2.3. Methodology for Measurement of Vulnerability to Natural
Hazards
2.3.1. Theoretical and Conceptual
Frameworks of Vulnerability
The different views on vulnerability are displayed in various
concepts and frameworks on how to systematize it (Birkmann, 2013, p 41). The
measurement of vulnerability requires for a model, which delivers the
structure, context and objectives of the analysis (Fekete, 2010). The different
concepts and models are essential to the development of methods for measuring
and identifying relevant indicators of vulnerability (Downing, 2004).
According to Birkmann (2013, p 62), the different conceptual
frameworks can be classified into at least six different schools of thought:
(a) school of vulnerability frameworks that is rooted in political economy and
particularly addresses issues of the wider political economy, such as root
causes, dynamic pressures and unsafe conditions that determine vulnerability.
It can be illustrated by , for example, the pressure and release (PAR) model
published in Blaikie et al. (1994) and Wisner et al. (2004); (b) school of
vulnerability that focus on the notion of coupled human -environmental systems
and are linked to a socio-ecological perspective and socio-ecology as research
school. The social-ecology perspective compared to political-economy, puts the
coupled human-environmental system at the centre of the vulnerability analysis
and stresses the transformative qualities of society with regard to nature. It
can be represented by the framework developed and published by Turner et
al.(2003); (c) school of vulnerability that sees vulnerability and disaster
risk assessment from a holistic view. It has tried to develop an integrated
explanation of risk and particularly differentiate exposure, susceptibility and
societal response capacities. A core element of this approaches is a
feedback-loop system that claims that vulnerability is dynamic and that
vulnerability assessment cannot be limited to the identification of
deficiencies. It can be represented by BBC framework published by Birkmann
(2006a); (d) school of vulnerability that emerged within the context of climate
change science and adaptation research. It focuses on exposure, sensitivity and
adaptive capacities as key determinants of vulnerability including physical
characteristics of climate change and climate variability. It can be
illustrated by (Fussel and Klein, 2006); (e) school of vulnerability that
integrates adaptation and coupling processes into a feedback-loop system and
process-oriented perspective of vulnerability. It can be illustrated by Move
framework published by Birkmann et al. (2013) and finally (f) the school of
vulnerability that combines framework of disaster risk research and climate
change adaptation represented by the IPCC SREX concept (IPCC, 2012a). It
stresses the need to differentiate the physical event from vulnerability in
order to maintain the analytic power of the concept vulnerability as a way to
show and examine the social construction risk.
Despite the different points of views reveal by the different
schools of thought, it is important to acknowledge that they also represent
some similarities, such as the understanding that vulnerability is mainly
concerned with the preconditions of a society or community that make it liable
to experience harm and damage from a given hazard.
| 
