VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS AND RISKASSESSMENT
UNDERSTANDING VULNERABILITY
Vulnerability is defined in the United Nations Disaster Management Training Programme
(1994) as the “degree of loss to a given element at risk (or set of elements) resulting from a
given hazard and a given severity level.” The concept of vulnerability can be assessed at
various levels and from diverse perspectives. Both physical scientists and social scientists are
involved in conceptualising vulnerability. Experts from the following fields are involved in
study and analyses of vulnerability; Engineering/physical science, climate science, policy
development studies, economics, disaster management, health, and social sciences along
with others. Each of these relates only themselves to a partial understanding of vulnerability.
There is a need to rise above specialisations and take an across- the- board, interdisciplinary
and cross-cultural view of the issue of vulnerability for complete and holistic analysis and
policy formulation in the area. Physical vulnerability has also to be understood in the context
of political conflict, issues of class struggle, unequal access to power and social
backwardness to formulate comprehensive vulnerability reduction approach.
The attempt on the part of all involved specialists/academics is to get closer to the root
causes of vulnerability. The more closely the research focuses on the underlying reasons of a
vulnerability rather than its symptomatic elements, the more challenging and complex the
vulnerability is to resolve. However, the more fundamental the vulnerability addressed, the
more hazard-resistant the vulnerable group is likely to become as a result.
As per Terry Cannon (2000), Social Vulnerability is the complex set of characteristics that
include a person’s:
• initial well-being (nutritional status, physical and mental health, morale),
• livelihood and resilience (asset pattern and capitals, income and exchange options,
qualifications),
• self-protection (the degree of protection afforded by capability and willingness to
build safe home, use safe site),
• social protection (forms of hazard preparedness provided by society more generally,
for example, building codes, mitigation measures, shelters, preparedness), and
• social and political networks and institutions (the role of institutional environment in
setting good conditions for hazard precautions, peoples’ rights to express needs and
of access to preparedness).
The vulnerability conditions are themselves determined by processes and factors that are
apparently quite different from a hazard, which is mistakenly attributed to one single cause
1
of loss. All the vulnerability variables are inherently connected with peoples’ livelihoods
(lower vulnerability is likely when livelihoods are adequate and sustainable), and their innate
resilience related with issues such as poverty (in most disasters). It is mostly the poor who
are disproportionately more at Risk than other groups, and much less capable of recovering
easily.
Some Related concepts:
• Sensitivity: The degree of proneness of a particular ‘element at risk’ to a particular
threat, such as climate risk, land degradation etc. Sensitivity would refer to the
degree of change that would be brought about as response in one variable that is
correlated to the other. Assessing Sensitivity would involve working out the
correlation.
• Resilience is explained as fortitude in the face of a potential threat. In one word, it
means resistance.
• Adaptive capacity refers to preparedness through additional means. It means how
much absorption capacity is there or how much is needed by policy intervention in
order to withstand natural changes and how to adapt to them. For example, retreat of
glaciers in the Himalayas due to global warming, or changes in harvest seasons that
could be possible (grain suffers due to early summer) would need to be tackled
through adaptation measures such as resistant varieties of seeds, manures, innovative
irrigation techniques, etc.
Differential Vulnerability: To understand differential vulnerability of different segments of
population in a given area exposed in the same measure to a given hazard, it is important to
inquire into the differential causes of vulnerability. It encompasses poverty, marginalisation,
or other deprivations that emphasize the vulnerability to hazards that affect particularly the
sections of the population who are disadvantaged. Vulnerability analysis (VA) should be
capable of directing development aid interventions and government policy interventions
to protect and enhance peoples’ livelihoods, assist vulnerable people in their own attempts at
self-protection, and support institutions in their role of disaster prevention.
VULNERABILITY AND CAPACITY
Vulnerability and Capacity are at opposite extremes of a spectrum. People who have a high
degree of vulnerability are low in capacity and vice versa. There is no need to have ‘separate
set of factors’ that should be considered as vulnerability factors or capacities or capabilities.
There are simply scales on which high levels of capacity axiomatically indicate low level of
vulnerability. At the same time, capacity might include institutional membership, group
cohesion, or even literacy, which positions people better to cope with adverse conditions.
Being part of a particular network may be a capacity, or a denial of capacity to others, as is
the case with cohesion norms based on caste behaviour in India.
2
Instead of Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis (VCA), the term employed now is Capacity
and Vulnerability Analysis (CVA), signifying the change in approach from vulnerability
reduction to capacity enhancement, as policy focus/emphasis. It has been realised that a lot
more effectiveness in disaster response and mitigation could be achieved if the emphasis
shifted from undertaking vulnerabilities singly, to reinforcing capacities that enable
communities to fight disasters and recover after suffering losses from any such event. To
refer to someone as vulnerable is to treat them like helpless victims, ignoring the various
abilities that enable them to defend themselves against hazards.
The Vulnerability and Capacity can be physical/material, social/organisational/ or
motivational/attitudinal.
Physical/Material Vulnerability and Capacity: The most visible area of vulnerability is
physical/material deficiency. Variables include land, climate, environment, health, skills and
labour, infrastructure, housing, finance and technologies to which the poor are denied access.
Poor people suffer from crises more often than the rich because they have little or no savings,
few income or production options, and limited resources. They are more vulnerable and also
recover more slowly. To understand physical/material vulnerability, one has to ask what
made the people affected by the disaster physically vulnerable. It can be their economic
activities (for example, farmers cannot plant because of floods), or geographic location
(for example. homes built in cyclone-prone areas) or lack of access to relief resources that
made them suffer particularly.
Social/Organisational Vulnerability and Capacity: How society is organised, its internal
conflicts and how it manages them are just as important as the physical/material aspects of
vulnerability, though less visible and less well understood. This includes ‘formal political
structures’ and the ‘informal systems’ through which people get politically empowered/
socially networked. It determines access to relief in disaster times and to livelihood means in
general. For example, during the 2004 tsunami, it was realised that aid did not reach many
because of caste seclusion. Hence, constitutional provisions/guarantees provided in the
Constitution under articles, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, that safeguard the rights of the socially
marginalised would need to be invoked in future in such possibilities.
Poor societies that are well- organised and cohesive can withstand or recover from disasters
better than those that are ill- organised or lacking in cohesion on some irrational principle as
divisiveness on race, religion, and class or caste lines.To explore this aspect in depth, one has
to ask what the social structure was before the disaster struck and how well it served the
people in relief and recovery. One can also ask what impact disasters had on social
organisation. There has been evidence of attitudes changing or even new ‘permutations and
combinations’ emerging in social alignments in post-disaster situations. This highlights the
significance of research into social networks/attitudes and how improvements could be
affected, possibly through policy interventions to reinforce/discourage behaviour as
aforestated.
3
Motivational/Attitudinal Vulnerability and Capacity: This implies how people in society
view themselves and their ability to protect themselves in the event of disasters. Groups that
share strong ideologies or belief systems, or have experience in cooperating successfully,
may be better able to help each other at times of disaster than groups without such shared
beliefs or those who feel fatalistic or dependent. Crises can stimulate communities to make
extraordinary efforts. Questions to be asked include; what people’s beliefs and motivations
are and how they affect their behaviour during disasters. The more relevant question would
be: What is the general worldview, in terms of whether societies believe in human action or
rely on some sort of metaphysical regulation of life? Public policy intervention in this case
would need to aim at changing attitudes within communities, since such attitudes could be
counter- productive. Long-term measures in this respect would be education of the masses,
through which cognitive development could be achieved.
VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS
Once knowledge is gained of the threats, their expected severity and locations at risk, an
understanding of what can be affected by these threats and to what degree, is required for
mitigation. This activity is termed vulnerability assessment.
People’s lives and health are directly at Risk from the destructive effects of hazards. Their
incomes and livelihoods are at Risk because of the destruction of buildings, crops, livestock
or equipment, which they depend on. Even if physical loss is avoided, the effects on
livelihood can last a long time. Often, previous levels of existence are not re-attained; for
example, fire in an informal market may not kill anybody, yet may destroy goods and
therefore livelihoods of market traders. Thus vulnerability assessment aims not just to
recognise who is immediately affected but also who is most or least able to recover from
disasters.
The objective of vulnerability assessment is in particular, to identify who is most/more
vulnerable and why.
Vulnerability Analysis implies/reinforces the political economy approach to disaster
management which places the responsibility of taking the lead and implementing changes on
the state. State has to mobilise efforts for structural mitigation measures for hazard
prevention and establish the environment for non-structural mitigating measures by taking
steps to institutionalise and/or enhance social capital in order to promote community self-
help etc.
Some examples:
• High numbers of deaths accompanying earthquakes almost always result from
structural collapse of poor, low-cost houses. Tokyo, Japan, and Managua, Nicaragua,
are prone to earthquakes. But the people of Tokyo are far less vulnerable to injury by
4
earthquakes because Tokyo has strictly enforced building codes, zoning regulations
and earthquake training and communications systems. In Managua, there are still
many people living in top-heavy mud houses on hillsides. They are vulnerable.
• Landslides or flooding disasters are closely linked to rapid and unchecked
urbanisation that forces low-income families to settle on the slopes of steep hillsides
or ravines, or along the banks of flood-prone rivers.
• Famines can be closely linked to shortages of purchasing power caused by rural
unemployment or a sudden influx of refugees into a country from a strife-torn
neighbouring country.
• In other disasters, such as cyclones and tsunamis, humans can increase their
vulnerability by removing bits of their natural environment that may act as buffers to
these extreme natural forces. Such acts include destroying reefs, cutting natural
windbreaks and clearing inland forests. The poor countries that suffer the worst
disasters are those in which environmental degradation is proceeding most rapidly.
Countries with severe deforestation, erosion, over cultivation and overgrazing tend to
be hardest hit by disasters.
Process of Vulnerability Analysis
Most of disaster mitigation work is focused on reducing vulnerability, and in order to do so,
development planners need an understanding and indication of which elements are most at
Risk from the principal hazards, which have been identified. Vulnerability assessment to
hazards usually takes place in the following two-stage sequence:
i. Making an inventory of what is at Risk: Once the possibility of hazards in any location
or area is known, it is necessary to find out what may be affected by them. Thus base
line data is required on the following:
• Population; age, gender, health
• Livelihoods; types, locations
• Local economies
• Agriculture and fisheries
• Buildings
• Infrastructure
• Cultural assets (that is, libraries, museums, historic buildings etc.)
• Local institutions
ii. Assessing the vulnerability of elements at Risk: After an inventory has been prepared of
the elements at Risk, further examination is required as to how they will be affected by
hazards to make accurate assessment of the Risk. A quantification of the elements
5
existing in any location is relatively straightforward. But, an assessment of how they
will be affected in a hazard event is harder to assess. The ‘intangible’ aspects of
vulnerability will be as important as the quantifiable aspects. These should include the
evaluation of socio-economic vulnerability and individual or societal “coping
mechanisms” as well as support systems, which allow some people to cope with the
impact of a hazard and recover from them comparatively faster.
The most difficult vulnerabilities to address are based on exclusion from social, economic
and political systems, which often determine capacities/vulnerabilities of people, since these
are rooted in the history and culture of the people. These vulnerabilities may reflect
characteristics such as biases based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity, social class, age, etc.
These most fundamental vulnerabilities limit people’s access to resources, opportunities,
services, information and ultimately deny people’s choice in control over their lives.
Vulnerability assessment is therefore another complex data collection process to determine
what ‘elements’ are ’at risk’. These include social, economic and natural and physical
factors. It is always a ‘site-specific’ process with a concern for unique characteristics of a
local situation and will always require local expertise and experience.
RISK ASSESSMENT
The term ‘risk’ refers to the expected losses from a given hazard to a given element at Risk,
over a specified time period. Risk combines the expected losses from all levels of hazard
severity, taking account also of their occurrence probability. Risk presentation is done in
aggregate terms as, for example, 75% probability of economic losses to property
experiencing heavy damage or destruction in the particular town within the next ten years.
Risk assessment is defined as: “A process of analysis to identify and measure risks from
hazards that affect people, property and the environment. This process can also encompass
the assessment of available resources to address the risks.” (Vulnerability and Risk
Assessment, DMTP, UNDP, 1994). Risk assessment forms a crucial early phase in the
disaster management planning cycle and is essential in determining what disaster mitigation
measures should be undertaken to reduce potential future losses. Any attempt to reduce the
impact of a disaster requires an analysis that indicates what ‘threats’ exist, their expected
severity, who, or what they may affect, and why. Knowledge of what makes a person or a
community more vulnerable than another, added to the resources and capacities available,
determine the steps we can take to reduce Risk they are exposed to.
Risk assessment is carried out as a series of related activities, which builds up a picture of the
hazards and vulnerabilities, and explain disaster losses. Information is first collected on the
specific location, severity, duration and frequency of threats that are faced by a society. This
is followed by an assessment of potential hazard impacts on the society’s livelihoods,
economy, infrastructure and key facilities, etc.
6
Risk assessment has two central components:
i. Hazard Analysis: understanding the scale, nature and characteristics of a hazard; and
ii. Vulnerability Analysis: the measuring of the extent to which people or buildings are
likely to suffer from a hazard occurrence.
Any change in either of these two components will correspondingly affect a change in the
nature or size of the Risk faced. Once data has been collected and analysed on both the
‘threat’ and what is/are ’at risk’ to it, the information has to be passed on in an appropriate
format to decision makers to determine the levels of ‘acceptable risk’ and what actions
should be taken to reduce the Risk(s). The next step will be to decide whether to start risk
reduction measures, when to do so, how much protection is needed, and whether there are
any other, more urgent threats that need to be addressed with the limited resources at hand.
Understanding Risk and taking decisions is therefore a two- part process, involving both risk
evaluation and risk assessment.
The term “risk assessment” refers to the scientific measurement of risk using historical data
on the types of hazards, the intensity of incidents, the extent of damage, and any likely
changes in any of the factors mentioned. Risk Evaluation is the social and political judgment
about the importance of various risks faced by individuals and communities. It involves
prioritising between risks, which is frequently a political process because it requires
allocating resources between conflicting interests. Risk assessment is therefore mainly a
scientific and quantitative process, which provides input for/impacts public policy for risk
mitigation and preparedness. The data is incorporated in disaster reduction
policy/programmes which depend on risk evaluation (perception of the risk in relation to
other priorities). The more accurate the diagnosis of the problem, more successful would be
the strategy, and also cost- effective since resources available to meet it are limited, even in
developed countries.
CONDUCTING RISK ASSESSMENT
By using past historical records and an analysis of scientific data estimates can be made of
the likelihood of hazard occurrence and expected severity. Related to estimates of what is
vulnerable to various hazards, Risk can be defined in terms of the probability, that is, the
likelihood of losses and estimation of the proportion of the population or property, which will
be affected.
A statistical analysis is done to arrive at an appropriate statistical model that relates Risk
posed by a disaster to socio-economic parameters. For example, UNDP (United Nations
Development Programme) carried out an exercise to relate the Risk posed by natural
disasters such as earthquakes, tropical cyclones, floods and drought etc. to specific socio-
economic factors like HDI (Human Development Index), rate of urban growth etc. The study
was carried out for more than 90 countries over a period of 20 years.
7
Statistical analysis is based on two major assumptions; one, that Risk can be measured in
terms of the number of victims of past hazardous events, and second that the equation of
Risk follows a ‘multiplicative model,’ in which the risk equation is determined by
multiplying in the appropriate “factor” values in each case.
Example Methodology
The number of people killed by a disaster is a measure of Risk. The equation of Risk follows
a multiplicative model where the number of people killed is related to socio-economic
factors and number of people exposed to the Risk by the following equation
K = C. (PhExp)α. V1α1 .V2α2….VNαN
Where,
K is the number of people killed by the disaster
C is a multiplicative constant
PhExp physical exposure
V1-N, are socio economic parameters
α1-N is the exponent of V1-N
In case of earthquakes, the socio-economic parameter is urban growth, in case of cyclones,
percentage of arable land and human development index; in case of floods, local population
density and gross domestic product; in case of droughts, percentage of population with
access to improved water supply.
The process of risk assessment is usually conducted in the following sequence:
Hazard Analysis: Hazard information is needed on such matters as location, frequency,
duration and severity of each hazard type. Risk assessment should be carried out in relation
to all the hazards in a given location.
Hazard maps present graphically, the annual probability and magnitude of the event. It needs
intensive geological analysis of the area, along with a study of past records. Other
confirmatory evidence such as soil composition analysis to predict landslides or the NDVI
(normalised drought vegetation index) to predict droughts may be used. In case of
inadequacy of temporal data to predict the recurrence of an event, corroborative evidence can
be gathered from geological ‘hints’ such as silt deposit, high water marks, deposits in case
of floods, and past fault lines in case of earthquakes, and, human records as the main source
evidence regarding hazardprobability in all cases.
The level of severity of natural hazards can be quantified in terms of the magnitude of
occurrence as a whole (event parameter) or in terms of the effect theoccurrence would have at
a particular location site (site parameter). Hazard occurrence is expressed in terms of average
expected rate of occurrence of the event or on a probabilistic basis. In either case, the annual
8
occurrence rates are usually used. The inverse of an annual recurrence rate is a return period.
For example, “there is an annual probability of .08 of an earthquake with a magnitude
exceeding 7.0 in Eastern Turkey. “This is effectively the same thing as saying, “the average
return period of an earthquake of M=7.0 in eastern Turkey is 12.5 years.” Rare events like
volcanoes are hard to predict since adequate historical data is not available. It may be
possible for geologists to analyse old lava flows and try to date the eruption frequency from
that. Smaller more frequent events can also be studied for indications of severity of future
large-scale events.
By evaluating the Risk of various hazards to which the country is liable or potentially liable,
it becomes practicable to formulate strategies to mitigate the impact of hazards in a cost-
effective way. If a community is especially vulnerable to a particular type of disaster, severe
risk treatment measures may be required to reduce the disaster risk to ‘acceptable levels’.
Vulnerability Analysis: Vulnerability analysis, as has been explained earlier, starts with
creating an inventory of all elements that are ’at risk’ to the identified hazards such as social
groups, buildings, infrastructure, economic assets, agriculture etc. This is followed by an
assessment of their susceptibility and an estimation of damage and losses. Vulnerability
analysis includes an assessment of resources or capacities to meet and recover from
hazardous events.
Risk Evaluation and determining levels of Acceptable Risk
Once data on the nature of the hazards and vulnerability have been collected, synthesised and
analysed, it is passed inan appropriate format to decision makers to enable them to determine
levels of acceptable Risk leading to levels of protection. These decisions will be made
according to risk perception, knowledge of possibilities to reduce the threat and other
priorities. High level of risk perception determines the amount of money that would be spent
for a flood dyke project or retrofitting of buildings, for example. If the Risk is extreme
something has to be done promptly. Acceptable Risk refers to the best possible management
practise within the limitations in order to maximise the protection of people and property.
For example, buildings could be hazard proof to the extent that they allow enough time for
the occupants to escape. They might not be fully hazard resistant and they may suffer damage
but not totally collapse under pressure. Depending on the level of risk perception and
acceptable Risk among communities and policymakers, hazard proofing is attempted.
RISK MAPPING
Risks can be vividly depicted through maps. Methods developed for near accurate
estimations include f: N curves, scenario mapping, potential loss etc.
f:N Curves: Here “f” stands for frequency of disaster event and “N” denotes the number of
casualties. Data on the size and frequency of disaster occurrences for a particular country can
be plotted as f: N curves. These involve plotting the frequency of events causing greater than
a certain number of fatalities. Different numbers of casualties (or magnitude of losses
9
expressed in some other way) are plotted for different frequency of occurrence on x and y-
axis on a graph respectively. However, such relationships always show aggregated losses for
a large region over a period of time. They do not help identify the geographical distribution
of damage.
Scenario Mapping: In scenario mapping, the presentation of the impact of a single hazard is
attempted. Circles and shaded regions on a map are used to depict settlements and building
types, low density and high-density areas etc. to assess damage likely in particular locations,
based on past experience and development since the last event. Hence a scenario map can
identify ‘communities at risk’ and regions at Risk. Hot spots thus located are the foci of
restorative and regenerative activities post- disaster. Scenario mapping is used to estimate the
resources likely to be needed to handle an emergency. The number of people killed and
injured and the losses likely with respect to other ‘elements’ are estimated. These can be
used to determine the resources required for healthcare, housing for the homeless, and other
efforts to shorten the time needed for recovery. For example assessing the state of the present
infrastructure can aid damage assessment in the event of an earthquake. The diagram given
below, adapted from DMTP (1994), describes a scenario of an earthquake of 7.2 magnitude
hitting the Bursa Province in Turkey. This kind of exercise helps preparedness planning
when an earthquake strikes.
10
The following table accompanies the map.
11
Potential Loss Studies: Mapping the impact of expected hazard occurrence probability
across a region or country shows the location of communities likely to suffer heavy losses. It
combines the risk, differential vulnerabilities and physical vulnerabilities of each hazard
prone zone. The effect of the hazard of each area is calculated for each of the communities
within those areas to identify the communities most at Risk. This shows for example which
towns or villages likely to suffer heaviest losses, which should be priorities for loss
reduction programs, and which are likely to need most aid or rescue assistance in the event of
disaster of differing magnitudes.
Annualised Risk Mapping: The annualised specific Risk from any hazard at any location
is the average expected total losses from all events over a time period. The probability of
each level of hazard occurring within a unit time period is combined with the consequence
of that level of hazard to generate the expected losses probable/expected in that time.
Summing up the losses from all levels of hazards gives the total losses likely over a time
period. Hence an annualised risk map gives the total losses over both time and space. Areas
of concentration of damage over a year in a given area are depicted on the map. It is
expressed as a proportion of the total value (or number) of the total population at Risk. This
could be better understood with reference to the following map, derived and adapted for this
work from the UNDP Disaster Management Training Programme, 1994.
Earthquake Risk: The Dark lines give specific Risk (% annual housing loss based on mean
village performance): Dotted lines give specific Risk exceeded by 75% of villages.
12
LOSS PARAMETERS FOR RISK ANALYSIS
As per DMTP (1994), tangible and intangible losses or loss parameters in disasters is
represented in a tabular form as follows:
CONCLUSION
Almost all communities live in situations that expose them to some hazard or the other.
These hazards include natural ones such as earthquakes and cyclones, as well as man-made
ones such as industrial accidents and pollution. Disadvantaged sections of communities are
more vulnerable to the hazards. Vulnerability can be in terms of poverty, low financial
resources, poorly built houses and so on. At the same time communities also have some
inherent capacities, which could be in the form of strong social grouping, and local
infrastructure such as strong buildings of religious or community places. Vulnerability
analysis informs us of the extent and impact of vulnerability while risk assessment goes a
step further to look at the net probability of a disaster occurrence, given the status of hazards,
vulnerability and capacity.
13
