Content uploaded by Md. Enamul Huq
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Md. Enamul Huq on Oct 06, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
421© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
S. Fahad etal. (eds.), Environment, Climate, Plant and Vegetation Growth,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49732-3_17
Chapter 17
Measuring Vulnerability toEnvironmental
Hazards: Qualitative toQuantitative
Md.EnamulHuq, A.Z.M.Shoeb, MallikAkramHossain, ShahFahad ,
M.M.Kamruzzaman, AkibJaved, NayyerSaleem, K.M.MehediAdnan,
SwatiAninditaSarker, MdYeaminAli, andMost.SinthiaSarven
Abstract Recently environmental hazards are occurring very frequently over the
globe and a great concern for the society owing to its high rate of vulnerability.
Measuring vulnerability to environmental hazards poses an immense challenge for
disaster risk relief efforts in the world. For the effective application of vulnerability
reduction as well as mitigation actions, it is necessary to quantify the level of vul-
nerability. Using multiple dimensions of vulnerability is correspondingly important
to identify the vulnerable community and places. In this study a framework is pro-
posed for measuring vulnerability to environmental hazards quantitatively. The pro-
posed framework measures vulnerability by identifying and evaluating the respective
dimensions of vulnerability with numeric scoring technique. The vulnerability
M. E. Huq (*) · A. Javed · N. Saleem
State Key Laboratory of Information Engineering in Surveying,
Mapping and Remote Sensing, Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, China
e-mail: enamul_huq@whu.edu.cn
A. Z. M. Shoeb
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Rajshahi,
Rajshahi, Bangladesh
M. A. Hossain
Department of Geography and Environment, Jagannath University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
S. Fahad
Hainan Key Laboratory For Sustaianable Utilization of Tropical Bioresource, College of
Tropical Crops, Hainan University, Haikou, Hainan, China
Department of Agronomy, The University of Haripur, Haripur, Pakistan
Department of Agriculture, The University of Swabi, Swabi, Pakistan
M. M. Kamruzzaman
Department of Computer and Information Science, Jouf University,
Sakaka, Al-Jouf, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
422
dimensions cover all the factors (exposure, susceptibility and resilience) of vulner-
ability to environmental hazards. It denes vulnerability in a quantitative scale
yclept vulnerability score of each dimensions of vulnerability. Considering the
features of the previous qualitative vulnerability frameworks, the present frame-
work has been developed. Moreover, this quantitative vulnerability measuring
framework for environmental hazards is introduced on the basis of numeric score.
Thus, the proposed framework might be applied for assessing vulnerability within a
community, regional and national level. It can also be exploited as a supporting tool
in decision-making process, planning, crisis management, disaster reduction and
mitigation to environmental hazards.
Keywords Environmental hazards · Vulnerability · Disasters
17.1 Introduction
Due to the global environmental variation and fast economic as well as social
growth human being are facing numerous threats from natural along with manmade
disasters (Bouzelha etal. 2018; Gautam and Dong 2018; Nagy etal. 2019; Fahad
and Bano 2012; Fahad etal. 2013, 2014a, b, 2015a, b, 2016a, b, c, d, 2017, 2018,
2019a, b). However, although vulnerability is being discussing as an important the-
oretical topic for more than three decades, but practically the term vulnerability is
emerging from last few years (Adger 2006; Chen etal. 2019; Mavhura etal. 2017).
Measuring vulnerability is the most important key component of disaster manage-
ment and plays a vital role to promote safety for human society. Various organiza-
tions and researchers have done comprehensive investigations on vulnerability
measurement. In addition, several models and approaches have also been mani-
fested and applied for vulnerability measuring (Shi etal. 2010; UNISDR 2015).
Most of the existing vulnerability measuring frameworks employ either qualitative
K. M. M. Adnan
College of Economics and Management, Huazhong Agricultural University,
Wuhan, Hubei, China
Department of Agricultural Finance & Banking, Sylhet Agricultural University,
Sylhet, Bangladesh
S. A. Sarker
School of Economics & Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Beijing, China
Department of Agricultural Economics, EXIM Bank Agricultural University Bangladesh,
Chapainawabganj, Bangladesh
M. Y. Ali
DanChurchAid(DCA), Country Ofce, Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh
M. S. Sarven
College of Plant Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University,
Wuhan, Hubei, China
M. E. Huq etal.
423
or semi-quantitative methods. These can only be used to compare the vulnerability
level between regions. However, a quantitative vulnerability framework symbolizes
the likelihood of disaster damage which helps the decision makers for perceiving
disaster risks (Fakhruddin etal. 2019; Ming etal. 2015; Zakour and Swager 2018).
Recent studies promote paradigm shift from the qualitative vulnerability measuring
to quantitative vulnerability measuring (Chen et al. 2013; Dintwa et al. 2019).
Therefore, to measure vulnerability quantitatively it is required to understand social,
political, and economic background deeply and after that address the factors, those
increase vulnerability.
Recently, several studies (Aroca-Jiménez et al. 2018; Birkmann 2006; Chen
etal. 2013, 2019; Fatemi etal. 2017; Ismail-Zadeh etal. 2018; Ming etal. 2015)
concerning vulnerability measurement to environmental hazards have been per-
formed across the globe. These studies covered both qualitative and quantitative
vulnerability measuring. The measuring of qualitative vulnerability methods are
mainly focused on qualitative analysis of the environmental hazards (Cardona
2013). Generally, it can be expressed that the expected losses is dened qualitatively
of certain hazard in a specied area (Ehrlich etal. 2010). Whereas, in quantitative
vulnerability analysis, a truly integrated functional framework of all factors and
dimensions of vulnerability is essential. Ismail-Zadeh etal. (2018) showed in their
study, how vulnerability measuring can contextualize for the geohazards and ana-
lyzed the vulnerability of earlier and existing geohazards qualitatively. By involving
local knowledge and capacities they revealed how a qualitative vulnerability mea-
suring approach might be applied for decision-making as well as adaptation inlocal
level to increase resilience and decrease vulnerability. Barua etal. (2016) intro-
duced an integrated framework to assess socio-economic vulnerability for ood
hazards(Huq 2013). They pointed out how the direct and indirect factors are respon-
sible to create vulnerability and asses the social vulnerability as well. They revealed
the signicance of measuring social vulnerability (Barua etal. 2016). By analyzing
physical and social vulnerability, Fatemi etal. (2017) built a bridge in-between the
scholars from science and humanity and analyzed vulnerability context comprehen-
sively. The authors conclude that in terms of environmental hazards, well social
networks, strong economic and institutional settings as well as political factors help
to reduce vulnerability stress substantially.
The identication of vulnerability dimensions is a critical part in coherent
disaster management. Though so far, mostly it has been ignored in the respective
academic attempts (Muller-Mahn 2012). Understanding of the patterns of quanti-
tative vulnerability, geographical boundaries of their trigger, as well as the forma-
tion of appropriate framework is important to manage a disaster effectively
(Aubrecht etal. 2013; Shao etal. 2019a). Vulnerability measuring helps to recog-
nize the susceptibility (Huq and Hossain 2015; Kulkarni etal. 2014). Vulnerability
measuring methods and techniques should be modest, logical, reasonable and
applicable for decision-making process (Birkmann 2005). However, numerous
methods, frameworks and models have been introduced, but those are not feasible
for all regions of the world. This study attempts to overcome this problem by
introducing a quantitative framework to measure vulnerability for environmental
17 Measuring Vulnerability toEnvironmental Hazards: Qualitative toQuantitative
424
hazards. This paper rstly presents the theoretical background related to environ-
mental hazard, disaster, and vulnerability. Then it discusses details about the
dimensions of vulnerability and the processes of building the quantitative vulner-
ability framework to measure vulnerability quantitatively. The key novelty of the
present study, in respect to existing literatures is to introduce a new framework
that can measure vulnerability quantitatively. This unique method might be
applied to develop a new framework for a given area and calculate the qualied
vulnerability score.
17.2 Theoretical Background andConceptualizations
17.2.1 Hazard
The concept of hazards originates from interactions between man and environ-
ment. A natural hazard is a combination of different physical processes and human
activities that create a variety of disasters (Chang etal. 2018; Fakhruddin etal.
2019; Huq and Hossain 2012; Zakour and Swager 2018). In disaster management,
the rst step is to identify and proling of hazards. However, according to Islam
etal. (2013), hazards are events or physical conditions that have the potential to
cause fatalities, injuries, property damage, infrastructure damage, agricultural
loss, environmental damage, interruption of business, or any other type of harm or
loss. Moreover, hazards are those extreme events either natural or man-induce,
which exceeds the tolerable magnitude within or beyond certain time limits, make
adjustment difcult, resulting catastrophic losses of property, income and lives
and become the headlines of different print and electronic media at international
level (Anderson etal. 2019; Chen etal. 2016; Papadopoulos 2016; Pokhrel and
Seo 2019). It is also considered as an extreme natural event with a certain degree
of probability of having adverse consequences. It has been dened by UNISDR
(2015) as environmental hazard (afterwards denoted as ‘hazard’) is a natural mode
or phenomenon which might have negative consequences on the society. It is an
object, behavior, or situation that may have potentiality to cause for injury and/or
damage property and the environment (Islam et al. 2013; Shao et al. 2019b).
Environmental hazard is dened as a threat potential for human or nature with the
incidents originating in, or transmitted by the natural or built environment (Chang
etal. 2018; Ming etal. 2015; Papadopoulos 2016; Ujjwal etal. 2019). An environ-
mental hazard might consider as the geophysical occurrence and when it happens
in extreme way with the involvement of human factors that may put forward a
disaster (Hagenlocher etal. 2018). Finally, hazards could be dened as the unex-
pected situation for human and physical environment. It causes fatalities, injuries
as well as damage to social and economic attributes. The Fig.17.1 illustrates a
spectrum of hazards.
M. E. Huq etal.
425
17.2.2 Hazard toDisaster
Disasters are social phenomenon that occurs when a community suffers special lev-
els of disruption and face losses due to natural or human processes. A hazard event
can strike an uninhabited region, but a disaster can exist only where people and
process related with them exists (Coppola 2006). There is no specic denition of
disaster but some studies have tried to dene disaster based on specic circum-
stances. It is an event, natural or man-made, sudden or progressive, which process
impacts with such severity that the affected community has to respond by taking
exceptional measures (Birkmann 2006; Chang et al. 2018; Coppola 2006;
Ku-Mahamud etal. 2008; Manuta and Lebel 2005; Walters and Gaillard 2014). It
concentrated in time and space that causes sufcient human deaths and material
damage to disrupt the essential functions of a community and to threaten the ability
of the community to cope without external assistance (EM-DAT 2014).
Hazards are the processes whereas the disasters are the results or responses
of hazards. Hazards always create extreme events but not all the extreme events
become disasters. Hazards are the processes whereas the disasters are the results
or responses of hazards. Hazards always create extreme events but not all the
extreme events become disasters. Disaster generally originates from the interac-
tion between the socioeconomic and physical exposure to a hazardous process
and a vulnerable human population. A natural disaster is the adverse result of
the impact of a natural hazard on human socioeconomic system. Disasters are
now increasing rapidly because of cumulative risk processes, poor land-use
practices, development projects, lack of rules and guidelines etc. Social,
Fig. 17.1 A spectrum of hazards
17 Measuring Vulnerability toEnvironmental Hazards: Qualitative toQuantitative
426
economic and environmental conditions are considered as responsible factors
for aforementioned causes. It is a complex process and mostly beyond the limit
of human capacity to control it (Ma et al. 2020). The timing of hazards is
unlikely to be forecast or an intricate process to announce the correct temporal
and spatial scale for them. All kinds of hazards occur randomly. Turning into a
disaster from a hazard depends upon magnitude and frequency of hazards
(Fig. 17.3). When a hazard occurs frequently with a high magnitude then it
transforms into a disaster (Islam etal. 2013). A disaster is measured with human
terms (lives lost, people affected, and economic losses) which are the outcomes
of any hazard. Berrouet etal. (2018) argue that in short time scale, focus should
be on designing a system for prediction and early warning, while in the longer
time period emphasis should be put on prevention and mitigation of natural
hazards and adaptation for future planning. If the activities could not achieve
these conditions then a hazard obviously turns into a disaster (Berrouet etal.
2018). There is another reason responsible for disaster. That is power of resil-
ience. For example, an earthquake can easily disrupt infrastructure like road
networks, electric lines or water systems. If the affected community can recover
it instantly then it will not turn into disaster.
17.2.3 Vulnerability
The notion of vulnerability is originated from the eld of natural disasters
(Timmerman 1981) and increasingly employed in various research elds (Chen
et al. 2019; Johansson and Hassel 2010). Vulnerability causes damages to lives,
assets and livelihood by any kinds of hazard or disaster that means vulnerability
represents the system of community’s physical, economic, social or political sus-
ceptibility to damage as the result of hazardous events (Cardona 2013; Huq 2017).
The concept of vulnerability within the disaster management context are too com-
plex and varied. In general, it refers to the susceptibility of a community to get harm
from an event, often determined by a community’s geographical exposure (Adger
2006; Etkin 2016; Papadopoulos 2016; Pokhrel and Seo 2019). However, presently,
there is no acknowledged denition of vulnerability, and typical vulnerability con-
cepts in different time periods are presented in Table17.1.
Vulnerability is argued in the present study as a degree of threat that might hap-
pened within particular circumstances of exposure, susceptibility and resilience.
Considering the different previous concepts of vulnerability, the following equation
of vulnerability could be formulated:
Vulnerability xposure Susceptibility
ResilienceBalica and Wr
–iight 2010
. (17.1)
M. E. Huq etal.
427
17.2.4 Linking Hazard, Disaster withVulnerability
The different terminologies (e.g., hazard, disaster, vulnerability, exposure, risk etc.)
used in the eld of natural disaster study have not been accepted yet universally
(Dintwa etal. 2019). However, the following equation demonstrates the relation
among the three components: hazard (H), disaster (D), and vulnerability (V):
Table 17.1 Typical vulnerability concepts in different time periods
Sources The notion of vulnerability
Timmerman
(1981)
Vulnerability is a degree of the system that may have negative effects after a
hazard/disaster of event.
Dow (1992) Vulnerability is an ability of a society or groups for coping with disasters, as
well as the ability stems of their condition in natural or social environment.
IPCC (1992) Vulnerability is a degree of inability for coping with the impacts of the
climate change as well as sea-level rise.
Einarsson and
Rausand (1998)
Vulnerability describes the properties of a system that might weaken its
ability for surviving and performing its mission with the existence of threats.
IPCC-TAR
(2001)
Vulnerability is a degree, by which a system is susceptible to, or incapable to
cope with, negative effects of the climate change. Vulnerability=risk
(projected negative climate inuences)– Adaptation
Alwang etal.
(2001)
Vulnerability is the function of susceptibility and resilience along the level of
knowledge.
Turner etal.
(2003)
Vulnerability is a degree of damage of a system, subsystem or system
component caused by exposure of hazard, perturbation or stress.
Cutter etal.
(2003)
Vulnerability is considered as the hazard of a place that includes biophysical
risks along social response and action.
Bogardi etal.
(2004)
Vulnerability means predisposition of properties, people, structures,
infrastructures, and human activities to damage with low resistance.
Aven (2007) Vulnerability is the deciency or weakness that decreases a system’s
capability to survive with threat or recommence a new permanent condition.
Johansson and
Hassel (2010)
(i) Vulnerability is known as a universal system property which reveals the
level of unfavorable effects triggered by an occurrence of a certain hazardous
event; (ii) vulnerability is applied to describe the components or features of a
system.
Tapsell etal.
(2010)
Vulnerability is a condition discerned by the social, economic, physical, as
well as environmental features or processes that raise the defenselessness of a
society to the consequences of hazards.
Wisner (2010) Vulnerability symbolizes the potentiality of loss along two sides ① an exotic
side of strokes and perturbations, these expose a system, ② an inner side that
characterizes the capacity and lack of capacity to effectively respond as well
as recover from exotic stresses.
Berrouet etal.
(2018)
Vulnerability denotes the degree of a system’s function loss when the system
is badly oppressed by the various kinds of hazards, which is inversely
proportionate to system’s resilience.
Nagy etal.
(2019)
Vulnerability is the tendency or predisposition of the assets to be adversely
affected by hazards. It incorporates exposure, sensitivity, possible
consequences, and adaptive capability.
17 Measuring Vulnerability toEnvironmental Hazards: Qualitative toQuantitative
428
Disaster DHazardH Vulnerability V
. (17.2)
Natural environment of a country or community has a great role in hazard or disas-
ter vulnerability. For example, natural environment of the Bangladesh makes it as a
ood prone (Barua etal. 2016) country but it is not applicable to other countries of
the world. The linkage between environmental degradation, natural hazards, disas-
ters, and vulnerability has been developed by UN (Fig.17.2).
17.2.5 Vulnerability Factors
The identication and understanding of vulnerability and its underlying factors are
important (Brooks 2003; Cutter etal. 2003; Hagenlocher etal. 2018; Nagy et al.
2019). Corresponding measurable factors cover structural, economic, social, educa-
tional, political, institutional, cultural, environmental, ecological, climatic, and
ideological dimensions (Adger 2006; Ahsan and Warner 2014; Anderson et al.
2019; Pokhrel and Seo 2019; Villagrán de León 2006; Walters and Gaillard 2014).
All these characteristics of vulnerability could be related to natural disasters.
Dunno (2011) has identied six factors of vulnerability. Those are poverty, liveli-
hood, cultural beliefs, equity, gender and worker social groups. On the other hand,
Balica and Wright (2010) described that, vulnerability of environmental hazards
consists of three factors (i.e., exposure, susceptibility and resilience) (Fig.17.3).
Fig. 17.2 The linkages among environmental degradation, natural hazards, disasters, and vulner-
ability (UN/ISDR 2006)
M. E. Huq etal.
429
These factors are inuenced by four main dimensions, including social, eco-
nomic, environmental and structural. Moreover, these components accelerate the
vulnerability system. Societies are vulnerable to hazards owing to three key factors
(e.g., exposure, susceptibility and resilience) (Baum etal. 2008). More particularly,
in hazardous situation, a system becomes susceptible to disasters because of expo-
sure and recovers or adapts or cope with the extent by its capacity (resilient) (Gautam
and Dong 2018).
Exposure is the principal factor of vulnerability. It refers the level or extent of a
system inuenced by perturbation (Adger 2006). It has been identied as human,
belongings, systems, and other components exist in hazardous zones those are thus
subject to probable losses. It is dened as the prospect that people and/or natural
substances might be affected by hazards (Chen etal. 2016). It may be realized as
values those are appeared at that location where hazards might occur. These values
could be properties, infrastructure, cultural inheritance, agricultural lands and peo-
ple (Shi etal. 2010).
Susceptibility is related to the system characteristics that includes social situation
of losses owing to disaster, specically public awareness as well as preparedness
pertaining the risk (Baum etal. 2008; Fatemi etal. 2017; Pokhrel and Seo 2019).
The capability of people and community systems to manage the effect of disaster is
mostly linked with the overall socio-economic condition. However, susceptibility is
referred as the components those are exposed inside a system and inuences the
likelihoods of damage in hazards (Muller-Mahn 2012). The elements of susceptibil-
ity include social relationship, institutional improvement and population (Zakour
and Swager 2018). Moreover, it refers the response skill of the internal as well as
external perturbations that typically relies on the physical strength of a hazard-
affected bodies (Ehrlich etal. 2010).
Fig. 17.3 Hazard to disaster system and factors of vulnerability (modied from Balica and
Wright (2010))
17 Measuring Vulnerability toEnvironmental Hazards: Qualitative toQuantitative
430
Resilience denotes the capacity of a system, community or group to resist, adopt,
accommodate and reclaim from the impacts of hazards timely as well as efciently,
including reclamation of its vital infrastructures and functions (Aubrecht et al.
2013; Bouzelha etal. 2018; Chen etal. 2013; Ismail-Zadeh etal. 2018). It is evalu-
ated by the political, administrative, economic, environmental, and social situation.
The response, coping and adaptive capability are the key elements of resilience,
those reect the capacity to defend or recover from the damage(Adnan etal. 2020).
Response and coping capacity are the short-term activities taken by a system to
protect perturbation damages of disaster. It is the defense capability and coping
capacity of the environmental disasters. It is a capacity and/or ability of the adjust-
ment of disaster, that mostly manifested in absorption and recover the environment
(Gautam and Dong 2018).
17.3 Dimensions ofVulnerability
17.3.1 Environmental Vulnerability
The existing level of environmental degradation is one of the particular relevant fac-
tors to evaluate vulnerability of hazards. The effects of environmental degradation
might vary with climatic conditions. The environmental sphere cannot be separated
from the social and economic spheres because of the mutuality between human
beings and the environment. Several existing vulnerability frameworks incorporate
environmental components (Ahamed 2013; Altan et al. 2013). Direct impact on
vital resources (e.g. water, soil), environmental degradation increases the vulnera-
bility of communities (Dewan etal. 2005). Environmental vulnerability represents
the vulnerability of both natural and manmade hazards. It includes biological, cli-
matological, geological, as well as anthropogenic aspects. The climate change,
water, biodiversity, human health facets, and desertication are also considered as
the environmental exposure and disasters. The criterion of environmental vulnera-
bility is heterogeneous in nature (Ahmed 2016; Balica and Wright 2010; Birkmann
2005; Gibb 2018; Hinkel 2011).
Environmental vulnerability includes several issues. For example, geomorphic
features, such as altitude and slope inuence the surface water ow as well as land
use in a great extent (Ehrlich etal. 2010). The vegetation reduction and soil erosion
lead to elevated runoff ratio, interconnects surface with subsurface conditions
(Balica etal. 2012; Huq and Alam 2003). Thus these characteristics increase the
vulnerability to occur drought, ash ooding and geological hazards (Ming etal.
2015; Mohit and Akhter 2000). Extreme rainfall caused for soil erosion, debris
movement, landslide, and various geological disasters, whereas drought hampers
vegetation and crop development, hinders the agricultural, ecological and economic
growth signicantly (Duží etal. 2017; Saleem etal. 2019). Moreover, the climatic
aspects (e.g., air, soil, water, temperature, rainfall) are also the leading factors for
entire natural energy and ecosystem(Kamruzzaman etal. 2020). Additionally, wind
velocity and sunlight hour are considered as the major climatic issues to assess
M. E. Huq etal.
431
environmental vulnerability (Johansson and Hassel 2010). However, the fact that,
poor people tend to live in higher risky locations such as polluted areas with severe
climate, which are relevant in determining vulnerability to epidemics(Sarker etal.
2020). In addition, the location and accessibility of drinking water has great impor-
tance for determining vulnerability (Olorunfemi 2011; Schneiderbauer and Ehrlich
2006). Vulnerability is not homogenous within any given area. It varies according to
income, exposure and level of preparedness (Coulter etal. 2016). In a manual for
estimating the socio-economic effects of natural disasters, Economic Commission
for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) provides broad outlines for the most
probable types of infrastructure that may be damaged by a disaster. For example, the
manual explains how oods can contaminate clean water supply, damage buried
pipes and semi-buried tanks, and pump equipment (de Leon 2007). Fragility of
natural environment also exacerbated vulnerability.
17.3.2 Ecological Vulnerability
Recently, several studies have been done to identify vulnerability to hazards in
socio-ecological system (Berrouet etal. 2018; Pattison-Williams etal. 2018). It is
recognized that social as well as natural systems are inherently coupled. Hence,
both are considered in a more holistic approach to measure vulnerability (Adger
2006). However, the ecological vulnerability is generally regarded as the inverse of
resilience (Hagenlocher etal. 2018; Timmerman 1981). A resilient ecosystem is not
that where people remain unchanging or changes are prevented rather various
changes are occurred in that ways where the structure of ecosystem is not altering
fundamentally (Aroca-Jiménez etal. 2018; Chen etal. 2019). But, accurately which
elements of the ecological system are able to resilient not clearly understood yet.
Moreover, a particular challenging task is to incorporate the variables and indicators
those can measure the ecological vulnerability. In comparison of social vulnerabil-
ity, the ecological vulnerability is less explored, analyzed and understood subject
matter (Etkin 2016; Fakhruddin etal. 2019). Therefore, low depth studies have been
conducted recently on ecological vulnerability. Moreover, the ecological vulnera-
bility is usually conned in some measurements of exposure and/or state of the
geophysical aspects which is maybe inadequate measures of the ecological vulner-
ability (Fatemi etal. 2017; Johansson and Hassel 2010).
However, though several recent advance efforts have been done to develop the
theoretical/conceptual models and frameworks for measuring ecological vulnerabil-
ity. But there is no commonly agreed denition or framework exist that can provide
an explicit guide for developing indicators to measure ecological vulnerability
quantitatively (Gautam and Dong 2018; Tapsell et al. 2010; Timmerman 1981;
Zakour and Swager 2018). Future studies should therefore need to conduct for clear
ecological vulnerability conception particularly for the ecological systems.
17 Measuring Vulnerability toEnvironmental Hazards: Qualitative toQuantitative
432
17.3.3 Climate Vulnerability
Climate vulnerability mainly deals with various vulnerabilities related to the cli-
mate change but some studies considered the climate vulnerability as fatality, social
vulnerability of climate change and surprisingly different countries have congured
the climate vulnerability by applying different indicators. However, climate vulner-
ability typically refers the state of climate change (Balica etal. 2012; Emrich and
Cutter 2011; Nagy etal. 2019). It depends on the climatic features, such as tempera-
ture, rainfall, and various meteorological aspects. Therefore, to practically measure
the climate vulnerability, types of geography needs to be identied. Some of the
potential geographical structures and disasters/issues are given in Table17.2.
17.3.4 Social Vulnerability
Social vulnerability is mostly visible after a hazard event (Cutter et al. 2003;
Spurlock 2018; Tapsell etal. 2010). The nature of social vulnerability depends on
the nature of hazard. Certain properties of a social system make it more vulnerable
to certain types of hazards than to others (Ahamed 2013; Dintwa et al. 2019).
Therefore, it can be said that social vulnerability is not a function of hazard rather it
is function of social systems. There is no unique denition of social vulnerability.
Therefore, different authors have used it differently. Current literature reveals the
fact that social vulnerability can encompass various aspects and features, which are
linked to socially created vulnerabilities (Cutter etal. 2003; Mavhura etal. 2017).
Simpson and Katirai (2006) have developed a denition of social vulnerability.
They dene six attributes to characterize social vulnerability.
• the differential exposure to stresses experienced or anticipated by the different
units exposed;
• a dynamic process
• rooted in the actions and multiple attributes of human actors
• often determined by social networks in social, economic, political and environ-
mental interactions
• manifested simultaneously on more than one scale
• inuenced and driven by multiple stresses.
Table 17.2 Geographical structures and disasters/issues
Geographical type Different pertinent issues
Small island Sea-level rise, isolation, and salt water encroachment
Developing city Insufcient infrastructure, social omission, squatter and slum
communities
Mountainous area Glacier melting, landslides, deforestation, soil erosion
Semi-arid area Elevated precipitation variability, desertication
Low-lying coastal area Salt water encroachment, slow river ow, and sea-level rise
M. E. Huq etal.
433
Different matters have contribution to create social vulnerability. From existing
literature, it is apparent that social vulnerability consists of various social matters.
Social vulnerability is much more broadly used for estimating any kinds of disaster
vulnerability (gender, age and income distribution). Within the debate of social vul-
nerability, the term exposure also deals with social vulnerability because that
increases defenselessness such as exclusion from social networks (Birkmann 2006).
The characteristics of external relations and the internal value system contribute
to determine its level of vulnerability. For example, a functioning cultural commu-
nity may provide strong social networks. Level of education and income among
men and women vary signicantly. Age structure is also important indicator to
determine social vulnerability (Schneiderbauer and Ehrlich 2006). People, who are
socially deprived, disabled or in poor health are more vulnerable to ooding than
others. Population subgroups that are vulnerable to the effects of ooding including
the elder people, women, children, minorities, individuals with disabilities and
those with low incomes (Queste etal. 2006). Factors such as language, community
isolation and the cultural insensitivity of the majority population may also affect the
social vulnerability. Within this approach, the following variables reect social vul-
nerability: age, gender, employment, car ownership, disability, language skills (de
Moor etal. 2018). Similarly, for capturing social vulnerability Baum etal. (2008)
have used age, proportion of male and female, social capital or social networks,
social isolation and account of race and ethnicity. Birkmann (2006) have used social
networks and membership of organizations as the variables of social vulnerability.
They also used gender distribution as the variable of social vulnerability.
Common variables include socio-economic status, presence of disabilities, age,
household or family structure, racial background, ethnicity, the social capital and
social networks associated with adaptive capacity. A number of these potential vari-
ables are very familiar having for more than 50years, repeatedly proven their statis-
tical power in urban social analysis (Chen etal. 2013; Cutter etal. 2003; Emrich and
Cutter 2011). People having poor education and insufcient knowledge are less able
to respond appropriately in changing environment. In addition, fatalism beliefs that
the creator leads the natural hazards so it is unpredictable, which made them vulner-
able to disasters (Schneiderbauer and Ehrlich 2006). On the contrary, Adger (2006)
mentioned that less educated unskilled people are more vulnerable to hazards than
communities are exposed. Children or elderly people at risk in shelter of refugee
camp situations. More number of household members can create a household more
vulnerable because large family cannot move swiftly in disastrous situation. On the
other hand, small size of family can easily move to safe place in disastrous situation
with their family members. Local social organizations may be the most important
variable of social vulnerability/capacity/resilience because such organizations pro-
vides information and resources (Okayo etal. 2015). Disabled people and who did
not face hazards in previous, less awareness and preparedness, lacking of shelters/
hospitals, unemployment, fragile quality of infrastructure may also be the causes of
vulnerability (Smith and Frankenberger 2018; Tapsell etal. 2010). Inadequate ood
defenses and preparedness, lack of awareness about the ood hazard make people
vulnerable to ood disaster (Azad etal. 2013). Having access to information can be
17 Measuring Vulnerability toEnvironmental Hazards: Qualitative toQuantitative
434
one way of decreasing vulnerability and ability to recover can be determined by the
existence of social or neighborhood networks (Schneiderbauer and Ehrlich 2006;
Sebald 2010). Weak early warning systems, lack of communications infrastructure
and critical facilities further magnify vulnerabilities of communities for future
disaster situations. The population’s access to information is important for knowl-
edge related with early warning of post-disaster emergency and relief actions. In
addition, cost for medicine, medical attention and funeral ceremonies might be
added. For most developing countries like Bangladesh, these kinds of variables can
be used.
17.3.5 Economic Vulnerability
Vulnerability in many ways is related to poverty. The poor societies have little
resources and opportunities to reduce vulnerability signicantly. However, poverty
has a general link with income, occupation, availability of wealth. An economic
factor is considered as a highly inuential factor to create vulnerability at the
national scale. A nancial resource and a strong economy have contribution to
reduce vulnerability (Ahsan and Warner 2014; Ujjwal et al. 2019). The Fig. 17.4
shows the process of economic vulnerability.
Economic vulnerability is a set or composite index of indicators such as
degree of export dependence, lack of diversication, export concentration, share
of modern services and products in GDP etc. (Mechler etal. 2006). Income,
employment, health insurance, house insurance, ood insurance and savings are
the variables that have great role to create or reduce vulnerability to any kinds
Fig. 17.4 Economic vulnerability system due to natural hazard (modied from Mechler
etal. (2006))
M. E. Huq etal.
435
of hazards or disasters (Fakhruddin etal. 2019; Mavhura etal. 2017). Insurance
can help to manage disaster risk and reduce losses. Rich people have ability to
absorb losses as they can recover the loss of materials and goods due to hazards
quickly. High-income families have high savings so they can recover any nan-
cial loss easily (Olorunfemi 2011). The ability to recover can be determined by
household savings and individual or family related insurances. Birkmann (2006)
have used income, loans, savings and employment as the economic variable of
vulnerability. They have also used land ownership as the variable of
vulnerability.
17.3.6 Structural Vulnerability
Structural vulnerability is another inuential factor in ood disaster. It can increase
the intensity of ood hazard. Previous literatures have shown very few variables to
determine structural vulnerability. Among those housing quality, road networks,
existence of evacuation road, drainage system, and ood dams are mostly apparent
(Coppola 2006). Structural vulnerability can classify into three broad categories
like, transport systems (roads, railways, bridges etc.), utilities (water, sewerage, and
electricity) and telecommunication (Masuya etal. 2015). It also involves those fac-
tors, which are constituted by physical environment. The quality and altitude of
houses/buildings are important in structural vulnerability. For instance, a building
may be located in a ood prone zone but raising the structure of that building may
reduce its structural vulnerability. Generally, the stability of a house depends on the
material used to build it and it relates to determining vulnerability emanated from
cyclones, oods, etc. Buildings at low elevation near the coast or in occasionally
ooded areas might be vulnerable to oods (Cogswell etal. 2018). Houses in the
hazard-prone areas are a part of exposure that characterizes the spatial dimension of
vulnerability. The location of human settlements and infrastructure plays a crucial
role for determining the susceptibility of a community. Living in dangerous loca-
tions makes individuals or communities defenseless against hazards (Chen etal.
2016). Schneiderbauer and Ehrlich (2006) stated that, the poor people tend to live
inlocations of higher risk, such as polluted areas, which makes them structurally
vulnerable. In potentially hazard-strike areas of communication systems can be
measure by the network of roads or other trafc lines and mobile phone coverage
(Rashid 2013).
17.3.7 Institutional Vulnerability
The institutional infrastructure provides the framework of management to mitigate
disasters, increase preparedness, and response activities. Assessment of the ef-
ciency of an institutional setting can often only be approached by using indirect
17 Measuring Vulnerability toEnvironmental Hazards: Qualitative toQuantitative
436
variables, such as medical infrastructure. Existence of emergency management
committee and aid during disastrous situation works as a remedy of reducing vul-
nerability (Adger 2006). Institutions addressing oods or ood-related disasters. It
may inuence the vulnerabilities of households and communities through several
pathways. Lack of early warning systems, emergency service, governance and insti-
tutions can amplify the vulnerability at household or community level (Mavhura
etal. 2017). Weak early warning systems, lack of communications infrastructure
and critical facilities further magnify vulnerabilities of communities for future
disaster situations (Dewan etal. 2007). The people’s access to information is an
important knowledge related with early warning as well as post-disaster emergency
along with relief actions. Inuences of institutionalized capacities and practices on
the disaster cycle are mediated by ecological and social resilience as well as attri-
butes of the ood event itself.
17.3.8 Demographic Vulnerability
Very few literatures utter the name of demographic vulnerability. Population struc-
ture such as a high dependency ratio, number of young and elderly people among
total population indicate demographic vulnerability (Birkmann 2006). Researchers
should assess the linkages among the concept of people about hazards, locational,
structural and demographic vulnerability. Population’s vulnerability to all types of
disasters depends on demographic growth, the pace of urbanization, settlement in
unsafe areas, environmental degradation, climate change, and unplanned develop-
ment. However, demographic factor has much more contribution to create vulnera-
bility. Population density, population growth rate also may be added as demographic
vulnerability indicator (Adger 2006; Cutter etal. 2003).
However, vulnerability factors mentioned before are interconnected with each
other (Fig. 17.5). Economic vulnerability can lead to the social vulnerability.
Alternatively, the consequence of social vulnerability makes demographic and insti-
tutional vulnerability. It is also partially responsible in creating physical and envi-
ronmental vulnerability.
17.4 A Debate onVulnerability Equations
Several institutions and experts for assessing, measuring and evaluating vulnerabil-
ity of various hazards and disasters have developed a signicant number of vulner-
ability equations. In this study, the equations related to ood vulnerability have been
considered.
Literature supports that in formulating vulnerability the rst initiatives was taken
by UNDP in 2004 (UNDP 2004). UNDP provided formula is given below:
M. E. Huq etal.
437
Vulnerability Hazard Risk
Manageability copingstrategies
/ (17.3)
The extent of a disaster cannot be measured without knowledge of the resilience of
the affected groups (Alwang etal. 2001). Thus, they stated vulnerability equation as
follows:
Vulnerability Hazard Coping
(17.4)
Simpson and Katirai (2006) used a vulnerability equation for measuring vulnerabil-
ity of a community. That is:
Vx HapafaHbpbfbwVM wVMwnVMn
11 22 (17.5)
where: V = Community Vulnerability; x = location of community;
Ha,b,c…. = Hazard agent (ood, earthquake, hurricane….); f = frequency of
hazard; p = probability of hazard; w =weight; VM=Vulnerability measure/
indicator and n=number of measures.
Simpson and Katirai (2006) have developed another equation for measuring vul-
nerability as:
Vulnerability hazardprobability frequency
Vulnerability me
aasures VM
(17.6)
Fig. 17.5 Interconnection of vulnerability factors
17 Measuring Vulnerability toEnvironmental Hazards: Qualitative toQuantitative
438
Flood vulnerability is a combination of various factors and/or variables. Shoeb
(2002) expressed vulnerability equation as:
Vulnerability fphysicalcharacteristics human characteristic
ss
flood characteristics
(17.7)
Finally, Shoeb (2002) introduced the household vulnerability equation as follows:
Householdvulnerability fAHSICFPGET Sc Sb Tt St Ro
DDt
,,
,,,,
,,,,,,,, ,, ,,Sd Ss WVPo RWoWtWaTrRaRq
,,
(17.8)
where, A =Age prole, H=Health status, S=Savings of households, I =Income
of households, C = Cohesiveness of local community, F = Flood knowledge,
P = Population density, G= Gender, E = Ethnic class, T= Transport network,
Sc=Susceptibility of building contents to damage, Sb=Susceptibility of building
fabric, Tt = Time taken to restore infrastructure, St = Number of stories,
Ro = Robustness of building fabric, D=Dept of ood, Dt= Duration of ood,
Sd = Sediment concentrations, St = Sediment size, W = Wave/wind action,
V=Velocity, Po = Pollution load of ood waters, R=Rate of water rise during
ooding onset, Wo = Warning given of not, Wt = Warning time provided,
Wa=Advice content of warning, Tr=Time taken for assistance to arrive after of
during event, Ra=Amount of response, and Rq=Response quality.
All societies are vulnerable to oods, under different cases and situations. Balica
etal. (2012) has introduced the following vulnerability equation:
Vulnerability Exposure SusceptibilityResilience
(17.9)
For measuring social vulnerability specically some vulnerability equations have
been developed by disaster experts. For instance, Simpson and Katirai (2006) have
developed a formula for measuring social vulnerability as follows:
SoVIPersonal wealth AgeDensity of theBuilt Environment
Singl
eeSector economic HousingStock and tenancy
Race AfricanAmerica
nnHispanicNativeAmericanAsian
OccupationInfrastructu
rre Dependence. (17.10)
Evaluating the previous vulnerability equations, the following formula has been
devised by them.
M. E. Huq etal.
439
FVI f Soc VulEco VulPhy VulIns VulEnv VulDem Vul
,,,, , (17.11)
where, FVI = Flood Vulnerability Index, Soc Vul = Social Vulnerability; Eco
Vul = Economic Vulnerability; Phy Vul = Physical Vulnerability; Ins
Vul=Institutional Vulnerability; Env Vul=Environmental Vulnerability and Dem
Vul=Demographic Vulnerability
17.5 Qualitative toQuantitative Vulnerability
A number of vulnerability theories, frameworks/models and measuring methods
have been developed by various scholars to systematize vulnerability. Conceptual
framework or models are very essential for developing methods of measuring vul-
nerability and the systematic identication of relevant indicators (Birkmann 2006).
Focusing on few models and frameworks, the present study presents a vulnerability
framework.
17.5.1 The Pressure andRelease Model (PAR Model)
The pressure and release (PAR) framework was introduced by Blaikie etal. (2005)
in early 1980s on the basis of social characteristics of vulnerability. The PAR frame-
work reveals that generally disaster occurs owing to two elements including, vulner-
ability progression as well as frequency of hazard (Wisner 2006). The PAR approach
underlines how disasters occur and when natural hazards affect vulnerable people
(Wisner 2010). The release idea is incorporated to conceptualize the reduction of
disaster to release the pressure, to reduce vulnerability. The PAR is related to human
vulnerability and exposure to physical hazard. It also gives a clear concept about,
how vulnerability is initially generated by economic, social, environmental, institu-
tional, demographic and political processes and then happens a disaster (Fig.17.6).
This framework identies disasters as the meeting point in between socio-economic
inuence and physical exposure. It focuses on those circumstances which create
exposure hazardous and cause of vulnerability. Blaikie et al. (2005) noted that
according to PAR framework the physical evolution of vulnerability is threefold: ①
root causes, ② dynamic pressures and, ③ unsafe conditions. It highlights those envi-
ronments which make exposure unsafe and lead to vulnerability. This framework
emphasizes on the differences in vulnerability with various exposure elements (i.e.,
class, ethnicity).
However, even it highlights vulnerability clearly, but the PAR framework appar-
ently less comprehensive in wide concerns in sustainability science (Dintwa etal.
2019). The PAR framework argues that the disasters do not occur naturally, but
relatively the product of the social as well as political forces. In this framework
17 Measuring Vulnerability toEnvironmental Hazards: Qualitative toQuantitative
440
obvious attention has been given to the root causes and has drawn on the typical
baseline of risk and in intersection of the hazard as well as vulnerability. These
notions lead to measure vulnerability qualitatively (Ahmed and Kelman 2018).
Moreover, it did not address human-environment interaction to consider biophysical
vulnerability. The PAR framework gives a little explanation of the hazard’s underly-
ing sequence structure (Turner etal. 2003). According to Cutter etal. (2003) this
framework did not report completely regarding the characteristics of sources of risk
and interaction of social and physical environment in hazard creation. Therefore, it
is typically applicable in qualitative analysis. Dunno (2011) claimed that the PAR
framework does not bear the response loop for the policy along with mitigation
interferences. However, it has an argument for combination of policy exercise
Fig. 17.6 The Pressure and Release Model (PAR model) (tailored from Blaikie etal. (2005))
M. E. Huq etal.
441
affecting vulnerability to environmental hazards but it does not show any ability to
integrate the mitigation policies, and no hints to consider multiple hazards study
(Dintwa etal. 2019).
17.5.2 Turner etal.’s Vulnerability Framework
Turner etal. (2003) also have introduced a vulnerability framework which denes
vulnerability in a broader sense (Fig.17.7). Their vulnerability framework encom-
passes exposure, sensitivity and resilience. It also explains the responsible factors
and linkages that affect the vulnerability of human and environmental system in a
space. They have claimed that this vulnerability framework is a comprehensive
framework (Turner etal. 2003). It analyzed vulnerability consistently and offered a
comprehensive classes of the factors as well as the linkages those include a com-
bined system’s vulnerability to natural hazards (Balica and Wright 2010). It was
guided from necessity to propose an appropriate template of reduced-form to ana-
lyze the substantial systemic characteristics of a problem. This is a descriptive
framework to assess vulnerability qualitatively. It mainly deals with the inclusive
linkages between human and biophysical (environmental) circumstances and pro-
cesses. Moreover, it includes the man-environment system where vulnerability is
present, including exposure as well as responses (Turner etal. 2003). The frame-
work underlines that the place-based vulnerability investigation requires to consider
at multiple scales (e.g., local, regional, and global scales). In addition, it is needed
to examine the coupled man-environment system comprehensively rather than that
reductionist manner (Füssel 2007).
Vulnerability Framework Components of vulnerability identied and linked to
factors beyond the system of study and operating at various scales. The complete
framework has been explained in Fig.17.7 with the spatial scales, connecting place
(blue), to region (yellow) and to globe (green).
The different parts of vulnerability have been claried in Fig.17.8. The hazards
of a system are arisen from external and internal of the system and place but, their
exact characteristics are usually specied to the place-based system (Turner etal.
2003). For these causes, the hazard itself is located both inside as well as outside the
place of system. Thus, the hazard holds potentiality to affect joined system nega-
tively, with that manner where a system experiences the perturbation and stress.
These circumstances comprise of both the social and the biophysical capital those
inuence the standing coping techniques. In human subsystem, these mechanisms
might be individual and/or independent action or policy-based changes. The social
and biophysical surviving mechanisms inuence each other. As a result, response of
human subsystem might help the biophysical subsystem relatively to cope, or vise-
versa (Füssel 2007). The responses (planned, communal or private, personal or
institutional, short or long-term) collectively dene the resilience of a system
(Balica and Wright 2010).
17 Measuring Vulnerability toEnvironmental Hazards: Qualitative toQuantitative
443
It shows the complications and interactions related to vulnerability analysis in
human-environment system. The systemic qualities of this framework are exposed
left to right (hazards and impacts) or right to left (impacts and hazards). The utiliza-
tion of this framework depends on the requirements of a user. However, it contains
signicant determinants to identity the resilience of a human-environment systems,
such as it reects the notion of coping capability (Balica and Wright 2010).
17.5.3 BBC Conceptual Framework
One more framework for measuring vulnerability was developed by Bogardi etal.
(2004). This framework is called “The BBC-framework”. The BBC conceptual
framework combines different elements of the frameworks discussed earlier. It
underlines the need to view vulnerability within a process (dynamic), which means
focusing simultaneously on vulnerabilities, coping capacities and potential inter-
vention tools to reduce vulnerabilities. This framework emphasizes the necessity to
focus on social, environmental and economic dimensions of vulnerability. It declares
that vulnerability should be measured with respect to economic, social and environ-
mental dimensions. In this framework, risk is dened as an interface of hazard and
vulnerability of a system that is exposed to the socks. Vulnerability has been consid-
ered as the formation and an interaction of the social, physical, economic, environ-
mental, demographic, and political exposure. Moreover, susceptible elements and
coping capability to these elements are explained in this framework (Fig.17.9).
The BBC-framework typically congures two probable ways to reduce disaster
risk as well as vulnerability: ① preventive measures for instance, planning and con-
sciousness rising before occurring a disaster (t: 0); ② disaster management for
example, evacuation and urgent response in disastrous situation (t: 1) (Birkmann
2006). The interference system such as current crisis management scheme has direct
consequences to outline the total vulnerability and determine the degree of risk. The
key benet of it is that, the framework clearly indicates the response loop system to
reduce the risk. It suggests that measurement of total risk and vulnerability would
consider the existing disaster management plan simultaneously, the existing disaster
management plan should conrm vulnerability reduction. Moreover, it focuses that
to measure vulnerability exposure, susceptible elements as well as coping capacities
must need to consider.
17.5.4 Proposed Vulnerability Framework
This study conceptualized the quantitative vulnerability framework to quantify vul-
nerability to environmental hazards. The study emphases to the quantitative vulner-
ability components of the environmental hazards. The framework considers all the
dimensions and factors of vulnerability to measure vulnerability quantitatively in a
17 Measuring Vulnerability toEnvironmental Hazards: Qualitative toQuantitative
444
place. The conceptual framework (Fig.17.10) presents a systematic approach con-
sidering various vulnerability factors and variables as a subject of analysis. It views
vulnerability as blend of various factors like demographic, social, economic, struc-
tural, institutional and environmental inuences. Vulnerability is a dynamic feature
that changes over time and space. Several techniques were used to develop vulner-
ability framework (Ahsan and Warner 2014; Berrouet etal. 2018; de Leon 2007;
Sebald 2010).
This study endeavors to integrate the best method in the course of developing
vulnerability framework. This framework deals with the dimensions of vulnerabil-
ity, variables of vulnerability dimension, and indicators of the respective variables.
According to this framework rst of all need to identify the factors (dimensions)
vulnerability to environmental hazards. Variables of a given factor (dimension)
should be identied. After that, the indicators of a specic variable also need to
dene. To assign weight values to the specied variables and indicators, Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used (Saaty 1990) in this framework to get numeric
number of the variables and indicators. Scientic explanation of AHP is given in
next paragraph. However, the quantitative score of a specic factor (dimension) can
be obtained by the following equation:
Vulnerability ScoreVariableWeight IndicatorWeight
. (17.12)
Fig. 17.9 BBC Framework (Bogardi etal. 2004)
M. E. Huq etal.
445
Finally, with this procedure the quantitative/numeric scores of all dimensions of
vulnerability to environmental hazards can be calculated.
The AHP is a structured technique to deal with complex decisions. Rather than
prescribing a “correct” decision. The AHP originally has been developed by Saaty
(1990) and mostly referred as the Saaty method (Coyle 2004; Rahman and Saha
2007). The AHP helps the decision makers to nd the one that best suits for needs
and understanding of the problem. The AHP has developed based on mathematics
and psychology. It has three basic principles like decomposition, comparative judg-
ment and synthesis of priorities. This process provides a comprehensive and rational
framework for structuring a decision problem, for representing and quantifying its
elements, for relating those elements to overall goals, and for evaluating alternative
solutions. The AHP is based on pairwise comparisons with respect to the element at
the next upper hierarchical level (i.e. among variables and indicators). Ratings of
Fig. 17.10 Model of quantifying household vulnerability and vulnerability indexing
17 Measuring Vulnerability toEnvironmental Hazards: Qualitative toQuantitative
446
the elements can be arranged as numerical numbers with the comparison matrix
developed by Saaty (1990). Based on this, relative weights for all elements can be
calculated with the eigenvalue method, indicating the priority level for each element
in the hierarchy.
17.6 Conclusions
This quantitative approach could be applied to appraise the effectiveness and/or
impact(s) of a hazard or guidelines by reproducing the values of contributing dimen-
sions of vulnerability and its variables and indicators. The application of this quan-
titative framework creates a platform to assess location-specic vulnerability of
environmental hazards. Moreover, with this method a sensitive analysis can be done
by potential vulnerability dimensions of environmental hazards within different val-
ues (e.g., social, economic, institutional, structural, environmental, demographic,
geographical, political, cultural, ideological etc.). Even considering the dimensions
of vulnerability over time, a spatial variation of vulnerability also could be mea-
sured with this framework. However, to exploit this framework, policy makers could
also choose their most favorable approaches in policy formulation to reduce disaster
risk. The methodology of selecting responsible dimensions of vulnerability, vari-
ables and indicators in conjunction with weighing procedure might modify to mea-
sure vulnerability quantitatively for a specic community or region. This process of
quantitative vulnerability measuring is simple but very efcient tool to nd, and
evaluate the vulnerability scenario of a hazard-prone area.
References
Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang 16:268–281
Adnan KMM, Ying L, Sarker SA, Yu M, Eliw M, Sultanuzzaman MR, Huq ME (2020)
Simultaneous adoption of risk management strategies to manage the catastrophic risk of maize
farmers in Bangladesh. GeoJournal.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10154-y
Ahamed M (2013) Community based approach for reducing vulnerability to natural hazards
(cyclone, storm surges) in coastal belt of Bangladesh. Procedia Environ Sci 17:361–371
Ahmed I (2016) Building resilience of urban slums in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Procedia Soc Behav
Sci 218:202–213
Ahmed B, Kelman I (2018) Measuring community vulnerability to environmental hazards: a
method for combining quantitative and qualitative data. Nat Hazards Rev 19:04018008
Ahsan MN, Warner J (2014) The socioeconomic vulnerability index: a pragmatic approach for
assessing climate change led risks–a case study in the south-western coastal Bangladesh. Int J
Disaster Risk Reduct 8:32–49
Altan O, Backhaus R, Boccardo P, Tonolo FG, Trinder J, Van Manen N, Zlatanova S (2013) The
value of geoinformation for disaster and risk management (VALID): benet analysis and stake-
holder assessment. Joint Board of Geospatial Information Societies. Joint Board of Geospatial
Information Societies, Copenhagen
Alwang J, Siegel PB, Jorgensen SL (2001) Vulnerability: a view from different disciplines. Social
protection discussion paper series. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA
M. E. Huq etal.
447
Anderson CC, Hagenlocher M, Renaud FG, Sebesvari Z, Cutter SL, Emrich CT (2019) Comparing
index-based vulnerability assessments in the Mississippi Delta: implications of contrasting the-
ories, indicators, and aggregation methodologies. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 39:101128
Aroca-Jiménez E, Bodoque JM, García JA, Díez-Herrero A (2018) A quantitative methodology for
the assessment of the regional economic vulnerability to ash oods. J Hydrol 565:386–399
Aubrecht C, Fuchs S, Neuhold C (2013) Spatio-temporal aspects and dimensions in integrated
disaster risk management. Nat Hazards 68:1205–1216
Aven T (2007) A unied framework for risk and vulnerability analysis covering both safety and
security. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 92:745–754
Azad AK, Hossain KM, Nasreen M (2013) Flood-induced vulnerabilities and problems encoun-
tered by women in northern Bangladesh. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 4:190–199
Balica S, Wright NG (2010) Reducing the complexity of the ood vulnerability index. Environ
Hazards 9:321–339
Balica S, Wright NG, van der Meulen F (2012) A ood vulnerability index for coastal cities and its
use in assessing climate change impacts. Nat Hazards 64:73–105
Barua U, Akther MS, Islam I (2016) Flood risk reduction approaches in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
In: Shaw R, Atta ur R, Surjan A, Parvin GA (eds) Urban disasters and resilience in Asia.
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp209–226
Baum S, Horton S, Choy DL (2008) Local urban communities and extreme weather events: map-
ping social vulnerability to ood. Australas J Reg Stud 14:251
Berrouet LM, Machado J, Villegas-Palacio C (2018) Vulnerability of socio-ecological systems: a
conceptual framework. Ecol Indic 84:632–647
Birkmann J (2005) Danger need not spell disaster but how vulnerable are we? United Nations
University, Bonn
Birkmann J (2006) Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient societies: conceptual
frameworks and denitions measuring vulnerability to natural hazards. In: Towards disaster
resilient societies, vol 1. United Nations University, Bonn, pp9–54
Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B (2005) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and
disasters. Routledge, NewYork
Bogardi J, Birkmann J, Cardona OD (2004) Vulnerability assessment: the rst step towards sus-
tainable risk reduction disaster and society-from hazard assessment to risk reduction. Logos
Verlag Berlin, Berlin, pp75–82
Bouzelha K, Hammoum H, Saradouni F, Benamar A (2018) Assessment of the vulnerability
index of small dams to natural hazards: case study. In: Makhlouf ASH, Aliofkhazraei M (eds)
Handbook of materials failure analysis. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp329–350
Brooks N (2003) Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: a conceptual framework. Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change Research Working Paper 38:1–16
Cardona OD (2013) The need for rethinking the concepts of vulnerability and risk from a holistic
perspective: a necessary review and criticism for effective risk management. In: Mapping vul-
nerability. Routledge, NewYork, pp56–70
Chang SE, Yip JZK, Conger T, Oulahen G, Marteleira M (2018) Community vulnerability to
coastal hazards: developing a typology for disaster risk reduction. Appl Geogr 91:81–88
Chen W, Cutter SL, Emrich CT, Shi P (2013) Measuring social vulnerability to natural hazards in
the Yangtze River Delta region, China. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 4:169–181
Chen AS, Hammond MJ, Djordjević S, Butler D, Khan DM, Veerbeek W (2016) From hazard to
impact: ood damage assessment tools for mega cities. Nat Hazards 82:857–890
Chen G, Huang K, Zou M, Yang Y, Dong H (2019) A methodology for quantitative vulnerabil-
ity assessment of coupled multi-hazard in chemical Industrial Park. J Loss Prev Process Ind
58:30–41
Cogswell A, Greenan BJW, Greyson P (2018) Evaluation of two common vulnerability index
calculation methods. Ocean Coast Manag 160:46–51
Coppola DP (2006) Introduction to international disaster management. Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford
17 Measuring Vulnerability toEnvironmental Hazards: Qualitative toQuantitative
448
Coulter LL etal (2016) Classication and assessment of land cover and land use change in southern
Ghana using dense stacks of Landsat 7 ETM + imagery. Remote Sens Environ 184:396–409
Coyle G (2004) Practical strategy, open access material. AHP. Pearson Education Limited,
NewYork
Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci
Q 84:242–261
de Leon JCV (2007) Vulnerability assessment: the sectoral approach measuring vulnerability
to natural hazards. In: Towards disaster resilient societies. United Nations University, Bonn,
pp300–315
de Moor EL, Denollet J, Laceulle OM (2018) Social inhibition, sense of belonging and vulner-
ability to internalizing problems. J Affect Disord 225:207–213
Dewan AM, Kankam-Yeboah K, Nishigaki M (2005) Assessing ood hazard in greater Dhaka,
Bangladesh using SAR imageries with GIS.J Appl Sci (Pakistan) 5:702–707
Dewan AM, Islam MM, Kumamoto T, Nishigaki M (2007) Evaluating ood hazard for land-use
planning in Greater Dhaka of Bangladesh using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Water
Resour Manag 21:1601–1612
Dintwa KF, Letamo G, Navaneetham K (2019) Quantifying social vulnerability to natural hazards
in Botswana: an application of cutter model international. J Disaster Risk Reduct 37:101189
Dow K (1992) Exploring differences in our common future (s): the meaning of vulnerability to
global environmental change. Geoforum 23:417–436
Dunno CH (2011) Measuring social vulnerability to natural hazards: an examination of the United
States Virgin Islands. University of North Carolina, Greensboro
Duží B, Vikhrov D, Kelman I, Stojanov R, Juřička D (2017) Household measures for river ood
risk reduction in the Czech Republic. J Flood Risk Manag 10:253–266
Ehrlich D, Zeug G, Gallego J, Gerhardinger A, Caravaggi I, Pesaresi M (2010) Quantifying
the building stock from optical high-resolution satellite imagery for assessing disaster risk.
Geocarto Int 25:281–293
Einarsson S, Rausand M (1998) An approach to vulnerability analysis of complex industrial sys-
tems. Risk Anal 18:535–546
EM-DAT C (2014) The OFDA/CRED international disaster database Université catholique. Centre
for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, Brussels,Belgium
Emrich CT, Cutter SL (2011) Social vulnerability to climate-sensitive hazards in the southern
United States. Weather, Clim Soc 3:193–208
Etkin D (2016) Hazard, vulnerability, and resilience. In: Etkin D (ed) Disaster theory. Butterworth-
Heinemann, Boston, pp103–150
Fahad S, Bano A (2012) Effect of salicylic acid on physiological and biochemical characterization
of maize grown in saline area. Pak J Bot 44:1433–1438
Fahad S, Chen Y, Saud S, Wang K, Xiong D, Chen C, Wu C, Shah F, Nie L, Huang J (2013)
Ultraviolet radiation effect on photosynthetic pigments, biochemical attributes, antioxidant
enzyme activity and hormonal contents of wheat. J Food Agric Environ 11(3&4):1635–1641
Fahad S, Hussain S, Bano A, Saud S, Hassan S, Shan D, Khan FA, Khan F, Chen Y, Wu C, Tabassum
MA, Chun MX, Afzal M, Jan A, Jan MT, Huang J (2014a) Potential role of phytohormones and
plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in abiotic stresses: consequences for changing environ-
ment. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(7):4907–4921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3754-2
Fahad S, Hussain S, Matloob A, Khan FA, Khaliq A, Saud S, Hassan S, Shan D, Khan F, Ullah N,
Faiq M, Khan MR, Tareen AK, Khan A, Ullah A, Ullah N, Huang J (2014b) Phytohormones
and plant responses to salinity stress: a review. Plant Growth Regul 75(2):391–404. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10725-014-0013-y
Fahad S, Hussain S, Saud S, Tanveer M, Bajwa AA, Hassan S, Shah AN, Ullah A, Wu C, Khan
FA, Shah F, Ullah S, Chen Y, Huang J (2015a) A biochar application protects rice pollen from
high-temperature stress. Plant Physiol Biochem 96:281–287
Fahad S, Nie L, Chen Y, Wu C, Xiong D, Saud S, Hongyan L, Cui K, Huang J (2015b) Crop plant
hormones and environmental stress. Sustain Agric Rev 15:371–400
M. E. Huq etal.
449
Fahad S, Hussain S, Saud S, Hassan S, Chauhan BS, Khan F etal (2016a) Responses of rapid
viscoanalyzer prole and other rice grain qualities to exogenously applied plant growth regu-
lators under high day and high night temperatures. PLoS One 11(7):e0159590. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159590
Fahad S, Hussain S, Saud S, Khan F, Hassan S, Jr A, Nasim W, Arif M, Wang F, Huang J (2016b)
Exogenously applied plant growth regulators affect heat-stressed rice pollens. J Agron Crop
Sci 202:139–150
Fahad S, Hussain S, Saud S, Hassan S, Ihsan Z, Shah AN, Wu C, Yousaf M, Nasim W, Alharby
H, Alghabari F, Huang J (2016c) Exogenously applied plant growth regulators enhance the
morphophysiological growth and yield of rice under high temperature. Front Plant Sci 7:1250.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01250
Fahad S, Hussain S, Saud S, Hassan S, Tanveer M, Ihsan MZ, Shah AN, Ullah A, Nasrullah KF,
Ullah S, Alharby HNW, Wu C, Huang J (2016d) A combined application of biochar and phos-
phorus alleviates heat-induced adversities on physiological, agronomical and quality attributes
of rice. Plant Physiol Biochem 103:191–198
Fahad S, Bajwa AA, Nazir U, Anjum SA, Farooq A, Zohaib A, Sadia S, Nasim W, Adkins S, Saud
S, Ihsan MZ, Alharby H, Wu C, Wang D, Huang J (2017) Crop production under drought
and heat stress: plant responses and management options. Front Plant Sci 8:1147. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01147
Fahad S, Muhammad ZI, Abdul K, Ihsanullah D, Saud S, Saleh A, Wajid N, Muhammad A, Imtiaz
AK, Chao W, Depeng W, Jianliang H (2018) Consequences of high temperature under chang-
ing climate optima for rice pollen characteristics-concepts and perspectives. Arch Agron Soil
Sci 64:1473–1488. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2018.1443213
Fahad S, Rehman A, Shahzad B, Tanveer M, Saud S, Kamran M, Ihtisham M, Khan SU, Turan
V, Rahman MHU (2019a) Rice responses and tolerance to metal/metalloid toxicity. In:
Hasanuzzaman M, Fujita M, Nahar K, Biswas JK (eds) Advances in rice research for abiotic
stress tolerance. Woodhead Publ Ltd, Cambridge, pp299–312
Fahad S, Adnan M, Hassan S, Saud S, Hussain S, Wu C, Wang D, Hakeem KR, Alharby HF,
Turan V, Khan MA, Huang J (2019b) Rice responses and tolerance to high temperature. In:
Hasanuzzaman M, Fujita M, Nahar K, Biswas JK (eds) Advances in rice research for abiotic
stress tolerance. Woodhead Publ Ltd, Cambridge, pp201–224
Fakhruddin B, Reinen-Hamill R, Robertson R (2019) Extent and evaluation of vulnerability for
disaster risk reduction of urban Nuku’alofa, Tonga. Prog Disaster Sci 2:100017
Fatemi F, Ardalan A, Aguirre B, Mansouri N, Mohammadfam I (2017) Social vulnerability indi-
cators in disasters: ndings from a systematic review. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 22:219–227
Füssel H-M (2007) Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change
research. Glob Environ Chang 17:155–167
Gautam D, Dong Y (2018) Multi-hazard vulnerability of structures and lifelines due to the 2015
Gorkha earthquake and 2017 central Nepal ash ood. J Build Eng 17:196–201
Gibb C (2018) A critical analysis of vulnerability. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 28:327–334
Hagenlocher M, Renaud FG, Haas S, Sebesvari Z (2018) Vulnerability and risk of deltaic social-
ecological systems exposed to multiple hazards. Sci Total Environ 631-632:71–80
Hinkel J (2011) “Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity”: towards a clarication of the
science-policy interface. Glob Environ Chang 21:198–208
Huq ME (2017) Analyzing vulnerability to ood hazard of urban people: evidences from Dhaka
Megacity, Bangladesh. Int J Earth Sci Eng 10:585–594
Huq S, Alam M (2003) Flood management and vulnerability of Dhaka City. In: Building safer cit-
ies: the future of disaster risk. World Bank, Washington, DC, pp121–135
Huq ME (2013) Flood hazard, vulnerability and adaptation of Slum Dwellers in Dhaka.Lambert
Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken, Germany
Huq ME, Hossain MA (2012) Flood hazard and vulnerability of slum dwellers in Dhaka. Stamford
J Environ Human Habitat 1:36–47
17 Measuring Vulnerability toEnvironmental Hazards: Qualitative toQuantitative
450
Huq ME, Hossain MA (2015) Vulnerability framework for ood disaster management. J Geo-
Environ 11:51–67
IPCC (1992) A common methodology for assessing vulnerability to sea level rise IPCC CZMS,
global climate change and the rising challenge of the sea report of the coastal zone manage-
ment subroup, response strategies working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, The Hague, Appendix C
IPCC-TAR M (2001) Third assessment report of the Intergovemmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Islam MS, Swapan MSH, Haque SM (2013) Disaster risk index: how far should it take account of
local attributes? Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 3:76–87
Ismail-Zadeh A, Soloviev A, Sokolov V, Vorobieva I, Müller B, Schilling F (2018) Quantitative
modeling of the lithosphere dynamics, earthquakes and seismic hazard. Tectonophysics
746:624–647
Johansson J, Hassel H (2010) An approach for modelling interdependent infrastructures in the
context of vulnerability analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95:1335–1344
Kamruzzaman MM, Alanazi SA, Alruwaili M, Alshammari N, Siddiqi MH, Huq ME (2020)
Water resource evaluation and identifying groundwater potential zones in Arid area using
remote sensing and geographic information system.J Comput Sci16(3): 266-279.https://doi.
org/10.3844/jcssp.2020.266.279
Kulkarni A, Mohanty J, Eldho T, Rao E, Mohan B (2014) A web GIS based integrated ood assess-
ment modeling tool for coastal urban watersheds. Comput Geosci 64:7–14
Ku-Mahamud KR, Norwawi NM, Katuk N, Deris S (2008) Autonomous notication and situation
reporting for ood disaster management. Comput Inf Sci 1:20
Manuta J, Lebel L (2005) Climate change and the risks of ood disasters in Asia: crafting adap-
tive and just institutions. In: International Workshop on Human Security and Climate Change,
University of Chiang Mai, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 21–23, June 2005
Masuya A, Dewan A, Corner RJ (2015) Population evacuation: evaluating spatial distribution of
ood shelters and vulnerable residential units in Dhaka with geographic information systems.
Nat Hazards 78:1859–1882
Mavhura E, Manyena B, Collins AE (2017) An approach for measuring social vulnerability in
context: the case of ood hazards in Muzarabani district, Zimbabwe. Geoforum 86:103–117
Ma J, Li DR, Huq ME, Cheng QM(2020) Remote sensing detection and impact analysis of Tibetan
human landscape in Jiuzhaigou. ISPRS - International Archives of the Photogrammetry,
Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XLII-3/W10:629-633
Mechler R, Hochrainer S, Linnerooth-Bayer J, Pug G (2006) Public sector nancial vulnerability
to disasters: the IIASA CATSIM model. UNU Press, Tokyo
Ming X, Xu W, Li Y, Du J, Liu B, Shi P (2015) Quantitative multi-hazard risk assessment with
vulnerability surface and hazard joint return period. Stoch Env Res Risk A 29:35–44
Mohit MA, Akhter S (2000) Delineation of ood damaged zones of Dhaka City based on the 1998
ood by using GIS Engineering concerns of ood. Bangladesh University of Engineering and
Technology, Dhaka, pp303–318
Muller-Mahn D (2012) The spatial dimension of risk: how geography shapes the emergence of
riskscapes. Routledge, Abingdon
Nagy GJ etal (2019) Climate vulnerability, impacts and adaptation in Central and South America
coastal areas. Reg Stud Mar Sci 29:100683
Okayo J, Odera P, Omuterema S (2015) Socio-economic characteristics of the community that
determine ability to uptake precautionary measures to mitigate ood disaster in Kano Plains,
Kisumu County, Kenya. Geoenviron Disasters 2:4–28
Olorunfemi F (2011) Managing ood disasters under a changing climate: lessons from Nigeria and
South Africa, NISER research seminar series. NISER, Ibadan, pp1–44
Papadopoulos G (2016) Hazard, vulnerability, and risk assessment. In: Papadopoulos G (ed)
Tsunamis in the European-Mediterranean region. Elsevier, Boston, pp137–178
M. E. Huq etal.
451
Pattison-Williams JK, Pomeroy JW, Badiou P, Gabor S (2018) Wetlands, ood control and ecosys-
tem services in the Smith Creek Drainage Basin: a case study in Saskatchewan, Canada. Ecol
Econ 147:36–47
Pokhrel J, Seo J (2019) Natural hazard vulnerability quantication of offshore wind turbine in
shallow water. Eng Struct 192:254–263
Queste A, Lauwe P, Birkmann J (2006) User needs: why we need indicators measuring vulner-
ability to natural hazards: towards disaster resilient societies. United Nations University, Bonn,
pp103–114
Rahman MR, Saha S (2007) Flood hazard zonation–a GIS aided multi criteria evaluation (MCE)
approach with remotely sensed data. Int J Geoinform 3:25–35
Rashid AM (2013) Understanding vulnerability and risks. In: Disaster risk reduction approaches in
Bangladesh. Springer, Tokyo, pp23–43
Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48:9–26
Saleem N, Huq ME, Twmasi NYD, Javed A, Sajjad A (2019) Parameters derived from and/or used
with Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) for landslide susceptibility mapping and landslide risk
assessment: a review. ISPRS Int J Geo Inf 8(12):545–569
Sarker MNI, Yang B, Lv Y, Huq ME, Kamruzzaman MM (2020) Climate change adaptation and
resilience through big data. Int J Adv Comput Sci Appl 11(3):533–539
Schneiderbauer S, Ehrlich D (2006) Social levels and hazard (in) dependence in determining vul-
nerability measuring vulnerability to natural hazards. In: Towards disaster resilient societies.
United Nations University, Bonn, pp78–102
Sebald C (2010) Towards an integrated ood vulnerability index: a ood vulnerability assessment
Master of Science (MSc). University of Twente, Enschede
Shao Z, Cai J, Fu P, Hu L, Liu T (2019a) Deep learning-based fusion of Landsat-8 and Sentinel-2
images for a harmonized surface reectance product. Remote Sens Environ 235:111425
Shao Z, Fu H, Li D, Altan O, Cheng T (2019b) Remote sensing monitoring of multi-scale water-
sheds impermeability for urban hydrological evaluation. Remote Sens Environ 232:111338
Shi P, Shuai J, Chen W, Lu L (2010) Study on large-scale disaster risk assessment and risk transfer
models. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 1:1–8
Shoeb AZM (2002) Flood in Bangladesh: disaster management and reduction of vulnerability– a
geographical approach. University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi
Simpson DM, Katirai M (2006) Measurement and indicators for disasters: topical bibliography.
University of Louisville, School of Urban and Public Affairs, Louisville
Smith LC, Frankenberger TR (2018) Does resilience capacity reduce the negative impact of shocks
on household food security? evidence from the 2014 oods in Northern Bangladesh. World
Dev 102:358–376
Spurlock D (2018) Applications: social vulnerability to disaster (Hampton and Hertford Counties-
Isabel) A2– Horney, Jennifer A.In: Disaster epidemiology. Academic, NewYork, pp113–120
Tapsell S, McCarthy S, Faulkner H, Alexander M (2010) Social vulnerability to natural hazards.
CapHaz-Net WP4 Report. Flood Hazard Research Centre—FHRC, Middlesex University,
London. caphaz-net.org/outcomes-results/CapHaz-Net_WP4_Social-Vulnerability2.pdf (last
access: September 2012)
Timmerman P (1981) Vulnerability, resilience and the collapse of society: a review of models and
possible climatic applications, vol 1. Toronto, Institute for Environmental Studies, University
of Toronto
Turner BL etal (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc Natl
Acad Sci 100:8074–8079
Ujjwal KC, Garg S, Hilton J, Aryal J, Forbes-Smith N (2019) Cloud computing in natural hazard
modeling systems: current research trends and future directions. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct
38:101188
UN/ISDR (2006) International Strategy for Disaster Reduction ISDR (2006). “words into action:
implementing the hyogo framework for action”. Documents for consolation. UNISDR, Geneva
17 Measuring Vulnerability toEnvironmental Hazards: Qualitative toQuantitative
452
UNDP (2004) Human development report 2004: cultural liberty in today’s diverse world. Oxford
University Press, Oxford
UNISDR (2015) Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030 United Nations.
UNISDR, Geneva
Villagrán de León JC (2006) Vulnerability assessment: the sectoral approach. United Nations
University Press, Hong Kong
Walters V, Gaillard JC (2014) Disaster risk at the margins: homelessness, vulnerability and haz-
ards. Habitat Int 44:211–219
Wisner B (2006) Self-assessment of coping capacity: participatory, proactive and qualitative
engagement of communities in their own risk management measuring vulnerability to natural
hazards. In: Towards disaster resilient societies. United Nations University, Bonn, pp316–328
Wisner B (2010) Risk reduction indicators social vulnerability. Annex B-6. TRIAMS Working
Paper-Risk Reduction Indicators
Zakour MJ, Swager CM (2018) Vulnerability-plus theory: the integration of community disas-
ter vulnerability and resiliency theories. In: Zakour MJ, Mock NB, Kadetz P (eds) Creating
Katrina, rebuilding resilience. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp45–78
M. E. Huq etal.
