Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-ggqkh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-01T07:31:20.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - Vulnerability analysis in geomorphic risk assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2011

By
Gabi Hufschmidt  and
Thomas Glade
Edited by
Irasema Alcántara-Ayala  and
Andrew S. Goudie
Irasema Alcántara-Ayala
Affiliation:
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City
Andrew S. Goudie
Affiliation:
St Cross College, Oxford
Get access

Summary

Rationale

The application of vulnerability concepts within the discipline of geomorphology is relatively new. Due to the lack of a theory of its own, the usage of these concepts for geomorphic risk assessments is not without pitfalls. A first step towards avoiding these pitfalls is to recognise and appreciate the theoretical backgrounds and meanings in other fields of research. Consequently, it is fundamental to review these concepts carefully and to link them – where possible – to our own discipline of geomorphology. Indeed, some of the reviewed concepts are distant to geomorphic applications. However, it is important to acknowledge their meanings in order to distinguish different aspects linked to various scientific roots. The major aim of this contribution is to review these scientific roots and their vulnerability concepts, to provide ideas for applying these concepts within geomorphology and to give some examples to illustrate advances, but also pitfalls.

The first part of this chapter outlines the series of key developments in vulnerability research, and then builds the (historical) framework for vulnerability analysis in geomorphic risk reduction strategies. The common approach and methodology of vulnerability analysis from a geomorphic (i.e. natural science) perspective is reviewed and discussed in the context presented.

Different vulnerability approaches towards risk reduction

Research in the fields of natural hazard and risk research has diversified substantially during its relatively short history. A series of key developments can be identified:

  1. the notion of risk changed from expressing the likelihood of geophysical processes occurring, such as a landslide, to a concept that includes the possible overall adverse effects on people and their (built) environment;

  2. […]

Type
Chapter
Information
Geomorphological Hazards and Disaster Prevention , pp. 233 - 244
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aceves-Quesada, J. F., Díaz-Salgado, J. and López-Blanco, J. (2007). Vulnerability assessment in a volcanic risk evaluation in Central Mexico through a multi-criteria-GIS approach. Natural Hazards, 40(2), 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 268–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, D. (2005). Vulnerability to landslides. In Glade, T., Anderson, M. and Crozier, M. J. (eds.), Landslide Hazard and Risk. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 175–198.Google Scholar
Allen, K. (2003). Vulnerability reduction and the community-based approach. In Pelling, M. (ed.), Natural Disasters and Development in a Globalizing World. London, New York: Routledge, pp. 170–184.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. and Holcombe, L. (2006). Purpose-driven public sector reform: the need for within-government capacity build for the management of slope stability in communities in the Caribbean. Environmental Management, 37(1), 15–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,AS/NZS (2004). Risk Management Guidelines, AS/NZS 4360:2004. Sydney, Wellington: Standards Australia International Ltd. and Standards New Zealand.Google Scholar
Bankoff, G. (2004). The historical geography of disaster: ‘vulnerability’ and ‘local knowledge’. In Bankoff, G., Frerks, G. and Hilhorst, D. (eds.), Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People. London: Earthscan, pp. 25–36.Google Scholar
Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Birkmann, J. (2006). Indicators and criteria for measuring vulnerability: theoretical bases and requirements. In Birkmann, J. (ed.), Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards Towards Disaster Resilient Societies. Tokyo: United Nations University, pp. 55–77.Google Scholar
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and Wisner, B. (1994a). At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability, and Disasters. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bohle, H. G., Downing, T. E. and Watts, M. J. (1994). Climate-change and social vulnerability: toward a sociology and geography of food insecurity. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 4(1), 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollin, C. and Hidajat, R. (2006). Community-based disaster risk index: pilot implementation in Indonesia. In Birkmann, J. (ed.), Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards Towards Disaster Resilient Societies. Tokyo: United Nations University, pp. 271–289.Google Scholar
Boruff, B. J., Emrich, C. and Cutter, S. L. (2005). Erosion hazard vulnerability of U.S. coastal counties. Journal of Coastal Research, 21(5), 932–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briguglio, L. (1995). Small island developing states and their economic vulnerabilities. World Development, 23(9), 1615–1632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briguglio, L. (2003). Methodological and Practical Considerations for Constructing Socioeconomic Indicators to Evaluate Disaster Risk. IDB/IDEA Program of indicators for disaster risk management, National University of Colombia: Manizales.Google Scholar
Burton, I. and Hewitt, K. (1974). Ecological dimensions of environmental hazards. In Sargent, F. II (ed.), Human Ecology. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, pp. 253–283.Google Scholar
Burton, I., Kates, R. W. and White, G. F. (1968). The Human Ecology of Extreme Geophysical Events, Toronto: Department of Geography, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Burton, I., Kates, R. W. and White, G. F. (1978). The Environment as Hazard. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burton, I., Kates, R. W. and White, G. F. (1993). The Environment as Hazard. New York, London: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Cardona, O. (2004). Curriculum adaptation and disaster prevention in Colombia. In Stoltman, J., Lidstone, J. and Dechano, L. (eds.), International Perspectives on Natural Disasters: Occurrence, Mitigation, and Consequences. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 397–408.Google Scholar
Cardona, O. D. (2005). Indicators of Disaster Risk and Risk Management. Program for Latin America and the Caribbean, Summary Report. Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), Sustainable Development Department.Google Scholar
Cardona, O. D. (2006). A system of indicators for disaster risk management in the Americas. In Birkmann, J. (ed.), Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards. Tokyo: United Nations University Press: pp. 189–209.Google Scholar
Carney, D. (ed.) (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: what contribution can we make? Paper presented at the Department for International Development's Natural Resources Advisers Conference: London.
Copans, J. (1983). The Sahelian drought: social sciences and the political economy of underdevelopment. In Hewitt, K. (ed.), Interpretations of Calamity From the Viewpoint of Human Ecology. Winchester: Allen & Unwin Inc., pp. 83–97.Google Scholar
Corominas, J., Copons, R., Moya, J.et al. (2005). Quantitative assessment of the residual risk in a rockfall protected area. Landslides, 2, 343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crozier, M. J. and Glade, T. (2005). Landslide hazard and risk: issues, concepts, and approach. In Glade, T., Anderson, M. G. and Crozier, M. J. (eds.), Landslide Hazard and Risk. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 1–38.Google Scholar
Cuny, F. C. (1983). Disasters and Development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cutter, S. L. (1996). Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography, 20(4), 529–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutter, S. L. (2003). The vulnerability of science and the science of vulnerability. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutter, S. L., Mitchell, J. T. and Scott, M. S. (2000). Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(4), 713–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J. and Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, F. C., Lee, C. F. and Ngai, Y. Y. (2002). Landslide risk assessment and management: an overview. Engineering Geology, 64(1), 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, R. (1997). An Urban Earthquake Disaster Risk Index. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Centre, Stanford University, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
Davidson, R. and Lambert, K. B. (2001). Comparing the hurricane disaster risk of U.S. coastal counties. Natural Hazards Review, 2(3), 132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, R. and Shah, H. C. (1998). Evaluation and Use of the Earthquake Disaster Risk Index. Understanding Urban Seismic Risk Around the World Project, Stanford University, Stanford, California.Google Scholar
Ford, J. (2004). Inuit adaptive strategies and environmental conditions. Nunavut Research Institute conference, 26 July 2004.
Fuchs, S. and Bründl, M. (2005). Damage potential and losses resulting from snow avalanches in settlements of the canton of Grisons, Switzerland. Natural Hazards, 34(1), 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, S., Heiss, K. and Hübl, J. (2007). Towards an empirical vulnerability function for use in debris flow risk assessment. Natural Hazard and Earth System Science, 7, 495–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gall, M. (2007). Indices of Social Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: A Comparative Evaluation. University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
Glade, T. (2003). Vulnerability assessment in landslide risk analysis. Die Erde, 134(2), 121–138.Google Scholar
Glade, T., Anderson, M. G. and Crozier, M. J. (eds.) (2005). Landslide Hazard and Risk. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRef
Heijmans, A. (2004). From vulnerability to empowerment. In Bankoff, G., Frerks, G. and Hilhorst, D. (eds.), Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People. London: Earthscan, pp. 114–127.Google Scholar
Hewitt, K. (1983). The idea of calamity in a technocratic age. In Hewitt, K. (ed.), Interpretations of Calamity From the Viewpoint of Human Ecology. Winchester: Allen & Unwin Inc, pp. 3–32.Google Scholar
Hewitt, K. (1997). Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters. Harlow, Essex: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.Google Scholar
Hewitt, K. and Burton, I. (1971). The Hazardousness of a Place: A Regional Ecology of Damaging Events. Research Publication 6. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Hollenstein, K. (2005). Reconsidering the risk assessment concept: standardizing the impact description as a building block for vulnerability assessment. Natural Hazard and Earth System Science, 5, 301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollenstein, K., Bieri, O. and Stueckelberger, J. (2002). Modellierung der Vulnerability von Schadensobjekten gegenueber Naturgefahrenprozessen. Zürich: ETHZ.Google Scholar
Hufschmidt, G., Crozier, M. J. and Glade, T. (2005). Evolution of natural risk: research framework and perspectives. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 5, 375–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,IUGS Working Group on Landslides: Committee on Risk Assessment (1997). Quantitative assessment for slopes and landslides: The state of the art. In Cruden, D. M. and Fell, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Landslide Risk Assessment, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 19–21 February 1997. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, pp. 3–12.Google Scholar
Karlsson, S., Dahl, L., Biggs, A. L.et al. (2007). Conceptual challenges. In Hak, T., Moldan, B. and Dahl, L. (eds.), Sustainability Indicators. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp. 27–48.Google Scholar
Kates, R. W. (1970). Natural Hazard in Human Ecological Perspective: Hypotheses and Models. Working Paper 14. Department of Geography, University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
Kates, R. W. (1985). The interaction of climate and society. In Kates, R. W., Ausubel, J. H. and Berberian, M. (eds.), Climate Impact Assessment. New York: Wiley, pp. 3–36.Google Scholar
Leone, F., Asté, J. P. and Leroi, E. (1996). Vulnerability assessment of elements exposed to mass-movement: working toward a better risk perception. In Senneset, K. (ed.), Landslides. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, pp. 263–270.Google Scholar
Liu, X. L. and Lei, J. Z. (2003). A method for assessing regional debris flow risk: an application in Zhaotong of Yunnan province (SW China). Geomorphology, 52(3–4), 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, X. L., Yue, Z. Q., Tham, L. G. and Lee, C. F. (2002). Empirical assessment of debris flow risk on a regional scale in Yunnan province, southwestern China. Environmental Management, 30(2), 249–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lu, G., Chiu, L. and Wong, D. (2007). Vulnerability assessment of rainfall-induced debris flows in Taiwan. Natural Hazards, 43(2), 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael-Leiba, M., Baynes, F., Scott, G. and Granger, K. (2003). Regional landslide risk to the Cairns community. Natural Hazards, 30, 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael-Leiba, M., Baynes, F., Scott, G. and Granger, K. (2005). Quantitative landslide risk assessment of Cairns, Australia. In Glade, T., Anderson, M. B. and Crozier, M. J. (eds.), Landslide Hazard and Risk. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 621–642.Google Scholar
Mitchell, K. (1990). Human dimensions of environmental hazards. In Kirby, A. (ed.), Nothing to Fear. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, pp. 131–175.Google Scholar
Moldan, B. and Dahl, L. (2007). Challenges to sustainability indicators. In Hak, T., Moldan, B. and Dahl, L. (eds.), Sustainability Indicators. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Mueller-Mahn, D. (2005). Von ‘Naturkatastrophen’ zu ‘Complex Emergencies’: Die Entwicklung integrativer Forschungsansaetze im Dialog mit der Praxis. In Mueller-Mahn, D. and Wardenga, U. (eds.), Moeglichkeiten und Grenzen integrativer Forschungsansaetze in Physischer Geographie und Humangeographie. Forum IFL, Leipzig: Leibniz-Institut fuer Laenderkunde e.V., pp. 69–77.Google Scholar
O'Keefe, P., Westgate, K. and Wisner, B. (1976). Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters. Nature, 260, 566–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelling, M. (2003). Paradigms of risk. In Pelling, M. (ed.), Natural Disasters and Development in a Globalizing World. London: Routledge, pp. 3–16.Google Scholar
Plate, E. J. (2006). A human security index. In Birkmann, J. (ed.), Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, pp. 246–267.Google Scholar
Quarantelli, E. L. (1997). Ten criteria for evaluating the management of community disasters. Disasters, 21(1), 39–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quarantelli, E. (2003). Urban vulnerability to disasters in developing countries: managing risks. In Kreimer, A., Arnold, M. and Carlin, A. (eds.), Building Safer Cities; The Future of Disaster Risk. Disaster Risk Management Series. Washington D.C.: The World Bank, pp. 211–232.Google Scholar
Queste, A. and Lauwe, P. (2006). User needs: why we need indicators. In Birkmann, J. (ed.), Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies. Tokyo: United Nations University, pp. 103–114.Google Scholar
Ragozin, A. L. and Tikhvinsky, I. O. (2000). Landslide hazard, vulnerability and risk assessment. In Bromhead, E., Dixon, N. and Ibsen, M.-L. (eds.), Landslides in Research, Theory and Practice. Cardiff: Thomas Telford, pp.1257–1262.Google Scholar
Remondo, J., Soto, J. S., Gonzalez-Diez, A., Teran, J. R. D. and Cendrero, A. (2005). Human impact on geomorphic processes and hazards in mountain areas in northern Spain. Geomorphology, 66(1–4), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, P. (1975). African Environment: Problems and Perspectives. London: International African Institute.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1981). Famines and Poverty. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Smit, B. and Pilifosova, O. (2003). From adaptation to adaptive capacity and vulnerability reduction. In Smith, J. B., Klein, R. J. T. and Huq, S. (eds.), Climate Change, Adaptive Capacity and Development. London: Imperial College Press, pp. 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smit, B. and Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 282–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smit, B., Burton, I. and Klein, R. J. T. (2000). An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability. Climate Change, 45, 223–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K. (2004). Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smyth, C. G. and Royle, S. A. (2000). Urban landslide hazards: incidence and causative factors in Niteroi, Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil. Applied Geography, 20(2), 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanners, D., Bosch, P., Dom, A.et al. (2007). Frameworks for environmental assessment and indicators at the EEA. In Hak, T., Moldan, B. and Dahl, L. (eds.), Sustainability Indicators. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp. 127–144.Google Scholar
Timmerman, P. (1981). Vulnerability, Resilience and the Collapse of Society: A Review of Models and Possible Climatic Applications. Environmental Monograph 1. Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
Tobin, G. A. and Montz, B. E. (1997). Natural Hazards: Explanation and Integration. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
,UNDP (2004). Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development. A Global Report. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
,UNDRO (1982). Natural Disasters and Vulnerability Analysis. Geneva: United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation.Google Scholar
,United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs (1972). The Role of Science and Technology in Reducing the Impacts of Natural Disasters on Mankind. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
Westen, C. J., Montoya, A. L., Boerboom, L. G. J. and Badilla Coto, E. (2002). Multi-hazard risk assessment using GIS in urban areas: a case study for the city of Turrialba, Costa Rica. In Proceedings of the Regional Workshop on Best Practices in Disaster Mitigation, Bali, pp. 120–136.Google Scholar
Westen, C. J., Kumar Piya, B. and Guragain, J. (2005). Geo-information for urban risk assessment in developing countries: the SLARIM project. In Oosterom, P. J. M., Zlatanova, S. and Elfriede, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Geo-information for Disaster Management, 21–23 March 2005, Delft, the Netherlands. Berlin: Springer, pp. 379–392.Google Scholar
Villagran, J. C. (2006). Vulnerability assessment: the sectoral approach. In Birkmann, J. (ed.), Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, pp. 300–315.Google Scholar
Elverfeldt, K. and Glade, T. (2008). Development of a multihazard and multirisk concept. In Mikos, M. and Huebl, J. (eds.), 11th Congress INTERPRAEVENT, Dornbirn, Vorarlberg, Austria. International Research Society INTERPRAEVENT, pp. 422–423.Google Scholar
Waddell, E. (1983). Coping with frosts, governments and disaster experts: some reflections based on New Guinea experience and a perusal of the relevant literature. In Hewitt, K. (ed.), Interpretations of Calamity From the Viewpoint of Human Ecology. Winchester: Allen & Unwin Inc., pp. 33–43.Google Scholar
Warrick, R. A. (1983). Drought in the US Great Plains: shifting social consequences? In Hewitt, K. (ed.), Interpretations of Calamity From the Viewpoint of Human Ecology. Winchester: Allen & Unwin Inc., pp. 67–82.Google Scholar
Watts, M. J. and Bohle, H.-G. (1993). The space of vulnerability: the causal structure of hunger and famine. Progress in Human Geography, 17(1), 43–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, G. F. (1945). Human Adjustments to Floods. Chicago: University of Chicago Department of Geography Research Paper 29.Google Scholar
White, G. F. (1961). The choice of resource management. Natural Resources Journal, 23, 23–40.Google Scholar
White, G. F. (1973). Natural hazards research. In Chorley, R. J. (ed.), Directions in Geography. London: Methuen & Co Ltd., pp. 193–216.Google Scholar
White, G. F. (ed.) (1974). Natural Hazards: Local, National, Global. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
White, G. F. and Haas, J. E. (1975). Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Environmental Studies Series.Google Scholar
White, G. F., Calef, W. C., Hudson, J. W.et al. (1958). Changes in Urban Occupance of Flood Plains in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Department of Geography Research Paper 57.Google Scholar
Wisner, B. (1993). Disaster vulnerability: scale, power and daily life. GeoJournal, 30(2), 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisner, B. (2006). Self-assessment of coping capacity: participatory, proactive and qualitative engagement of communities in their own risk management. In Birkmann, J. (ed.), Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, pp. 316–328.Google Scholar
Wisner, B., Blaikie, P. M., Cannon, T. and Davis, I. (2004). At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×