<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">NHESS</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">NHESS</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1684-9981</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/nhess-18-3225-2018</article-id><title-group><article-title>Dependency of tropical cyclone risk on track in South Korea</article-title><alt-title>Dependency of tropical cyclone risk on track in South Korea</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Dependency of tropical cyclone risk on track in South Korea}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{C.~C. Nam
et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff3">
          <name><surname>Nam</surname><given-names>Chaehyeon C.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff4">
          <name><surname>Park</surname><given-names>Doo-Sun R.</given-names></name>
          <email>dsrpark@chosun.ac.kr</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4871-1341</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Ho</surname><given-names>Chang-Hoi</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1372-0037</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>Deliang</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0288-5618</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Seoul National University,
Seoul, South Korea</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Department of Earth Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg,
Sweden</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>a</label><institution>current address: Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>b</label><institution>current address: Department of Earth Sciences, Chosun University,
Gwangju, South Korea</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Doo-Sun R. Park (dsrpark@chosun.ac.kr)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>6</day><month>December</month><year>2018</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>18</volume>
      <issue>12</issue>
      <fpage>3225</fpage><lpage>3234</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>15</day><month>October</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>25</day><month>October</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>3</day><month>July</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>22</day><month>October</month><year>2018</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        
        
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/.html">This article is available from https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract>
    <p id="d1e128">Several previous studies on tropical cyclone (TC) risk assessment have
attempted to quantify the relationship between TC damage and its elements
(i.e. exposure, vulnerability, and hazard). For hazard parameters, TC
intensity (e.g. central minimum pressure, maximum wind speed) and size
information (e.g. 30 knot radius of the TC) have been widely utilized. Our
risk analysis of 85 TCs that made landfall in South Korea from 1979 to 2010,
however, suggests that a small deviation of the TC track in the west–east
direction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">250</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km, smaller than the average radius of TC) has a more
dominant effect on the extent and distribution of TC damage than TC intensity
or size. This significant track dependency of TC damage exists because the TC
track is responsible for the realization of hazard change from potential to
active. More specifically, although two TCs may have the same intensity and
size, locally experienced rainfall and wind speed can vary according to their
tracks due to topography. These results suggest that track information should
be considered more carefully in assessments of future TC risk.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e148">Tropical cyclones (TCs) are among the biggest concerns for disaster
management. As a single natural hazard worldwide, TCs are the costliest
natural disaster (<uri>http://emdat.be</uri>, last access: 26 November 2015). Many
researchers have tried to understand and predict TC activity and the
associated risk. In TC risk studies, the risk triangle concept, which
describes risk as comprising of three major elements (i.e. hazard, exposure,
and vulnerability), is widely adopted (Mendelsohn et al., 2012; Peduzzi et
al., 2012). In many empirical statistical models for TC risk, risk is
estimated quantitatively using actual damage as a response variable
(Pielke Jr. et al., 2008; Park et al., 2015). The three risk elements are then used
as explanatory variables in these studies. Exposure and vulnerability are
usually expressed by the number of residents and regional gross domestic
product (GDP) in the area of interest, respectively (Pielke et al., 2008).
Hazard is typically represented by TC intensity parameters, such as central
pressure and maximum wind speed (Nordhaus, 2010; Hsiang and Narita, 2012).
Several recent studies have also suggested TC size as a hazard parameter
(Czajkowski and Done, 2014; Zhai and Jiang, 2014).</p>
      <p id="d1e154">Using TC intensity or size as hazard parameters, however, is insufficient for
estimating TC damage. Even when a TC has the same intensity and size, damage
can drastically change depending on its track, which causes the TC to
experience different topography. Typhoon Rusa (2002) and
Typhoon Haiyan (2013) are good examples. The record-breaking rainfall in
Gangneung, South Korea, was caused by Typhoon Rusa (2002) because the track
of Typhoon Rusa (2002) was optimal for the orographic lifting effect, and so
heavy precipitation occurred over the city (Park and Lee, 2007). The
deadliest damage by typhoon Haiyan (2013) in the Philippines primarily came
about because the TC penetrated Tacloban, which is located in a
low-lying area near the ocean, such that most of the damage arose from storm
surge (Ching et al., 2015). In both cases, if the TCs went through a
different area, avoiding the mountains and lowland, the result could have
been much less devastating.</p>
      <p id="d1e157">This study focused on the role of the track in the TC risk determination process.
We tried to directly compare the<?pagebreak page3226?> priority among the risk elements by using
various statistical analyses of the historical TC records and damage data
from South Korea and explicitly show the significance of track dependency
in TC risk. Moreover, we explained the role of the track within the TC risk
triangle framework and how TCs with similar intensity and size but slightly
different track patterns could bring dramatically different risk patterns.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 lists the datasets
for TC intensity and size, local wind and rain hazard, damage, and social index
used in this study and explains how these datasets were processed and
statistically analysed. Results from the risk comparison and decision tree
analysis are described in Sect. 3, and a summary of the major findings of this
study is given in Sect. 4. Finally, in Sect. 5, we address several
implications for future risk research and predictions based on our findings.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Data and methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Data source and processing</title>
      <p id="d1e171">The present study utilized several datasets: (1) weather station data,
(2) TC track, intensity, and size data, (3) national survey data of TC
damage, and (4) national survey data of regional wealth. This section will
describe how different datasets were obtained and processed before the
statistical risk analysis.</p>
      <p id="d1e174">First, from 60 weather stations throughout South Korea (see Fig. 4 for
station locations), daily maximum near-surface wind speed and daily
accumulated precipitation values were gathered (Korea Meteorological
Administration, 2015).</p>
      <p id="d1e177">Second, TC information including track, intensity, and size was obtained from
the Regional Specialized Meteorological Center (RSMC) best-track data (RSMC
Tokyo, 2015). For intensity, we used the maximum wind speed and central
pressure data. For TC size, we used the largest radius of 30 knot winds,
which is specifically provided by RSMC. RSMC best-track data in the 6 h
interval were interpolated to a 1 h interval to obtain precise hazard values
at landfall (Park et al., 2011). The interpolated RSMC best-track data were
used to select the TCs that made landfall on South Korea (TCs entering the
area within 3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> of the coastline of Korea). Then, we verified these
TCs with the official influential TC record in the Typhoon White Book issued
by the National Typhoon
Center (NTC, 2011), as in our previous study (refer to Park et al.,
2016, for more details on NTC Typhoon White Book). We
chose only the TCs that had maximum wind speeds greater than or equal to
17 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (above or equal to tropical storm (TS) class) at the time of
entering the 3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> line. As a result, 85 TCs were determined to be
influential in South Korea from 1979 to 2010 (see Supplement Table S3 for the
list of the names and years of all the target TCs).</p>
      <p id="d1e210"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>Third, we used damage data from the National Disaster Information Center
(NDIC) of the Korean government (NDIC, 2015) after following procedures. NDIC
property loss data consist of data on monetary damages to industrial, public,
and private facilities, standardized to the value of money in 2005 by
accounting for inflation. The loss data were collected by local governmental
offices, and therefore most losses could be reported regardless of whether
the victims were insured or uninsured. There may, however, be some cases of
minor losses that were not reported to the local offices by the victims. The
raw dataset included damage data caused by all types of extreme weather such
as TCs, heavy monsoon rainfall, heavy snowfall, or high waves. Some cases
were not classified by specific damage sources. Some cases were categorized
under high wave damage, although they were also caused by TCs as the high
waves were induced by TCs. Therefore, we matched all the raw loss data to the
TC data using the NTC White Book (NTC 2011) and RSMC best-track data (RSMC Tokyo, 2015). To be more specific, we
compared the three relevant periods: (1) the period of warning issued
recorded in the NTC White Book (NTC, 2011), (2) the number of days that the
TC stayed within 3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> of the Korean coastline based on the RSMC dataset
(RSMC Tokyo, 2015), and (3) the period of damage occurrence recorded in the
NDIC dataset (NDIC, 2015).<fn id="Ch1.Footn1"><p id="d1e223">The NDIC cannot differentiate the damage
from multiple hazards when there are multiple successive extreme phenomena.
For example, if a heavy rainfall watch started on 15 July, and then a TC came
to South Korea on 20 July and decayed on 22 July, and there was no gap
between the rainfall and TC advisories, NDIC aggregates the damage amounts
and records the damage period as 15 to 22 July. Therefore, to confine the
origin of the loss data to one TC, we excluded cases whose damage period
exceeded 5 days from landfall.</p></fn> If any day of the NDIC damage period
overlapped with the RSMC or Typhoon White Book influence period of a TC, the
loss was attributed to the TC. “No damage” and “damage” cases were later
categorized based on whether any economic loss records reported by the damage
dataset existed for a given province and TC event.</p>
      <?pagebreak page3227?><p id="d1e228">Fourth, province-level aggregated wealth data were obtained from government
statistical surveys (Korean Statistical Information Service, 2015). We
aggregated the 17 districts of South Korea into 5 provinces because the
administrative division had been changed between 1979 and 2010, and the size
of the 17 districts varies from city size to province size. The names of the
provinces are Gyeong-gi (GG), Chung-cheong (CC), Jolla (JL), Gang-won (GW),
and Gyeong-sang (GS) (See Fig. 2 for the distribution of the provinces).
These five provinces have independent records of damage for every influential
TC case and annual regional wealth. The temporal variation of wealth was
considered through the normalization of damage data to the reference year,
2005, with wealth per capita. In general, the wealth of South Korea has
consistently increased. However, there are significant differences in the
growth rates among provinces, which affect the TC damage records. Through
normalization, the potential impact of regional differences in wealth trends
was eliminated. The spatial disparity of wealth at a certain time (i.e. 2005)
should be addressed when mapping the damage distribution.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Statistical analysis</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS1">
  <title>Data mining methods</title>
      <p id="d1e242">The 85-selected influential TCs were then grouped according to their track
patterns using the fuzzy c-means clustering method (FCM). We clustered the
track patterns, considering only the parts of the tracks in the domain of
28–40<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and 120–138<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E (grey boxes in Fig. 2) so that we
could divide tracks and focus on the paths near South Korea. There may be
other ways to categorize track patterns in the area of interest. For example,
one can group them using a certain longitude criterion (e.g. east versus west
from 128<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E) or the approaching angle criterion (Hall and Sobel,
2013). Here, we chose to use the FCM, as it is widely adopted for objectively
dividing widespread data with amorphous boundaries. Some previous studies
have shown this method to be effective for grouping TC track patterns (Kim et
al., 2011; Park et al., 2017).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><caption><p id="d1e274">Flowchart for local risk materialization process with TC risk
elements and their relationships. Potential and active hazards correspond to
indirect and direct causes for TC risk in terms of causality science. See
the main text for more explanation.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/18/3225/2018/nhess-18-3225-2018-f01.png"/>

          </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><caption><p id="d1e285">Four groups of tropical cyclone tracks that made landfall over South
Korea from 1979 to 2010. The box shaded in grey, covering 28–40<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N
and 120–138<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, indicates the clustering domain for the fuzzy
c-means clustering method. A map of the five aggregated provinces of South
Korea is displayed in <bold>(c)</bold> Gyeong-gi (GG), Chung-cheong (CC), Jolla
(JL), Gang-won (GW), and Gyeong-sang (GS). Taebaek and Sobaek mountains are
indicated with orange lines.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/18/3225/2018/nhess-18-3225-2018-f02.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e316">The TCs were grouped into four types. The optimum cluster numbers were
decided using four validity measures: the partition coefficient, partition
index, separation index (i.e. Xie and Beni index), and Dunn index. The
partition coefficient measures how much overlap the fuzzy clusters have, and
is inversely proportional to the average overlap between the clusters. Both
of the partition and separation indexes are computed by the compactness and
separation of the clusters. However, the partition index represents
separation as the sum of the distances between the clusters, while the
separation index represents
separation as the minimum of them. The Dunn index is calculated
by the ratio of the shortest and the longest distances of the two objectives
within a same cluster. The larger partition coefficient and smaller partition
index, separation index, and Dunn index create better clustering (for a more
detailed explanation and formula of validity measures for the optimum cluster
number, refer to Appendix B of Kim et al., 2011). All the indexes pointed to
4 being the optimum number in our case. We conducted some sensitivity tests
that introduced slight changes to the TC lists, such as different time frames
(e.g. 1979–2015) or different clustering domains (e.g. 5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> area from
the Korean Peninsula coastline), and 4 still appeared to be the optimum
cluster number from the validity measures.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e330">Box plots of the hazards and damages of track-pattern groups.
<bold>(a)</bold> Maximum wind speed, <bold>(b)</bold> central minimum pressure, and
<bold>(c)</bold> storm size from the
best-track data at the point that the TCs entered the area within 3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
of the coast of the Korean Peninsula or ,for the TCs that did not enter the
area within 3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, when they were closest to South Korea.
<bold>(d)</bold> Daily maximum wind speed (10 min average), <bold>(e)</bold> daily
accumulated precipitation, <bold>(f)</bold> influence duration from 60 weather
stations, and <bold>(g)</bold> property losses (USD 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> KRW 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
over South Korea. The storm size is the longest radius of 30 knot winds or
greater. Station maximum wind speed and precipitation are one maximum daily
value of the whole influence duration. The upper (bottom) side of each box is
0.75 (0.25) quantile. The bar inside the box represents the median, and the
circle represents the mean. The plotted whiskers extend to the most extreme
data point that is not an outlier. Outliers, which are located outside of the
maximum whisker length, are drawn as a cross. The maximum whisker length is 1.5 times the value of the third
quantile minus the first quantile. Note that the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axes of <bold>(e)</bold> and
<bold>(g)</bold> are in log scale, so zero cannot be shown in these plots. The
zero values not shown in these box plots are as follows: the third quantile
(0.75) of east-short in <bold>(e)</bold>, the third quantiles of all four types
in <bold>(g)</bold>, and the medians of east types and the first quantile of
east-short type in <bold>(g)</bold>.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/18/3225/2018/nhess-18-3225-2018-f03.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e418">We further introduced the decision tree analysis to decipher the
relationships among risk elements. The decision tree method, a
multivariable technique, allowed us to explain, describe, classify, and
predict a target as a result of the combined effects of multiple input
variables beyond a one-cause and one-effect relationship. Compared to other
multivariable techniques, the decision tree method's advantage is that it
is easy to use, robust with a variety of data, and most of all, intuitively
interpretable. It helps decision analysts structure the decision process
in a graphical sequence.</p>
      <p id="d1e421">Among several famous decision tree algorithms, this study applied See5/C5.0
as a classification method for TC risk calculation (Rulequest Research, 2015). The See5/C5.0<?pagebreak page3228?> algorithm
is an improved version of C4.5 (Quinlan, 1993) in terms of accuracy, speed,
and computer memory consumption. Furthermore, the C4.5 algorithm was
advantageous because it could accommodate all the required class, binary, and
continuous variable types (see Table S1). See5/C5.0 calculates the
information gained at each node, based on the entropy concept, in order to
select the most efficient attribute for splitting the training samples into
two branches.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e427">Each Spearman's correlation coefficient of property losses with
active and potential hazards. Active hazards are maximum daily wind speed,
maximum daily accumulated precipitation, and the sum of influenced periods
for all 60 weather stations. The potential hazards are maximum wind speed,
central pressure, and storm radius (30 knots) based on the RSMC best-track
data for each track group. The significance of the correlations are shown
with asterisks.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.9}[.9]?><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">East-short</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">East-long</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">West-long</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">West-short</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">All</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Active hazard parameters (from weather station)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Daily max wind speed</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.45<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.58<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.66<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.59<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.62<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Daily accumulated precipitation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.37<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.66<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.74<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.80<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.71<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Influence duration</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.48<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.76<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.59<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.78<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.76<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Potential hazard parameters (from best-track data)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Maximum wind speed</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.39<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.17<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.27<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.39<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.29<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Central pressure</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.40</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.16</mml:mn><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.35</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.41</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.27</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Storm radius</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.39<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.08</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.24<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e430"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Significant at the 95%. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Significant at the 99 % confidence levels.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e997">To prevent overfitting, we introduced pruning and cross-validation. First,
we required that branches have a sample size of at least five. The number
5 was determined through the retrospective pruning process. Second, a
10-fold cross-validation, which divided the training dataset and validation
dataset randomly ten times, was conducted. Cross-validation results are
provided in Table S4, and they show the decision tree results
(e.g. model accuracy, tree size, or attribute usage) are stable and
consistent. The best-track data based decision tree has a relatively broad
range of distribution in terms of size and accuracy for each training dataset, but the significant track dependency remained through the
cross-validation.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS2">
  <title>Significance tests</title>
      <p id="d1e1006">For all the statistical analyses of risk comparison among track groups,
non-parametric methods were used (Sawilowsky, 1990). Medians were used rather
than means, and rank-based procedures were conducted for any<?pagebreak page3229?> significance
test. This is because we cannot regard the TC damage as following a normal
distribution; rather, damage shows an extreme distribution. Zero losses were
recorded for 30 % of TCs, and 30 % of all the accumulated damages were
attributed to a single TC, Typhoon Rusa in 2012. The Kruskal–Wallis test, or
the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on ranks, was used to determine if
there are statistically significant differences for a variable between
track groups. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, which measures the
linear relationships between the rankings of two variables, was used instead
of the more common Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, which
measures linear relationships between the raw values of two variables.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1011">Three active hazard parameters – wind, precipitation, and duration
– of tropical cyclones for each track type observed at 60 weather stations.
Shown here is the mean value recorded at each station. For example, for a
certain station, if a TC recorded above-threshold values at the station for
3 days (refer to the main text
for the definition of a threshold), the influence duration is 3 for that TC
at that station. Then, we get 22 influence duration values for the east-short
type, because there are 22 TCs of the east-short type. We take the means of
the 22 influence duration values for each station and plot the mean value at
the location of the station with four different circle sizes. In addition to
duration, for wind and rain, we used daily maximum wind speed (10 min mean)
and daily accumulated rainfall. When we have multiple days of influence
duration, we have multiple values of daily maximum wind speed and daily
accumulated rainfall for each specific TC. We then used the biggest wind or
rain value among the multiple values as the representative value of the
hazard caused by that TC at that location.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/18/3225/2018/nhess-18-3225-2018-f04.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results</title>
      <p id="d1e1028">In this paper, we adopted the hazard mode concept (potential versus active hazard) from the risk management field (MacCollum, 2006). For
the hazard mode concept, active hazard refers to a situation when “a
harmful incident involving the hazard has actually occurred”, whereas
potential hazard refers to a situation where “the environment is currently
affected but not yet activated at a given place and time”. By this
definition, we refer to heavy rainfall and wind gusts induced at the local
area by the TC as active hazards, and we consider the TC system's minimum
central pressure, maximum wind speed, and size over South Korea as potential
hazards. These two modes of TC hazard (potential and active) are utilized
throughout this paper.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>TC hazards and risk of different track types</title>
      <p id="d1e1036">In order to objectively evaluate the effect of each TC track on damage, a
total of 85 TCs which influenced South Korea during 1979–2010 were grouped
into four track patterns. The four TC track patterns can be characterized as
(1) east-short, (2) east-long, (3) west-long, and (4) west-short types based
on the position and length of the TC tracks around the Korean Peninsula
(Fig. 2). Although the average zonal distance between the mean tracks of
east-types (i.e. east-short and east-long) and west-types (i.e. west-short
and west-long) was only about 250 km, hazards (both potential and active)
and damages caused by the TCs are significantly different depending on the
four TC track patterns at the 99 % confidence level based on the
Kruskal–Wallis test (Fig. 3). This highlights the importance of the track in TC
risk assessment because the 250 km distance is not long considering that the
average errors of track forecasting in the western North Pacific are about
200 and 400 km for 24 and 48 h, respectively (Roy and Kovordanyi, 2012).
Meanwhile, the high sensitivity of damage on the track shown in Fig. 3
suggests that the current skill of TC track forecasting may not be enough to
exactly estimate TC risk distribution over South Korea in advance of 1 day
and over.</p>
      <p id="d1e1039">As shown in Fig. 3, potential hazards display different results from active
ones, although both originate from the same TC. Potential hazards are
stronger in longer tracks, i.e. east-long and west-long, while active ones
are stronger in west-types than east-types (compare Fig. 3a–c to d–f). In
addition, even if potential hazard parameters have been widely used in TC
risk analysis (Nordhaus, 2010; Hsiang and Narita, 2012; Czajkowski and Done,
2014; Zhai and Jiang, 2014), they show worse accordance with damage than
active ones. For all potential hazards, the ranking is in order of east-long,
west-long, west-short, and east-short. It is natural for a TC with a longer
track to have higher wind speed, deeper central pressure, and larger size,
since a TC with a stronger intensity should be more durable compared to a
weaker TC under the same environmental conditions, such as friction, vertical
wind shear, and sea surface temperature (Kim et al., 2011). In contrast, for
active hazards, the ranking is in order of west-types, east-long, and
east-short track patterns. This relationship between track and active hazard
parameters (i.e.<?pagebreak page3230?> near-surface wind, rainfall, and influence duration) cannot
be simply explained unlike potential hazard parameters.</p>
      <p id="d1e1042">Figure 4 shows the spatial distribution of active hazard parameters with the
topography for each track pattern. Focusing on the near-surface winds (Fig. 4a–d),
the near-surface winds of west-type tracks were comparable to
near-surface winds of east-long track, particularly along the coast, even
though potential hazards of west-type tracks are significantly weaker than
those of east-long tracks (Fig. 3a–f). This can be attributed to the
concept of dangerous and navigable semicircles. In the case of west-type
tracks, South Korea falls within a dangerous semicircle (right-hand side of
the direction of TC movement) in which the TC translation speed and
rotational wind field are additive, and hence, strong wind speed is observed
therein. In contrast, in the case of east-type tracks, the country is
located under a navigable semicircle (left-hand side of the direction of TC
movement), in which the TC translation is counter-directional to the
rotational wind. Therefore, weaker wind speeds are found there than that in
the dangerous semicircle.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1047">Medians of regional economic losses from a tropical cyclone
(regional economic losses divided by regional wealth). The dark shading
indicates provinces that have median losses larger than KRW 1 billion, and the light shading
indicates provinces with median losses larger than KRW 0.1 billion and
smaller than KRW 1 billion. More than the half of the east-short TCs are
non-damaging TCs, so the property loss medians of all provinces are zero.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/18/3225/2018/nhess-18-3225-2018-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1057">In terms of rainfall, much heavier rainfall was found in the west-type tracks
than that in east-type tracks along mountainous areas, particularly the Sobaek
mountains (Figs. 2c and 4e–h). Heavy rainfall along the mountains can
be explained by the orographic lifting effect. When a TC is located in the
southwest of South Korea, the eastern sides of the Sobaek mountains become
the upstream slope of the tangential wind of the TC, causing more torrential
rainfall than the inherent rain band of the TC (Park and Lee, 2007; Lin et
al., 2002). Thus, the orographic lifting effect can be maximized by west-type
tracks but not east-type ones.</p>
      <p id="d1e1060">Finally, the influence duration was distinctly longer for west-type tracks
compared to east-type tracks. Only a TC with a west-long track penetrates the
country, and hence, the west-approaching TCs could affect a more extensive
area for a longer time. The long influence duration of the west-short tracks
was possibly because a TC with a west-short track moves the slowest, and it
could stay in the same area for the longest time (significant at the 95 %
confidence level, Kruskal–Wallis test). Note that we calculated<?pagebreak page3231?> influence
duration for each station by applying the same criteria for wind and
rainfall. A station was marked as “influenced” if either the daily
accumulated precipitation or daily maximum sustained wind speed recorded at
that station on the specific day exceeded the station's critical thresholds,
which we set as the 90th percentile of each station's precipitation and
wind speed records over the analysis period
(1979–2010).</p>
      <p id="d1e1063">Looking at Fig. 3, the ranking of active hazards was exactly same as that of
damage. In addition, the spatial distribution of damage also matched well
with those of active hazards (compare Figs. 4 and 5). The area where active
hazards are high, exhibited high risks. There was only one exception, for
west-types, the southwestern province
(Jolla, JL) recorded less damage than the southeastern
province (Gyeong-sang, GS), although stronger active hazards are found in JL
than GS. This discordance was partly explained by exposure disparity. GS
possesses higher wealth compared to JL. After the damage was divided by
regional wealth (parentheses of Fig. 5), the spatial distribution of damage
became more analogous to that of active hazards, even if the damage in GS is
still slightly higher than in JL for the west-short tracks (Fig. 5d). This
may be related to different vulnerability to TCs between the two provinces.
Since GS is more mountainous than JL, the vulnerability of GS to TC rainfall
can be higher than that of JL. Nevertheless, all the active hazard parameters
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.62</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) showed much higher correlations with damages than potential hazard
parameters (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.29</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), although most of the potential hazards displayed
statistically significant correlations at the 95 % or 99 % confidence
levels (Table 1).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e1092">Decision tree model for damage occurrence using the four TC
best-track attributes (maximum wind speed, central pressure, storm size, and
track group) and province information as input variables. The hexagonal box
indicates the start of the algorithm, and the rhombus boxes contain questions
bifurcating each node. The grey rectangular boxes indicate the final
diagnosis boxes, in which the precision of the diagnosis is written in
parentheses with red ink (the number of correctly identified cases
and the number of
cases diagnosed following the specific sequence of criteria). The number of
cases corresponding to each criterion is presented at the left side of each
arrow with blue ink, and at the right side of each arrow, there is a
corresponding answer for the question right above the rhombus box. Refer to
Fig. 2 for the full names of provinces for each abbreviation (i.e. GW, JL,
GS, GG, and CC). BT is best-track.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/18/3225/2018/nhess-18-3225-2018-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1101">All the results in this section suggest that active hazards are better
indicators of TC risk than potential ones. In other words, if we want to a
predict whether there would be damage to a city or not and if the active
hazard information is available, we may not need to gain any additional
information of potential hazards. Nevertheless, this does not mean that
potential hazards are not important. We have to utilize a climate model with
a fine resolution of at least less than 10 km for realistic simulation of
active hazards, i.e. wind and rainfall (Park and Lee, 2007; Lee and Choi,
2010), which is a difficult task and requires high computing power. Hence,
active hazards seem not to be optimal for risk forecasting to help emergent
decision making, as well as climate change research with large spatiotemporal
scale. In this respect, it can be more valuable to use potential hazards for
risk assessment if we identify an additional factor that can fill the gap
between active and potential hazards.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Importance of track in TC risk analysis</title>
      <p id="d1e1110">Here, through the decision tree analysis, the importance of track in TC risk
was investigated. Through the decision tree analysis, the following three
questions could be answered: (1) what is the most effective factor for
classifying “damage” and “no damage” cases for TCs making landfall on
South Korea, (2) how do different factors in combination determine damage
occurrence, and (3) what critical values of the factors can be used as
quantitative guidelines related to TC damage occurrence? Here, the decision
tree model was designed to objectively classify whether a TC will bring
damage to a province or not; the decision tree used potential hazards and
track as input variables (see Table S1 for more information about the input
variables). Overall, we had 355 effective cases, comprising of 160 “damage”
cases and 195 “no damage” cases; we only considered damage occurrence in
each province by a TC (see Table S2 for detailed information of damage
cases).</p>
      <p id="d1e1113">According to the decision tree, track information acts as the primary
determinant of TC risk. Information about the<?pagebreak page3232?> track pattern was nominated as the
first splitting attribute (Fig. 6). This means all 355 cases should be
classified by the track group prior to all other decision nodes in order to
reach the end nodes. In other words, the most important factors of TC risk
may be neglected when performing a risk analysis without track information.
The detailed process is as follows. First, the model simply sent all
west-type TCs to the end damage node. Next, the east-type TC cases
were assessed according to province and TC intensity (maximum wind speed).
For a TC in the east-long group, damage could occur in JL, GS, and GW
provinces. Particularly, for the GW province, damage will be inflicted only
if the maximum wind speed is greater than 41.1 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. East-short cases,
unlike east-long cases, were sent to the intensity criteria before the
province criteria. East-short TCs with weak intensity (maximum wind speed
less than 25.7 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were directly linked to the no damage node.
The east-short TCs with satisfactory intensity (maximum wind speed greater
than 25.7 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) were sent to the province criterion; even though it is
a small portion, the critically strong east-short TCs can cause damage in
the southern provinces.</p>
      <p id="d1e1155">The relative importance of the variables in each decision tree was offered
quantitatively in terms of the usage rate by the See5/C5.0 algorithm. When an
attribute is the most-related variable to the target variable, the attribute
should be used most frequently for classification by a decision tree model.
In our decision tree (Fig. 6), the track group variable was used in 100 % of
the cases; province and potential hazards then follow with usage rates of
48 % and 37 %, respectively. Therefore, we can say that for risk
determination, TC track was the most important attribute, which gives
essential information on TC risk analysis. The use of the province variable
as the second most important variable was mainly related to the relative
location of the province with respect to the TC centre along the track. Southern
provinces are generally closer to the TC centre regardless of the four track
types because TCs move from the south (low latitude) to the north
(high latitude). Potential hazards were the third most important attribute.
Maximum wind speed was utilized as an effective classifier, but TC size was
not used.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusion and discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e1165">Our results show that potential hazards, generally utilized in risk analysis,
are less correlated with damage than active hazards. However, potential
hazards are still valuable in risk<?pagebreak page3233?> analysis considering their convenience. In
addition, according to our analysis, track information can considerably fill
the gap between potential (e.g. maximum wind speed, and central minimum
pressure) and active hazards (e.g. near-surface wind speed and rainfall).
Figure 1 shows the graphical model summarizing the above points, which
indicates the position of the track in a causal relationship with the TC risk
process. The track may contribute to realizing active hazards through altering the following factors:
(1) interaction with inhomogeneous topography, (2) the storm-relative
location (i.e. which quadrangle of the TC the city is located in), and
(3) the influence duration. The decision tree analysis suggests the TC track
is the most decisive factor for TC damage occurrence, whereas potential
hazards play only peripheral roles. Therefore, it is recommended to utilize
track information as an additional factor when using potential hazards in
risk analysis. Our results also imply that it is necessary to consider
possibly large uncertainties in future TC risk projection because of high
sensitivity of TC risk for the track as well as the lack of reliability of
future projection of TC tracks (Knutson et al., 2010; Walsh et al., 2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e1168">On the other hand, the importance of the track may differ by country because
topography among the three factors suggested is not identical between
countries. If a country has major mountainous areas like South Korea, track
information may become more important, and vice versa. The dependence
of TC risk on track over
southeastern United States, for example, in which there is little mountainous
area, may be less important than that of South Korea. As a future study, we
would compare the role of the track in TC risk between countries having
different topographic conditions.</p>
      <p id="d1e1171">Our conclusion not only highlights the importance of the track in TC risk
analysis, but also suggests that track pattern type can be used as an
independent variable for regional risk forecast. However, the decision tree
model utilized here is not proper for forecasting, since it is prone to
overfitting and errors due to bias and variance. This is because the
decision tree determines an optimal choice at each node. Choosing the best
answer at each step does not guarantee the global optimum. If the model
makes a different choice at a given step, the final node can be totally
different, especially when the dataset is small. For the current study, to
prevent these errors, we verified our results with pruning and
cross-validation. We also used the decision tree method to diagnose the
relationship between risk elements but not for forecasting. As a further
study, we plan to utilize the random forest model for forecasting.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability">

      <p id="d1e1179">The raw data used in this study are available at
<uri>https://data.kma.go.kr/</uri> (Korea Meteorological Administration, 2015),
<uri>http://kosis.kr/eng/</uri> (Korean Statistical Information Service, 2015),
<uri>https://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/jma-center/rsmc-hp-pub-eg/besttrack.html</uri>
(RSMC Tokyo, 2015), and <uri>http://www.safekorea.go.kr</uri> (NDIC, 2015). The
decision tree code is available at
<uri>https://www.rulequest.com/download.html</uri> (Relequest Research, 2015).</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e1197">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-3225-2018-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-3225-2018-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution">

      <p id="d1e1206">DSRP first proposed the idea, and CHH and CNN developed it. CNN conducted the data analysis and wrote the first draft.
All four of the authors contributed to revising and editing the first draft.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p id="d1e1212">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e1218">This work was supported by the Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE) as the
Climate Change Correspondence Program and Chosun University.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Edited by: Piero Lionello <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Reviewed by: one
anonymous referee</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Ching, P. K., de los Reyes, V. C., Sucaldito, M. N., and Tayag, E.: An
assessment of disaster-related mortality post-Haiyan in Tacloban city,
Western Pacific Surveillance and Response Journal, 6, 34–38, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Czajkowski, J. and Done, J. J.: As the wind blows? Understanding hurricane
damages at the local level through a case study analysis, Weather Clim. Soc., 6, 202–217,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Hall, T. M.  and Sobel, A. H.: On the impact angle of Hurricane Sandy's New
Jersey landfall, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 2312–2315, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Hsiang, S. M. and Narita, D.: Adaptation to cyclone risk: Evidence from the
global cross-section, Climate Change Economics, 3, 1250011,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1142/S201000781250011X" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1142/S201000781250011X</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Kim, H.-S., Kim, J.-H., Ho, C.-H., and Chu, P.-S.: Pattern classification of
typhoon tracks using the fuzzy c-means clustering method,  J. Climate, 24, 488–508,
2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Knutson, T. R., McBride, J. L., Chan, J., Emanuel, K., Holland, G., Landsea,
C., Held, I., Kossin, J. P., Srivastava, A. K., and Sugi, M.: Tropical
cyclones and climate change, Nat. Geosci., 3, 157–163, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Korea Meteorological Administration: Weather station data over South Korea,
available at: <uri>https://data.kma.go.kr/</uri>, last access: 26 November 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Korean Statistical Information Service: Province-level aggregated wealth data
were obtained from government statistical surveys, available at:
<uri>http://kosis.kr/eng/</uri>, last access: 26 November 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Lee, D.-K. and Choi, S.-J.: Observation and numerical prediction of
torrential rainfall over Korea caused by Typhoon Rusa (2002), J. Geophys.
Res., 115, D12105, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012581" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009JD012581</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Lin, Y.-L., Ensley, D. B., Chiao, S., and Huang, C.-Y.: Orographic
influences on rainfall and track deflection associated with the passage of a
tropical cyclone,  Mon. Weather Rev., 130, 2929–2950, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
MacCollum, D.: Construction safety engineering principles: designing and
managing safer job sites,  McGraw-Hill Education, 416 pp., 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Mendelsohn, R., Emanuel, K. A., Chonabayashi, S., and Bakkensen, L.: The
impact of climate change on global tropical cyclone damage,  Nat. Clim. Change, 2, 205–209,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>National Disaster Information Center (NDIC): Damage data, available at:
<uri>http://www.safekorea.go.kr</uri>, last access: 26 November 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
National Typhoon Center: Typhoon White Book, The Korean Meteor.
Administration, 358 pp., 2011 (in Korean).</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Nordhaus, W. D.: The economics of hurricanes and implications of global
warming,  Climate Change Economics, 1, 1–20, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Park, D.-S. R., Ho, C.-H., Kim, J.-H., and Kim, H.-S.: Strong landfall
typhoons in Korea and Japan in a recent decade, J. Geophys. Res., 116,
D07105, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD014801" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010JD014801</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Park, D.-S. R., Ho, C.-H., Nam, C. C., and Kim, H.-S.: Evidence of reduced
vulnerability to tropical cyclones in the Republic of Korea,  Environ. Res. Lett., 10,
054003, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054003</ext-link>,
2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Park, D.-S. R., Ho, C.-H., Kim, J., Kang, K.-R., and Nam, C. C.: Highlighting
socioeconomic damages caused by weakened tropical cyclones in the Republic
of Korea,  Nat. Hazards, 82, 1301–1315, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Park, D.-S. R., Ho, C.-H., Chan, J. C. L., Ha, K.-J., Kim, H.-S., Kim, J.,
and Kim, J.-H.: Asymmetric response of tropical cyclone activity to global
warming over the North Atlantic and the western North Pacific from CMIP5
model projections, Sci. Rep. UK, 7, 41354, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/srep41354" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/srep41354</ext-link>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Park, S. K. and Lee, E.: Synoptic features of orographically enhanced heavy
rainfall on the east coast of Korea associated with Typhoon Rusa (2002),
Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L02803, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028592 " ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006GL028592 </ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Peduzzi, P., Chatenoux, B., Dao, H., De Bono, A., Herold, C., Kossin, J.,
Mouton, F., and Nordbeck, O.: Global trends in tropical cyclone risk,
Nat. Clim. Change, 2, 289–294, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Pielke Jr., R. A., Gratz, J., and Landsea, C. W.: Normalized hurricane
damages in the United States: 1900–2005,  Nat. Hazards Rev., 9, 29–42, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Quinlan, J. R.: C4.5: programs for machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann
Publisher Inc., 270 pp., 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Regional Specialized Meteorological Center (RSMC) Tokyo : Tropical cyclone
best track data, available at:
<uri>https://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/jma-center/rsmc-hp-pub-eg/besttrack.html</uri>,
last access: 26 November 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Roy, C. and Kovordanyi, R.: Tropical cyclone track forecasting
techniques – A review,  Atmos. Res., 104–105, 40–69, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Rulequest Research: The code for See5/C5.0 decision tree model, available at:
<uri>https://www.rulequest.com/download.html</uri>, last access: 26 November 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Sawilowsky, S. S.: Nonparametric-tests of interaction in
experimental-design,  Review of Education Research, 60, 91–126, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Walsh, K. J. E, McBride, J. L., Klotzbach, P. J., Balachandran, S.,Camargo,
S. J., Holland, G., Knutson, T. R., Kossin, J. P., Lee, T.-C., Sobel. A., and
Sugi, M.: Tropical cyclones and climate change, WIREs Climate Change, 7,
65–89, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.371" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/wcc.371</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Zhai, A. R. and Jiang, J. H.: Dependence of US hurricane economic loss on
maximum wind speed and storm size, Environ. Res. Lett., 9, 064019,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064019</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Dependency of tropical cyclone risk on track in South Korea</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Several previous studies on tropical cyclone (TC) risk assessment have
attempted to quantify the relationship between TC damage and its elements
(i.e. exposure, vulnerability, and hazard). For hazard parameters, TC
intensity (e.g. central minimum pressure, maximum wind speed) and size
information (e.g. 30 knot radius of the TC) have been widely utilized. Our
risk analysis of 85 TCs that made landfall in South Korea from 1979 to 2010,
however, suggests that a small deviation of the TC track in the west–east
direction ( ≤ 250&thinsp;km, smaller than the average radius of TC) has a more
dominant effect on the extent and distribution of TC damage than TC intensity
or size. This significant track dependency of TC damage exists because the TC
track is responsible for the realization of hazard change from potential to
active. More specifically, although two TCs may have the same intensity and
size, locally experienced rainfall and wind speed can vary according to their
tracks due to topography. These results suggest that track information should
be considered more carefully in assessments of future TC risk.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Ching, P. K., de los Reyes, V. C., Sucaldito, M. N., and Tayag, E.: An
assessment of disaster-related mortality post-Haiyan in Tacloban city,
Western Pacific Surveillance and Response Journal, 6, 34–38, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Czajkowski, J. and Done, J. J.: As the wind blows? Understanding hurricane
damages at the local level through a case study analysis, Weather Clim. Soc., 6, 202–217,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Hall, T. M.  and Sobel, A. H.: On the impact angle of Hurricane Sandy's New
Jersey landfall, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 2312–2315, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Hsiang, S. M. and Narita, D.: Adaptation to cyclone risk: Evidence from the
global cross-section, Climate Change Economics, 3, 1250011,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1142/S201000781250011X" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1142/S201000781250011X</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Kim, H.-S., Kim, J.-H., Ho, C.-H., and Chu, P.-S.: Pattern classification of
typhoon tracks using the fuzzy c-means clustering method,  J. Climate, 24, 488–508,
2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Knutson, T. R., McBride, J. L., Chan, J., Emanuel, K., Holland, G., Landsea,
C., Held, I., Kossin, J. P., Srivastava, A. K., and Sugi, M.: Tropical
cyclones and climate change, Nat. Geosci., 3, 157–163, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Korea Meteorological Administration: Weather station data over South Korea,
available at: <a href="https://data.kma.go.kr/" target="_blank">https://data.kma.go.kr/</a>, last access: 26 November 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Korean Statistical Information Service: Province-level aggregated wealth data
were obtained from government statistical surveys, available at:
<a href="http://kosis.kr/eng/" target="_blank">http://kosis.kr/eng/</a>, last access: 26 November 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Lee, D.-K. and Choi, S.-J.: Observation and numerical prediction of
torrential rainfall over Korea caused by Typhoon Rusa (2002), J. Geophys.
Res., 115, D12105, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012581" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012581</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Lin, Y.-L., Ensley, D. B., Chiao, S., and Huang, C.-Y.: Orographic
influences on rainfall and track deflection associated with the passage of a
tropical cyclone,  Mon. Weather Rev., 130, 2929–2950, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
MacCollum, D.: Construction safety engineering principles: designing and
managing safer job sites,  McGraw-Hill Education, 416 pp., 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Mendelsohn, R., Emanuel, K. A., Chonabayashi, S., and Bakkensen, L.: The
impact of climate change on global tropical cyclone damage,  Nat. Clim. Change, 2, 205–209,
2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
National Disaster Information Center (NDIC): Damage data, available at:
<a href="http://www.safekorea.go.kr" target="_blank">http://www.safekorea.go.kr</a>, last access: 26 November 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
National Typhoon Center: Typhoon White Book, The Korean Meteor.
Administration, 358 pp., 2011 (in Korean).
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Nordhaus, W. D.: The economics of hurricanes and implications of global
warming,  Climate Change Economics, 1, 1–20, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Park, D.-S. R., Ho, C.-H., Kim, J.-H., and Kim, H.-S.: Strong landfall
typhoons in Korea and Japan in a recent decade, J. Geophys. Res., 116,
D07105, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD014801" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD014801</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Park, D.-S. R., Ho, C.-H., Nam, C. C., and Kim, H.-S.: Evidence of reduced
vulnerability to tropical cyclones in the Republic of Korea,  Environ. Res. Lett., 10,
054003, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054003</a>,
2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Park, D.-S. R., Ho, C.-H., Kim, J., Kang, K.-R., and Nam, C. C.: Highlighting
socioeconomic damages caused by weakened tropical cyclones in the Republic
of Korea,  Nat. Hazards, 82, 1301–1315, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Park, D.-S. R., Ho, C.-H., Chan, J. C. L., Ha, K.-J., Kim, H.-S., Kim, J.,
and Kim, J.-H.: Asymmetric response of tropical cyclone activity to global
warming over the North Atlantic and the western North Pacific from CMIP5
model projections, Sci. Rep. UK, 7, 41354, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/srep41354" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/srep41354</a>, 2017.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Park, S. K. and Lee, E.: Synoptic features of orographically enhanced heavy
rainfall on the east coast of Korea associated with Typhoon Rusa (2002),
Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L02803, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028592 " target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028592 </a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Peduzzi, P., Chatenoux, B., Dao, H., De Bono, A., Herold, C., Kossin, J.,
Mouton, F., and Nordbeck, O.: Global trends in tropical cyclone risk,
Nat. Clim. Change, 2, 289–294, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Pielke Jr., R. A., Gratz, J., and Landsea, C. W.: Normalized hurricane
damages in the United States: 1900–2005,  Nat. Hazards Rev., 9, 29–42, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Quinlan, J. R.: C4.5: programs for machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann
Publisher Inc., 270 pp., 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Regional Specialized Meteorological Center (RSMC) Tokyo : Tropical cyclone
best track data, available at:
<a href="https://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/jma-center/rsmc-hp-pub-eg/besttrack.html" target="_blank">https://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/jma-center/rsmc-hp-pub-eg/besttrack.html</a>,
last access: 26 November 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Roy, C. and Kovordanyi, R.: Tropical cyclone track forecasting
techniques – A review,  Atmos. Res., 104–105, 40–69, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Rulequest Research: The code for See5/C5.0 decision tree model, available at:
<a href="https://www.rulequest.com/download.html" target="_blank">https://www.rulequest.com/download.html</a>, last access: 26 November 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Sawilowsky, S. S.: Nonparametric-tests of interaction in
experimental-design,  Review of Education Research, 60, 91–126, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Walsh, K. J. E, McBride, J. L., Klotzbach, P. J., Balachandran, S.,Camargo,
S. J., Holland, G., Knutson, T. R., Kossin, J. P., Lee, T.-C., Sobel. A., and
Sugi, M.: Tropical cyclones and climate change, WIREs Climate Change, 7,
65–89, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.371" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.371</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Zhai, A. R. and Jiang, J. H.: Dependence of US hurricane economic loss on
maximum wind speed and storm size, Environ. Res. Lett., 9, 064019,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064019</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
