Validating Resilience and Vulnerability Indices in the Context of Natural Disasters

Due to persistent and serious threats from natural disasters around the globe, many have turned to resilience and vulnerability research to guide disaster preparation, recovery, and adaptation decisions. In response, scholars and practitioners have put forth a variety of disaster indices, based on quantifiable metrics, to gauge levels of resilience and vulnerability. However, few indices are empirically validated using observed disaster impacts and, as a result, it is often unclear which index should be preferred for each decision at hand. Thus, we compare and empirically validate five of the top U.S. disaster indices, including three resilience indices and two vulnerability indices. We use observed disaster losses, fatalities, and disaster declarations from the southeastern United States to empirically validate each index. We find that disaster indices, though thoughtfully substantiated by literature and theoretically persuasive, are not all created equal. While four of the five indices perform as predicted in explaining damages, only three explain fatalities and only two explain disaster declarations as expected by theory. These results highlight the need for disaster indices to clearly state index objectives and structure underlying metrics to support validation of the results based on these goals. Further, policymakers should use index results carefully when developing regional policy or investing in resilience and vulnerability improvement projects.     

A Factor Analysis Approach Toward Reconciling Community Vulnerability and Resilience Indices for Natural Hazards

The concepts of vulnerability and resilience help explain why natural hazards of similar type and magnitude can have disparate impacts on varying communities. Numerous frameworks have been developed to measure these concepts, but a clear and consistent method of comparing them is lacking. Here, we develop a data-driven approach for reconciling a popular class of frameworks known as vulnerability and resilience indices. In particular, we conduct an exploratory factor analysis on a comprehensive set of variables from established indices measuring community vulnerability and resilience at the U.S. county level. The resulting factor model suggests that 50 of the 130 analyzed variables effectively load onto five dimensions: wealth, poverty, agencies per capita, elderly populations, and non–English-speaking populations. Additionally, the factor structure establishes an objective and intuitive schema for relating the constituent elements of vulnerability and resilience indices, in turn affording researchers a flexible yet robust baseline for validating and expanding upon current approaches.     

On Some Recent Definitions and Analysis Frameworks for Risk,Vulnerability, and Resilience

Recently, considerable attention has been paid to a systems‐based approach to risk, vulnerability, and resilience analysis. It is argued that risk, vulnerability, and resilience are inherently and fundamentally functions of the states of the system and its environment. Vulnerability is defined as the manifestation of the inherent states of the system that can be subjected to a natural hazard or be exploited to adversely affect that system, whereas resilience is defined as the ability of the system to withstand a major disruption within acceptable degradation parameters and to recover within an acceptable time, and composite costs, and risks. Risk, on the other hand, is probability based, defined by the probability and severity of adverse effects (i.e., the consequences). In this article, we look more closely into this approach. It is observed that the key concepts are inconsistent in the sense that the uncertainty (probability) dimension is included for the risk definition but not for vulnerability and resilience. In the article, we question the rationale for this inconsistency. The suggested approach is compared with an alternative framework that provides a logically defined structure for risk, vulnerability, and resilience, where all three concepts are incorporating the uncertainty (probability) dimension.     

Disaster Risk Management Policies and the Measurement of Resilience for Philippine Regions

How can a government prioritize disaster risk management policies across regions and types of interventions? Using an economic model to assess welfare risk and resilience to disasters, this article systematically tackles the questions: (1) How much asset and welfare risks does each region in the Philippines face from riverine flood disasters? (2) How resilient is each region to riverine flood disasters? (3) What are, per region, the possible interventions to strengthen resilience to riverine flood disasters and what will be their measured benefit? We study the regions of the Philippines to demonstrate the channels through which macroeconomic asset and output losses from disasters translate to consumption and welfare losses at the micro-economic level. Apart from the regional prioritizations, we identify a menu of policy options ranked according to their level of effectiveness in increasing resilience and reducing welfare risk from riverine floods. The ranking of priorities varies for different regions when their level of expected value at risk is different. This suggests that there are region-specific conditions and drivers that need to be integrated into considerations and policy decisions, so that these are effectively addressed.     

Workforce/Population,Economy, Infrastructure,Geography, Hierarchy,and Time (WEIGHT): Reflections on the Plural Dimensions of Disaster Resilience

The concept of resilience and its relevance to disaster risk management has increasingly gained attention in recent years. It is common for risk and resilience studies to model system recovery by analyzing a single or aggregated measure of performance, such as economic output or system functionality. However, the history of past disasters and recent risk literature suggest that a single-dimension view of relevant systems is not only insufficient, but can compromise the ability to manage risk for these systems. In this article, we explore how multiple dimensions influence the ability for complex systems to function and effectively recover after a disaster. In particular, we compile evidence from the many competing resilience perspectives to identify the most critical resilience dimensions across several academic disciplines, applications, and disaster events. The findings demonstrate the need for a conceptual framework that decomposes resilience into six primary dimensions: workforce/population, economy, infrastructure, geography, hierarchy, and time (WEIGHT). These dimensions are not typically addressed holistically in the literature; often they are either modeled independently or in piecemeal combinations. The current research is the first to provide a comprehensive discussion of each resilience dimension and discuss how these dimensions can be integrated into a cohesive framework, suggesting that no single dimension is sufficient for a holistic analysis of a disaster risk management. Through this article, we also aim to spark discussions among researchers and policymakers to develop a multicriteria decision framework for evaluating the efficacy of resilience strategies. Furthermore, the WEIGHT dimensions may also be used to motivate the generation of new approaches for data analytics of resilience-related knowledge bases.     

GIS‐Based Integration of Social Vulnerability and Level 3 Probabilistic Risk Assessment to Advance Emergency Preparedness,Planning, and Response for Severe Nuclear Power Plant Accidents

In the nuclear power industry, Level 3 probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) is used to estimate damage to public health and the environment if a severe accident leads to large radiological release. Current Level 3 PRA does not have an explicit inclusion of social factors and, therefore, it is not possible to perform importance ranking of social factors for risk‐informing emergency preparedness, planning, and response (EPPR). This article offers a methodology for adapting the concept of social vulnerability, commonly used in natural hazard research, in the context of a severe nuclear power plant accident. The methodology has four steps: (1) calculating a hazard‐independent social vulnerability index for the local population; (2) developing a location‐specific representation of the maximum radiological hazard estimated from current Level 3 PRA, in a geographic information system (GIS) environment; (3) developing a GIS‐based socio‐technical risk map by combining the social vulnerability index and the location‐specific radiological hazard; and (4) conducting a risk importance measure analysis to rank the criticality of social factors based on their contribution to the socio‐technical risk. The methodology is applied using results from the 2012 Surry Power Station state‐of‐the‐art reactor consequence analysis. A radiological hazard model is generated from MELCOR accident consequence code system, translated into a GIS environment, and combined with the Center for Disease Control social vulnerability index (SVI). This research creates an opportunity to explicitly consider and rank the criticality of location‐specific SVI themes based on their influence on risk, providing input for EPPR.     

Discrimination, Vulnerability, and Justice in the Face of Risk

Recent research finds that perceived risk is closely associated with race and gender. In surveys of the American public a subset of white males stand out for their uniformly low perceptions of environmental health risks, while most nonwhite and nonmale respondents reveal higher perceived risk. Such findings have been attributed to the advantageous position of white males in American social life. This article explores the linked possibility that this demographic pattern is driven not simply by the social advantages or disadvantages embodied in race or gender, but by the subjective experience of vulnerability and by sociopolitical evaluations pertaining to environmental injustice. Indices of environmental injustice and social vulnerability were developed as part of a U.S. National Risk Survey (n= 1,192) in order to examine their effect on perceived risk. It was found that those who regarded themselves as vulnerable and supported belief statements consistent with the environmental justice thesis offered higher risk ratings across a range of hazards. Multivariate analysis indicates that our measures of vulnerability and environmental injustice predict perceived risk but do not account for all of the effects of race and gender. The article closes with a discussion of the implications of these findings for further work on vulnerability and risk, risk communication, and risk management practices generally.     

Vulnerability,Risk Perception,and Health Profile of Marginalized People Exposed to Multiple Built‐Environment Stressors in Worcester,Massachusetts: A Pilot Project

Millions of low‐income people of diverse ethnicities inhabit stressful old urban industrial neighborhoods. Yet we know little about the health impacts of built‐environment stressors and risk perceptions in such settings; we lack even basic health profiles. Difficult access is one reason (it took us 30 months to survey 80 households); the lack of multifaceted survey tools is another. We designed and implemented a pilot vulnerability assessment tool in Worcester, Massachusetts. We answer: (1) How can we assess vulnerability to multiple stressors? (2) What is the nature of complex vulnerability—including risk perceptions and health profiles? (3) How can findings be used by our wider community, and what lessons did we learn? (4) What implications arise for science and policy? We sought a holistic picture of neighborhood life. A reasonably representative sample of 80 respondents captured data for 254 people about: demographics, community concerns and resources, time‐activity patterns, health information, risk/stress perceptions, and resources/capacities for coping. Our key findings derive partly from the survey data and partly from our experience in obtaining those data. Data strongly suggest complex vulnerability dominated by psychosocial stress. Unexpected significant gender and ethnic disease disparities emerged: notably, females have twice the disease burden of males, and white females twice the burden of females of color (p < 0.01). Self‐reported depression differentiated by gender and age is illustrative. Community based participatory research (CBPR) approaches require active engagement with marginalized populations, including representatives as funded partners. Complex vulnerability necessitates holistic, participatory approaches to improve scientific understanding and societal responses.     

Perceptions of Risk and Vulnerability Following Exposure to a Major Natural Disaster: The Calgary Flood of 2013

Many studies have examined the general public's flood risk perceptions in the aftermath of local and regional flooding. However, relatively few studies have focused on large‐scale events that affect tens of thousands of people within an urban center. Similarly, in spite of previous research on flood risks, unresolved questions persist regarding the variables that might influence perceptions of risk and vulnerability, along with management preferences. In light of the opportunities presented by these knowledge gaps, the research reported here examined public perceptions of flood risk and vulnerability, and management preferences, within the city of Calgary in the aftermath of extensive flooding in 2013. Our findings, which come from an online survey of residents, reveal that direct experience with flooding is not a differentiating factor for risk perceptions when comparing evacuees with nonevacuees who might all experience future risks. However, we do find that judgments about vulnerability—as a function of how people perceive physical distance—do differ according to one's evacuation experience. Our results also indicate that concern about climate change is an important predictor of flood risk perceptions, as is trust in government risk managers. In terms of mitigation preferences, our results reveal differences in support for large infrastructure projects based on whether respondents feel they might actually benefit from them.     

Earthquake Risk Perception in Bucharest, Romania

The Municipality of Bucharest is one of the capitals with the highest seismic risk in the world. Bucharest is particularly vulnerable to seismic hazard due to: the high density of inhabitants, especially within the residential districts with blocks of flats; the old public utility fund; the out-of-date infrastructure; the numerous industrial parks that are undergoing a restructuring process, not to mention the inefficient organization of civil protection and poor education of the population regarding seismic risk. This research was designed to examine the attitudes and perceptions of people living with the risk of an earthquake hazard in Bucharest. We were interested in how attitudes and perceptions differ depending on gender, age, education, residential area and socioeconomic status, characteristics of seismic hazard, degree of risk exposure, degree of danger, and casualty awareness. At the same time, we compare the results of this study with those from a previous and similar enquiry in 1997. The statistical processing has indicated a significant difference between the declared perception of seismic risk and the independent variables of gender, age, level of education, level of attachment to the residential area, and degree to which the subjects consider they may be affected and could retrieve their losses. Due to the continuous decrease of their living standard, the most vulnerable is the aged population. The feelings toward the residential area is another factor of statistical significance for the population's seismic danger perception. A strong affective bond offers a feeling of safety and leads to the neglect and even total denial of the hazard. In the case of independent variables regarding the type of dwelling, its age, and property form, deviations of empiric values from the theoretical distribution are not relevant for the correlation searched for, which indicates that this issue goes beyond the above-mentioned criteria.     

Rural Nevada and Climate Change: Vulnerability,Beliefs, and Risk Perception

In this article, we present the results of a study investigating the influence of vulnerability to climate change as a function of physical vulnerability, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity on climate change risk perception. In 2008/2009, we surveyed Nevada ranchers and farmers to assess their climate change‐related beliefs, and risk perceptions, political orientations, and socioeconomic characteristics. Ranchers’ and farmers’ sensitivity to climate change was measured through estimating the proportion of their household income originating from highly scarce water‐dependent agriculture to the total income. Adaptive capacity was measured as a combination of the Social Status Index and the Poverty Index. Utilizing water availability and use, and population distribution GIS databases; we assessed water resource vulnerability in Nevada by zip code as an indicator of physical vulnerability to climate change. We performed correlation tests and multiple regression analyses to examine the impact of vulnerability and its three distinct components on risk perception. We find that vulnerability is not a significant determinant of risk perception. Physical vulnerability alone also does not impact risk perception. Both sensitivity and adaptive capacity increase risk perception. While age is not a significant determinant of it, gender plays an important role in shaping risk perception. Yet, general beliefs such as political orientations and climate change‐specific beliefs such as believing in the anthropogenic causes of climate change and connecting the locally observed impacts (in this case drought) to climate change are the most prominent determinants of risk perception.     

A Sensitivity Analysis of the Social Vulnerability Index

The Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI), created by Cutter et al. (2003) , examined the spatial patterns of social vulnerability to natural hazards at the county level in the United States in order to describe and understand the social burdens of risk. The purpose of this article is to examine the sensitivity of quantitative features underlying the SoVI approach to changes in its construction, the scale at which it is applied, the set of variables used, and to various geographic contexts. First, the SoVI was calculated for multiple aggregation levels in the State of South Carolina and with a subset of the original variables to determine the impact of scalar and variable changes on index construction. Second, to test the sensitivity of the algorithm to changes in construction, and to determine if that sensitivity was constant in various geographic contexts, census data were collected at a submetropolitan level for three study sites: Charleston, SC; Los Angeles, CA; and New Orleans, LA. Fifty-four unique variations of the SoVI were calculated for each study area and evaluated using factorial analysis. These results were then compared across study areas to evaluate the impact of changing geographic context. While decreases in the scale of aggregation were found to result in decreases in the variance explained by principal components analysis (PCA), and in increases in the variance of the resulting index values, the subjective interpretations yielded from the SoVI remained fairly stable. The algorithm's sensitivity to certain changes in index construction differed somewhat among the study areas. Understanding the impacts of changes in index construction and scale are crucial in increasing user confidence in metrics designed to represent the extremely complex phenomenon of social vulnerability.     

Integrating Stakeholder Mapping and Risk Scenarios to Improve Resilience of Cyber‐Physical‐Social Networks

The future of energy mobility involves networks of users, operators, organizations, vehicles, charging stations, communications, materials, transportation corridors, points of service, and so on. The integration of smart grids with plug‐in electric vehicle technologies has societal and commercial advantages that include improving grid stability, minimizing dependence on nonrenewable fuels, reducing vehicle emissions, and reducing the cost of electric vehicle ownership. However, ineffective or delayed participation of particular groups of stakeholders could disrupt industry plans and delay the desired outcomes. This article develops a framework to address enterprise resilience for two modes of disruptions—the first being the influence of scenarios on priorities and the second being the influence of multiple groups of stakeholders on priorities. The innovation of this study is to obtain the advantages of integrating two recent approaches: scenario‐based preferences modeling and stakeholder mapping. Public agencies, grid operators, plug‐in electric vehicle owners, and vehicle manufacturers are the four groups of stakeholders that are considered in this framework, along with the influence of four scenarios on priorities.     

Hazard Experience,Geophysical Vulnerability,and Flood Risk Perceptions in a Postdisaster City,the Case of New Orleans

This article investigates the determinants of flood risk perceptions in New Orleans, Louisiana (United States), a deltaic coastal city highly vulnerable to seasonal nuisance flooding and hurricane‐induced deluges and storm surges. Few studies have investigated the influence of hazard experience, geophysical vulnerability (hazard proximity), and risk perceptions in cities undergoing postdisaster recovery and rebuilding. We use ordinal logistic regression techniques to analyze experiential, geophysical, and sociodemographic variables derived from a survey of 384 residents in seven neighborhoods. We find that residents living in neighborhoods that flooded during Hurricane Katrina exhibit higher levels of perceived risk than those residents living in neighborhoods that did not flood. In addition, findings suggest that flood risk perception is positively associated with female gender, lower income, and direct flood experiences. In conclusion, we discuss the implications of these findings for theoretical and empirical research on environmental risk, flood risk communication strategies, and flood hazards planning.     

Risk Perception and Disaster Preparedness in Immigrants and Canadian‐Born Adults: Analysis of a National Survey on Similarities and Differences

Research has documented that immigrants tend to experience more negative consequences from natural disasters compared to native‐born individuals, although research on how immigrants perceive and respond to natural disaster risks is sparse. We investigated how risk perception and disaster preparedness for natural disasters in immigrants compared to Canadian‐born individuals as justifications for culturally‐adapted risk communication and management. To this end, we analyzed the ratings on natural disaster risk perception beliefs and preparedness behaviors from a nationally representative survey (N = 1,089). Factor analyses revealed three underlying psychological dimensions of risk perception: external responsibility for disaster management, self‐preparedness responsibility, and illusiveness of preparedness. Although immigrants and Canadian‐born individuals shared the three‐factor structure, there were differences in the salience of five risk perception beliefs. Despite these differences, immigrants and Canadian‐born individuals were similar in the level of risk perception dimensions and disaster preparedness. Regression analyses revealed self‐preparedness responsibility and external responsibility for disaster management positively predicted disaster preparedness whereas illusiveness of preparedness negatively predicted disaster preparedness in both groups. Our results showed that immigrants’ risk perception and disaster preparedness were comparable to their Canadian‐born counterparts. That is, immigrant status did not necessarily yield differences in risk perception and disaster preparedness. These social groups may benefit from a risk communication and management strategy that addresses these risk perception dimensions to increase disaster preparedness. Given the diversity of the immigrant population, the model remains to be tested by further population segmentation.     

Spatial Risk Analysis of Power Systems Resilience During Extreme Events

The increased frequency of extreme events in recent years highlights the emerging need for the development of methods that could contribute to the mitigation of the impact of such events on critical infrastructures, as well as boost their resilience against them. This article proposes an online spatial risk analysis capable of providing an indication of the evolving risk of power systems regions subject to extreme events. A Severity Risk Index (SRI) with the support of real‐time monitoring assesses the impact of the extreme events on the power system resilience, with application to the effect of windstorms on transmission networks. The index considers the spatial and temporal evolution of the extreme event, system operating conditions, and the degraded system performance during the event. SRI is based on probabilistic risk by condensing the probability and impact of possible failure scenarios while the event is spatially moving across a power system. Due to the large number of possible failures during an extreme event, a scenario generation and reduction algorithm is applied in order to reduce the computation time. SRI provides the operator with a probabilistic assessment that could lead to effective resilience‐based decisions for risk mitigation. The IEEE 24‐bus Reliability Test System has been used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed online risk analysis, which was embedded in a sequential Monte Carlo simulation for capturing the spatiotemporal effects of extreme events and evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed method.     

Vulnerability and Risk: Some Thoughts from a Political and Policy Perspective

Public policies to mitigate the impacts of extreme events such as hurricanes or terrorist attacks will differ depending on whether they focus on reducing risk or reducing vulnerability. Here we present and defend six assertions aimed at exploring the benefits of vulnerability-based policies. (1) Risk-based approaches to covering the costs of extreme events do not depend for their success on reduction of vulnerability. (2) Risk-based approaches to preparing for extreme events are focused on acquiring accurate probabilistic information about the events themselves. (3) Understanding and reducing vulnerability does not demand accurate predictions of the incidence of extreme events. (4) Extreme events are created by context. (5) It is politically difficult to justify vulnerability reduction on economic grounds. (6) Vulnerability reduction is a human rights issue; risk reduction is not.     

Place, Culture, and the Social Amplification of Risk

This article investigates the role of culture in the social production of risks and risk communication surrounding industrial development in a region located at a rural-urban interface. A case study examined a public consultation that was undertaken to inform local residents about an eco-industrial development proposal being planned near Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. The research employed the social amplification of risk framework (SARF) to examine the relationships among culture, place, and socially constructed risk. A total of 44 in-depth, semi-structured interviews were carried out with 33 landowners (farmers, acreage owners), public officials (municipal politicians, administrators), journalists, and industry representatives. Analysis revealed that risk communication occurred in relation to situated experiences of place that were based on conflicting cultural worldviews. The research shows that place is a useful component of the SARF, providing a spatial explanation for why some people amplify, and others attenuate, risks in locally contentious environmental debates.     

PFI项目特点对项目风险事件和脆弱性的影响

不同特点的项目需要不同的管理手段与之相匹配,这样才能有效的提高项目成功率.PFI是一种公私合营的项目运营方式.它的基本目标在于充分利用私有部门的资源来为公共部门项目提供优良的服务.在目前的文献中,还缺少对于PFI项目特点与项目成功(失败)之间关系的研究.对于PFI项目的特点在项目风险过程中所起的作用不是很清楚.通过分析5个英国PFI项目,本文识别出PFI项目的一些特点:新奇性、长期性、高复杂性、紧联结性、高度战略性、多目标性和严格的法律法规限制.本文提出PFI项目的这些特点在一定程度上与项目组织活动和管理活动相互作用,一方面提高了项目风险事件发生的概率,另一方面能够增加项目脆弱性.这些机制说明拥有这些特点的PFI项目需求很高的项目管理能力.