2.3 The most recent view of vulnerability Stefan Schneiderbauer, Elisa Calliari, Unni Eidsvig Michael Hagenlocher 2.3.1 for understanding, assessing and re- political/institutional situation and ducing risks. When a hazardous event does not account for power relations The importance of occurs — be it of natural, technolog- or the heterogeneity within commu- vulnerability for ical or man-made origin — the vul- nities, which are aspects considered as disaster risk nerability of exposed people, objects important and included in the defini- (e.g. critical infrastructure, etc.) and tions proposed by other authors (Car- assessment systems (e.g. socioecological systems) dona et al., 2012; Alexander, 2013; at different scales is key to determine Birkmann et al., 2013; Wisner, 2016) 2.3.1.1 the severity of the impact. Though Vulnerability: a key this fact has been widely accepted, component to the definition of vulnerability and determine risks the components it comprises varies Vulnerability represents between different authors and disci- a fundamental Disaster risk is determined by the plines. combination of physical hazards and component of risk. A the vulnerabilities of exposed ele- The United Nations Office for Disas- proper understanding of ments. Vulnerability relates to the sus- ter Risk Reduction (UNISDR Termi- vulnerability comprising ceptibility of assets such as objects, nology, 2017) defines vulnerability as its dimensions as well systems (or part thereof) and popula- ‘the characteristics and circumstances as its root causes is tions exposed to disturbances, stress- of a community, system or asset that important for effective ors or shocks as well as to the lack of make it susceptible to the damaging risk assessment and risk capacity to cope with and to adapt to effects of a hazard. This definition these adverse conditions. Vulnerabili- reflects the last decades’ shift in the reduction. ty is dynamic, multifaceted and com- understanding of vulnerability from posed of various dimensions, all of a focused concept (for example limit- which have to be considered within a ed to physical resistance of engineer- holistic vulnerability assessment. ing structures) to a more holistic and The significance of vulnerability for systemic approach. At the same time, assessing risk is emphasised by the Vulnerability plays a fundamental role it does not provide reference to the fact that the consequences of a haz- 70 CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING DISASTER RISK: RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND EXAMPLES ardous event largely depend on hu- Abruzzo. It is in part explained by the poor black and elderly population in man factors. That is, the hazardous risk perception among female victims, New Orleans in 2005 (Cutter et al., event itself may be predominantly an who tend to be more fatalistic than 2006). external phenomena out of the con- men and who perceived their homes trol of those affected; any devastating as a refuge, instead of leaving it (Al- Addressing vulnerability — together impact caused by this event, however, exander, 2010; Alexander and Magni, with exposure — represents the gate- is mainly influenced by inherent soci- 2013). way for risk reduction measures. Con- etal conditions and processes. sequently, the importance of vulner- The degree of vulnerability within a ability for DRM is underlined by the The L’Aquila earthquake in April society or a population group is usu- Sendai framework for disaster risk re- 2009 in Italy is an example of a me- ally not homogenously distributed; duction, claiming that understanding dium-power seismic event that had a social class, ethnic origin, age and disaster risk (Priority 1) and develop- disproportionately large human im- gender may determine a lower or ing related policies and practices need pact. It caused 308 fatalities, most of higher probability of being affected. to consider the various dimensions of which were the young and elderly, as Evidence of this fact has been shown vulnerability (UNISDR, 2015a). well as women. The death toll is par- by the impact of Hurricane Katrina, tially linked to the high vulnerability which caused a disproportionately of building stock in the mountains of high number of victims amongst the BOX 2.1 Resilience and capacities Besides the notion of ‘vulnerability’ standing of resilience incorporates Horizon 2020 project ‘resilens’ is there are other terms and concepts the ability and willingness to learn, scrutinising the resilience of Euro- addressing the possibility of harm to reorganise and to undertake crit- pean critical infrastructure. to a system, people or specific ob- ical self-reflection (Alexander 2013; jects by certain events and process- Kelman et al., 2016). Climate resil- Just as the term ‘resilience’, the es. Vulnerability – understood as a ience has emerged into a new doc- concept of capacities relates to the holistic and systemic concept – is trine under the umbrella of which possibilities and abilities to reduce closely related to and partly over- communities define the activities to harm under hazardous conditions. laps, for example, with the concepts combat the impending implications Hereby, ‘coping capacity’ rather of resilience and of coping and of climate change. deals with the short-term conser- adaptive capacity. vation and protection of the current There are numerous related ac- system and institutional settings, ‘Resilience’ is a term that has been tivities within Europe, for example whilst ‘adapting capacity’ denotes a widely used over the last years to the RESIN project is investigating longer-term and constantly unfold- describe characteristics related to climate resilience in European cit- ing process of learning (Birkmann the ability to absorb stresses, to ies, the European Commission’s et al., 2013). respond to changes and to recov- FP7 project emBRACE has focused er from shocks. Some authors see on community resilience and de- resilience as the positive flipside veloped a set of key indicators for of vulnerability. A broader under- assessing it, and the Commission’s 71 2.3.1.2 posure or capacities, and that elabo- physical, the ecological, the social, Conceptual issues and rate on vulnerability’s key dimensions. the economic, the cultural and the dimensions of The European project ‘Methods for institutional dimension. All of these vulnerability the improvement of vulnerability as- dimensions have to be considered sessment in Europe’ (MOVE) devel- within a holistic vulnerability study. Just as there are numerous definitions oped such a concept, which attempts The majority of assets and systems of the term ‘vulnerability’, there ex- to represent the multifaceted nature exposed to hazard will exhibit more ist many models and concepts that of vulnerability (Figure 2.10). In its than one dimension of vulnerability describe vulnerability in its relation central part, it identifies six themat- and hence these dimensions need to to other terms, such as resilience, ex- ic dimensions of vulnerability: the be addressed more in detail for any FIGURE 2.10 The MOVE framework to conceptualise vulnerability Source: Birkmann et al. (2013) ENVIRONMENT HAZARDS Hazard Natural events / socio-natural events intervention Interactions COUPLING ADAPTATION SOCIETY VULNERABILITY Vulnerability EXPOSURE SUSCEPTIBILITY LACK OF intervention and FRAGILITY RESILIENCE Exposure Physical Capacity to reduction Ecological anticipate Temporal Social Capacity to Susceptibility reduction Spatial Economic cope Cultural Capacity to Resilience Institutional recover improvement RISK GOVERNANCE RISK Organization / planning / Economic / social / environmental potential impact implementation 72 CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING DISASTER RISK: RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND EXAMPLES assessment (Birkmann et al., 2013). a number of challenges. Most impor- (see Chapter 2.4). This framework is particularly useful tantly, the majority of non-physical within the context of disaster risk aspects of vulnerability are not meas- Due to the conceptual complexity and since it embeds vulnerability in the urable in the way in that we are able methodological challenges connected wider framework of risk governance/ to determine temperature or people’s with vulnerability, the uncertainties of management and emphasises the var- income. Consequently, alternative vulnerability assessments and their re- ious intervention opportunities that methods for assessing vulnerability sults is a topic of ongoing discussion. may be taken to reduce risk. are applied. They can be quantitative The uncertainties are an aggregation or qualitative or a mix of both (see of uncertainties from several sources. A key initial question when scruti- Chapter 2.3.4). Widely applied and They include limitations in knowledge nising vulnerability is who or what is accepted tools comprise vulnerability about the socioecological systems that vulnerable to what type of threat or curves predominantly used for assess- the vulnerable elements are part of as hazard. This leads to the question of ing physical vulnerabilities and the well as inaccuracies of empirical data how the interactions between hazards use of (proxy-) indicators, particu- and limitations of models applied for and vulnerabilities look like. In fact, larly to estimate the vulnerability of vulnerability assessments. there are significant differences in the non-physical dimensions (for example way the various factors that determine social, economic or institutional vul- Uncertainty can be classified in many vulnerability are linked or connected nerabilities). Here,