Natural Hazards

, Volume 64, Issue 3, pp 2057–2082 | Cite as

Assessing multifaceted vulnerability and resilience in order to design risk-mitigation strategies

  • Scira Menoni
  • Daniela Molinari
  • Dennis Parker
  • Francesco Ballio
  • Sue Tapsell
Original Paper


Vulnerability studies have evolved significantly in recent decades. Although not overly theoretical compared with some other fields of science, some important conceptual progress has been made. At the practical level, vulnerability indicators have been used either at a generic level or for particular hazard contexts. However, these indicators are often predictably too narrow in their coverage of aspects of vulnerability. An important need remains to produce more conceptually informed vulnerability indicators or parameters and more satisfactory operational tools to assess weaknesses and resilience in coping with natural risks. In this paper, we present the methodology developed in the context of a recently concluded EU funded project, ENSURE (Enhancing resilience of communities and territories facing natural and na-tech hazards). The resulting vulnerability and resilience assessment framework tool adopts a systemic approach embedding and integrating as much as possible the multifaceted and articulated nature of concepts such as vulnerability and resilience. The tool guides evaluators towards a comprehensive and context-related understanding of strengths and fragilities of a given territory and community with respect to natural extremes. In this paper, both the framework tool and its application to Sondrio in Italy, which is exposed to flash floods, are presented and discussed. The merits and demerits of the new tool are discussed, and the results of the application to Sondrio indicate where data are currently missing, suggesting the kind of data, which will need to be gathered in future to achieve more complete assessments. The results also suggest vulnerability reduction policies and actions and further ways of revising the existing framework tool in the future.


Vulnerability Resilience Integrated vulnerability assessment Resilience assessment Flash floods 

Supplementary material

11069_2012_134_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (31 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 30 kb)
11069_2012_134_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (23 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 23 kb)
11069_2012_134_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (27 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 26 kb)
11069_2012_134_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (50 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 49 kb)


  1. Al-Kuwaiti M, Kyriakopoulos N, Hussein S (2006) Network dependability, fault-tolerance, reliability, survivability: a framework for comparative analysis. Proceedings of the 2006 international conference on computer engineering and systems, 5–7 November 2006, Cairo, EgyptGoogle Scholar
  2. Armonia project (2007) Assessing and mapping multiple risks for spatial planning—approaches, methodologies and tools in Europe.
  3. Ballio F, Menoni S, Crotti G, Borsani D, De Marchi B, Menucci G, Molinari D (2010) Costruzione di un sistema di allarme a supporto del piano di emergenza in ambito montano. Technical report for the Province of Sondrio, Politecnico di Milano, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  4. Barroca B, Bernardar P, Mouchel J, Hubert G (2006) Indicators for identification of urban flooding vulnerability. Nat Hazard Earth Syst 6:553–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B (1994) At risk—natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters, 2nd edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Calvi GM, Pinho R, Magenes G, Bommer JJ, Restrepo-Vélez LF, Crowley H (2006) Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years. J Earthq Technol 43(3):75–104Google Scholar
  8. Chaviteau C, Vinet F (2006) Vulnérabilité des établissement recevant du public et des enterprises face aux indondations: une method d’analyse appliqué dans le basin de l’Horbe (Hérault). Ingénieries 46:15–33Google Scholar
  9. Cruetin JD, Borga M, Lutoff C, Scolobig A, Ruin I, Creton-Cazanave L (2009) Catchment dynamics and social response during flash floods: the potential of radar rainfall monitoring for warning procedures. J Appl Meteorol 16:115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cuny FC (1983) Disasters and development. Oxfam and Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Cutter SL (2006) Hazards, vulnerability and environmental justice. Earthscan Publication, London, Sterling, VAGoogle Scholar
  12. Cutter SL, Mitchell JT, Scott MS (2000) Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Ann As Am Geogr 90(4):713–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cutter SL, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E, Tate E, Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environ Chang 18(4):598–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cyranoski D (2011) Japan faces up to failure of its earthquake preparations. Nature 471:556–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Defra/Environment Agency (2006) Flood risks to people, FD2321/TR guidance document. Defra, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Fowler HJ, Kilsby CG, O’Connell PE (2003) Modeling the impacts of climatic change and variability on the reliability, resilience and vulnerability of a water resource system. Water Resour Res. doi:10.1029/2002WR001778
  17. Galderis A, Menoni S (2007) Rischi naturali, prevenzione, piano. Urbanistica. Rivista semestrale dell’Istituto Nazionale di Urbanistica 20–23 (the English translation is available in the Journal)Google Scholar
  18. Galli M, Guzzetti F (2007) Landslide vulnerability criteria: a case study from Umbria, Central Italy. Environ Manage 40:649–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Granger K, Jones T, Leiba M, Scott G (1999) Community risk in Cairns—a multihazard risk assessment. AGSO, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  20. Guha-Sapri D, Santos I (2012) The economic impacts of natural disasters. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Hewitt K (ed) (1983) Interpretations of Calamity, the risks and hazard series: 1. George, Allen and Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Hills A (2005) Insidious environments: creeping dependencies and urban vulnerabilities. J Conting Crisis Manage 13(1):12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holling CS (1996) Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In: Schulze PC (ed) Engineering with ecological constrains. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Holling CS (2001) Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social system. Ecosystems 4:390–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. IDNDR (1999) A Safer world in the 21st century: disaster and risk reduction. IDNDR programme forum, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  27. Inter-American Development Bank (2010) The economics of natural disasters: a survey, IDB working paper series No IDB-WP-124, IDB, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001. Synthesis report. A contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In Watson RT et al (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 398Google Scholar
  29. Kelman I, Spence R (2004) An overview of flood actions on buildings. Eng Geol 73(3–4):297–309Google Scholar
  30. King D, Moloney J, MacGregor C (2000) A review of the community vulnerability in the cairns multi-hazard risk assessment, center for disaster studies. James Cook University, TownsvilleGoogle Scholar
  31. Kininmonth W (2005) Climate change: a natural hazard. Multi-Science Publishing Co, UKGoogle Scholar
  32. Ledoux B (1999) Guide pour la conduite des diagnostiques de vulnérabilité aux inondations pour les entreprises industrielles. Ministère de l’Aménagment du Territoire et de l’Environment, FranceGoogle Scholar
  33. Longstaff P, Armstrong NJ, Parrin K, Parker W, Hidek M (2010) Building resilient communities: a preliminary framework for assessment. Homel Secur Aff VI-3:1–22Google Scholar
  34. Messner F, Meyer V (2006) Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perception–challenges for flood damage research. Flood risk management: hazards, vulnerability and mitigation measures. NATO Sci Ser IV Earth Environ Sci 67(4):149–167Google Scholar
  35. Meyer V, Messner F (2005) National flood damage evaluation methods: a review of applied methods in England, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Germany, UFZ discussion paper 21/2005, Department of Economics.
  36. Mihelcic JR, Crittenden JC, Small MJ, Shonnard DR, Hokanson DR, Zhang Q, Chen H, Sorby SA, James VU, Sutherland JW, Schnoor JL (2003) Sustainability science and engineering: emergence of a new metadiscipline. Environ Sci Technol 37(23):5314–5324Google Scholar
  37. Mitchell J (1999) Crucibles of hazards: mega-cities and disasters in transition. United Nations University, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  38. Molinari D, Ballio F, Menoni S (2011) Flood forecast verification to support emergency management, Proceedings of 34th IAHR world congress, 26 June–1 July, 2011, Brisbane, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  39. Norris F, Stevens S, Pfefferbaum B, Wyche K, Pfefferbaum R (2008) Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. Am J Commun Psychol 41:127–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Keefe P, Westgate K, Wisner B (1976) Taking the naturalness out of natural disaster. Nature 260(5552):566–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJGoogle Scholar
  42. Parker D, Handmer J (1996) The role of unofficial flood warning systems. J Conting Crisis Manage 6(1):45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paton D (2008) Community resilience: integrating individual, community and societal perspective. In: Gow K, Paton D (eds) The phoenix of natural disasters: community resilience. Nova Science Publishers Inc., Hauppauge NY, pp 13–31Google Scholar
  44. Perrow C (1984) Normal accidents. Living with high risk technologies. Basic Books, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  45. Petrini V (1996) Overview report in vulnerability assessment. Proceedings of the fifth international conference on seismic zonation, Edition Ouést, ParisGoogle Scholar
  46. Pielke RA (2000). Flood impacts on society. Damaging floods as a framework for assessment. In Parker D (ed) Floods, vol 1. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Roberts N, Nadim F, Kalsnes B (2007) Quantification of vulnerability to natural hazards. Georisk 3(3):164–173Google Scholar
  48. Rockström J (2003) Resilience building and water demand management for drought mitigation. Phys Chem Earth 28:869–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schwarz J, Maiwald H (2008) Damage and loss prediction model based on the vulnerability of building types. Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on flood defence: managing flood risk, reliability and vulnerability. 6–8 May, Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  50. Segnestam L (1999) Environmental performance indicators—a second edition note. The World Bank, Environment DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  51. Spence RJS, Kelman I, Baxter PJ, Zuccaro G, Petrazzuoli (2005) Residential building and occupant vulnerability to tephra fall. Nat Hazard Earth Syst 5:477–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tobin G, Montz B (1997) Natural hazards: explanation and integration. The Guildford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Torry W (1978) Natural disasters, social structure and change in traditional societies. J Asian Afr Stud 13:167–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. UNDRO (1979) Natural disasters and vulnerability analysis—Report of expert group. UNDRO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Westen CJ, Van Asch TWJ, Soeters R (2006) Landslide hazard and risk zonation—why is it still so difficult? B Eng Geo Environ. 65(2):167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. White G, Kates R, Burton I (2001) Knowing better and losing even more: the use of knowledge in hazard management. Environ Hazards 3(3):81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Xanthopoulos G (2003) Factors affecting the vulnerability of houses to wildland fire in the Mediterranean region. Proceedings of the international workshop forest fires in the wildland-urban interface and rural areas in Europe, 15–16 May, Athens, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  58. Xanthopoulos G (2007) Forest fire policy scenarios as a key element affecting the occurrence and characteristics of fire disasters. Proceedings of the 4th international wildland fire conference, 13–17 May, Sevilla, SpainGoogle Scholar
  59. Zuccaro G, Ianniello D (2004) Interaction of pyroclastic flows with building structures in an urban settlement: a fluid-dynamic simulation impact model. J Volcanol Geoth Res 133(1–4):345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scira Menoni
    • 1
  • Daniela Molinari
    • 2
  • Dennis Parker
    • 3
  • Francesco Ballio
    • 2
  • Sue Tapsell
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Architecture and PlanningPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Environmental, Hydraulic, Infrastructures and Surveying EngineeringPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  3. 3.Flood Hazard Research CentreMiddlesex UniversityQueensway, EnfieldUK

Personalised recommendations