Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 68, Issue 3, pp 1343–1369 | Cite as

A framework for spatio-temporal scales and concepts from different disciplines: the ‘vulnerability cube’

  • Stefan Kienberger
  • Thomas Blaschke
  • Rukhe Zehra Zaidi
Original Paper

Abstract

The concept of vulnerability is increasingly used in the fields of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation, as well as socioeconomic studies. This paper reviews research inputs into the concept of vulnerability and highlights the challenges of resolving its spatial and temporal variability with building resilience and adaptation. We hypothesise that a clear understanding of scale is key to integrating these related issues, by differentiating three dimensions of scale when analysing relationships between the observed and the intrinsic scale of a given phenomenon, namely space, time and dimensional level. The paper analyses 20 vulnerability assessment approaches, ranging from the global down to the local scale, and positions them with regard to their integration of the spatial component. We then develop a vulnerability cube as a framework to position existing approaches and to map them in a three-dimensional space. The three axes represent space, time and dimension and provide a structure for the different notions of scales and ultimately for a spatial analysis workflow. The vulnerability cube framework helps us to position different vulnerability assessments and to identify overlaps, differences and specific characteristics. Additionally, this three-dimensional conceptualisation allows the identification and discussion of appropriate scaling issues.

Keywords

Scale Risk Vulnerability assessment GIScience Integrated methods 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research leading to this paper has received funding through the Munich Re Foundation and the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement Number FP7-211590 (MOVE—Methods for the Improvement of Vulnerability Assessment in Europe; http://www.move-fp7.eu/).

References

  1. Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Change 16(3):268–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adger WN, Brooks N, Bentham G, Agnew M, Eriksen S (2004) New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Technical Report, 7, Norwich, UK, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change ResearchGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen TFH, Starr TB (1982) Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. Bierkens MFP, Finke PA, de Willigen P (2000) Upscaling and downscaling methods for environmental research. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  5. Birkmann J (2006a) Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient societies: conceptual frameworks and definitions. In: Birkmann J (ed) Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: towards disaster resilient societies. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, pp 9–54Google Scholar
  6. Birkmann J (2006b) Indicators and criteria for measuring vulnerability: theoretical bases and requirements. In: Birkmann J (ed) Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: towards disaster resilient societies. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, pp 55–77Google Scholar
  7. Birkmann J (2007) Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: applicability, usefulness and policy implications. Environ Hazards 7(1):20–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birkmann J, von Teichman K (2010) Integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: key challenges—scales, knowledge, and norms. Sustain Sci 5(2):171–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birkmann J, Krause D, Setiadi NJ, Suarez D-C, Welle T, Wolfertz J, Dickerhof R, Mucke P, Radtke K (2011) WorldRiskReport2011. Bündnis Entwicklung HilftGoogle Scholar
  10. Blaschke T (2006) The role of the spatial dimension within the framework of sustainable landscapes and natural capital. Landsc Urban Plan 75(3–4):198–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blaschke T (2010) Object based image analysis for remote sensing. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 65(1):2–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brenner N (2001) The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalar structuration. Prog Hum Geogr 25(4):591–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Briguglio L (2003) the vulnerability index and small island developing states. A review of conceptual and methodological issues. Available online at http://home.um.edu.mt/islands/vulnerability_paper_sep03.pdf
  14. Briguglio L (2004) economic vulnerability and resilience: concepts and measurements. Available online at http://home.um.edu.mt/islands/brigugliopaper_version3.doc
  15. Burnett C, Blaschke T (2003) A multi-scale segmentation/object relationship modelling methodology for landscape analysis. Ecol Model 168:233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cannon T (1994) Vulnerability analysis and the explanation of “natural” disasters. In: Varley A (ed) Disasters development and environment. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, pp 13–30Google Scholar
  17. Cardona OD, Hurtado JE, Moreno AM, Chardon AC, Cardona GJ (2004) Results of the system of indicators, applications on twelve countries of the Americas. Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Colombia, Manizales, ColombiaGoogle Scholar
  18. Cardona OD (2005a) Indicators of disaster risk and risk management. Summary Report, July 2005. Inter-American Development Bank, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Cardona OD (2005b) System of indicators for disaster risk management. Main Technical Report, August 2005. Instituto de Estudios Ambientales (IDEA), Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Cardona OD, van Aalst MK, Birkmann J, Fordham M, McGregor G, Perez R, Pulwarty RS, Schipper ELF, Sinh BT (2012) Determinants of risk: exposure and vulnerability. In: Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner GK, Allen SK, Tignor M, Midgley PM (eds) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of working groups I and II of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 65–108Google Scholar
  21. Clark GE, Moser SC, Ratick SJ, Dow K, Meyer WB, Emani S, Jin W, Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE, Schwarz HE (1998) Assessing the vulnerability of coastal communities to extreme storms: the case of Revere, MA., USA. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 3:59–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cox KR (1998) Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, or: looking for local politics. Polit Geogr 17(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cutter SL (1996) Living with risk. Edward Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Cutter SL (2003) GIScience, disasters, and emergency management. Trans GIS 7(4):439–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cutter SL, Finch C (2008) Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards. PNAS 105(7):2301–2306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 84(2):242–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cutter SL, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E, Tate J, Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Glob Environ Change 18:598–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. DFID (2001) Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. Department for International Development (UK), LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Dilley M, Chen RS, Deichmann U, Lerner-Lam AL, Arnold M (2005) Natural disaster hotspots. A global risk analysis. World Bank, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dow K (1992) Exploring differences in our common future(s): the meaning of vulnerability to global environmental change. Geoforum 23(3):417–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dungan JL, Perry JN, Dale MRT, Legendre P, Citron-Pousty S, Fortin J, Jakomulska A, Miriti M, Rosenberg MS (2002) A balanced view of scale in spatial statistical analysis. Ecography 25:626–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dwyer A, Zoppou C, Nielsen O, Day S, Roberts S (2004) Quantifying social vulnerability: a methodology for identifying those at risk to natural hazards, Record 2004/14, Geoscience Australia 92Google Scholar
  34. Evans T, Ostrom E, Gibson C (2002) Scaling issues with social data in integrated assessment modelling. Integr Assess 3(2):135–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fekete A, Damm M, Birkmann J (2010) Scales as a challenge for vulnerability assessment. Nat Hazards 55(3):729–747. doi: 10.1007/s11069-009-9445-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fuchs S (2009) Susceptibility versus resilience to mountain hazards in Austria—paradigms of vulnerability revisited. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9(2):337–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gall M (2007) Indices of social vulnerability to natural hazards: a comparative evaluation. Dissertation at the Department of Geography, University of South CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  38. Gallopín GC (2006) Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Glob Environ Change 16(3):293–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Geipel R (1982) Disaster and reconstruction: the Friuli (Italy) earthquakes of 1976. Allen & Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Gillespie S (2004) Scaling up community-driven development: a synthesis of experience. FCND Discussion paper 1810Google Scholar
  41. Goodchild MF (1992) Geographical information science. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 6(1):31–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Guttman L (1944) A basis for scaling qualitative data. Am Sociol Rev 9:139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hahn H (2003) Indicators and other instruments for local risk management for communities and local governments. Document prepared as part of the documents related to the project: local risk management for communities and local governments. The German Technical Cooperation Agency, GTZ, for IADBGoogle Scholar
  44. Hewitt K, Burton I (1971) The hazardousness of a place: a regional ecology of damaging events. Department of Geography Research publication 6, University of Toronto, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  45. Howitt R (2002) Scale and the other: levinas and geography. Geoforum 33:299–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. IFRC (2007) How to do a VCA. A practical step-by-step guide for Red Cross Red Crescent staffGoogle Scholar
  47. IPCC (2012) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of working groups I and II of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner GK, Allen SK, Tignor M, Midgley PM (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 582 ppGoogle Scholar
  48. Jonas AEG (2006) Pro scale: further reflections on the ‘scale debate’ in human geography. Trans Inst Br Geogr 31:399–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kappes M, Papathoma-Köhle M, Keiler M (2012) Assessing physical vulnerability for multi-hazards using an indicator-based methodology. Appl Geogr 32(2):577–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kienberger S (2007) Assessing the vulnerability to natural hazards on the provincial/community level in Mozambique: the contribution of GIScience and remote sensing. The 3rd international symposium on geo-information for disaster management, joint CIG/ISPRS conference, Toronto, Canada, 23–25 May 2007, online available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.118.2539
  51. Kienberger S (2012) Spatial modelling of social and economic vulnerability to floods at the district level in Búzi, Mozambique. Nat Hazards (online). doi: 10.1007/s11069-012-0174-9 Google Scholar
  52. Kienberger S, Lang S, Zeil P (2009) Spatial vulnerability units—expert-based spatial modelling of socioeconomic vulnerability in the Salzach catchment, Austria. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:767–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lang S, Tiede D, Hofer F (2006) Modeling ephemeral settlements using VHSR image data and 3D visualisation—the example of Goz Amer refugee camp in Chad. PFG—Photogrammetrie, Fernerkundung, Geoinformatik, Special Issue: Urban Remote Sensing 4:327–337Google Scholar
  54. Lang S, Zeil P, Kienberger S, Tiede D (2008) Geons—policy relevant geo-objects for monitoring high-level indicators. In: Car A, Griesebner G, Strobl J (eds) Geospatial Crossroads @ GI Forum’08, pp 180–185Google Scholar
  55. Leichenko RM, O’Brien KL (2002) The dynamics of rural vulnerability to global change: the case of southern Africa. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 7(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Marceau DJ (1999) The scale issue in the social and natural sciences. Can J Remote Sens 25:347–356Google Scholar
  58. Marston SA (2000) The social construction of scale. Prog Hum Geogr 24:219–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Marston SA, Jones JP III, Woodward K (2005) Human geography without scale. Trans Inst Br Geogr 30:416–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Meentemeyer V (1989) Geographical perspectives of space, time, and scale. Landscape Ecol 3(3–4):163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Meentemeyer V, Box EO (1987) Scale effects in landscape studies. In: Turner MG (ed) Landscape heterogeneity and disturbance. Springer, New York, pp 15–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. MOVE (2010) Generic conceptual framework for vulnerability measurement. Seven framework programme, methods for the improvement of vulnerability assessment in Europe. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  63. Munich Re Group (2003) TOPICS—annual review: natural catastrophes 2002. MunichGoogle Scholar
  64. Myer R (1984) Going to scale. Paper prepared for UNICEF for the Second Inter-Agency Meeting on Community-based Child Development, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. Neumann RP (2009) Political ecology: theorizing scale. Prog Hum Geogr 33(3):398–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. November V (2008) Spatiality of risk. Environ Plan A 40:1523–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. OECD (2008) Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  68. O’Neill RV, Johnson AR, King AW (1989) A hierarchical framework for the analysis of scale. Landscape Ecol 3(3–4):193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Papathoma-Köhle M, Kappes MS, Keiler M, Glade T (2011) Physical vulnerability assessment for alpine hazards: state of the art and future needs future needs. Nat Hazards 58(2):645–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pelling M, Uitto J (2001) Small island developing states: natural disaster vulnerability and global change. Environ Hazards 3:49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Preston BL, Yuen EJ, Westaway RM (2011) Putting vulnerability to climate change on the map: a review of approaches, benefits, and risks. Sustain Sci 6(2):177–202. doi: 10.1007/s11625-011-0129-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Purcell M, Brown C (2005) Against the local trap: scale and the study of environment and development. Prog Dev Stud 5(4):279–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rieken B (2010) Schatten über Galtür? Gespräche mit Einheimischen über die Lawine von 1999—Ein Beitrag zur Katastrophenforschung. Waxmann, Münster/New York/München/Berlin, 215pGoogle Scholar
  74. Sayre NF (2005) Ecological and geographical scale: parallels and potential for integration. Prog Hum Geogr 29(3):276–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schmidt-Thomé P, Kallio H, Jarva J, Tarvainen T, Greiving S, Fleischhauer M, Peltonen L, Kumpulainen S, Olfert A, Schanze J, Bärring L, Persson G, Relvão AM, Batista MJ (2006) The spatial effects and management of natural and technological hazards in europe—ESPON 1.3.1. Geological Survey of Finland. ESPON—European Spatial Planning Observation NetworkGoogle Scholar
  76. Schneiderbauer S (2007) Risk and vulnerability to natural disasters—from broad view to focused perspective: theoretical background and applied methods for the identification of the most endangered populations in two case studies at different scales. Dissertation at the Fachbereich Geowissenschaften der Freien Universität BerlinGoogle Scholar
  77. Simon HA, Ando A (1961) Aggregation of variables in dynamic systems. Econometrica 29:111–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Smith N (1992) Contours of a spatialized politics: homeless vehicles and the production of geographical scale. Soc Text 33:55–81Google Scholar
  79. Smith N (2006) There’s no such thing as a natural disaster. Understanding Katrina: perspectives from the social science. Available online at http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Smith/
  80. Stevens S (1946) On the theory of scales of measurement. Science 103:677–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tiede D, Lang S, Füreder P, Hölbling D, Hoffmann C, Zeil P (2011) Automated damage indication for rapid geospatial reporting. An operational object-based approach to damage density mapping following the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 77(9):933–942Google Scholar
  82. Torgerson WS (ed) (1958) Theory and methods of scaling. John Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  83. Totschnig R, Sedlacek W, Fuchs S (2011) A quantitative vulnerability function for fluvial sediment transport. Nat Hazards 58(2):681–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Turner BL, Kasperson RE, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW, Christensen L, Eckley N, Kasperson JX, Luers A, Martello ML, Polsky C, Pulsipher A, Schiller A (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(14):8074–8079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. UN/ISDR (2009) Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction. United Nations, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  86. UNDP (2004) Reducing disaster risk: a challenge for development. A global report. In: Pelling M, Maskrey A, Ruiz P, Hall L (eds) John S. Swift Co., USAGoogle Scholar
  87. Villagrán de León JC (2004) Manual para la Estimación de Riesgos Asociados a Varias Amenazas. Acción Contra el Hambre, ACH. GuatemalaGoogle Scholar
  88. Villagrán de León JC (2005) Quantitative vulnerability and risk assessment in communities on the Foothills of Pacaya Volcano in Guatemala. J Hum Secur Dev 1(1):1–25Google Scholar
  89. Villagrán de León JC (2006) Vulnerability: a conceptual and methodological review. ‘Studies of the University: Research, Counsel, Education’—Publication Series of UNU-EHS (SOURCE), No. 4/2006Google Scholar
  90. Vincent K (2004) Creating an index of social vulnerability to climate change in Africa. Working Paper No. 56, Tyndall Centre for Climate ResearchGoogle Scholar
  91. WFP (2004) Vulnerability analysis and mapping—a tentative methodology (Annex III). Available online [March 2008] at http://www.proventionconsortium.org/files/wfp_vulnerability.pdf
  92. Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2004) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, London, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  93. Wu J (1999) Hierarchy and scaling: extrapolating information along a scaling ladder. Can J Remote Sens 25(4):367–380Google Scholar
  94. Wu J, Marceau D (2002) Modeling complex ecological systems: an introduction. Ecol Model 153:1–6Google Scholar
  95. Wu J, Harbin L (2006) Concepts of scale and scaling. In: Wu J, Jones KB, Li H, Loucks OL (eds) Scaling and uncertainty analysis in ecology: methods and applications. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Zaidi RZ, Pelling M (forthcoming) Urban resilience and disaster risk reduction: institutional learning in London’s heat wave risk management regime. Urban StudiesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Kienberger
    • 1
  • Thomas Blaschke
    • 1
  • Rukhe Zehra Zaidi
    • 2
  1. 1.Interfaculty Department of Geoinformatics, Z_GISUniversity of SalzburgSalzburgAustria
  2. 2.Hazards and Risk Research Group, Department of GeographyKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations