No abstract

Social vulnerability models are becoming increasingly important for hazard mitigation and recovery planning, but it remains unclear how well they explain disaster outcomes. Most studies using indicators and indices employ them to either describe vulnerability patterns or compare newly devised measures to existing ones. The focus of this article is construct validation, in which we investigate the empirical validity of a range of models of social vulnerability using outcomes from Hurricane Sandy. Using spatial regression, relative measures of assistance applicants, affected renters, housing damage, and property loss were regressed on four social vulnerability models and their constituent pillars while controlling for flood exposure. The indices best explained housing assistance applicants, while they poorly explained property loss. At the pillar level, themes related to access and functional needs, age, transportation, and housing were the most explanatory. Overall, social vulnerability models with weighted and profile configurations demonstrated higher construct validity than the prevailing social vulnerability indices. The findings highlight the need to expand the number and breadth of empirical validation studies to better understand relationships among social vulnerability models and disaster outcomes.

International audienceA fashionable concept, resilience is now a must in both academic research and management. However, its polysemy nourishes many debates on its uses, heuristics and operational relevance. The purpose of this article is not to bring these debates to a close. Starting from a cross-disciplinary state of the art, we point out the incompatibilities between certain meanings and uses of the term. These inconsistencies raise theoretical issues, leading some researchers to reject the term for that matter, especially those outside the cindynics field. The analysis of the concept also brings out some methodological pitfalls. These are evident when attempting to translate theory into operational terms. Resilience is indeed seen as a promising response to recurrent difficulties in risk management. Nevertheless, it solves them only partially and produces new ones. Lastly, its implementation involves ethical and political risks. The injunction to resilience that seems to prevail internationally is in fact implying a number of moral and ideological assumptions which are not always clearly stated and remain serious issues