Environmental Hazards 7 (200

pe

ia

irk

UN

lne

dic

different purposes. The paper will briey introduce three global approaches to disaster-risk identication and will juxtapose them with

one local approach in order to examine the differences concerning the functions and the purpose of the assessment as well as their impact

Earthquake in 2005, attract a great deal of attention inthe media and in the disaster-assistance community.

detail Birkmann and Wisner, 2006). The international

identify and measure risk and vulnerability to disasters inorder to dene disaster-risk management and disaster-relief

2006). This paper reviews four attempts to measure risk

ARTICLE IN PRESSand vulnerability by applying indicators.The selection of the approaches was based on the

intention to analyse different quantitative approaches at

1747-7891/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.04.002

Tel.: +49 228 815 0208; fax: +49 228 815 0299.E-mail address: Birkmann@ehs.unu.eduFocusing on disasters after they occur is essential from ahumanitarian point of view, but not sufcient for reducingtheir tragic consequences to people, economies and theenvironment. Identifying and measuring risks and vulner-abilities before a disaster occursand also after disastershave happenedare essential tasks for effective and long-term disaster-risk reduction. In this regard, measuringvulnerability is not limited to quantitative approaches;rather, it encompasses both quantitative and qualitativemethods to describe and operationalise vulnerability (see in

priorities is still not sufciently developed. Enhancingdisaster-risk reduction before a disaster occurs, and alsoduring the reconstruction process, requires enhancedknowledge regarding the most vulnerable groups, the areasat risk and the driving forces that inuence and generatevulnerability and risk (see e.g. Bogardi and Birkmann,2004).In recent years, an increasing number of global and local

initiatives have been launched to measure risk and vulne-rability with a set of indicators and indices (Birkmann,Pelling in 2004, which focused primarily on the methodologies used, this paper places more emphasis on aspects of applicability and

policy implications and outlines challenges and limitations of the different approaches. Since the assessment and mapping of human

vulnerability is less developed than hazard assessment work [Pelling M., 2004. Visions of Risk: A Review of International Indicators of

Disaster Risk and its Management. UNDPBureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BRCP), Geneva], this paper focuses in greater

depth on how the approaches capture vulnerability. Conclusions will be formulated on how to further enhance vulnerability

identication, particularly at the sub-national level.

r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Risk; Vulnerability; Indicators; Natural hazards; Review risk indicators

1. Introduction

Disasters, such as the Indian Ocean Tsunami inDecember 2004, Hurricane Katrina and the Pakistan

community has established global disaster response me-chanisms, such as the instruments of Flash Appeals withinthe UN system (e.g. after the Indian Ocean Tsunami). Incontrast, the development of a common methodology tofor policy development. In contrast to an earlier comparative analysis of the three global disaster-risk indicator programmes by MarkPa

Risk and vulnerability indApplicability, usefulness

Joern B

United Nations University, Institute for Environment and Human Security (

Abstract

This paper outlines selected approaches to measuring risk and vu

discusses their applicability, usefulness and policy implications. In7) 2031

rs

cators at different scales:nd policy implications

mann

U-EHS), UN Campus, Hermann-Ehlers-Street, 10, 53113 Bonn, Germany

rability to hazards of natural origin using indicators and indices. It

ators and indices have been developed on different scales and for

www.elsevier.com/locate/hazards

ARTICLE IN PRESStalvarious levels aiming to measure risk and include vulner-ability as a sub-component. Although vulnerability is a keyissue in understanding disaster risk (Cardona, 2005, p. 57),vulnerability assessment and quantication is often lessadvanced than hazard mapping and quantication. There-fore, this paper concentrates particularly on aspects of howthese approaches capture vulnerability as a sub-componentof risk.All approaches presented in this paper are based on a

common theory that disaster risk is a product of threemajor elements: exposure to hazards, the frequency orseverity of the hazard and the vulnerability. Moreover, allthe approaches aim to measure risk and vulnerabilitythrough selected comparative indicators in a quantitativeway in order to be able to compare different areas orcommunities (see in detail Bollin and Hidajat, 2006; Dilleyet al., 2005; Peduzzi, 2006; Cardona, 2005). Thesesimilarities make an analysis of the approaches interestingand useful.Furthermore, important international efforts are being

prepared to downscale global indexing programmes to thenational and sub-national levels (see GRIP website, 2006).This paper is intended to contribute to the discussion, sinceit also examines the potential of the up- and downscaling ofapproaches and selected indicators as well as the problemof contextualisation (adjustment to the specic situationof a region, country or community). Additionally, theapproaches presented are subject of on-going discussionand development; therefore, the author sees them as aprocess rather than a nal product. This means thatthoughts on how to improve and further develop theseapproaches are an important issue. Lastly, other initiativescan also learn from these approaches, their challenges andcritical review.

2. Vulnerability and risk

Many diverse research and policy communities, includ-ing those pursuing issues of global environmental change,food security, development assistance and disaster risk,have developed denitions and pre-analytic visions of riskand vulnerability. While in the 70s and early 80svulnerability was often associated with physical fragility(e.g. the likelihood of a building to collapse due to theimpact of an earthquake), today the concepts of vulner-ability go far beyond the likelihood of collapsed physicalstructures (see e.g. Bankoff et al., 2004).United Nations/International Strategy for Disaster

Reduction (UN/ISDR), for example, denes vulnerabilityas the conditions determined by physical, social, economicand environmental factors or processes which increase the

susceptibility of a community to the impact of hazards(UN/ISDR, 2004). According to this denition, the hazardevent itself is viewed primarily as external to the system orelement at risk, and the term vulnerability describes the

J. Birkmann / Environmenconditions of a society or element at risk that alsodetermine the potential or revealed hazards impact interms of losses and disruption. Since risk is generallydened as the product of the hazard probability and itsconsequences, risk can be viewed as a function of thehazard event and the vulnerability of the elements exposed.Vulnerability is often viewed as an intrinsic characteristic

of a system or element (UN/ISDR, 2004; Cardona, 2004,p. 37; Wisner, 2002, pp. 12/7; Thywissen, 2006), althoughmost analysts acknowledge that vulnerability is conditionalon a hazard, e.g. with respect to its frequency and severity,or that it is useless to discuss vulnerability independent ofits hazard context. Wisner (2002) underlines that difcul-ties in recovering from the negative impacts of hazardousevents are also part of vulnerability; thus coping andrecovery must be part of its assessment. This dualisticunderstanding of vulnerability, which encompasses sus-ceptibilityunderstood as characteristics which describethe weakness of a system or element exposedon the onehand, and coping capacitiespositive resources to dealwith the negative impacts of a hazardous event and itsimpactson the other, underlies many vulnerabilityapproaches, e.g. Wisner (2002) andto a certain extentBohle (2001). An additional extension of the concept canbe seen in the shift from the dualistic structure to a multi-faceted structure. For example, within the discourse onvulnerability in the global environmental change commu-nity, vulnerability not only captures susceptibility andcoping capacity, but also adaptive capacity, exposure andthe interaction with perturbations and stresses (see Turneret al., 2003).Overall, the concept of vulnerability has been continuously

widened and broadened towards a more comprehensiveapproach encompassing susceptibility, exposure, copingcapacity and adaptive capacity, as well as different thematicareas, such as physical, social, economic, environmental andinstitutional vulnerability (see Fig. 1 and in detail Birkmann,2006). The different views of vulnerability are also visiblewithin the approaches examined in this paper.

3. Global and international Disaster-Risk Index projects

Within the last few years, three major global projectshave been carried out to measure risk and/or vulnerabilitywith the help of indicators and indices at the national scale,and for international and global comparisons. Theseinclude the UNDPs Disaster Risk Index (DRI) (UNDP,2004), the Hotspots project by Columbia University (seeDilley et al., 2005) and the Indicators for the Americasdeveloped by the Institute of Environmental Studies,National University of ColombiaManizales (see Cardo-na, 2005). This paper does not intend to present themethodology of these approaches in detail; rather, itexamines the approaches from the point of view of theirintended goals and functions as well as their measurementof vulnerability. Moreover, the issues of up- and down-scaling, the contextualisation (adjustment to the specic

Hazards 7 (2007) 2031 21situation of the country or target group) and the policyrelevance of the approaches will be discussed.

ARTICLE IN PRESStalJ. Birkmann / Environmen223.1. The Disaster Risk Index

The authors of the DRI aimed at creating a quantitativemeasure that would allow for comparison of disaster riskbetween countries exposed to selected hazards. Althoughdisaster impacts can vary from hazard to hazard, it wasimportant for the developers of the approach to select keyindicators that would be useful in comparing disaster riskbetween countries and also between hazard types. Besidethis, the DRI was developed in order to outline therelationship in which development inuences disaster riskand vulnerability (UNDP, 2004). This means that thendings of the DRI project should particularly enable themeasurement and comparison of relative levels of physicalexposure to hazards, vulnerability and risk betweencountries, as well as the identication of vulnerabilityindicators (UNDP, 2004, p. 2).Following this intention, the DRI Index is based on

mortality data, since in this perspective one person killedby a cyclone is comparable to one person killed by a oodor landslide. The DRI is calculated for oods, tropicalcyclones and earthquakes and has global coverage but withnationstate resolution. Within the framework of the DRI,vulnerability is seen as a factor that explains why people

Fig. 1. The spheres of vulnerabiliHazards 7 (2007) 2031with the same level of physical exposure to natural hazardscan be more or less at risk, or have been faced with higheror lower fatalities over the last few years due to hazards ofnatural origin (Peduzzi, 2006).As a rst estimation, the DRI calculates what is termed

the relative vulnerability of a country to a given hazard,which is generated by dividing the number of people killedby the number of people exposed (see Fig. 2). Exposure(physical exposure) is measured as the number of peoplelocated in areas where hazardous events occur combinedwith the frequency of the hazard events in question(UNDP, 2004, p. 31). According to this approach, a higherrelative mortality, expressed by average annual deaths inproportion to average population exposed, indicates ahigher vulnerability for a particular country. Thus,countries suffering higher losses of lives than others equallyexposed have a higher relative vulnerability (Dilley, 2005).For example, as shown in Fig. 2, China and India

face a high number of average annual deaths due toooding, and these countries are at the same time thehighest in the world in terms of populations exposed. Thismeans they are moderately vulnerable. By contrast,Venezuela, Afghanistan and Somalia are countries with ahigh relative vulnerability to oods.

ty. Source: Birkmann (2005).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

-D

talAs a second measure of vulnerability, the authors usemultiple-regression analysis to determine factors that bestexplain the recorded mortality within a country attribu-table to specic hazards. In addition to physical exposure,the analysis revealed that, for oods especially, a low per-capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (poor nations orleast developed countries) and also low density of popula-tion (rural areas/regions) characterise countries that arehighly vulnerable to and most at risk from oods (UNDP,2004, p. 42). The approach is based on EM-DAT datagenerated and gathered by Center for Research on theEpidemiology of Disasters (CRED), covering a timespanof about 20 years.

3.1.1. Discussion: applicability and usefulness

Overall, the approach can be applied globally. Thismeans that the applicability of relative vulnerability

Fig. 2. Relative vulnerability for ooding, 19802000. Source: EM

J. Birkmann / Environmenmeasures worldwide is proved to be possible. At the sametime, however, characterising vulnerability along only onedimension (mortality) is problematic. In many regions,oods, for example, occur regularly and catastrophicallywithout signicant loss of life, but with very signicant lossof property and livelihoods, as seen in Serbia or Rumaniain April 2006 (see e.g. SCSP, 2006). Many of these localvillages suffer extreme poverty and are highly exposed.However, according to this analysis, these areas do notshow up as highly vulnerable to oods, since the oods didnot cause major fatalities.Additionally, the analysis suffers from (1) the fallacy of

averaging across extremes during a short time period and(2) the fallacy of not taking into account the heterogeneityof extremes. Floods and other extreme events cannot bemeaningfully averaged over a two-decade period. Suchlong-tailed, high-impact events may occur only once in ahundred years. There could be radical shifts in theclassication of a countrys relative vulnerability due tothe occurrence of one major event without any changes inthe underlying drivers of vulnerability. However, otherapproaches also have to deal with these problems,particularly if they aim to compare risk and vulnerabilitybetween areas and countries. Furthermore, the physicalexposure denition employed also includes the frequencyof hazardous events; this means that the vulnerabilityassessment (see Fig. 2) shifts towards risk assessment.The usefulness of the approach has to be discussed

regarding its goals and functions, e.g. the goal of theapproach is to outline the link between disaster risk anddevelopment, while one major function of the approach isto visualise the distribution of risk and human vulnerabilityglobally between countries (function comparison).It is important to acknowledge that the DRI assessment

revealed enormous differences between the disaster risk ofthe least developed countries and of highly developedcountries (Peduzzi et al., 2005). On the other hand, morein-depth research is needed to examine the various linkages

AT OFDA/CRED and UNEP/GRID-Geneva (in UNDP, 2004).

Hazards 7 (2007) 2031 23between different forms of development and disaster riskand vulnerability. Especially processes that contribute tohigher levels of vulnerability of different social groups oreconomic sectors require sub-national and local assessmentapproaches. The regression study undertaken within theapproach can provide insights into the factors thatcontribute to the likelihood of a person being killed dueto natural hazards; however, it cannot shed light on theunderlying vulnerability issue. In this context the approachdoes not seem to full its stated purpose, which is toexplain why people with the same level of exposure can bemore or less at risk.

3.2. The Hotspots Project

The Hotspots Project is carried out primarily byColumbia University in co-operation with the World Bankand other institutes (see Dilley et al., 2005). The idea was todevelop a world map of hotspots, i.e. a global map showingwhere the risk of mortality and economic losses due tohazards of natural origin are greatest. This approach thus

focuses foremost on risk as a product of hazard frequencyand consequence.The goal of the Hotspots Project is to provide insights

about disaster-risk patterns in order to improve disasterpreparedness and the prevention of losses. The study aimedat identifying global hotspots of risk by comparing risklevelsregarding individual and multi-hazard risksacross countries and regions. The identication of hotspotsshould support the denition of priorities regarding risk-management efforts and should draw attention to areaswhere risk management is most needed. Additionally,Hotspots focused on the assessment of different data setsand methodologies for risk identication and assessment(see in detail Dilley et al., 2005; Dilley, 2005).

denes vulnerability levels for different areas based on theincome classes used by the World Bank (see Dilley et al.,2005; Chen, 2006).Similar to the DRI, the Hotspots approach is based on a

relative vulnerability and risk estimation; this implies thatthe total number of grid cells is divided into deciles, tengroups of approximately equal number of cells based onthe value of each individual hazard.Fig. 3 shows the distribution of risk of economic loss due

to oods as a proportion of GDP. The map underlines thatthe relative economic losses due to oods were particularlysevere in the last 20 years in Asia (particular southernChina), South-East Asia and Eastern Europe and someCaucasus regions. Consequently, these areas are at higher

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Birkmann / Environmental Hazards 7 (2007) 203124The global risk analysis was carried out for earthquakes,volcanoes, landslides, oods, drought and cyclones. Incontrast to the DRI, the spatial resolution of the HotspotsProject focused on grid cells (grid cells 2.5 2.5 km2),which allow for the analysis of risk at a sub-national level.In addition to estimating risks in terms of disaster

frequency, mortality and economic losses, the Hotspotsassessment attempts to give some indication of vulner-ability by comparing estimated risks in relation to theexposure to hazardous events (gridded population) and theelements at risk (approximated by GDP per unit area).Compared to the Relative Vulnerability Index of theDRI, the Hotspots Project encompasses three mainindicators focusing, on the one hand, on mortality-relatedrisk, and additionally on the total and relative economiclosses, calculated as the risk of direct economic lossesexpressed as a proportion of GDP. The Hotspots studydoes not explicitly measure vulnerability. However, itsapproach to calculating risk underlines the view thatvulnerability is associated with human and economiclosses. In this context, account was taken in particular offatalities and direct economic losses, based on historicaldisaster-mortality and economic loss rates for 28 groups ofregions and country-wealth classes for each hazard type(Pelling, 2004). Besides focusing on revealed vulnerabilityin terms of fatalities and economic losses, the approachFig. 3. Global distribution of risk of economic loss due to oood risk, which might be explained by more intense andfrequent oods, by the degree of vulnerability, or both.Areas with very low population densities (less than 5persons per square km) were excluded (see in detail Dilleyet al., 2005, p. 27).

3.2.1. Discussion: applicability and usefulness

In contrast to the DRI relative vulnerability measureand risk calculation, the Hotpots approach introducesabsolute and relative economic losses as a proportion ofGDP. Moreover, the hotspot approach visualises riskinformation at a relatively ne spatial resolution (grid cells2.5 2.5 km2) (see in detail Dilley et al., 2005), whichmeans that results show sub-national distribution patternsof risk within a country. This is especially interesting inlarge countries such as China and the US. On the otherhand, this approach and its applicability in the currentform relates mainly to the global level. Even though it ispossible to conduct Hotspots analyses at the sub-nationallevel in some countries, it does not allow full coverage ofcountries with low-density population since these areasare excluded from the survey. This exclusion of areaswith very low population densities is a clear disadvantage,since the DRI multiple-regression analysis underlined,for example, that the relative ood mortality is higherin less populated than in densely populated countries.ods as a proportion of GDP. Source: Dilley et al. (2005).

The Americas approach provides a great deal ofcomparative information on many aspects of disasters,risk and vulnerability in Latin America and the Caribbean,and, consequently, is a valuable resource. The selection andaggregation of this information, however, raises difcultissues of specication and in some cases of weighting. Arethe specied indicators the main explanatory variablesinuencing risk and vulnerability, and can these indices beweighted into a composite index? A look at a number ofindicators raises doubts on the question of specication.For example, does an increase in a countrys assets andinvestmentsuch as represented through the gross do-mestic xed investment (in % of GDP)lead to increasedor decreased vulnerability? On the one hand, exposure andexpected losses increase with increasing capital. On theother hand, rich societies experience higher absolute capitalloss but far less economic loss as a proportion of GDP (seein detail Dilley et al., 2005, p. 71) and fewer fatalities fromdisasters. Do social expenditures on pensions, health andeducation increase resilience? This can be an appropriateindicator for most developing countries and some countries

ARTICLE IN PRESStalHence, some low-density population areas might be localand sub-national hotspots for mortality-related risk andthus the most vulnerable, since disaster-managementcapacities are generally lower than in highly urbanisedareas. Overall, the approach offers interesting insights intothe global distribution of absolute and relative economicrisk as well as mortality risk in respect of different hazardsand can identify regions most at risk in the past and todaybased on a limited set of indicators.

3.3. The Americas project

The Americas Indexing Programme was carried out bythe Institute of Environmental Studies, National Univer-sity of ColombiaManizales, in co-operation with, andfor, the Inter-American Development Bank (Cardona,2005). The purposes of the assessment are (1) to assistpolicy makers in identifying investment priorities to reducerisk, (2) to identify national risk-management capacitiesand evaluate the effects of policies and investments on riskmanagement, (3) to promote the exchange of information,and (4) to gauge a countrys relative position and compareits evolution over time.In contrast to the global disaster-risk indexing ap-

proaches presented above, this approach covers vulner-ability and risk with more indicators and aims to provide amore disaggregated and holistic view. The approachencompasses four main indices: the Disaster Decit Index(DDI), the Local Disaster Index (LDI), the PrevalentVulnerability Index (PVI) and the Risk Management Index(RMI) (see in detail Cardona, 2005, 2006a). The approachwas applied to 12 countries in Latin America and theCaribbean, aiming at supporting and informing nationaldecision-makers. Each index is composed of a number ofindicators and sub-indices; thus the approach includesa total number of more than 50 indicators. The followingreview focuses on the PVI and the RMI, since theseare most relevant for measuring vulnerability. However,the Americas Indexing Programme encompasses moreuseful indicators within the DDI and LDI (see in detailCardona, 2005); which are not taken into account in thisreview, since the major emphasis is given to aspects ofvulnerability.The PVI views vulnerability as inherent to the system

and independent of the hazard. The different dimensions ofthe PVI are calculated from eight quantitative components,which in some cases already imply highly aggregated data.The index provides information for three sub-categories ofvulnerability: (a) exposure (e.g. population density, capitalstock and investment) and physical susceptibility, (b)socioeconomic fragility (e.g. poverty, inequality, unem-ployment and debt), and (c) lack of resilience (e.g. humandevelopment, social expenditures on pensions, televisionsets and hospital beds) (see Cardona, 2005, p. 12).The results of the application of the index in Latin America

J. Birkmann / Environmenand the Caribbean indicate that Jamaica, Guatemalaand El Salvador are highly vulnerable, while Guatemalais also indicated as the country with the lowest resilience(Fig. 4).In contrast to the DRI and Hotspots approaches, this

concept encompasses an index to measure the risk-management performance of a country with respect topolicy measures undertaken to reduce disaster risk. TheRMI is based on six qualitative components, which wereevaluated by experts in each country. The risk-performanceevaluation shows Chile with high scores, while, by contrast,the Dominican Republic and Ecuador were judged to havethe weakest risk-management performance.

3.3.1. Discussion: applicability and usefulness

68

28

58

43

50

50

39

30

22

18

45

14

56

60

59

51

41

32

46

32

25

49

23

21

62

92

64

59

59

46

33

55

67

47

26

23

0 50 100 150 200

Jamaica

Guatemala

El Salvador

Ecuador

Dominican Republic

Trinidad and Tobago

Argentina

Mexico

Peru

Colombia

Costa Rica

Chile

PVI values

Exposureandphysicalsusceptability

Socioeconomicfragility

Lack ofresilience

Fig. 4. Socioeconomic vulnerability in the Americas, 2000. Source: gure

according to Cardona et al. (2004).

Hazards 7 (2007) 2031 25in transition; however, for other countriesespeciallycountries in Central Europe such as Germanythis

ARTICLE IN PRESStalaggregated indicator might have a reverse meaning.Although this specic approach is not aiming to create auniversally valid indices system, it is interesting to explorewhether the same indicators can have different meanings indifferent contexts. For example, high and increasing levelsof expenditures on pensions, health and educationusedto measure increasing resilience in the Americas Projectwould not be applicable to the German situation. Since thenation has a serious problem with an ever-ageing popula-tion and a declining number of people of working age,rising costs put pressure on budgets and have a rathernegative impact on health care and pension systems. InGermany, the expenditure on healthcare increased by anaverage of 2.6% per annum between the years 1995 and2004 (Federal Statistical Ofce Germany, 2006). Therefore,this indicator is less meaningful in the case of Germanysince growing pension and healthcare budgets must beseeneven from the perspective of disaster reduction andespecially of sustainable developmentas an aggravatingfactor rather than a capacity for higher resilience. Alsosome other indicators such as the number of hospital bedsper 1000 people imply a certain model of healthinfrastructure which might not be appropriate for poorrural areas, where the model of the doctor on a bicycle ismuch more efcient and cost effective.Nevertheless, the Americas Project and the associated

type of assessment is very useful in directing attention todisaster risk and promoting an exchange of information,but the case is less clear in respect of meeting otherexpressed objectives of the indices. This is particularly thecase when assisting policy makers to identify priorities forinvestment, since the specic indicators might be suitablefor a specic country or region but not for another one.The approach offers new insights into how to measure andquantify vulnerability at the national scale for LatinAmerica and the Caribbean, but for other countriesparticularly highly developed countries, such as Chile orcountries in Central Europethe indicator and index sethave to be reviewed.Also, the evaluation of risk-management performance

provides an excellent overview of potential indicators andcriteria which might be used to evaluate activities under-taken to reduce disaster risk. On the other hand, theseactions also need to be suitable for the specic regional andlocal context, thus calling for specic adjustments (i.e. aspecic contextualisation and adaptation) to indicatorsplaying a crucial role. For example, the indicator ofrelocation of persons living in disaster-prone areas andimprovements to housing in those areas might be anappropriate indicator for certain countries where reloca-tion is politically and culturally accepted; however, forother countries relocation and forced migration are part ofthe problem and imply new vulnerabilities. Therefore, risk-management strategies need to take into account thespecic context (contextualisation) of the country and the

J. Birkmann / Environmen26broader livelihood framework in which vulnerable peopleare embedded. Additionally, it is important to examinewhether the different indicators are sensitive enough toprovide a tool to measure risk-management performance.Many political decisions do not lead to immediately visiblechanges: these often become visible only in the medium andlong term. This is true, for example, of the improvement ofurban and settlement structures.Overall, the approach offers new insights into how to

measure vulnerability as an intrinsic feature, as well asdata already available mainly at the international andnational levels. The underlying methodology of the RMIcan also serve as an interesting example of how to providequantitative measures of management-based on pre-dened qualitative subjects and the respective targets andbenchmarks.

4. Local risk and vulnerability assessment

At the local level, a wide variety of approaches have beenapplied to measure and assess vulnerability and risk tohazards of natural origin. A comprehensive compilation ofvarious approaches to measuring vulnerability and risk atdifferent levels can be found in Birkmann (2006). In thispaper, we introduce the Community-Based Risk Indexdeveloped by GTZ and partners for communities inIndonesia, since it also focuses on quantifying risk byusing selected indicators, viewing risk as a sort ofcombination of hazard, exposure and vulnerability (see indetail Bollin and Hidajat, 2006).

4.1. The Community-Based Risk Index

The Community-Based Risk Index aims at identifyingand quantifying the main risk characteristics (exposure,vulnerability, management capacities) within a community.It has the function of comparing risk between differentcommunities, as well as the goal of identifying whether thelevel of risk is primarily an outcome of the hazard, theexposure, the vulnerability or the capacity component (seeBollin and Hidajat, 2006). As its conceptual framework,this approach relies on disaster-risk denitions put forwardby Davidson (1997) and Bollin et al. (2003), whichcharacterise disaster risk in terms of four components:hazard, exposure, vulnerability and capacity measures. Thetotal indicator system comprised 47 indicators, arrangedand systematised into four main factors and furthercalculated into factor components. The indicators selectedto measure vulnerability focus on four different thematicareas: physical/demographic, social, environmental andeconomic vulnerability. The physical/demographic vulner-ability includes indicators such as population density anddemographic pressure, while social vulnerability is quan-tied by assessing poverty levels, literacy rate anddecentralisation, among other indicators (see in detailBollin and Hidajat, 2006). For each indicator, classica-tions were developed for low, medium and high risk.

Hazards 7 (2007) 2031Moreover, the different indicators were weighted accordingto their importance for the specic hazard; here the

ARTICLE IN PRESStalweighting factors aimed at providing a tool to adjust thedifferent measures to the country-specic conditions.All indicators for the four sub-categories (hazard,

exposure, vulnerability and capacity) were integrated intoone index, i.e. the exposure index. Depending on the scaledindicator values, the factor indices vary between 0 and 100.This was achieved by distributing a total of 33 weightingpoints according to the assumed importance of theindicators for each factor (Bollin and Hidajat, 2006). Thecommunity-based Risk Index allows for the comparison ofdifferent communities across a country. Furthermore, ithighlights the determining factors of risk, for examplewhether risk originates primarily from the hazard orwhether the vulnerability or the lack of capacity is themajor concern. Fig. 5 shows the results of the Community-Based Disaster-Risk Index for two communities inIndonesia.The gure shows that for the community in the Sikka

district hazard and vulnerability are major factors con-tributing to overall risk, while for the community in theKulon Progo district there is a more equal distribution ofrisk-generating factors between hazard, exposure, vulner-ability and capacity.

4.1.1. Discussion: applicability and usefulness

The Community-Based DRI provides comparativeinformation on many aspects of development, vulnerability

26 25

13

2221 21

4

14

5456

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Sikka district Kulon Progo district

Hazard Exposure Vulnerability Capacity Risk index

Fig. 5. Comparison of a community in Sikka district and a community in

Kulon Progo district. Source: Bollin and Hidajat (2006).

J. Birkmann / Environmenand disaster risk. However, this approach also raisesdifcult questions regarding the choice and aggregationof the indicators. Some indicators selected and aggregatedare to a certain extent redundant. Moreover, someindicators are very context-specic and need to be handledwith care when using them for other communities. This istrue, for instance, of such indicators as accessibility,calculated by the number of interrupted roads due tonatural hazards in the last 30 years. This indicator onlyprovides adequate information regarding cities with acomparable size and structure. In other words, the totalnumber of interrupted roads does not provide meaningfulinsights when comparing cities of different size since largercities by nature have more access roads and, therefore,alternative connections. In contrast, the interruption of oneor two roads in a small city and village often has majorimplications for the mobility of people. This means thatmodications are needed within the indicator approach inorder to ensure that the approach takes account of thecontext, such as the differences between urban and ruralcommunities. Overall, the approach provides an interestingcompilation of indicators for physical, social, economicand also environmental vulnerability on the local level.

5. Reection

The analysis and discussion of the approaches andindicators for risk and vulnerability at different levelsshowed that these approaches can serve as importanttoolsamong others (e.g. qualitative assessment ap-proaches)for identifying and highlighting areas most atrisk and where risk and vulnerability reduction is needed.However, major shortcomings were also revealed. In thefollowing, discussion will focus on the challenges andlimitations regarding the data, the issues of up- anddownscaling, contextualisation and the policy relevanceof the approaches. These aspects are part of the on-goingdiscussion and are relevant for many other approachesaiming at measuring and quantifying risk and vulnerabilityat a global, national, sub-national and local level.

5.1. Data

The vulnerability and risk indicators discussed abovehave been calculated mainly with publicly available data,and in the case of the Community-Based Risk Index bymeans of interviews. In other words, the indicators anddata used within these approaches are generally assessableor quantiable. Yet some of the approaches presentedsuch as the DRIare confronted with a lack of appro-priate data for some areas, which limits indicator develop-ment and narrows the focus of the approach. To a largeextent, the indicators are data-driven in the sense that thedata determine the choice of indicator. Although mortalityand economic losses are often the most accepted indicatorsin various countries to represent potential risks andvulnerabilities, the approaches are confronted with majorlimitations regarding the existing data. The DRI andHotspots are based mainly on EM-DAT data generated bythe CRED. These data focus solely on large- and medium-scale disasters, dened as those events involving more than10 deaths, with 100 people affected and/or a call forinternational assistance. This means the impacts orpotential impacts of creeping processes such as droughtor sea-level rise (using historical data) will be only partiallycaptured within this data set. Moreover, the timeframeused within the different approaches needs to be studiedcarefully if the aim is to derive conclusions for policyrecommendations for the future. The Global IndexProjects, especially the DRI and Hotspots, often focus onhistorical losses (loss of life and economic losses) over the

Hazards 7 (2007) 2031 27last 2025 years. This timespan is relatively short forlow-frequency hazards such as earthquakes or tsunamis.

ARTICLE IN PRESStalThis problem becomes evident in the case of the relative-vulnerability measurement, which indicates that Venezuelais highly vulnerable to oods. Whether Venezuela is mostvulnerable at present or in the future is a different subject.Because of the paucity of historical data and due to the

choice of indicators by some approaches, e.g. mortality as amain characteristic of vulnerability, it is difcult toestimate economic and human risks for slow-onsethazards, such as sea-level rise or drought. Impacts ofsudden-onset hazards and slow-onset hazards particularlymanifest themselves in much more diverse ways and withdifferent characteristics, than mortality (see also Pelling,2004, 2006). For example, in the case of slow-onset hazardsthe fatalities observed during drought periods in someregions may not primarily be the result of the drought, butmay rather be the result of other inuences, such as violentconicts, or even of both: drought and civil war, as seen,for example, in Sudan and at the Horn of Africa (see Dilleyet al., 2005, p. 65; World Disasters Report 2005, p. 214;UNICEF, 2006; BBC, 2000).

5.2. Up- and downscaling and contextualisation

Since major decisions in risk reduction and vulnerabilityhave to be made and implemented at national and/or locallevel, the international discussion of global assessmentapproaches gives emphasis to the question of how todownscale global risk and vulnerability indicators andindices. For example, the shift from global assessmenttowards the design of national- and sub-national-scale riskassessments is and will be an important issue within theGlobal Risk Identication Program (GRIP) (see e.g. GRIPwebpage). A major motivation for downscaling globalapproaches is the goal of supporting high-risk countrieswith capacities and information to identify and map riskhotspots at national and sub-national level in order tosupport priority setting for risk-reduction strategies and todemonstrate that evidence on risks and losses can improverisk management (see e.g. Lerner-Lam, 2006). The discus-sion has just started as to whether and how globalapproaches and the associated indicators can be down-scaled and whether they provide appropriate and usefulinformation.The general methodology of measuring relative vulner-

ability within the DRI, as well as the identication ofHotspots for estimating and comparing the mortality-related risk and vulnerability of countries to differenthazards at the global level using national-scale resolution,can also be downscaled. However, the usefulness of theglobal indicators and assessment methodology at a lowerlevel will depend on the specic function (e.g. comparisonor evaluation of policy interventions, etc.) which theapproach is intended to full. For example, the DRIcalculation might be primarily useful at the national levelfor large countries that have faced major fatalities due to

J. Birkmann / Environmen28hazards of natural origin in the last few years, such asChina or India. By contrast, for countries like Germany,for example, the mortality-related risk is not an appro-priate measure, particularly at sub-national level, since riskand vulnerability manifest themselves in other character-istics. The Hotspots approach already provides informa-tion at a ne resolution. The results of the downscaling ofthe approach for Sri Lanka for the risk to drought, oods,landslides and cyclones show that the analysis can also becarried out at sub-national resolution. However, theoutcomes are questionable, or at least difcult to interpret(see Dilley et al., 2005, p. 104). This means thatmodications to the Hotspots methodology and indicatorsare also needed when targeting sub-national-level riskidentication.The Americas Project includes a large number of

indicators24 solely for the PVI; this means the focus isbroader and more comprehensive than that of the DRI andHotspots Project. Although this approach is applied in 12countries in Latin America, and also additionally withsome modications at the sub-national scale for Colombiaand for the city of Bogota (see Cardona, 2005, p. 23, 27),the downscaling of the approach to sub-national and locallevel requires a critical review of the indicators andweighting used. For example, three indicators within thePVI capture poverty. These indicators should be reviewed(redundancy) and adjusted to the specic context at sub-national and local level. For developed countries, theunemployment rate is often a more comprehensiveindicator to measure socioeconomic exclusion and povertythan the general Human Poverty Index.Similar problems arise regarding other indicators such as

the population density, which can have a widely differentindicative power in terms of different regions and hazards.For example, population density might be an appropriatemeasure to indicate vulnerability regarding earthquakes;however, Cross (2001) argues that small cities and ruralcommunitieswhich by denition have a lower populationdensityare more vulnerable to disasters, since large citiesand megacities often have considerable resources fordealing with hazards and disasters.Therefore, an important future challenge is to examine in

greater depth how to contextualise the indicators andassessment approaches for the sub-national and locallevels. Contextualisation means to adjust indicator andindex approaches to the specic socioeconomic contextthey are applied to and to the function (e.g. spatialcomparison, guiding risk-management actions, evaluationof policy interventions) they are intended to serve.Also within the upscaling of local approaches such as

the Community-Based Disaster-Risk Index developed byGTZ, a critical review of indicators and their meaning isneeded. Theoretically, the Community-Based Disaster-Risk Index can be applied at different scales, especiallysince most indicatorsfor example, poverty level,literacy rate and diversication of the economyfocuson general features that can be examined at the sub-

Hazards 7 (2007) 2031national or national scale (see in detail Bollin and Hidajat,2006). On the other hand, some indicators are useful

WARTICLE IN PRESStalHumanitarian Aid Ofce of the European Commission(ECHO). Especially within the framework of the disaster-prevention and preparedness policy, known by theacronym DIPECHO, the UNDPs DRI was used as oneelement for identifying high-risk countries and thosecountries where aid and intervention are most needed(see ECHO, 2004, p. 4). This shows that risk andvulnerability indicators, and the approaches presented,can have an important policy impact when aid anddevelopment agencies like ECHO and the World Bankuse these or similar methodologies to dene prioritycountries for aid, disaster prevention and vulnerabilityreduction. However, within ECHO the quantitativetheofindtinessment of risk as an important issue for its own policy.Secondly, it is interesting to note that the development ofDRI of UNDP also had an impact on the developmenta similar risk index and indicator assessment within thewhassting)is a good indication of the policy interest ituses (see e.g. MSNBC website). Furthermore, theorld Bank is going to support a new phase of a GRIP,ich also shows that it views the indicator-basedprimarily at the local scale, such as indicators used tomeasure decentralisation and the local resource base(see in detail Bollin and Hidajat, 2006).It is interesting to note that the discourse regarding

contextualisation of indicators is discussed more inten-sively within the framework of sustainable development.In this context, the discussion focuses particularly onhow to contextualise sustainable development withindifferent regional and local contexts (see e.g. Rink et al.,2005). Transferred to the discussion on measuring riskand vulnerability, contextualisation implies two majorquestions:

1. how to operationalise and translate the concept of riskand vulnerability into quantitative and qualitativemeasures, and

2. how to design and adjust the measurement tools forspecic functions (e.g. risk identication or evaluationof risk-management performance) and for specic targetgroups (e.g. disaster managers or urban planners).

6. Policy implications

Although the policy relevance of indicators and assess-ment tools of risk and vulnerability is a crucial issue, it isvery difcult to dene whether these approaches havealready achieved high policy relevance or not. Some of theimpacts might only become visible after some years.Nevertheless, some interesting observations can be madebased on the ndings of the rst phase.Firstly, although it remains an open question whether

and to what extent the World Bank might use the Hotspotsproject, the high level of attention it attracts in the mediafor example, particularly at MSNBC (US national broad-casaro

J. Birkmann / Environmenicator-based needs-assessment approach has also con-uously been a subject of controversyespeciallywith some regional units. Currently, it is not clear to whatextent these quantitative measures are being used to guidepolicies in ECHO, especially regarding the selection ofpriority countries.Thirdly, within the framework of the Americas Project, a

more in-depth dialogue has been started on how to applythe indicators. In addition to the pertinent discussionsconducted in various workshops held with experts andgovernment ofcials of the countries analysed, such asColombia, Argentina, Guatemala, Bolivia, the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB) has formally providedthe country proles on risk assessmentcomparing therisk development of each respective country from 1980 to2000to authorities in each country (Cardona, 2006b).Moreover, the IDB has used the results and methods of theAmericas Project to formulate the new Plan for Action onDisaster Prevention issued for the period 20052008. Thus,a dualistic application process has become visible, focusingon policy makers in the countries as a crucial target group,on the one hand, and on IDB using the indicators for itsown policy development, on the other. Additionally, theWorld Bank has started to discuss the use of the AmericasProject indices for dening development-assistance prio-rities to some countries in Latin America. Finally, the localapplication of the RMI in Bogota has received positivefeedback and the results are used for the formulation andupdating of the citys risk-management plan (Cardona,2006b). Thus the visible results of the application of theAmericas Project are quite advanced, although the projectonly recently nished its rst phase. A second phase isforeseen which will address particularlyunder the head-ing of dialogues with the countriesthe application andimplementation of the indicators at a national scale(Cardona, 2006b).Overall, the examples show that Risk- and Vulnerability-

Index and indicator approaches can be used, and are oftenindirectly used, as one tool to identify priority areas andtargets where policy intervention is most needed.Indicators and indices which use just some gures to

represent complex phenomena and problems do offercertain advantages for policy making (easy communicationof problems). On the other hand, national ministries as wellas funding and aid agencies tend to avoid the use of theseindicators for evaluating and publicising their effectiveness.This means indicators and the global identication of high-risk countries can contribute to prioritising and formulat-ing policies, but the interest of politicians in usingindicators as a transparent evaluation tool is limited.Additionally, policy makers as well as aid agencies, such asthe Red Cross, are often interested in demonstrating andquantifying the positive effects of the interventions under-taken. Although economic losses and mortality are crucialaspects of risk and vulnerability, it will be difcult to usethese indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of policyintervention in the short and medium term. The DRI and

Hazards 7 (2007) 2031 29the Hotspots approach focus primarily on revealedvulnerability (historical mortality and economic losses),

needed in order to make more appropriate information

ARTICLE IN PRESStalwhile the Americas Project and the community-BasedDisaster-Risk Index encompass a variety of indicators andindices which relate to a specic understanding of risk,vulnerability, preparedness and mitigation. In this context,the indicators can offer a systematic approach to discussand evaluate different features of risk and to strengthencapacities to reduce disaster risk and vulnerability before areal disaster occurs. Additionally, indicators should also beused as a basis for discussion to choose targets forvulnerability and risk reduction. One of the majorproblems in the future development of indicators andtools to measure vulnerability and risk is the absence ofclear goals of risk and vulnerability reduction. Conse-quently, the approaches focus primarily on the differencesbetween countries (relative risk and vulnerability), notknowing precisely whether the overall risk or vulnerabilityis high or low. The classication of indicator values interms of high, middle and low is therefore determined bythe differences between various countries and groups,rather than by a precise denition of a risk andvulnerability baseline or respective risk- and vulnerabil-ity-reduction goals.Lastly, risk and vulnerability indicators can provide a tool

to examine and discuss the root causes of risk andvulnerability. However, this discussion needs to be facili-tated by additional frameworks and approaches, such as forexample the Sustainable Livelihood Approach (DFID,1999), the framework of the double structure of vulner-ability (Bohle, 2001) or the Pressure and Release Modeldeveloped by Wisner et al. (see in detail Wisner et al., 2004,p. 51) and/or the BBC-framework (see Birkmann, 2006).

7. Conclusions

One of the most important goals of developing tools formeasuring vulnerability is to help bridge the gaps betweenthe theoretical concepts of vulnerability and day-to-daydecision making. Therefore, it is important to viewvulnerability as a process. Within this process, measuresand instruments need to be dened which allow us to assessthe past, current, and potential future areas and people atrisk or vulnerable. Besides the generation of new and betterdata for global and local vulnerability and risk assessment,it is also important to strengthen co-operation andexchange between global and local approaches. Often theseapproaches tend to stay in separate corners. The conceptspresented primarily focus on approaches applied within thedisaster-risk community; a more intensive exchange ofapproaches to measure and assess vulnerability betweenthe social-vulnerability school (see e.g. Bohle, 2001;Downing, 2004, DFID, 1999) and the global environ-mental change community (e.g. Turner et al., 2003) isdesirable. For example, within the framework of theproposed GRIP Initiative and also the InternationalExpert Working Group on Measuring Vulnerability

J. Birkmann / Environmen30established by UNU-EHS, exchange and co-operationbetween the different schools could be strengthened.available to national and local decision makers for risk andvulnerability reduction, and also to provide the growingglobal disaster-response community with more preciseknowledge on who to target rst in or before a disastersituation. This means we need more research on how tomeasure vulnerability and risk as well as on how toimprove and adjust existing indicator approaches forspecic purposes and different scales. The four approachesreviewed in this paper are an important basis for thisfurther improvement of monitoring tools. Additionally,qualitative data and information have to be integrated inorder to achieve a more comprehensive picture about riskand vulnerability, particularly with regard to the rootcauses and the driving forces of vulnerability.

References

Bankoff, G., Frerks, G., Hilhorst, D. (Eds.), 2004. Mapping Vulnerability,

Disasters, Development and People. Earthscan Publishers, London.

Birkmann, J., 2005. Danger need not spell disasterbut how vulnerable

are we? Research Brief, Number I, United Nations University, Tokyo.

Birkmann, J. (Ed.), 2006. Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards

Towards Disaster-Resilient Societies. UNU Press, Tokyo, New York.

Birkmann, J., Wisner, B., 2006. Measuring the un-measurable. The

challenge of vulnerability. Source, No. 5/2006. United Nations

UniversityInstitute for Environment and Human Security, Bonn.

Available at: /http://www.ehs.unu.edu/le.php?id=212S.Bogardi, J., Birkmann, J., 2004. Vulnerability assessment: the rst step

towards sustainable risk reduction. In: Malzahn, D., Plapp, T. (Eds.),

Disaster and SocietyFrom Hazard Assessment to Risk Reduction.

Logos Verlag, Berlin, pp. 7582.

Bohle, H.-G., 2001. Vulnerability and criticality: perspectives from social

geography. IHDP Update 2/2001, Newsletter of the International

Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change,

pp. 17.

Bollin, C., Cardenas, C., Hahn, H., Vatsa, K.S., 2003. Natural Disasters

Network: Comprehensive Risk Management by Communities and

Local Governments. Inter-American Development Bank. AvailableFurthermore, the analysis of the Hotspots and DRIconcept shows that these approaches cover only the rstand second spheres of the concept of vulnerability(see Fig. 1). The Americas Project encompasses a morecomprehensive indicator set, including the aspect of thelack of coping capacity and resilience, and also theCommunity Disaster-Risk Index, incorporates both capa-city and measures as response categories. On the otherhand, environmental and institutional aspects, as well asthe topic of adaptation (medium- and long-term adapta-tion) are only partially operationalised and covered withinthe approaches presented. Therefore, more research isneeded to explore how to capture institutional andenvironmental vulnerabilities as well as learning processes(e.g. regarding adaptation vs. coping) and how to increasethe capacities for medium- and long-term resilience tocreeping and sudden-onset hazards of natural origin.It is evident that more transparency and more informa-

tion about the most vulnerable areas and groups are

Hazards 7 (2007) 2031at /http://www.gtz.de/en/themen/uebergreifende-themen/nothilfe/1817.htm/S.

Bollin, C., Hidajat, R., 2006. Community-based disaster risk index: pilot

implementation in Indonesia. In: Birkmann, J. (Ed.), Measuring

Vulnerability to Natural HazardsTowards Disaster Resilient Socie-

Federal Statistical Ofce Germany, 2006. Gesundheit. Ausgaben, Kran-

kheitskosten und Personal 2004. Available at: /http://www.destatis.de/presse/deutsch/pk/2006/gesundheit_2004i.pdfS.

Global Risk Identication Programme (GRIP). Website 2006, Available

at /http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/chrr/news/2006/grip.htmlS.Lerner-Lam, A., 2006. Workshop SummaryGlobal Risk Identication

Program (GRIP). Risk Sub-programme Planning Workshop 46

January 2006. Colombia University, New York. Available at: /www.

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Birkmann / Environmental Hazards 7 (2007) 2031 31Hilhorst, D. (Eds.), Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development

and People. Earthscan Publishers, London.

Cardona, O.D., 2005. Indicators of disaster risk and risk management

main technical report. IDB/IDEA Program of Indicators for Disaster

Risk Management, National University of Colombia, Manizales.

Available at /http://idea.unalmzl.edu.coS.Cardona, O.D., 2006a. A system of indicators for disaster risk manage-

ment in the Americas. In: Birkmann, J. (Ed.), Measuring Vulnerability

to Natural HazardsTowards Disaster Resilient Societies. UNU-

Press, Tokyo, New York, Paris.

Cardona, O.D., 2006b. Personal notes on the application of the indicators

and indexes of the Americas Project at national and local level

(communication via e-mail dated 5 June 2006).

Cardona, O.D., et al., 2004. Results of application of the system of

indicators on twelve countries of the Americas. IDB/IDEA Program

of Indicators for Disaster Risk Management, National University of

Colombia, Manizales. Available at /http://idea.unalmzl.edu.coS.Chen, R., 2006. Current hotspots limitations & potential improvements or

how to clean up the hot spots in hotspots! Presentation at Proposal

Development Coordination Meeting, 19 May 2006, Columbia

University, New York. Available at /http://www.ldeo.columbiachrr/news/2006/documents/GRIP_19May06_LimitationsImprovements_

Chen.pdfS.Cross, J.A., 2001. Megacities and small towns: different perspectives on

hazard vulnerability. Environmental Hazards 3 (2), 6380.

Davidson, R., 1997. An urban earthquake disaster risk index. Report No.

121, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford.

Department for International Development (DFID), 1999. Sustainable

Livelihood Guidance Sheets. DFID, London. Available at: /http://www.livelihoods.org/info/info_guidancesheets.htmlS.

Dilley, M., 2005. Setting priorities: global patterns of disaster risk. Paper

of the Scientic Discussion on Extreme Natural Hazards, Royal

Society, 2627 October 2005, London (unpublished).

Dilley, M., Chen, R.S., Deichmann, U., Lerner-Lam, A., Arnold, M.,

2005. Natural Disaster Hotspots. A Global Risk Analysis. The World

Bank, Hazard Management Unit, Washington, DC.

Downing, T., 2004. What have we learned regarding a vulnerability

science? In: Science in Support of Adaptation to Climate Change.

Recommendations for an Adaptation Science Agenda and a Collection

of Papers Presented at a Side Event of the 10th Session of the

Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change, Buenos Aires, 7 December 2004,

pp. 1821. Available at /www.aiaccproject.org/whats_new/Science_and_Adaptation.pdfS.

European Commission Humanitarian Aid Ofce (ECHO), 2004. ECHO

DecisionsManual of Procedures, vol. II, Disaster Preparedness,

Brussels.MSNBC website (access 25-05-2006). Scientists chart global disaster hot

spotsmaps provide guide for preparedness and investment. Available

at /http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6799055/S.Peduzzi, P., 2006. The disaster risk index: overview of a quantitative

approach. In: Birkmann, J. (Ed.), Measuring Vulnerability to Natural

HazardsTowards Disaster Resilient Societies. UNU-Press, Tokyo,

New York, Paris.

Peduzzi, P., Dao, H., Herold, C., 2005. Mapping disastrous natural

hazards using global datasets. Natural Hazards 35 (2), 265289.

Pelling, M., 2004. Visions of Risk: A Review of International Indicators of

Disaster Risk and its Management. UNDPBureau for Crisis

Prevention and Recovery (BRCP), Geneva.

Pelling, M., 2006. Review of global risk index projects: conclusions for

sub-national and local approaches. In: Birkmann, J. (Ed.), Measuring

Vulnerability to Natural HazardsTowards Disaster Resilient Socie-

ties. UNU Press, Tokyo, New York, Paris.

Rink, D., Hartmuth, G., Huber, K. (Eds.), 2005. Raum fur Nachhaltig-

keitZur Kontextualisierung des Leitbilds. Edition Sigma, Berlin.

Special Coordinator of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe

(SCSP), 2006. Report on April 2006 oods in South Eastern Europe.

Available at: /http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/VBOL-6Q4GZJ?OpenDocument&rc=4&cc=rouS.

Thywissen, K., 2006. Core terminology of disaster reduction: a

comparative glossary. In: Birkmann, J. (Ed.), Measuring Vulnerability

to Natural HazardsTowards Disaster Resilient Societies. UNU-

Press, Tokyo, New York, Paris.

Turner, B.L., Kasperson, R.E., Matson, P.A., et al., 2003. A framework

for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences 100 (14), 80748079.

United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF), 2006. Sudan. Dafur

Overview. Available at: /http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/sudan_darfuroverview.htmlS.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2004. Reducing

disaster risk. A challenge for development. A Global Report,

UNDPBureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BRCP), New

York. Available at /http://www.undp.org/bcpr/disred/rdr.htmS.United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR),

2004. Living with Risk. A Global Review of Disaster Reduction

Initiatives. 2004 version. UN Publications, Geneva.

Wisner, B., 2002. Who? What? Where? When? in an emergency: notes on

possible indicators of vulnerability and resilience: by phase of the

disaster management cycle and social actor. In: Plate, E. (Ed.),

Environment and Human Security: Contributions to a Workshop in

Bonn, 2325 October 2002, Germany, pp. 12/712/14.

Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., 2004. At Risk: Natural

hazards, Peoples Vulnerability and Disasters, second ed. Routledge,

London.criticism for effective risk management. In: Bankoff, G., Frerks, G., Ideo.columbia.edu/chrr/news/2006/grip.htmlS.ties. UNU-Press, Tokyo, New York, Paris.

British Broadcasting Corporation, 2000. War and drought in the horn.

Available at: /http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/762235.stmS.Cardona, O.D., 2004. The need for rethinking the concepts of vulner-

ability and risk from a holistic perspective: a necessary review and

Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales:IntroductionVulnerability and riskGlobal and international Disaster-Risk Index projectsThe Disaster Risk IndexDiscussion: applicability and usefulness

The Hotspots ProjectDiscussion: applicability and usefulness

The Americas projectDiscussion: applicability and usefulness

Local risk and vulnerability assessmentThe Community-Based Risk IndexDiscussion: applicability and usefulness

ReflectionDataUp- and downscaling and contextualisation

Policy implicationsConclusionsReferences