This chapter presents a case study on Korea’s a structured national system for identifying and managing emerging critical risks, led by the National Disaster Management Research Institute under the Ministry of the Interior and Safety. This chapter covers how Korea uses horizon scanning, expert input, and big data analysis to detect emerging risks, which are reviewed by a multidisciplinary assessment committee. This chapter includes the risk classification model used by Korea for emerging risks. This chapter also explores how recent events, such as the Itaewon crowd crush in 2022, led Korea to establish a system aimed at enhancing pre-emptive governance of risks. This chapter then presents the strengths of Korea’s emerging risk management systems, including the country’s emphasis on information sharing, stakeholder engagement, and iterative review processes, while also outlining current efforts to strengthen prioritisation methodologies and co-ordination mechanisms as part of broader improvements in emerging risk governance.
Managing Emerging Critical Risks
Abstract
In Korea, the National Disaster Management Research Institute (NDMI) plays a central role in the nation's capacity to anticipate and manage emerging critical risks. Operating under the Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS), NDMI is tasked with identifying, assessing, and developing strategies to mitigate potential disaster risks. A key component of this effort is the Centre for Risk Identification and Assessment (CRIA), which focuses on emerging risks. CRIA employs methodologies such as STEEP analysis, news monitoring, and expert surveys to detect new and potential risks. These findings are then evaluated by the Emerging Risk Assessment Committee, a multidisciplinary body comprising experts from various fields, including government agencies, academia, and the private sector. The committee assesses risks based on their likelihood and potential impact, prioritising them for further action.
The Korean system for the management of emerging critical risks can trace its origins back to the creation of the National Institute for Disaster Prevention, in 1997, under the then the Ministry of the Interior. In 2004 the institute saw an expansion of its tasks– including comprehensive responsibility for emergency management – and became the National Emergency Management Agency. Seven years later, in 2011, the National Emergency Management Agency was integrated into the Ministry of Public Administration and Security, aligning disaster management more closely with a wider range of national government functions. Later, in 2013, the focus of the National Emergency Management Agency changed, concentrating on disaster research and policy and it was renamed the National Disaster Management Research Institute and became part of the Ministry of Security and Public Administration. The following year, in 2014, the Institute was placed under the Ministry of Public Safety and Security, linking it more directly with national safety and security efforts. In 2017, the National Disaster Management Research Institute took its current form under the Ministry of the Interior and Safety.
The Itaewon crowd crush disaster in October 2022 triggered the latest turning point for Korea's system for governance of critical risks. This incident resulted in 159 fatalities, driving Korean policymakers to reflect on a more proactive approach to identifying and managing critical risks, particularly those arising from large-scale public gatherings in urban settings. The crowd crush exemplified an emerging critical risk due to its sudden onset and the complex interplay of factors such as urban density, public event management, and real-time crowd dynamics, which were not adequately anticipated or mitigated by existing safety protocols.
The government initiated a Comprehensive Reform Plan for the Pan-Governmental National Safety System, aiming to establish a system for the continuous discovery and anticipation of new risks, with a focus on regional risk factors across various municipalities. This marked a paradigm shift for the Korean risk governance system, moving from a system geared towards post-disaster improvement to a more pre-emptive stance, with anticipation and preparation for potential risks at the centre.
As part of these reforms, Korea established a system for comprehensively and systematically discovering and analysing potential risks across the country, including in regions and localities, replacing the risk analysis system which had implemented centrally up then ((NDMI), 2024[1]).
Whilst the NDMI leads on the research and methodologies regarding risk anticipation, the Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS) provides the policy framework and strategic direction for the efforts of the Institute (as well as co-ordinating government activity on risk governance, see Figure 4.1).
Source: Group interview with NDMI and MOIS officials conducted by the OECD Secretariat; Introduction to the National Disaster Management Research Institute (NDMI) (2018[2]).
4.2.1. Authorities and systems
Creation of a designated emerging risk division: the initiation of a specific division in NDMI, the “New Disaster Risk Factor Identification Centre”, the Centre for Disaster Risk Identification and Assessment (CRIA), falls under the ambition to “Predict Risk Factors and Reinforce Regular Preparedness”. Its three main tasks are:
Identification of emerging risks
Operation of an Emerging Risk Assessment Committee (“the committee”)
Publication of an analysis report on emerging risks
Emerging Risk Assessment Committee: the committee, composed of 16 members from various fields, and four director-level officials from government agencies of first responders1, aids in the identification and discussion of emerging risks, including through use of the Delphi method.
Use of reports to inform processes: a series of reports titled "Analysis Report on Emerging Risk" were published in 2023 and 2024, covering a range of emerging critical risks (see Section 4.3 on risks identified for further details).
Consultation: officials from NDMI familiar with the production of knowledge related to emerging critical risks report consultation with outside experts, researchers, and other ministries. This demonstrates concerted effort to raise the comprehensiveness of the inputs to emerging critical risk identification. However, the same officials also note that communication with local actors and the private sector is not yet at the level they envisage.
Publication of findings: the analysis report is sent to broadcasters and news media to share the information with the public. This case study did not find that the government conducts analysis on the extent of media coverage or level of engagement this information receives.
Government-wide collaboration: Korea has also established a government-wide collaboration system to pre-emptively manage and practically prepare for emerging risk situations based on collaboration between the Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS), relevant line ministries, and local governments (see Figure 4.2 below for further details).
Source: Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS), Supplementary evidence for the production of the country case study on emerging risks management in Korea, (2024[3])
4.2.2. Knowledge and capabilities
Progressive enhancement of risk identification tools: government officials highlighted Korea’s ongoing process of enhancing the tools and processes for risk identification, influenced by iterative learning and feedback from structured reports and committee insights. For example, Officials reported that the lessons learned process following the Itaewon crowd crush disaster in October 2022 had led to a review of the risk management system in order to enhance its anticipatory capabilities. (OECD, 2024[4])
Developing prioritisation frameworks: the Delphi process undertaken in the committee demonstrates a structured approach to risk prioritisation. This includes efforts to better integrate various departmental perspectives and to establish clearer standards for assessing and prioritising emerging risks.
International collaboration: incorporation of insights from international partners and research is not the primary objective of any current efforts, but public officials interviewed noted that they have been able to learn from peers abroad through unstructured conversations during international conferences in which they have participated.
4.2.3. Responsibilities and people
Issue ownership challenges: Interviews with public officials and documents provided to this case study conveyed the difficulty in establishing a consistent method for assigning responsibility to manage risks that do not clearly fit the mandate of any one department. MOIS is in charge of assigning ‘grey area’ risks to a ministry, but if there are issues that ministries cannot handle then the Presidential Office of the Prime Minister’s Office would get involved, depending on the urgency and importance of the risk.
The development of clear criteria and metrics for prioritising risks is an ongoing effort. Public officials acknowledge a need for standardised approach for scaling and determining which risks warrant immediate attention and resources based on their potential to impact national security, public health, or critical infrastructure (see paragraph 4.6).
NDMI has published analysis of emerging risks identified in Korea (see Figure 4.3) and a classification system (see Figure 4.4). A series of reports were published in 2023 and 2024 focusing on major identified risks that are changing due to underlying dynamics of hazard, exposure or vulnerability. Not all these risks entail transnational implications or impact on critical interests such as national infrastructure or large numbers of human casualties, however they involve aspects of emerging critical risk as set forth in the Framework.
The emerging risks identified to date are:
Large fires and structural collapse risks from electric vehicles: Explores the growing fire hazards posed by electric vehicles due to their high-voltage batteries, which are difficult to extinguish in enclosed spaces, and discusses the potential structural risks for older parking facilities. Korea has highlighted the urgency of establishing effective measures in advance, and to raise social awareness, the need to develop action guidelines for each facility and location and to implement education and training.
Skin infection of Vibrio Vulnificus sepsis due to climate change: Highlights the increasing health risks from Vibrio vulnificus infections as sea temperatures rise, especially affecting vulnerable populations like those with compromised immune systems.
Inland tornado risks due to climate change: Focuses on the increased occurrence of inland tornadoes due to atmospheric instability caused by climate change, emphasizing the need for updated disaster preparedness strategies.
Fire hazards from personal mobility devices in public transportation and multi-purpose facilities: Discusses the fire risks posed by personal mobility devices, such as electric scooters, particularly in confined public spaces, recommending stricter safety regulations.
Wildfires in rainy season triggered by climate change-induced flash drought: Examines the increasing frequency of summer wildfires caused by flash droughts, driven by climate change, and calls for improved firefighting and infrastructure resilience.
Collapse of coastal structures due to sea level rise and vertical movement of land: Highlights the growing threat to coastal infrastructure from rising sea levels and land subsidence, increasing the risk of structural failures and necessitating adaptive engineering solutions.
Chemical accident in rail transport of dangerous goods: Emphasises the heightened risk of hazardous material spills and explosions in rail transport with the potential to affect populations residing near train lines, calling for stricter safety protocols and more robust emergency response preparedness.
Recreational vessel accidents due to increase in marine tourism: Addresses the rising frequency of maritime accidents linked to increased marine tourism, underscoring the need for enhanced safety regulations, navigation training, and enforcement.
Source: Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS), Supplementary evidence for the production of the country case study on emerging risks management in Korea
4.4.1. Identify emerging critical risks
Korea’s processes, capabilities, and methods indicate an established and, in several respects, leading position in identifying emerging critical risks.
Identification of emerging risks in Korea is conducted through the CRIA within NDMI. The CRIA brings together researchers, local governments, and private experts twice a year (every six months) to participate in a risk identification process and select risks with a high possibility of developing into large-scale disasters for further analysis. The process uses police and fire department reports, safety reports, expert opinions, overseas cases, media, big data analysis, and other open source information to conduct the identification.
As of October 2024, this process had led to the identification of a total of 26 risk candidates related to climate and technological changes.
Korea categorises the emerging critical risks identified into three distinct types: Black Swan, Black Elephant, and Black Jellyfish (see Figure 4.4 for further details). Each category is defined by the likelihood of occurrence and the potential magnitude of impact:
Black Swan: These are high-impact, low-probability events, often overlooked or entirely new. Examples include a hijacked airplane used in an attack, such as the 9/11 attacks; or a nuclear accident triggered by an unexpected natural disaster, such as the tsunami that led to the Fukushima disaster. Black Swans pose unique challenges due to their rarity and scale, which complicate decisions on the proper level of preparedness.
Black Elephant: This category includes risks with significant potential impact and greater probability of occurrence than Black Swans. They are characterised as risks that can be anticipated but remain challenging due to their considerable effects. An example is the Gyeongin Expressway fire, where a tunnel with a flammable plastic cover led to extensive damage. Black Elephants serve as reminders of the importance of addressing vulnerabilities in known but under-anticipated scenarios.
Black Jellyfish: These are risks that, while well-known, still present a substantial impact due to their accumulation that might go unnoticed. An example is the large-scale fatalities in the Milyang nursing home fire. Black Jellyfish represent recognised risks that require ongoing management and mitigation efforts to protect against serious consequences.
Note: Icons from Noun Project created by swan: yogi rista ; elephant: giovanni ataraska; jellyfish: EliRatus CC BY 3.0
Source: Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS), Supplementary evidence for the production of the country case study on emerging risks management in Korea
The risk identification process also explores risk factors through various methods such as macro-environmental analysis, big data analysis, domestic and international case studies, surveys of field personnel (including firefighters, police officers and Coast Guard personnel) and experts, as well as collaboration with public institutions. Through analysis of factors relating to society, technology, economy, environment, and politics, the horizon scanning process is able to achieve broad coverage of risks emerging in multiple cross-cutting domains and address limitations of searching for risks within existing policy silos The simplified diagram showing the workflow of the CRIA (see Figure 4.5 below) provides an overview of this process.
Source: Adapted from National Disaster Management Research Institute (NDMI) (2023). Procedures for Identifying, Assessing, and Selecting Potential Disaster Risks
Korea has established a national system for constant discovery, identification and analysis of emerging risks, complementing national analysis with focused research on regional risk factors across various municipalities.
Processes for identifying emerging risks are systematic, collaborative, regularly reviewed, and updated using strategic foresight methodologies such as Delphi. Several individuals have training in identifying emerging risks, and leadership shows a degree of commitment to identifying emerging risks.
Delphi Method
Korea’s emerging risk identification uses the Delphi method, a structured forecasting approach that gathers input from a panel of experts—in this case the Emerging Risk Assessment Committee. Through a series of iterative rounds, these experts assess and refine their estimates of risk likelihood, impact, and potential response strategies. Each round encourages panellists to reassess their initial judgments based on anonymous feedback and statistical summaries from previous rounds. This iterative process allows for a gradual convergence of opinions and aims to mitigate bias, improve accuracy, and harness collective expertise. In Korea’s emerging risk management system, the Delphi method guides the prioritisation of identified critical risks.
4.4.2. Assess and share information about emerging critical risks
Korea’s assessment, characterisation, and information sharing about emerging critical risks is established: meaning it has established consultation with external academics and experts supplements internal knowledge on emerging critical risks. The CRIA in 2024 had 26 multidisciplinary experts in domains including meteorology, urban planning, public administration, counterterrorism, welfare, and business (Kim, 2024). Sharing information takes place through the circulation of safety reports prepared by various agencies and regional risk assessments that contain detailed risk statistics, vulnerability analyses, and community input.
The CRIA operates an Emerging Risk Evaluation and Selection Committee which brings together 16 experts by a range of fields (such as health, society, environment, etc.) and 4 section chiefs from response organisations (Ministry of the Interior and Safety, National Police Agency, National Fire Agency, and the Coast Guard). This committee analyses the likelihood of occurrence and potential impacts of the risks identified to develop a prioritisation matrix for these risks. High priority risks are identified and selected for further action. However, the criteria employed by the committee to reach its judgements is not explicitly prescribed or documented.
Plans exist to extend consultation with the private sector and local actors, indicating recognition of room to grow in this respect ((NDMI), 2024[1]). The Safety Policy and General Affairs Division within the Ministry of Interior and Safety (MOIS) has been promoting research on a region-centred approach to emerging risk analysis through the ‘Disaster Safety Research Governance’ programme (overseen by the Korea Institute of Public Administration - KIPA). This work has included promoting pilot projects on risk identification and assessment by regions so that organisations responsible for disaster preparedness can directly recognize and address new types of disaster risks such as the Itaewon crowd crush disaster or the Osong underpass accident. As part of this programme, MOIS is collaborating with local governments and has signed memorandums of understanding with local disaster safety research institutes across the country.
There are consistent and clear reporting requirements and practices of sharing information about emerging critical risks to line ministries and senior decision-makers. Emerging Risk Analysis Reports are published twice a year (roughly every six months) including the expected scenarios and ripple effect analysis results of the emerging risks identified and assessed. These reports are made public through the website of the Ministry of Interior and Safety (see Section on Risks Identified for further detail). Feedback from across Government on the reporting is also required (National Disaster Management Research Institute (NDMI), 2023[5]). While this does not guarantee uptake of the knowledge shared, it is an essential component of mutual communication of knowledge creation and decision-making.
4.4.3. Assess management maturity and identify gap areas
Information gathered through interviews about Korea’s management of emerging critical risk pertains largely to the process of risk identification, rather than measures to manage the risks. Nevertheless, review of the literature produced by the NDMI, as well as supplementary evidence provided by MOIS as part of the case study indicate that Korea’s level of maturity is closer to established in this area of the framework.
As mentioned above, there is evidence of regular revisions to the risk identification and assessment processes ((NDMI), 2024[1]), including updates to committee operations and methodologies.
Partnerships with the research community address knowledge gaps related to risk identification but may miss the opportunity to also understand how risks could materialise and how government could respond most effectively.
4.4.4. Develop and prioritise recommendations for managing identified risks and coping with uncertainty
As with the prior step on management maturity and identification of gap areas, Korea’s development and prioritisation focuses on the risk identification phase, meaning that activities relating to recommendations for risk management are between the levels progressing and established.
Roles and responsibilities of various actors are clearly defined and consistently executed in the phases of risk identification and prioritisation, and to some extent also in risk management. It is less clear how ownership is attributed for managing risks which fall between the explicit mandates of line ministries; such decisions may come to the centre of government, but there does not appear to be a process which guarantees this ((NDMI), 2024[1]).
Efforts to roll out the emerging risk management approach to local level are underway, through recommendations for improving safety systems and managing newly identified risks. There are proposals for safety management plans ((NDMI), 2024[1]) and investment priorities based on identified risks, emphasising the benefits of tailored responses to regional specifics.
The information collection gathered no evidence of advanced strategies for developing and prioritising recommendations for managing identified risks and coping with uncertainty. The discipline of Decision-Making Under Deep Uncertainty could provide ways forward in this respect. DMDU helps policymakers and planners manage complex, uncertain conditions by using specific methodologies designed to handle a range of potential future scenarios and uncertainties (Popper, 2019[6]).
4.4.5. Emerging risk exercise series
Korea’s practice of emerging risk exercises is between the levels progressing and established.
The READY Korea exercise series seeks to improve the level of training across the national and local disaster response system and to strengthen response capacities for both known and emerging risk scenarios. Whilst the exercises in 2023 focused on areas that had experienced disasters linked to known natural hazards (including flooding), in 2024 exercises were expected to include potential risks caused by climate change and new and complex disasters such as crowd-crush complex scenarios and electric vehicle fires.
It is unclear, however the extent to which Korea engages in regular risk exercises that explore a range of future risks across multiple timelines, involve stakeholders from a variety of disciplines, and simulate complex, transboundary risks.
The participation of Korean officials in international emerging risk exercises through the OECD High Level Risk Forum provides the opportunity for the associated approaches (such as strategic foresight techniques) to be transposed into the Korean system in the future. This could be achieved with comprehensive after-action reviews leading to actionable insights, and lessons learned for critical self-awareness.
4.4.6. Develop flexible and adaptable strategic plans for emerging risks
The connection between the risk identification process and the government’s strategic plans is recognised as a limitation in Korea’s activities, but are present in some respects, giving a maturity level of progressing.
Future developments foresee that new types of identified risks will be included in the National Safety Management Basic Plan, reflecting the need for adaptive and responsive strategic planning (NDMI, 2024). Korea is establishing a model for spreading municipal risk analysis and integrating results into local safety management plans, offering the potential to embed the emerging risk anticipation and management process into these levels of governance.
This research was unable to identify any strategic plans for managing emerging risks that are regularly produced according to an established cycle and have clear accountability bodies that follow their implementation. As those plans and oversight bodies are developed, they should provide for the individuals responsible for actions to have the necessary powers and authorities to oversee the execution of risk management plans, and for the necessary governance structures to support such powers.
4.4.7. Implement recommendations
Korea effectively implements recommendations related to improving the process of identifying and prioritising emerging critical risks. The information gathering for this case study, however did not reveal equivalent implementation processes for the emerging risk management process overall. Hence its maturity level is deemed to be progressing.
Recommendations regarding the risk identification process are followed up by the Ministry of Interior and Safety, which monitors the process every six months. A follow-up system facilitates the integration of risk analysis results into local and national safety management plans, ensuring that recommendations are operationalised and monitored. Implementation of findings at local level is planned but not yet in effect ((NDMI), 2024[1]).
There is a need for a structured and regular process for implementing recommendations for managing emerging risks, with key performance indicators, that adapts to potential future risk environments.
The table below summarises the main findings of this case study.
4.5.1. Main strengths
Korea’s management of emerging critical risk benefits from a clear grasp and implementation of a definition of emerging critical risk, which is aligned with the definition used in the Framework on Management of Emerging Critical Risks.
The NDMI’s division tasked with analysing emerging critical risk provides clear ownership of the identification process. A designated committee is responsible for prioritising the risks, and a reporting process is established, recurring, and undergoing constant revision and improvement. The requirement for the ministry to respond to the findings of the report is part of the foundations of a developing communication between knowledge creators and decision-makers.
The use of strategic foresight concepts is implemented explicitly and serves to focus attention on different characteristics of emerging critical risks.
4.5.2. Main gaps and actions for consideration
Korea’s process for prioritising emerging risks to include in the report could make greater use of explicit criteria and explanations. “Consensus”, as used in the process, could be an indication of consistent application of a rigorous evaluation, or could result from groupthink, which may lead to blind spots.
Greater consultation with the private sector and international partners takes place in limited and ad hoc ways. Expanding such communication could enhance not only the identification and prioritisation of risks, but also potentially their management, by involving private and international partners in the development and implementation of strategic plans.
Connecting the risks identified to strategic plans to manage them, and assigning responsibility for implementing those plans, is a broad area for improvement. Some first steps are already being taken, notably by encouraging progress on emerging risk assessment at the local level.
4.6.1. Documents
National Disaster Management Research Institute (NDMI) (2023). Procedures for Identifying, Assessing, and Selecting Potential Disaster Risks.
National Disaster Management Research Institute (NDMI) (2024). Regional Risk Discovery and Analysis Study: Research Plan for 2024
Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS) (2023a). 전기자동차 등장에 따른 대형 화재·붕괴 위험 [Large Fires and Structural Collapse Risks from Electric Vehicles]. Available at: https://www.mois.go.kr [Accessed 19 Sep. 2024].
Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS) (2023b). 해수온도 상승에 따른 비브리오 패혈증의 위협 [Vibrio Sepsis Risks Due to Rising Sea Temperatures]. Available at: https://www.mois.go.kr [Accessed 19 Sep. 2024].
Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS) (2023c). 기후변화로 인한 내륙지역 용오름 피해 발생 [Inland Tornado Risks Due to Climate Change]. Available at: https://www.mois.go.kr [Accessed 19 Sep. 2024].
Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS) (2023d). 개인형 이동장치의 대중교통·다중이용시설 화재 위험 [Fire Hazards from Personal Mobility Devices in Public Transportation and Facilities]. Available at: https://www.mois.go.kr [Accessed 19 Sep. 2024].
Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS) (2023e). 돌발가뭄으로 인한 여름산불 [Summer Wildfires Triggered by Flash Droughts]. Available at: https://www.mois.go.kr [Accessed 19 Sep. 2024].
Popper, S.W. (2019). Reflections: DMDU and Public Policy for Uncertain Times. In: Marchau, V., Walker, W., Bloemen, P., Popper, S. (eds) Decision Making under Deep Uncertainty. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05252-2_16
4.6.2. Interviews
Group interview with National Disaster Management Research Institute (NDMI) and Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS) officials.
References
[1] (NDMI), N. (2024), Regional Risk Discovery and Analysis Study: Research Plan for 2024, Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS).
[6] Marchau, V. (ed.) (2019), Reflections: DMDU and Public Policy for Uncertain Times, Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05252-2_16.
[3] Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS) (2024), Supplementary evidence for the production of the country case study on emerging risks management in Korea.
[5] National Disaster Management Research Institute (NDMI) (2023), Procedures for Identifying, Assessing, and Selecting Potential Disaster Risks, NDMI.
[2] National Disaster Management Research Institute (NDMI) (2018), Introduction to the National Disaster Management Research Institute (NDMI).
[4] OECD (2024), Group interview with National Disaster Management Research Institute and Ministry of the Interior and Safety officials.
← 1. Members of the committee are drawn from Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS, 행정안전부), National Police Agency (NPA, 경찰청), National Fire Agency (NFA, 소방청), and the Coast Guard Agency (CGA, 해양경찰청)