Social Vulnerability (Re-)Assessment in Context to Natural Hazards: Review of the Usefulness of the Spatial Indicator Approach and Investigations of Validation Demands

Abstract

While social vulnerability assessments (SVA) use spatial indicators and indices that have become state of the art, they also receive substantial critique. This article analyzes, by means of a literature review of 63 articles, if and in which aspects such an indicator approach is regarded as useful by scientific studies. The findings indicate a need for more research on the validation and justification of indicators. This article supports the conceptual development of SVA by adding to reflection about advancements and applications, but also shortcomings. The main advancement area discussed is validation and the demand for establishing benchmark criteria for vulnerability. Based on this, longitudinal monitoring of vulnerability and validation studies are conceivable based on existing SVA, but these efforts demand more conceptual development.

Correcting for Intra-Individual Variability in Sodium Excretion in Spot Urine Samples Does Not Improve the Ability to Predict 24 h Urinary Sodium Excretion

“…SAGE is a multinational study examining the health and well-being of adult populations and the ageing process [ 29 ]. Evaluation of the health effects of the mandatory salt reduction policy [ 30 ] on South African adults is being conducted using a nested study design in waves 2 and 3 [ 31 ]. Inclusion criteria for urine collection were: respondent must be part of the WHO-SAGE cohort, with no indication of urinary incontinence or another condition that could impede 24 h urine collection; and if female, not menstruating, pregnant, or breast feeding on the day of collection.…”

Decision Model for Predicting Social Vulnerability Using Artificial Intelligence

“…Age [15,16,18,[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Gender [1,15,16,27,30,32,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] Race and ethnicity [16,18,39,41,42] Occupation [15,27,31,43,44] Population growth and mortality [18,28,31,32,43,45,46] Social and economics characteristics Socioeconomic status (income, political power, prestige) [15][16][17][18]27,28,33,34,39,…”

“…Commercial and industrial development [16,43,44] Rural/urban [16,28,54,55] Residential property [15,18,28,31,[42][43][44]50] Renters [15,18,31,33,41,43,45,50] Family and social structure [16,18,34,43,45,46] Public resource provision and public security…”

A Factor Analysis Approach Toward Reconciling Community Vulnerability and Resilience Indices for Natural Hazards

“…First, despite much over-lap in their formulations and end goals, there isn't a clear way to compare what indices are comprised of or actually measuring (Gillespie-Marthaler, Nelson, Baroud, & Abkowitz, 2019). Second and related, there is a lack of objective justification for the use of one indicator over another, which has reasonably led to a proliferation unproven indicators in the field (Fekete, 2019;Gillespie-Marthaler et al, 2019). Lastly, indices themselves are also questionable in their abilities to predict disaster outcomes that would intuitively align with notions of community vulnerability and resilience; Bakkensen et al (2017) found that indices have mixed results when compared to expected outcomes of property damage, fatalities, and disaster declarations.…”