Vulnerability assessment in natural hazard and risk analysis: current approaches and future challenges

Negative consequences of natural hazards are the result of both the frequency and intensity of the hazard and the vulnerability of the society or element at risk exposed. Therefore, vulnerability assessment is an essential step to reduce these consequences and consequently natural hazard risk. The assessment of vulnerability requires an ability to both identify and understand the susceptibility of elements at risk and—in a broader sense—of the society to these hazards. The concept of vulnerability is used today by various disciplines, and hence, it is embedded in multiple disciplinary theories underpinning either a technical or a social origin of the concept and resulting in a range of paradigms for either a qualitative or quantitative assessment of vulnerability. However, efforts to reduce the exposure to hazards and to create disaster-resilient communities require intersections among these theories (e.g. Hufschmidt and Glade 2010), since human activity cannot be seen independently from the environmental settings and vice versa. Acknowledging different roots of disciplinary paradigms, methods determining structural, economic, institutional or social vulnerability should be inter-woven in order to enhance our understanding of vulnerability and to adopt to ongoing global change processes. Current approaches in vulnerability research are driven by a divide between social scientists and natural scientists, even if recently some attempts have been made within to

[1]  R. Kasperson,et al.  A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  D. Varnes Landslide hazard zonation: A review of principles and practice , 1984 .

[3]  W. Carter,et al.  Disaster management: A disaster manager's handbook , 1991 .

[4]  Sven Fuchs,et al.  Susceptibility versus resilience to mountain hazards in Austria - paradigms of vulnerability revisited , 2009 .

[5]  Sven Fuchs,et al.  Editorial for the special issue: vulnerability to natural hazards—the challenge of integration , 2011 .

[6]  R. Chambers,et al.  Vulnerability, Coping and Policy (Editorial Introduction) , 2006 .

[7]  T. Glade,et al.  Physical vulnerability assessment for alpine hazards: state of the art and future needs , 2011 .

[8]  Markus Holub,et al.  Mitigating mountain hazards in Austria – legislation, risk transfer, and awareness building , 2009 .

[9]  D. Mileti Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States , 1999 .

[10]  R. Chambers Editorial Introduction: Vulnerability, Coping and Policy , 1989 .

[11]  W. Z. Savage,et al.  Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for land-use planning , 2008 .

[12]  Christopher B. Field,et al.  Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Index , 2012 .

[13]  Thomas Glade,et al.  Geomorphological Hazards and Disaster Prevention: Vulnerability analysis in geomorphic risk assessment , 2010 .

[14]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Concepts of Risk: An Interdisciplinary Review – Part 2: Integrative Approaches , 2008 .

[15]  Sven Fuchs,et al.  A quantitative vulnerability function for fluvial sediment transport , 2011 .

[16]  J. Knight,et al.  Climate change and geomorphological hazards in the eastern European Alps , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[17]  J. Hübl,et al.  Towards an empirical vulnerability function for use in debris flow risk assessment , 2007 .

[18]  Jacquleen Joseph,et al.  Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: a macro framework. , 2013, Disasters.

[19]  B. Wisner,et al.  At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters , 1996 .

[20]  Sven Fuchs,et al.  Mountain hazards: reducing vulnerability by adapted building design , 2012, Environmental Earth Sciences.