Environment Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 28-35. 10.1016/j.jher.2013.07.003
  10. Macků, K., Caha, J., Pászto, V., Tuček, P. (2020). “Subjective or objective? How objective measures relate to subjective life satisfaction in Europe.” ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, Vol. 9, No. 5, 320. 10.3390/ijgi9050320
  11. Marin, G., Modica, M., Paleari, S., Zoboli, R. (2021). “Assessing disaster risk by integrating natural and socio-economic dimensions: A decision-support tool.” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 77, 101032. 10.1016/j.seps.2021.101032
  12. OECD (2020). How's Life? 2020 Measuring Well-bing. 978-92-64-65467-9. OECD Publishing, Paris
  13. OECD (2023). Korea’s Quality of Life Indicators. 11-1240245-000067-10.
  14. OECD Homepage. OECD Well-being Data Monitor. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/tools/well-being-data-monitor.html, 2025. 11. 21일 검색.
  15. Song, C. (2020). “A study on the improvement method of the local safety level index in basic local governments.” Journal of the Society of Disaster Information, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 211-222. 10.15683/KOSDI.2020.06.30.211
  16. Veenhoven, R. (2008). “Comparability of happiness across nations.” School of Sociology and Social Work Journal, Vol. 104, pp. 211-234.
  17. Yi, M.S., Yeo, K.H. (2021). “An analysis on the spatial pattern of local safety level index using spatial autocorrelation: Focused on basic local governments, Korea.” Journal of the Korean Society of Surveying, Geodesy, Photogrammetry and Cartography, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 29-40.
  18. Yu, S., Kim, S.W., Oh, C.W., An, H., Kim, J.M. (2015). “Quantitative assessment of disaster resilience: An empirical study on the importance of post-disaster recovery costs.” Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 137, pp. 6-17. 10.1016/j.ress.2014.12.007
  19. Zhou, Y.L., Maia, N.M., Sampaio, R.P., Wahab, M.A. (2017). “Structural damage detection using transmissibility together with hierarchical clustering analysis and similarity measure.” Structural Health Monitoring, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 711-731. 10.1177/1475921716680849
Information
  • Publisher :The Korean Society of Disaster Information
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국재난정보학회
  • Journal Title :Journal of the Society of Disaster Information
  • Journal Title(Ko) :한국재난정보학회논문집
  • Volume : 21
  • No :4
  • Pages :966-974
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.15683/kosdi.2025.12.31.966
Journal Informaiton Journal of the Society of Disaster Information Journal of the Society of Disaster Information
  • NRF
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close