Natural Hazards

, Volume 88, Issue 2, pp 1229–1250 | Cite as

How does resilience matter? An empirical verification of the relationships between resilience and vulnerability

  • Kuan-Hui Elaine Lin
  • Hsiang-Chieh Lee
  • Thung-Hong LinEmail author
Original Paper


The theoretical relationships between resilience and vulnerability have long been debated, but limited research has been done to test their relationships from an empirical perspective. This study presents an important case to demonstrate the empirical verification of the relationships. After reviewing relevant theories, we propose revisions of two widely adopted disaster risk and vulnerability formulas and apply them in a Taiwanese case of Typhoon Morakot. The data incorporate four natural hazard data sets, a Taiwan Social Change Survey of nonvictims as the reference group, and a longitudinal data set of Social Impact and Recovery Survey for Typhoon Morakot victims (2010–2012). With those data, two sets of models were constructed based on the two revised formulas. The first set of models estimates a disaster risk, defined as the probability and expected value of victimization determined by the typhoon hazard, household’s exposure, and contextual vulnerability composed of social class, ethnicity, education, and family status. The second set of models estimates an affected household’s outcome vulnerability, defined as the continuous trajectory of household living condition consisted of exposure, contextual vulnerability, and resilience. In the second set, outcome vulnerability is measured through household income pre- and post-disaster to depict the impact and dynamism; resilience is measured through social capital variables. Logit, ordinal linear regression (OLS), and fixed-effect regression were applied to statistically estimate the models. The results highlight that contextual vulnerability deteriorates the disaster risk of typhoon. Resilience has an impact on outcome vulnerability, but its effect is uncertain, likely to be restricted in the disaster recovery.


Vulnerability Resilience Disaster Inequality Typhoon Taiwan 



This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (Project NO. 104-2410-H-001-002-MY2). The authors also like to thank Ms. Rico Yang for her assistance on data management.

Supplementary material

11069_2017_2916_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)


  1. Adger WN (2000) Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Prog Hum Geogr 24:347–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang 16:268–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldrich DP (2012) Building resilience: social capital in post-disaster recovery. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aldrich DP, Crook K (2008) Strong civil society as a double-edged sword: sitting trailers in post-Katrina New Orleans. Political Res Q 61:379–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aldrich DP, Meyer MA (2015) Social capital and community resilience. Am Behav Sci 59:254–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Béné C, Wood RG, Newsham A, Davies M (2012) Resilience: New Utopia or New Tyranny? Reflection about the potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relation to vulnerability reduction programmes IDS working papers 2012:1–61 doi: 10.1111/j.2040-0209.2012.00405.x
  7. Berkes F (2007) Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking. Nat Hazard 41:283–295. doi: 10.1007/s11069-006-9036-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birkmann J (ed) (2006) Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: towards disaster resilient societies. United Nations University, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  9. Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B (1994) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Bohle HG, Downing TE, Watts MJ (1994) Climate change and social vulnerability: toward a sociology and geography of food insecurity. Glob Environ Chang 4:37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brand FX, Jax K (2007) Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecol Soc 12:23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buckle P (2006) Assessing social resilience. In: Paton D, Johnston D (eds) Disaster resilience: an integrated approach. Charles C Thomas, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  13. Carpenter SR, Gunderson LH (2001) Coping with collapse: ecological and social dynamics in ecosystem management. Bioscience 51:451–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cutter SL, Mitchell JT, Scott MS (2000) Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a case study of Georgetown County South Carolina. Ann Ass Am Geogr 90:713–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 84:242–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. Glob Environ Chang 18:598–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dilley M, Chen R, Deichmann U (2005) Natural disaster hotspots: a global risk analysis. World Bank Hazard Management Unit, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eakin H, Luers AL (2006) Assessing the vulnerability of social-environmental systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:365–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elliott J, Haney T, Sams-Abiodum P (2010) Limits to social capital: comparing network assistance in two New Orleans neighbors devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Sociol Q 51:624–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Erikson R, Goldthorpe JH (1992) The constant flux: a study of class mobility in industrial societies. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Fekete A (2009) Validation of a social vulnerability index in context to river-floods in Germany. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 9:393–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Chang 16:253–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frigerio I, De Amicis M (2016) Mapping social vulnerability to natural hazards in Italy: a suitable tool for risk mitigation strategies. Environ Sci Policy 63:187–196. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Füssel H-M (2007) Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research. Glob Environ Chang 17:155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Füssel H-M (2009) Review and quantitative analysis of indices of climate change exposure, adaptive capacity, sensitivity, and impacts: background note to the world development report 2010. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchGoogle Scholar
  26. Füssel H-M, Klein RJT (2006) Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Clim Chang 75:301–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gallopín GC (2006) Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Glob Environ Chang 16:293–303. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Garrison MEB, Sasser DD (2009) Families and disasters: making meaning out of adversity. In: Cherry KE (ed) Lifespan perspectives on natural disasters: coping with Katrina, Rita, and other storms. Springer, New York, pp 113–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gundersen V, Kaltenborn BP, Williams DR (2016) A bridge over troubled water: a contextual analysis of social vulnerability to climate change in a riverine landscape in south-east Norway Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift—Norwegian. J Geogr 70:216–229. doi: 10.1080/00291951.2016.1194317 Google Scholar
  30. Gunderson LH (2000) Ecological resilience in theory and application. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:425–439Google Scholar
  31. Gunderson LH (2010) Ecological and human community resilience in response to natural disasters. Ecol Soc 15:18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haines VA, Hurlbert JS, Beggs JJ (1996) Exploring the determinants of support provision: provider characteristics, personal networks, community contexts, and support following life events. J Health Soc Behav 37:252–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hawkins RL, Maurer K (2010) Bonding, bridging and linking: how social capital operated in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. Br J Soc Work 40:1777–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holling CS (1986) The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: local surprise and global change. In: Clark WC, Munn RE (eds) Sustainable development of the biosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 292–317Google Scholar
  36. Hopkins D (2015) Applying a comprehensive contextual climate change vulnerability framework to New Zealand’s tourism industry. Ambio 44:110–120. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0525-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hout M (1983) Mobility tables. Sage, Beverly Hills, California.Google Scholar
  38. Hsu H-H, Chou C, Wu YC, Lu MM, Chen CT, Chen YM (2011) Climate change in taiwan: scientific report 2011. National Science Council, Taipei, TaiwanGoogle Scholar
  39. Hurlbert J, Haines VA, Beggs J (2000) Core networks and tie activation: what kinds of routine networks allocated resources in nonroutine situations? Am Sociol Rev 65:598–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 976Google Scholar
  41. 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. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  42. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Working group II contribution to the IPCC 5th assessment report—changes to the underlying scientific/technical assessment. Intergovernmental panel on climate changeGoogle Scholar
  43. Joakim E, Mortsch L, Oulahen G (2015) Using vulnerability and resilience concepts to advance climate change adaptation. Environ Hazard 14:137–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jongman B, Winsemius HC, Aerts JCJH, de Perez EC, van Aalst MK, Kron W, Ward PJ (2015) Declining vulnerability to river floods and the global benefits of adaptation Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112:E2271–E2280 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1414439112
  45. Kaniasty K, Norris FH (1993) A test of the social support deterioration model in the context of natural disaster. J Personal Soc Psychol 64:395–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE (2005) The social contours of risk: risk analysis, corporations and the globalization of risk, vol II. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Klein R, Nicholls R, Thomalla F (2003) Resilience to natural hazards: how useful is this concept? Environ Hazard 5:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Koks EE, Jongman B, Husby TG, Botzen WJW (2015) Combining hazard, exposure and social vulnerability to provide lessons for flood risk management. Environ Sci Policy 47:42–52. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Korup O, Clague JJ (2009) Natural hazards, extreme events, and mountain topography. Quatern Sci Rev 28:977–990. doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.02.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kuhlicke C (2013) Resilience: a capacity and a myth: findings from an in-depth case study in disaster management research. Nat Hazard 67:61–76. doi: 10.1007/s11069-010-9646-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lin N (2001) Social capital: a theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lin KH, Polsky C (2015) Indexing livelihood vulnerability to the effects of typhoons in indigenous communities of Taiwan. Geogr J. doi: 10.1111/geoj.12141 Google Scholar
  53. Lin KH, Chang YC, Liu GY, Chan CH, Lin TH, Yeh CH (2015) An interdisciplinary perspective on social and physical determinants of seismic risk. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 15:2173–2182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lucini B (2013) Social capital and sociological resilience in megacities context. Int J Disaster Resil Built Environ 4:58–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ludena CE, Yoon SW (2015) Local vulnerability indicators and adaptation to climate change: a survey. Inter-American Development Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  56. Luers AL, Lobell David B, Sklar Leonard S, Lee Addams C, Matson Pamela A (2003) A method for quantifying vulnerability, applied to the agricultural system of the Yaqui Valley Mexico. Glob Environ Chang 13:255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Manyena SB (2006) The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters 30:433–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (eds) (2001) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  59. Miller F et al (2010) Resilience and vulnerability: complementary or conflicting concepts? Ecol Soc 15:11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. MPDRC (2012) An innovative approach for post-disaster reconstruction of Typhoon Morakot in Taiwan. Morakot post-disaster reconstruction council, Executive Yuan, Republic of China, Taipei, TaiwanGoogle Scholar
  61. MPDRC (2014) Morakot Typhoon post-disaster reconstruction council, Executive Yuan’s five-year mission successful closes on August 8th, 2014,
  62. Murphy DJ, Wyborn C, Yung L, Williams DR (2015) Key concepts and methods in social vulnerability and adaptive capacity. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, ColorakoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. NCDR (2012) Social impacts and recovery survey of Typhoon Morakot, wave 1~3. National Science and Technology Center for Disaster Reduction, New Taipei City, Taiwan. doi:
  64. NHRA (2015) Natural Hazards Risk Atlas.
  65. O’Brien K et al (2004) Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and globalization in India. Glob Environ Chang 14:303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. O’Brien K, Eriksen SH, Nygaard L, Schjolden A (2007) Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. Clim Policy 7:73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Okpara UT, Stringer LC, Dougill AJ (2016) Perspectives on contextual vulnerability in discourses of climate conflict. Earth Syst Dyn 7:89–102. doi: 10.5194/esd-7-89-2016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pelling M (1998) Participation, social capital and vulnerability to urban flooding in Guyana. J Int Dev 10:469–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang 16:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. TSCS (2010) Taiwan social change survey. Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan. doi:
  71. Turner BL II (2010) Vulnerability and resilience: coalescing or paralleling approaches for sustainability science? Glob Environ Chang 20:570–576. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Turner NJ, Clifton H (2009) “It’s so different today”: climate change and indigenous lifeways in British Columbia, Canada. Glob Environ Chang 19:180–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Turner BL II et al (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8074–8079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. UNDRO (1980) Natural disasters and vulnerability analysis. UNDRO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  75. UNFCCC (2015) Adoption of the Paris Agreement. United Nations framework convention on climate changeGoogle Scholar
  76. UNISDR (2004) Living with risks: a global review of disaster reduction initiatives. United Nations Publication, Geneva, Switzerland. doi:
  77. Veland S, Howitt R, Dominey-Howes D, Thomalla F, Houston D (2013) Procedural vulnerability: understanding environmental change in a remote indigenous community. Glob Environ Chang 23:314–326. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kuan-Hui Elaine Lin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hsiang-Chieh Lee
    • 3
  • Thung-Hong Lin
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Research Center for Environmental ChangesAcademia SinicaTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.George Perkins Marsh InstituteClark UniversityWorcesterUSA
  3. 3.National Science and Technology Center for Disaster Reduction (NCDR)New Taipei CityTaiwan
  4. 4.Institute of SociologyAcademia SinicaTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations