UNIT 6 VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS AND RISK

ASSESSMENT

Structure
6.0 Learning Outcome
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Understanding Vulnerability
6.3 Vulnerability and Capacity
6.4 Vulnerability Analysis
6.5 Risk Assessment
6.6 Conducting Risk Assessment
6.7 Risk Mapping
6.8 Conclusion
6.9 Key Concepts
6.10 References and Further Reading
6.11 Activities

6.0 LEARNING OUTCOME

After studying this Unit, you should be able to:
• Discuss the concepts of vulnerability and risk;
• Examine the principles of vulnerability analysis and risk assessment
processes;
• Discuss the need and the means for carrying out rapid assessments; and
• Understand the processes from the point of view of development

6.1 INTRODUCTION
Vulnerability is the extent to which people or buildings are likely to suffer harm
from a disaster, while risk is the likely quantified losses that would result
considering the probability and intensity of a hazard. As such, risk also includes
an element of hazard, the natural or man-made event that can lead to a disaster if
there is high vulnerability. In order to initiate programmes for reducing risk in
any community, it is necessary to understand specific vulnerabilities and to weigh
the resilience against the threats present in the area. This involves a series of
steps, the major ones being the assessment and analysis of vulnerability and risk.
This should influence public policy for immediate and long-term preparedness,
mitigation and vulnerability reduction. Vulnerability and risk assessments are
both science and art since quantitative assessments of probability of risks and
likely damage are attempted using mathematical techniques. Socio-economic
study with a view to studying communities and specific factors that make them

1
vulnerable, is attempted using the insights provided by such assessments and
effective transformation attempted through policy. It is especially important to
recognise that this social vulnerability is much more than the likelihood of
buildings collapsing or infrastructure getting damaged. It is about the
characteristics of people, and the differential impacts of a disaster on people.
6.2 UNDERSTANDING VULNERABILITY
To conduct vulnerability analysis, we need a clear idea about what Vulnerability
is. Vulnerability is defined in the United Nations Disaster Management Training
Programme (1994) as the “degree of loss to a given element at risk (or set of
elements) resulting from a given hazard and a given severity level.” The concept
of vulnerability can be assessed at various levels and from diverse perspectives.
Both physical scientists and social scientists are involved in conceptualising
vulnerability. There has also been growing specialisation in the respective fields
of hazard and vulnerability assessment. While specialisation is welcome, there is
an inherent danger of increased isolation among respective specialists in physical
science and social science streams and even across the two broad categorizations
in that even within the broad specialisation of physical sciences and social
sciences, perspectives are likely to differ with respect to emphasis areas as per
super/sub specialisations. Hence an engineer or a scientist/researcher in related
fields is likely to perceive vulnerability more in terms of Risk, while a climate
scientist, in terms of the likelihood of occurrence and impacts of weather and
climate related events. The biophysical concept of vulnerability is akin to the
concept of ‘Risk’ while the social science perspective defines it more in terms of
socio economic parameters. Experts from the following fields are involved in
study and analyses of vulnerability; climate science, policy development studies,
economics, disaster management, health, and social sciences along with others.
According to Nick Brooks (2003), each of these relates only themselves to a
partial understanding of vulnerability. There is a need to rise above specialisations
and take an across- the- board, interdisciplinary and cross-cultural view of the
issue of vulnerability to present a more complete and holistic analysis of
vulnerability for meaningful interest articulation and policy formulation in the
area. Physical vulnerability has also to be understood in the context of political
conflict, issues of class struggle, unequal access to power and social
backwardness to formulate comprehensive vulnerability reduction approach. The
same should be attempted by integrating, through a conceptual model, through
research, these different and diverse “traditions in a coherent yet flexible
fashion.”
The attempt on the part of all involved specialists/academics is to get closer to the
root causes of vulnerability. The closer the analysis gets to the fundamental
causes rather than the symptomatic aspects of vulnerability, the more difficult and
complex vulnerabilities get/are in fact to address. However, the more
fundamental the vulnerability addressed, the more hazard-resistant the vulnerable
group is likely to become as a result.
As per Terry Cannon (2000), Social vulnerability is the complex set of
characteristics that include a person’s:
• initial well-being (nutritional status, physical and mental health, morale),
• livelihood and resilience (asset pattern and capitals, income and exchange
options, qualifications,

2
• self-protection (the degree of protection afforded by capability and
willingness to build safe home, use safe site),
• social protection (forms of hazard preparedness provided by society more
generally, for example, building codes, mitigation measures, shelters,
preparedness), and
• social and political networks and institutions (social capital, but also role
of institutional environment in setting good conditions for hazard
precautions, peoples’ rights to express needs and of access to
preparedness).
In most vulnerability analysis methods, there is a clear sense of comparability and
convergence in the analysis of vulnerability factors (encompassing the different
components of vulnerability discussed above). There is also a vivid realisation
that vulnerability conditions are themselves determined by processes and factors
that are apparently quite different from a hazard, which is mistakenly held
singularly responsible for losses. These root causes, or institutional factors, or
more general, political, economic and social processes and priorities are
highlighted in much of the vulnerability analysis work that has been done. As
peoples’ livelihood and wider political and economic processes determine
opportunities and their patterns of assets and incomes, vulnerability to disasters is
also a function of this wider environment. All the vulnerability variables are
inherently connected with peoples’ livelihoods (lower vulnerability is likely when
livelihoods are adequate and sustainable), and their innate resilience related with
issues such as poverty (in most disasters) since, it is mostly the poor who are
disproportionately more at risk than other groups, and much less capable of
recovering easily.
Related concepts are sensitivity, resilience and adaptive capacity. Sensitivity
refers to the degree of proneness of a particular ‘element at risk’ to a particular
threat, such as climate risk, land degradation etc. Sensitivity would refer to the
degree of change that would be brought about as response in one variable that is
correlated to the other. Assessing Sensitivity would involve working out the
correlation. Resilience is explained as fortitude in the face of a potential threat. In
one word, it means resistance. Adaptive capacity refers to preparedness through
an ancillary way in that it means how much absorption capacity is here or is
needed by policy intervention in this regard, specifically what, in order to
withstand natural changes and how to adapt to them. For example, retreat of
glaciers in the Himalayas due to global warming, or changes in harvest seasons
that could be possible (grain suffers due to early summer) would need to be
tackled through adaptation measures such as resistant varieties of seeds, manures,
innovative irrigation techniques, etc.
To understand differential vulnerability of different segments of population in a
given area exposed in the same measure to a given hazard, it is important to
inquire into the differential causes of vulnerability. It encompasses poverty,
marginalisation, or other deprivations that accentuate the vulnerability to climate
risks or specific biological hazards that affect particularly the sections of the
population who are disadvantaged, ‘at risk’, or in other ways in need.
Vulnerability involves a predictive quality since it is a way of conceptualising
what may happen to an identifiable population under conditions of particular
hazards. Precisely, because it should be predictive, vulnerability analysis (VA)
should be capable of directing development aid interventions, as also public

3
policy interventions on the part of governments seeking ways to protect and
enhance peoples’ livelihoods, assist vulnerable people in their own attempts at
self-protection, and support institutions in their role of disaster prevention.

6.3 VULNERABILITY AND CAPACITY

There appears to be two separate approaches to Vulnerability Analysis. The first
conceives of them being the two ends of a spectrum, so that people who have a
high degree of vulnerability are low in capacity and vice versa. In this approach,
there is no ‘separate set of factors’ that should be considered as vulnerability
factors or capacities or capabilities; there are simply scales on which high levels
of capacity axiomatically indicate low level of vulnerability. The second
perceives them as two distinct or only partly inter-related sets of factors since
capacity might include institutional membership, group cohesion, or even literacy,
which positions people better to cope with adverse conditions, in relation to
others, vulnerabilities notwithstanding. The implication is that some capacities
may not always be the opposite of vulnerabilities, in that being part of a particular
network may be a capacity, or a denial of capacity to others, as is the case with
cohesion norms based on caste behaviour in India. This is not to construe that the
term vulnerability cannot imply capacities as scalar ‘opposites’. Different
conception is simply purported to facilitate conceptual understanding of
vulnerability, not to confuse it in any way.
The use of the concept of capabilities emerged in response to the supposedly
negative connotation of the term vulnerability, and has been especially stressed in
the World Disasters Report, 2004. Instead of Vulnerability and Capacity
Analysis, or VCAs, the term employed now is CVA or Capacity and
Vulnerability Analysis, signifying the change in approach from vulnerability
reduction to capacity enhancement, as policy focus/emphasis. It has been realised
that a lot more effectiveness in disaster response and mitigation could be achieved
if the emphasis shifted from tackling vulnerabilities singly, to reinforcing
capacities that enable communities to fight disasters and recover after suffering
losses from any such event. It was suggested that to speak of people as being
vulnerable was to treat them as passive victims and ignore the many capacities
that make them competent to resist hazards through self-help.
If we accept that measuring vulnerability includes any factor or process that can
alter the ‘exposure’ of a person or household to risk, then capacities can also be
considered as factors that lead to greater danger (vulnerability) when they are
low, and reduced danger when they are high. As per Palakudiyil and Todd (2003),
Vulnerability/Capacity could be physical/material, social/organisational/ or
motivational/attitudinal.
Physical/Material Vulnerability and Capacity: The most visible area of
vulnerability is physical/material deprivation. Variables include land, climate,
environment, health, skills and labour, infrastructure, housing, finance and
technologies to which the poor are denied access. Poor people suffer from crises
more often than the rich because they have little or no savings, few income or
production options, and limited resources. They are more vulnerable and also
recover more slowly. To understand physical/material vulnerability, one has to
ask what made the people affected by the disaster physically vulnerable, in that
was it their economic activities (for example, farmers cannot plant because of

4
floods), or geographic location (for example. homes built in cyclone-prone areas)
or lack of access to relief resources that made them suffer particularly.
Social/Organisational Vulnerability and Capacity: How society is organised, its
internal conflicts and how it manages them are just as important as the
physical/material aspects of vulnerability, though less visible and less well
understood. This includes ‘formal political structures’ and the ‘informal systems’
through which people get politically empowered/ socially networked which is a
capacity/vulnerability, however the case, which determines access to relief in
disaster times and to livelihood means in general. For example, during the recent
tsunami, it was realised that aid did not reach many because of caste seclusion.
Hence, constitutional provisions/guarantees provided in the Constitution under
articles, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, that safeguard the rights of the socially marginalised
would need to be invoked in future in such possibilities.
Poor societies that are well- organised and cohesive can withstand or recover
from disasters better than those that are ill- organised or lacking in cohesion on
some irrational principle as divisiveness on race, religion, and class or caste lines.
To explore this aspect in depth with a view to inquiring into the causes of
vulnerability, one has to ask what the social structure was before the disaster
struck and how well it served the people in relief and recovery; one can also ask
what apocalyptic impact disasters had on social organisation, since there has been
evidence of attitudes changing or even new ‘permutations and combinations’
emerging in social alignments in post-disaster situations. This underscores the
significance of research into social networks/attitudes and how improvements
could be affected, possibly through policy interventions to reinforce/discourage
behaviour as aforestated
Motivational/Attitudinal Vulnerability and Capacity: This implies how people in
society view themselves and their ability to protect themselves in the event of
disasters. Groups that share strong ideologies or belief systems, or have
experience in cooperating successfully, may be better able to help each other at
times of disaster than groups without such shared beliefs or those who feel
fatalistic or dependent. Crises can stimulate communities to make extraordinary
efforts. Questions to be asked include; what people’s beliefs and motivations are
how they affect their behaviour during disasters. The more pertinent question
would be: what is the general worldview, implying culture, in that whether
communities place reliance on some metaphysical regulation of life or believe in
human action. Public policy intervention in this case would need to aim at
changing attitudes within communities, since such attitudes could be counter-
productive. Long-term measures in this respect would be education of the masses,
through which cognitive development could be achieved.

6.4 VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS

Once knowledge is gained of the threats in existence, their expected severity and
locations at risk, an understanding of what can be affected by these threats and to
what degree, is required for ameliorative policy in this regard. This activity is
termed vulnerability assessment and is defined as:

5
“The analysis of the vulnerability of various sectors that are exposed to the
natural hazards identified in the hazard analysis exercises. The sectors include
social, livelihoods, economic, physical assets, agriculture, political and
administration.” (DMTP, 1994).
Vulnerability, as has been explained earlier, is the extent to which a community,
structure, service or region is likely to be damaged or disrupted by the impact of a
particular hazard. People’s lives and health are directly at risk from the
destructive effects of hazards. Their incomes and livelihoods are at risk because
of the destruction of buildings, crops, livestock or equipment, which they depend
on. Even if physical loss is avoided, the effects on livelihood, etc. can last a long
time, and often, previous levels of existence are not re-attained; for example, fire
in an informal market may not kill anybody, yet may destroy goods and therefore
livelihoods of market traders. Thus vulnerability assessment aims not just to
recognise who is immediately affected but also who is most or least able to
recover from disasters.
The objective of vulnerability assessment is in particular, to identify who is most
/more vulnerable and why.
Vulnerability Analysis implies/reinforces the political economy approach to
disaster management in that on the state is enjoined the responsibility to undertake
as a vanguard, mobilising efforts for structural mitigation measures for hazard
prevention and create the environment for non-structural mitigation measures
through actions such as institutionalising/strengthening social capital to foster
community self help etc. Tokyo, Japan, and Managua, Nicaragua, are prone to
earthquakes. But the people of Tokyo are far less vulnerable to injury by
earthquakes because Tokyo has strictly enforced building codes, zoning regulations
and earthquake training and communications systems. In Managua, there are still
many people living in top-heavy mud houses on hillsides. They are vulnerable.
Landslides or flooding disasters are closely linked to rapid and unchecked
urbanisation that forces low-income families to settle on the slopes of steep
hillsides or ravines, or along the banks of flood-prone rivers.
Famines can be closely linked to shortages of purchasing power caused by rural
unemployment or a sudden influx of refugees into a country from a strife-torn
neighbouring country.
High numbers of deaths accompanying earthquakes almost always result from
structural collapse of poor, low-cost houses.
In other disasters, such as cyclones and tsunamis, humans can increase their
vulnerability by removing bits of their natural environment that may act as buffers
to these extreme natural forces. Such acts include destroying reefs, cutting natural
windbreaks and clearing inland forests.
The poor countries that suffer the worst disasters are those in which
environmental degradation is proceeding most rapidly. Countries with severe
deforestation, erosion, over cultivation and overgrazing tend to be hardest hit by
disasters.
Natural hazards are agents or trigger mechanisms that can come into contact with
a vulnerable human condition to result in a disaster.
Process of Vulnerability Analysis

6
 Each type of hazard puts a different/specific set of ‘elements’ at risk. Most of
disaster mitigation work is focused on reducing vulnerability, and in order to do
so, development planners need an understanding and indication of which
elements are most at risk from the principal hazards, which have been identified.
Vulnerability assessment to hazards usually takes place in the following two-stage
sequence:
1. Making an inventory of what is at risk: Once the possibility of hazards in any
location or area is known, it is necessary to find out what may be affected by
them. Thus base line data is required on the following:
• Population; age, gender, health
• Livelihoods; types, locations
• Local economies
• Agriculture and fisheries
• Buildings
• Infrastructure
• Cultural assets (that is, libraries, museums, historic buildings etc.)
• Local institutions

2. Assessing the vulnerability of elements at risk: After an inventory has been

prepared of the elements at risk, further examination is required as to how
they will be affected by hazards to make accurate assessment of the risk. It
should be noted that whilst a quantification of the elements existing in any
location is relatively straightforward, an assessment of how they will be
affected in a hazard event is harder to assess. It is important to note that it
is often the case that the ‘intangible’ aspects of vulnerability will be as
important as the quantifiable aspects. These should include the evaluation
of socio-economic vulnerability and individual or societal "coping
mechanisms" as well as support systems, which allow some people to cope
with the impact of a hazard and recover from them comparatively faster.

Tangible and Intangible Vulnerable Elements

PRINCIPAL VULNERABLE ELEMENTS
Tangible Intangible
Floods Everything located in flood Social cohesion, community
plains or tsunami areas. structures cohesion, cultural
Crops, livestock, artifacts
machinery, equipment,
infrastructure Weak
buildings

7
 Weak buildings and Social cohesion, community
Earthquakes occupants. Machinery and structures cohesion, cultural
their equipment, artifacts
infrastructure. Livestock.
Contents of weak buildings
Landslides Anything located on or at Social cohesion, community
base of steep slopes or cliff structures cohesion, cultural
tops, roads and artifacts
infrastructure, buildings on
shallow foundations
Strong winds Lightweight buildings and Community structures,
roofs. Fences, trees, signs; social cohesion, cultural
fishing boats and coastal artifacts
industries, Crops and
livestock.
Technological Lives and health of those Destruction of the
disasters involved or near the environment. Cultural
vicinity. Building, losses. Possible population
equipment, infrastructure, disruption.
crops and livestock
(Adapted from Primer on Natural Hazard Management, OFDA, 1991)

The most difficult vulnerabilities to address are based on exclusion from social,
economic and political systems, which often decisively determine
capacities/vulnerabilities of people, since these are rooted in the history and
culture of the people. These vulnerabilities may reflect characteristics such as
prejudices based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity, social class, age, etc. These
most fundamental vulnerabilities limit people’s access to resources, opportunities,
services, information and ultimately deny people choice in control over their
lives.
Vulnerability assessment is therefore another complex data collection process to
determine what ‘elements’ are ‘at risk’. These include social, economic and
natural and physical factors. It is always a 'site-specific’ process with a concern
for unique characteristics of a local situation and will always require local
expertise and experience.

6.5 RISK ASSESSMENT

The term ‘risk’ refers to the expected losses from a given hazard to a given
element at risk, over a specified time period. Difference between the
understanding of ‘Risk’ and ‘Vulnerability’ as explained in DMTP (1994) needs
to be noted. Risk combines the expected losses from all levels of hazard severity,
taking account also of their occurrence probability. Vulnerability is the loss to a
given ‘element at risk’ resulting from a given hazard at a given severity level
expressed as a percentage expressed as a percentage loss (or as value, 0 to 1) for a
given hazard severity level. Expression would depend on the element at risk;
accordingly, repair cost for physical infrastructure damaged, ratio in case of
number killed to total ‘at risk’ population, or degree of physical damage on some

8
appropriate scale. For example, average repair cost of 5% experiencing 130km/hr
winds.
Risk presentation is done in aggregate terms as, for example, 75% probability of
economic losses to property experiencing heavy damage or destruction in the
particular town within the next ten years.
Risk assessment is defined as:
"A process of analysis to identify and measure risks from natural hazards that
affect people, property and the environment. This process can also encompass the
assessment of available resources to address the risks."
(Vulnerability and Risk Assessment, DMTP, UNDP, 1994)
Risk assessment forms a crucial early phase in the disaster management planning
cycle and is essential in determining what disaster mitigation measures should be
undertaken to reduce potential future losses. Any attempt to reduce the impact of
a disaster requires an analysis that indicates what ‘threats’ exist, their expected
severity, who, or what they may affect, and why. Knowledge of what makes a
person or a community more vulnerable than another, added to the resources and
capacities available, determine the steps we can take to reduce risk they are
exposed to. Recognition of the need for this diagnostic process is contained in the
first principle from the IDNDR, 1994 Yokohama “World Conference on Natural
Disaster Reduction” which states:
“Risk assessment is a required step for the adoption of adequate and successful
disaster reduction policies and measures” (Outcome of the Conference, Document
A/Conf.172/L.2, page 3, 1994).
Risk assessment is carried out as a series of related activities, which builds up a
picture of the hazards and vulnerabilities, which explain disaster losses.
Information is first collected on the specific location, severity, duration and
frequency of threats that are faced by a society. This is followed by an assessment
of potential hazard impacts on the society’s livelihoods, economy, infrastructure
and key facilities, etc. The scale of these impacts will always be conditioned by
those processes, which either increase or decrease vulnerability, which may be
economic, social, political or environmental.
Risk assessment has two central components:
1) Hazard Analysis: understanding the scale, nature and characteristics of a
hazard; and
2) Vulnerability Analysis: the measuring of the extent to which people or
buildings are likely to suffer from a hazard occurrence.
Any change in either of these two components will correspondingly affect a
change in the nature or size of the risk faced. Once data has been collected and
analysed on both the ‘threat’ and what is/are ‘at risk’ to it, the information has to
be passed on in an appropriate format to decision makers to determine the levels
of ‘acceptable risk’ and what actions should be taken to reduce the risk(s).
Decisions will then be made as to whether risk reduction measures should be
initiated, implying, timing, what level of protection is required and whether there
are other more pressing risks to address with the finite resources at hand.
Understanding risk and taking decisions is therefore a two- part process,
involving both risk evaluation and risk assessment.

9
• Risk Assessment refers to the scientific quantification of risk from data of
past precedents regarding nature of hazards, intensity at which incident,
degree of damage, likely changes if any in any of the factors
involved/mentioned which gives complete understanding of hazard
proneness of the region and the vulnerability of elements, identified as part
of the exercise, to it.
• Risk Evaluation is the social and political judgment about the importance of
various risks faced by individuals and communities, as they perceive it. It
involves prioritising between risks, which are often political, since choices
are involved between competing interests for resource allocation. It involves
weighing risks and benefits in each case, which involves scientific
judgments as also other factors and beliefs.
Risk assessment is therefore mainly a scientific and quantitative process, which
provides input for/impacts public policy for risk mitigation and preparedness. The
data is incorporated in disaster reduction policy/programmes, which depend on
risk evaluation, which is the appraisal or perception of the risk in the context of
other priorities, whether anything can be done to reduce that threat and qualitative
assessment of disaster preparedness to combat the threat. It is therefore logical
that the more accurate the diagnosis of the problem, more successful would be the
strategy, and also cost- effective since resources available to meet it are limited,
even in developed countries.
6.6 CONDUCTING RISK ASSESSMENT
In order to understand and to compare different risks, scientists and economists
usually try to quantify them in terms of their probability of occurrence and the
potential damage/ losses they might cause. This is done by using statistical
analysis to predict the probability of future events by gathering data on the effects
of various hazards in the past that have caused/exacerbated the particular risk.
This identification of effects and the understanding of the processes of disaster
occurrence constitute the first steps in establishing a relationship between hazard
and vulnerability in order to specifically identify the risk.
By using past historical records and an analysis of scientific data estimates can be
made of the likelihood of hazard occurrence and expected severity. When allied
to estimates of what is vulnerable to various hazards, risk can be defined in terms
of the probability, that is, the likelihood of losses and estimation of the proportion
of the population or property, which will be affected.
The purpose of statistical analysis is to arrive at an appropriate statistical model
that relates risk posed by a natural disaster to socio economic parameters. UNDP
carried out an exercise to relate the risk posed by natural disasters such as
earthquakes, tropical cyclones, floods and drought etc. to specific socio economic
factors like HDI (Human Development Index), rate of urban growth etc. that
create losses. The study was carried out under the aegis of the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) using data for more than 90 countries over a
period of 20 years.
Statistical analysis is based on two major assumptions; one, that risk can be
measured in terms of the number of victims of past hazardous events, and second
that the equation of risk follows a ‘multiplicative model,’ in that following risk
identification in each case (taking into account the number of people killed) is
arrived at by taking into account the relevant ‘factor’ values in each case, for

10
example, rate of urban growth was taken as the factor that would determine loss
of life from earthquakes, and access to water supply in case of droughts, etc.
Methodology
The exercise has two key assumptions.
ƒ The number of people killed by a natural disaster is a measure of Risk
(physical exposure or PhExp)
ƒ The equation of risk follows a multiplicative model where the number of
people killed is related to socio economic factors and number of people
exposed to the risk by the following equation
K = C. (PhExp)α. V1α1 .V2α2….VNαN
Where,
K is the number of people killed by the disaster
C is a multiplicative constant
V1-N, are socio economic parameters
α1-N is the exponent of V1-N
{Note: Taking logarithm of both sides transforms this into a linear equation.
Empirical data of natural disasters is taken and relevant socio economic
parameters and their exponents are estimated using linear regression (difference
between actual and desired states)}
For example in case of earthquakes, the socio economic parameter is urban
growth, in case of cyclones, percentage of arable land and human development
index; in case of floods, local population density and gross domestic product; in
case of droughts, percentage of population with access to improved water supply
{further read at,
http://www.undp.org/bcpr/disred/documents/publications/rdr/english/ta/t5.pdf.}

The process of risk assessment is usually conducted in the following sequence:

1. Hazard Analysis: Hazard information is needed on such matters as location,
frequency, duration and severity of each hazard type. Risk assessment should be
carried out, where possible, in relation to all the hazards in a given location. As
explained in the Disaster Management Training Programme, (1994), like risk,
hazard occurrence is expressed in terms of average expected rate of occurrence of
the (specified type of) event or on a probabilistic basis regarding occurrence
probability/possibility. Hazard maps present graphically, the annual probability
and magnitude of the event following intensive geological analysis of the area,
along with a study of past records, sometimes dating a century back or more, as in
case of dormant volcanoes. Other corroborative evidence such as soil composition
analysis to predict landslides or the NDVI (normalised drought vegetation index)
to predict droughts may be used in case of inadequacy of temporal data to predict
the recurrence of an event. Information gathered is collated and depicted on a
hazard map for necessary correlations tracing causes and effects for the purpose
of objective derivations of variables (independent and dependant) involved in the
phenomena and their analysis (statistical methods discussed above). Information
collation is relatively easier for events with relatively regular periodicity.
Corroborative evidence can be gathered from geological ‘hints’ such as silt

11
deposit, high water marks, deposits in case of floods, and past fault lines in case
of earthquakes, and, human records as the main source evidence regarding hazard
probability in all cases. The latter are considered more important and are being
stressed more as compared to geological records by scientists.
The level of severity of natural hazards can be quantified in terms of the
magnitude of occurrence as a whole (event parameter) or in terms of the effect the
occurrence would have at a particular location site (site parameter).
Like risk, hazard occurrence may be expressed in terms of average expected rate
of occurrence of the specified type of event, or on a probabilistic basis. In either
case, the annual occurrence rates are usually used. The inverse of an annual
recurrence rate is a return period. Coburn, Sspence and Pomonis, (1994) state
that:
“There is an annual probability of .08 of an earthquake with a magnitude
exceeding 7.0 in Eastern Turkey. "This is effectively the same thing as saying,
"the average return period of an earthquake of M=7.0 in eastern Turkey is 12.5
years."
Rare events like volcanoes are hard to predict since adequate historical data is not
available. It may be possible for geologists to analyse old lava flows and try to
date the eruption frequency from that.
Smaller more frequent events can also be studied for indications of severity of
future large-scale events.
Knowledge of the consequences of events will be helpful in planning for control
of hazards during the design and operation of the facility by taking proper action
to reduce hazard rate or minimise the consequences, as the case may be, or else
the assessed risk may just be ignored. By evaluating the risk of various hazards to
which the country is liable or potentially liable, it becomes practicable to
formulate strategies to mitigate the impact of hazards in a cost-effective way. If a
community is especially vulnerable to a particular type of disaster, severe risk
treatment measures may be required to reduce the disaster risk to ‘acceptable
levels’.
The other important function of risk analysis is to develop a comprehensive
disaster preparedness plan by providing a clear understanding as to what hazards
exist and what risk(s) they pose to the vulnerable neighboring communities.

2. Vulnerability Analysis: Vulnerability analysis, as has been explained earlier,

starts with creating an inventory of all elements that are 'at risk' to the identified
hazards such as social groups, buildings, infrastructure, economic assets, agriculture
etc. This is followed by an assessment of their susceptibility and an estimation of
damage and losses. Vulnerability analysis includes an assessment of resources or
capacities to meet and recover from hazardous events.

Risk Evaluation and determining levels of Acceptable Risk

Once data on the nature of the hazards and vulnerability have been collected,
synthesised and analysed in the categories noted above, it ideally has to be passed in
an appropriate format to decision makers to enable them to determine levels of
acceptable risk leading to levels of protection. These decisions will be made

12
according to risk perception, knowledge of possibilities to reduce the threat and
other priorities. High level of risk perception determines the amount of money that
would be spent for a flood dyke project or retrofitting of buildings, for example. If
the risk is extreme something has to be done promptly. Acceptable risk implies the
best that can be managed within constraints to protect lives and property to the
maximum extent possible. For example, buildings could be hazard proof to the
extent that they allow enough time for the occupants to escape. They might not be
fully hazard resistant in that they may suffer damage but not totally give way under
pressure. There are resource constraints, which are compelling. Hence, depending
on the level of risk perception and acceptable risk among communities and policy
makers, hazard proofing is attempted.
Following the exercise, Risk Determination involves:
• Hazard occurrence probability, which is the likelihood of a hazard striking
an area;
• Elements at risk, that means the lives and property at risk, and,
• Vulnerability of elements at risk, that is the extent of damage estimated to be
suffered.
Disaster preparedness follows risk determination, since in view of limited resources
only targeted risk reduction has to be attempted. There are subparts of this exercise
of determining risk. For example vulnerability of different elements at risk would
depend on hazard intensity. Hence, preparedness has to take cognizance of differing
levels of vulnerability to varying intensity of hazard. A windstorm would strike with
varying intensity in different time periods. Risk estimation has to factor that.
6.7 RISK MAPPING
Risks can be vividly depicted through maps. Methods developed for near accurate
estimations include f: N curves, scenario mapping, potential loss studies as
explained by Coburn, Sspence and Pomonis (1994) in the Disaster Management
Training Programme, UNDP.
(a) f:N Curves: Here “f” stands for frequency of disaster event and “N”
denotes the number of casualties. Data on the size and frequency of disaster
occurrences for a particular country can be plotted as f: N curves. These involve
plotting the frequency of events causing greater than a certain number of
fatalities. Different numbers of casualties (or magnitude of losses expressed in
some other way) are plotted for different frequency of occurrence on x and y-axis
on a graph respectively. However such relationships always show aggregated
losses for a large region over a period of time. They do not help identify the
geographical distribution of damage, for which risk mapping is needed. In the
diagram given below the first block gives disaster losses due to various natural
disasters in the period 1900- 1975 the second block gives losses due to
transportation disasters; the third block gives losses due to accidents like
industrial fires. It is clear that losses from natural disasters far outnumber those
due to man made calamities like transportation or fires.

13
(b) Scenario Mapping: In scenario mapping, the presentation of the
impact of a single hazard is attempted. Circles and shaded regions on a
map are used to depict settlements and building types, low density and
high-density areas etc. to assess damage likely in particular locations,
based on past experience and development since the last event for
proper assessment in the changed scenario. Hence a scenario map can
identify ‘communities at risk’ and regions at risk. Hot spots thus
located are the foci of restorative and regenerative activities post
disaster. Scenario mapping is used to estimate the resources likely to
be needed to handle an emergency. The number of people killed and
injured and the losses likely with respect to other ‘elements’ are
estimated. From these can be assessed the resources needed for
medical attention, accommodating the homeless and other measures to
minimise the recovery period. For example assessing the state of the
present infrastructure can aid damage assessment in the event of an
earthquake. The diagram given below, adapted from DMTP (1994),
describes a scenario of an earthquake of 7.2 magnitude hitting the
Bursa Province in Turkey. It is not claimed to be predictive. The
authors only claim to describe a situation in case of an earthquake.
14
 This kind of exercise helps preparedness planning when an earthquake
strikes. The top block, aside the Mamara Sea gives the Gemlik area
(heavy damage), the left block gives the Mudanya area (moderate
damage), the central block is the Bursa province (heavy damage) and
the right block gives the Yenisihir area of heavy damage.
The following table accompanies the map.
VILLAGES TOWNS BURSA CITY
TOTAL

Villages Towns Bursa City Total

Houses lightly 34,000 21,000 50,000 105,000

damaged

Houses heavily 15,000 9,000 30,000 54,000

damaged

Houses 4,000 2,000 6,000 12,000

collapsed

People killed 2,000 800 1,500 4,300

People injured 6,000 2,500 4,500 13,000

People 73,000 36,000 13,000 122,000

Homeless

15
Key: Complete Dark Circle: >75% of houses heavily damaged
Three-fourth Dark Circle: 50-75% heavily damaged
Half Dark Circle: 25-50% Heavily Damaged
Quarter Dark Circle: 10-25% Heavily Damaged
Empty Circle: 0-10% Heavily Damaged

(c) Potential Loss Studies: Mapping the impact of expected hazard

occurrence probability across a region or country shows the location of
communities likely to suffer heavy losses. The effect of the hazard of each
area is calculated for each of the communities within those areas to
identify the communities most at risk. This shows for example which
towns or villages likely to suffer heaviest losses, which should be
priorities for loss reduction programs, and which are likely to suffer
heaviest losses, which should be priorities for loss reduction programme
and which are likely to need most aid or rescue assistance in the event of
disaster of differing magnitudes.
MAP 1 has been published by the Earthquake Research Institute of Turkey. It
gives the degree of risk in different areas from differing intensity of earthquake.

16
MAP 2 gives the differential vulnerability of big and small towns. Big towns
(over 25,000 population) are shown by circles surrounding dots and small towns
(2000-25000) by simply depicting population density.
MAP 3 shows the physical vulnerability of buildings in the hazard prone zone.
Towards the West are relatively safer concrete structures (complete dark circles)
which is the affluent part of the region. The South East has weak structures
(partly empty circles), which is inhabited by poor people.
MAP 4 gives complete analysis of three preceding maps. Combining information
from map 2 and 3, we get the number of people living in each building type,
which helps us determine exposure to risk, or likely casualties if an earthquake of
a high enough magnitude were to strike.

MAP 1-HAZARD

MAP 2 -ELEMENTS AT RISK

17
MAP 3- VULNERABILITY

MAP-4- CASUALTY RISK

18
(d) Annualised Risk Mapping: The annualised specific risk from any
hazard at any location is the average expected total losses from all events
over a time period. The probability of each level of hazard occurring
within a unit time period is combined with the consequence of that level
of hazard to generate the expected losses probable/expected in that time.
Summing up the losses from all levels of hazards gives the total losses
likely over a time period. Hence an annualised risk map gives the total
losses over both time and space. Areas of concentration of damage over a
year in a given area are depicted on the map. It is expressed as a
proportion of the total value (or number) of the total population at risk.
This could be better understood with reference to the following map,
derived and adapted for this work from the UNDP Disaster Management
Training Programme, 1994.

19
Earthquake Risk: The Dark lines give specific risk (% annual housing loss
based on mean village performance): Dotted lines give specific risk exceeded by
75% of villages.
As per DMTP (1994), tangible and intangible losses or loss parameters in disasters
is represented in a tabular form as follows:

20
 LOSS PARAMETERS FOR RISK ANALYSIS

Losses

Consequences Measure Tangible Intangible

Deaths Number of People Loss of economically Social and

active individuals psychological
consequences

Injuries Number and injury Medical treatment Social and

severity needs, temporary loss psychological pain
of employment and recovery
activity by productive
individuals

Physical damage Inventory of damage Replacement and Cultural losses

elements by number repair cost
and damage level

Emergency operations Volume of Mobilisation costs, Stress and overwork

manpower, man days investment and on relief participants
employed, equipment preparedness
and resources capability
expended for relief

Disruption to economy Number of working Value of lost Opportunities,

days lost, volume of production competitiveness
production lost reputation,

Social disruption Number of displaced Temporary housing Psychological social

persons, homeless relief, economic contacts, cohesion,
production community morale

Environmental impact Scale and severity Clean-up costs, Consequences of

repair costs poorer
Environment, health
risks, risk of future
disaster

Adapted from Coburn Sspence, and Pomonis in Disaster Management Training

Programme (1994)
6.8 CONCLUSION
Almost all communities live in situations that expose them to some hazard or the
other. These hazards include natural ones such as earthquakes and cyclones, as
well as man-made ones such as industrial accidents and pollution. Disadvantaged
sections of communities are more vulnerable to the hazards. Vulnerability can be
in terms of poverty, low financial resources, poorly built houses and so on. At the
same time communities also have some inherent capacities, which could be in the
form of strong social grouping, and local infrastructure such as strong buildings
of religious or community places. Vulnerability analysis informs us of the extent
and impact of vulnerability while risk assessment goes a step further to look at the

21
net probability of a disaster occurrence, given the status of hazards, vulnerability
and capacity.

6.9 KEY CONCEPTS

Capacity: The ISDR, UN, defines
Capacity “as a combination
of all the strengths and
resources available within a
community, society or
organisation that can reduce
the level of risk, or the
effects of a disaster. In
general this involves
managing resources, both in
normal times as well as
during crisis or adverse
conditions. The strengthening
of coping capacities usually
builds resilience to withstand
the effects of natural and
induced hazards.”
Coping Capacity: As per ISDR, in general this
involves “managing
resources, both in normal
times as well as during crises
or adverse conditions. The
strengthening of coping
capacities usually builds
resilience to withstand the
effects of natural and human
induced hazards.”
Capacity and Vulnerability Analysis (CVA): Lately, the emphasis has
been on capacities of people
for self-help during disasters
and strengthening of the
same through policy in this
regard. Earlier the emphasis
had been on studying
vulnerabilities and
amelioration of the same
through external measures
like aid et al. It has been
experienced that measures
that strengthen innate
capabilities of people to fight
disasters and rebuild lives is
better disaster response than
humanitarian aid.

22
Elements at Risk: Elements at risk refers to
tangible and intangible
targets such as people,
structures, health, and
livelihoods, likely to suffer
harm from a hazard.
Resilience/Resilient: The ISDR explains it as the
capacity of a system,
community or a society
potentially exposed to
hazards to adapt, by resisting
or changing in order to reach
and maintain an acceptable
level of functioning and
structure. This is determined
by the degree to which the
social system is capable of
organising itself to increase
its capacity for learning from
past disasters for better future
protection and to improve
risk reduction measures.
Risk Assessment: Risk assessment is a
technical exercise to estimate
the hazard potential of
facility/project with a view to
in-built provisioning of
safeguard/protective
measures. Risk assessment is
a quantitative measure of
likely losses in the
eventuality of a disaster or if
the apprehended catastrophe
in case of any individual
facility takes place such as
nuclear plant.
Threat: Threat is different from Risk.
Threat is a more general
concept, while Risk is
specific in that a threat, such
as terrorism, has to be broken
down into specific risks and
communicated to policy
makers for policy in this
regard, mitigation or
preparedness. Threat is
simply an apprehension,
which will not give policy
guidelines.

23
Vulnerability: Vulnerability is susceptibility
to suffer losses; in other
words, weakened resilience
to face the onslaught of a
disaster. Socio economic
vulnerability is owing to
adverse social positioning
due to poverty
unemployment, living in
hazard prone zones, or
dilapidated structures.
Physical vulnerability refers
to engineering weaknesses
which causes structures to
give in easily to pressures
during earthquakes, cyclones
et al, causing heavy
casualties.
Vulnerability Analysis: As explained in the Disaster
Management Training
Programme, (1994), “in
engineering terms,
vulnerability is a
mathematical function
defined as the degree of loss
to a given element at risk, or
set of such elements,
expected to result from the
impact of a disaster hazard of
a given magnitude. It is
specific to a particular type
of structure, and expressed
on a scale of no damage to
total damage. For more
general socio-economic
purposes and macro level
analysis, vulnerability is a
less-strictly defined concept.
It incorporates considerations
of both the intrinsic value of
the elements concerned and
their functional value in
contributing to communal
well being in general and to
emergency response and
post-disaster recovery in
particular. In many cases, it
is necessary to settle for a
qualitative classification in
terms of high, medium and
low or explicit statements

24
 concerning the disruption
likely to be suffered.”

6.10 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

Briefing Note on Risk Assessment, Oxford Centre for Disaster Studies.
Brooks, Nick, 2003, “Adaptation: A Conceptual Framework”, Tyndall Centre
Working Paper no 38, Norwich.
Cannon T, 2001, “Vulnerability analysis and disasters”, In D Parker (ed) Floods.
London: Routledge
Cannon, T., Twigg, J. & Rowell, J. ,2002, “Social vulnerability, sustainable
livelihoods and disasters” at
http://www.benfieldhrc.org/SiteRoot/disaster_studies/projects/soc_vuln_sust_live.pdf
Coburn Sspence, Pomonis, 1994, “Vulnerability and Risk Assessment”, 2nd
edition, Disaster Management Training Programme, UNDP.

Palakudiyil and Todd, 2003, Facing up to the Storm: How Local communities
cope With Disaster: Lessons from Orissa and Gujarat, Christian Aid.

“Social Vulnerability, Sustainable Livelihoods and Disasters”, Report to DFID

Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Department (CHAD) and Sustainable
Livelihoods Support Office, Terry Cannon, Social Development Adviser,
Livelihoods and Institutions Group, Natural Resources Institute, University of
Greenwich; and John Twigg, Benfield Hazard Research Centre, University
College, London; Jennifer Rowell, CARE International (UK), previously Benfield
Hazard Research Centre, University College, London.

“Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development”, at

http://www.undp.org/bcpr/disred/documents/publications/rdr/english/ta/t5.pdf
“Risk Assessment”, at http://www.seedsindia.org/risk.pdf
Twigg, J. 2001, Sustainable Livelihoods and Vulnerability to Disasters. London:
Benfield Greig Hazard Research Centre Working Paper 2 http://www.bghrc.com
United Nations, 2004, “LIVING WITH RISK: A global review of disaster
reduction initiatives” Inter-Agency Secretariat of the International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR at http://www.isdr.org

6.11 ACTIVITIES

1) List the hazards that can affect your neighbourhood or village, and
identify those facilities and people who are most likely to get affected.
Explain why these are mostly likely to get affected, and thereby
understand their vulnerability.
2) Create three lists – hazards that affect your locality, characteristics of local
people and buildings that make them vulnerable, and qualities of local
people and institutions that will be their capacities in dealing with

25
disasters. Relate the three lists to each other, and write a risk statement for
your community.

26