Linking components of vulnerability in theoretic frameworks and case studies

Abstract

Clarification on what is meant by ‘vulnerability’ continues as an unresolved problem in a world of inter-connected research fields dealing with natural hazards and of policy-makers eager for vulnerability assessments that will help in steering their decisions. This paper investigates the theoretical definitions of vulnerability components in risk-hazard and climate-change frameworks and the description of these components as operated in vulnerability assessments at the case-study level. The results point to a lower level of heterogeneity in vulnerability interpretations at the case-study level when compared to the semantically rich descriptions of vulnerability components in conceptual frameworks. Despite differences in definitions, vulnerability components such as hazard and exposure, capacities and adaptation, susceptibility and sensitivity, or susceptibility and vulnerability were made operational by the use of similar indicators and methodologies between and within the communities investigated. In order to attain a better understanding of the interdisciplinary use of the term ‘vulnerability’, the comparison of methodologies to assess vulnerability components at the case-study level seems essential.