GET THE APP

Selection of Scale in Vulnerability and Resilience Assessments
Journal of Geography  & Natural Disasters

Journal of Geography  & Natural Disasters
Open Access

ISSN: 2167-0587

+44-20-4587-4809

Editorial - (2012) Volume 2, Issue 3

Selection of Scale in Vulnerability and Resilience Assessments

Tim G. Frazier*
Department of Geography, University of Idaho, Idaho 83844-3021, USA
*Corresponding Author: Tim G. Frazier, Department of Geography, University of Idaho, Idaho 83844-3021, USA, Tel: 208-885-6238 Email:

Editorial

Society is vulnerable to natural disasters and impacts from climate change. Vulnerability, as discussed here, is defined as the potential for loss [1-3], and is expressed as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity [2-8]. Exposure is a function of an object’s proximity to a hazard, sensitivity as differential degrees of potential loss of exposed objects, and adaptive capacity as the ability of an object or system to adjust to hazards and impacts [9]. For decades hazards researchers have conducted vulnerability assessments in efforts to identify community vulnerability so that societal losses from natural hazards may be reduced. These traditional vulnerability assessments however, have paid less attention to the importance of multi-scalar spatial components when calculating a region or community’s vulnerability. The literature concerning vulnerability assessments often describes the scale at which the vulnerability assessment occurs without much explanation as to how the scale of the assessment is determined [2,10-22]. One exception is the work of Luers et al. [23] and Luers [3], which uses a smaller geographic unit (the farm) to represent the overall vulnerability of the Yaqui Valley (an agricultural valley in Mexico). Luers et al. [23] however, only attempt to modify the scale of vulnerability assessments to quantify their study area, with their research not meant as a new method to alter the construction and implementation of vulnerability frameworks. Most natural hazards research to date as supported by the literature contains very little that speaks to the methods or rationale for selecting an appropriate scale for vulnerability and resilience assessments.

Many of the vulnerability assessments cited above only hint that scale selection is dependent on the spatial extent of the hazard being studied or on the most appropriate geographical unit for which data can be obtained. Schröter et al. [24] agree with Cutter et al. [15] that vulnerability assessments must be “place based,” but indicate the scale of the assessment “needs to match the scale of decision-making of the collaborating stakeholder.” However, the Schröter et al. [24] and Cutter et al. [15] examples of place-based vulnerability assessments did not have as a focus the consideration that place vulnerability is highly dependent on exposure from external biophysical and socioeconomic stressors, as well as from internal characteristics of a system [25,26]. Following from this logic, it is then critical to determine the appropriate scale for a vulnerability assessment in order to measure vulnerability accurately, not just measure vulnerability conveniently.

In the context of global climate change and its transformative effect on natural disaster regimes [27], it is becoming more important for communities to recognize existing vulnerability and understand what actions can be undertaken to increase resilience. Resilience is a function of a society’s ability to react effectively to a crisis with minimal reliance on outside aid [2,28-30], and can occur across a variety of spatial scales. Understanding a community’s resilience level can be crucial for pre- disaster preparation, post- disaster recovery and estimation of potential losses. In order to measure progress in community resilience enhancement efforts, a clear baseline condition from which to measure progress is needed. Studies have sought to identify and characterize clear baseline conditions for community vulnerability and resilience to natural disasters [31-33], but these studies are often predominately qualitative in nature and are often conducted at limited spatial and temporal scales.

Efforts have been made to quantify resilience through resilience index creation and resilience quantification models most notably of Cutter et al. [33]. Contemporary research has begun to focus more on quantification of vulnerability and resilience as a way to evaluate baseline conditions at various levels of jurisdictional and socio-political areas [2,30,34,35]. Previous resilience models, such as the Disaster Resilience of Place (DROP) and the Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC) models, utilize a system of indicators that can be quantified to estimate disaster resilience of a location [30,33,35]. These factors consider unique characteristics of the place and other social and biophysical factors, as well as spatial dependencies based on relationships or linkages with other places [26,35,36]. Existing research, in part for reasons of simplicity and data availability, has focused on broadly comparative resilience at specific geographic scales, most notably at the county scale. Census data is aggregated at the county level, making data acquisition simpler for studies at this scale. A widely recognized issue in geographical research is the modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP), which states that the results of a geographic study may vary depending on the scale at which the data is aggregated [34,37,38]. It is possible that MAUP exists in studies concerning resilience indicators. For this reason, it is important to look at locally derived factors, rather than relying solely on nationally collected data. The investigation of local-scale factors is an important component for measuring community resilience because resilience will vary across communities within a county [22,38,39]. Broadly comparable indicators (seen in national and regional assessments) are essential for determining disaster resilience, but there are innumerable multiscalar and place-based factors that must be considered as well [26,35]. These factors include unique characteristics of the place in question such as hazard regimes and other social and biophysical factors, as well as spatial dependencies based on relationships or linkages with other places [26,35,36]. Furthermore, community resilience occurs across scales that are interdependent of the national, state and county scales that are commonly used for resilience analysis [40].

Often, existing research also neglects the spatial and temporal context of resilience indicators and does not consider the importance of differential weighting [33,41] and spatial autocorrelation of these indicators particularly at the community level. Therefore many of the existing studies conducted at national and regional spatial scales may be inappropriate due to their nonspecific attention to local community needs particularly if the goal is local community resilience enhancement. This lack of specific attention to local community indicators can hinder the effective allocation of resources and the effectiveness of local level hazard mitigation and adaptation which can radically impact community preparedness [31]. Lack of community preparedness and inefficient or absent mitigation and adaption can also increase the time required for movement through the disaster recovery timeline. An understanding of the differential importance of disaster resilience indicators and their temporal and spatial components can help provide an enhanced estimation of baseline resilience levels that could better assist communities in allocating limited resources more effectively to areas with higher resilience enhancement priority. In order to create a complete holistic community vulnerability and resilience assessment, vulnerability and resilience indicator quantification and analysis should occur at multi scalar, temporal and spatial perspectives [34,42] and ideally should consider differential weighting and spatial autocorrelation of these indicators in these assessments.

In short, conductors of typical vulnerability and resilience assessments first select the geographic scale for their evaluation and then analyze traditional vulnerability indicators to complete their calculations [13,15,19,21,22,25,43-45]. By ignoring critical indicators that may be external to the system, or by temporally and spatially weighting all indicators equally, vulnerability and resilience assessments may be lacking in effectiveness. Thus there is a need for research that examines the impacts of spatial autocorrelation and differential weighting of vulnerability and resilience indicators at the local level. Existing models on baseline vulnerability and resilience estimations fall short in addressing the need for place-specific indicators. Placespecific indicators are more effective for accurate baseline vulnerability and resilience assessment; without knowledge of these important factors, results of these assessments may be less accurate. Existing models can be expanded to incorporate place-specific factors using sources of local knowledge and focus groups for instance as well as more local quantitative data to collect and develop frameworks that identify important factors that contribute to vulnerability and resilience. Existing research also lacks the incorporation of differential weighting and spatial and temporal contexts of disaster vulnerability and resilience indicators. For resilience enhancement, differential weighting is crucial because it permits prioritization of indicators based on relative significance. This allows communities to make prudent and efficient decisions regarding investment in scarce mitigation resources thereby promoting resilience enhancement. Temporal and spatial factors are important for accurate resilience quantification because they can be utilized to locate disaster resilience indicators in the spatial and temporal setting in which they are most significant. A more appropriate method for vulnerability and resilience assessments might be to first select the appropriate vulnerability or resilience indicators for the community or region under consideration and then relying on the indicators to guide the selection of scale.

References

  1. Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly 84: 242-261.
  2. Turner BL, Kasperson RE, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW, et al. (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100: 8074-8079.
  3. Luers AL (2005) The surface of vulnerability: an analytical framework for examining environmental change. Glob Environ Change 15: 214-223.
  4. Folke C (2006) Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Change 16: 253-267.
  5. Gallopín GC (2006) Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Glob Environ Change 16: 293-230
  6. Polsky C, Neff R, Yarnal B (2007) Building comparable global change vulnerability assessments: The vulnerability scoping diagram. Glob Environ Change 17: 472-485.
  7. Yarnal B (2007) Vulnerability and all that jazz: Addressing vulnerability in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Technology in Society 29: 249-255.
  8. Frazier T, Wood N, Yarnal B (2009) Utilizing GIS to identify vulnerability to coastal inundation hazards: a case study from Sarasota County, Florida, USA.
  9. White GF (1945) Department of Geography Research Paper 29. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.
  10. White GF (1964) Choice of Adjustments to Floods. Department of Geography, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.
  11. Burton I, Kates R, White GF (1978) The Environment as Hazard. Oxford, New York, USA.
  12. Kates R, Burton I (1986) Geography, Resources, and Environment. (Vol. 1), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.
  13. Kirby A (1990) Nothing to Fear: Risks and hazards in American Society. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon, AZ, USA.
  14. Cutter SL, Mitchell JT, Scott MS (2000) Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: A case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 90: 713-737.
  15. Bryan B, Harvey N, Belperio T, Bourman B (2001) Distributed process modeling for regional assessment of coastal vulnerability to sea-level rise. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 6: 57-65.
  16. Flax LK, Jackson RW, Stein DN (2002) Community vulnerability assessment tool methodology. Natural Hazards Review 3: 163-176.
  17. Moser SC (2005) Impact assessments and policy responses to sea-level rise in three US states: An exploration of human-dimension uncertainties. Glob Environ Change 15: 353-369.
  18. Rygel L, O'Sullivan D, Yarnal B (2006) A method for constructing a social vulnerability index: An application to hurricane storm surges in a developed country. Mitigation and Adaptations Strategies for Global Change 11: 741-764.
  19. Wood N, Church A, Frazier T, Yarnal B (2007) Variations in community exposure and sensitivity to tsunami hazards in the State of Hawai’i. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 5208-5238.
  20. Frazier TG, Wood N, Yarnal B (2010) Stakeholder perspectives on land-use strategies for adapting to climate-change-enhanced coastal hazards: Sarasota, Florida. Appl Geogr 30: 506-517.
  21. Wood NJ, Burton CG, Cutter SL (2010) Community variations in social vulnerability to Cascadia-related tsunamis in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Natural Hazards 52: 369-389.
  22. Luers AL, Lobell DB, Sklar LS, Addams CL, Matson PA (2003) A method for quantifying vulnerability, applied to the Yaqui Valley, Mexico. Glob Environ Change 13: 255-267.
  23. Schröter D, Polsky C, Patt AG (2005) Assessing vulnerabilities to the effects of global change: An eight step approach. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 10: 573-596.
  24. Füssel HM, Klein RJT (2006) Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Climatic Change 75: 301-329.
  25. Füssel HM (2007) Vulnerability: A generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research. Glob Environ Change 17: 155-167.
  26. Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2004) At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters, Routledge.
  27. Tobin GA (1999) Sustainability and community resilience: the holy grail of hazards planning? Global Environmental Change Part B Environmental Hazards 1: 13-25.
  28. Wu SY, Yarnal B, Fisher A (2002) Vulnerability of coastal communities to sea-level rise: A case study of Cape May County, New Jersey. Climate Research 22: 255-270.
  29. Rose A (2007) Economic resilience to natural and man-made disasters: Multidisciplinary origins and contextual dimensions. Environmental Hazards 7: 383-398.
  30. Burby RJ, Deyle RE, Godschalk DR, Olshansky RB (2000) Creating hazard resilient communities through land-use planning. Natural Hazards Review 1: 99-106.
  31. Paton D (2006) Disaster resilience: an integrated approach, Springfield Ill: Charles C Thomas.
  32. Cutter SL, Burton CG, Emrich CT (2010) Disaster Resilience Indicators for Benchmarking Baseline Conditions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 7: 1-22.
  33. Birkmann J (2007) Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: Applicability, usefulness and policy implications. Environmental Hazards 7: 20-31.
  34. Cutter SL, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E, et al. (2008) A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Glob Environ Change 18: 598-606.
  35. Godschalk DR, Brody S, Burby R (2003) Public participation in natural hazard mitigation policy formation: Challenges for comprehensive planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46: 733-754.
  36. Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton M (2009) Geographically Weighted Regression: the Analysis of Spatially Varying Relationships, Wiley, USA.
  37. Fekete A, Damm M, Birkmann J (2010) Scales as a challenge for vulnerability assessment. Natural Hazards 55: 729-747.
  38. Frazier TG, Wood N, Yarnal B, Bauer DH (2010b) Influence of potential sea level rise on societal vulnerability to hurricane storm-surge hazards, Sarasota County, Florida. Appl Geogr 30: 490-505.
  39. Paton D, Johnston D (2001) Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness. Disaster Prev Manag 10: 270-277.
  40. Jones B, Andrey J (2007) Vulnerability index construction: Methodological choices and their influence on identifying vulnerable neighborhoods. International Journal of Emergency Management 4: 269-295.
  41. Adger NW, Arnell N, Tompkins E (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob Environ Change 15: 77-86.
  42. Adger WN, Kelly PM (1999) Social vulnerability to climate change and the architecture of entitlements. Mitigation and Adaption Strategies for Global Change 4: 253-66.
  43. McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (2001) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  44. Downing TE, Patwardhan A (2004) In Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies, and Measures. (eds) Lim B, Spanger-Siegfried E, Burton I, Malone EL, Huq S, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 69-87.
Citation: Frazier TG (2012) Selection of Scale in Vulnerability and Resilience Assessments. J Geogr Nat Disast 2:e108.

Copyright: © 2012 Frazier TG. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Top