1 / 18

Social Vulnerability Indices

Social Vulnerability Indices. Theoretical exercises or invaluable assessment tools?. Melanie Gall Hazards Research Lab University of South Carolina 2006 Summer Academy for Social Vulnerability, Munich UNU-EHS/MunichRe Foundation. Social Vulnerability and Risk Indices.

galvin
Télécharger la présentation

Social Vulnerability Indices

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Social Vulnerability Indices Theoretical exercises or invaluable assessment tools? Melanie GallHazards Research LabUniversity of South Carolina 2006 Summer Academy for Social Vulnerability, MunichUNU-EHS/MunichRe Foundation

  2. Social Vulnerability and Risk Indices • Global indexing programmes • Natural Disaster Hotspots (World Bank/Columbia Univ., 2005) • Disaster Risk Index (DRI) (UNEP/GRID-Geneva, UNDP, 2004) • The Americas programme (IDEA/IDB, 2004) • Social Vulnerability Indices • Human Wellbeing Index (Prescott-Allen, 2001) • Human Vulnerability Component of Environmental Sustainability Index (Esty et al., 2002 & 2005) • Predictive Indicator of Vulnerability (Adger et al., 2004) • Social Vulnerability Index (Cutter et al, 2003)

  3. Research Questions • Is the DRI a qualitatively sound measure? • Is the DRI a quantitatively sound measure • Does the DRI capture social vulnerability? • Does the DRI meet its purpose? Model of 2015Gridded Populationof the World (CIESIN)

  4. Background ‘Risk’ = Hazard * Population * Vulnerability Fatalities = Exposure * Indicators { • Estimation of risk of dying associated with • Earthquakes • Floods • Hurricanes • Droughts • 249 countries and territories

  5. Background (cont.) • Input Data: • World Bank, UNDP, FAO, WHO, UNICEF, UNDESA • EM-DAT • Internal calculations • Methodology: • Time period (1980-2000) • Delineation of 21-year average physical exposure • 21-year averages for socio-economic variables • Step-wise linear regression (weighting) • Explained variance (R2)

  6. Background (cont.) • Earthquakes • Hurricanes • Floods • Droughts

  7. 1. Is the DRI a qualitatively sound measure? Acknowledged shortcomings: • Bias towards medium to large-scale events • Bias towards developing countries • Bias towards large countries • Temporal bias • Bias towards certain hazard types • Bias towards physical exposure  No ranking (high sensitivity)

  8. 1. Is the DRI a qualitatively sound measure? (cont.) Hidden shortcomings: • Causality vs. correlation • Hazard-specific vs. all-hazards vulnerability • Retrospective vs. trend identification • Frequency vs. normalization • Ecological fallacy

  9. 100% 80% 60% Hurricane - Agriculture Hurricane - HDI Hurricane - Phys. Exp. 40% Earthquake - Urban growth Earthquake - Phys. Exp. Flood - GDP per capita Flood - Pop. Density 20% Flood - Phys Exp. Drought - Water access Drought - Phys. Exp. 0% 2. Is the DRI a quantitatively sound measure? Total OrderSensitivity Statistics Hurricane Flood Earthquake Drought DRI DRIHEF

  10. 2. Is the DRI a quantitatively sound measure? (cont.) TOTAL DRI based on Hurricane, Flood, Earthquake & Drought Top 5: India, Bangladesh, China, Philippines, Indonesia

  11. 2. Is the DRI a quantitatively sound measure? (cont.) DRI as a combination of any of the four risks (hurricane, flood, earthquake and/or drought) Top 5: Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Ethiopia, India, Bangladesh

  12. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Agriculture 30% HDI Urban growth 20% GDP per capita (ppp) Pop. Density 10% Water Access 0% Hurricane Flood Earthquake Drought DRI DRIVHEF 3. Does the DRI capture social vulnerability? Total OrderSensitivity Statistics

  13. 3. Does the DRI capture social vulnerability? (cont.) Total Vulnerability as a combination of eight indicators Top 5: Bangladesh, Burundi, Rwanda, India, Comoros

  14. 3. Does the DRI meet its purpose? • Target audience: policy makers, intl. organizations • Purpose: • indexing risk and vulnerability  comparability • policy advice and evaluation  parsimony, uncertainty • benchmarking, trends  sensitivity, responsiveness

  15. Next Steps • Common assessment methodology • Common set of vulnerability factors • Comparative evaluation • Spatial variability of indices • Change scales and time • Needs: • Improved documentation of hazard-related losses • Integration of local vulnerability studies • Availability and access to vulnerability data • Incorporation of post-normal science tools

  16. Thank you very much for your attention! Comments are welcome at melanie.gall@sc.edu

  17. Conclusions • Approach: deductive vs. inductive • Data: incomplete • Technique: output-driven vs. input-driven • Representativeness: physical vs. social • Output: parsimony vs. validity  DRI stands out in regard to • Integration • Representation

More Related