International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction: Samuel Rufat, Eric Tate, Christopher G. Burton, Abu Sayeed Maroof

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 14 (2015) 470–486
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr
Social vulnerability to floods: Review of case studies and implications

for measurement
Samuel Rufat a, Eric Tate b, Christopher G. Burton c,n, Abu Sayeed Maroof b
a
University of Cergy-Pontoise, Department of Geography, France
b
University of Iowa, Department of Geographical and Sustainability Sciences, USA
c
Global Earthquake Model, c/o Eucentre, Via Ferrata, 1, 27100 Pavia, Italy
ar t ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t
Article history: A leading challenge in measuring social vulnerability to hazards is for output metrics to better reflect the
Received 20 July 2015 context in which vulnerability occurs. Through a meta-analysis of 67 flood disaster case studies (1997–
Received in revised form 2013), this paper profiles the leading drivers of social vulnerability to floods. The results identify de-
29 September 2015
mographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, and health as the leading empirical drivers of social
Accepted 30 September 2015
vulnerability to damaging flood events. However, risk perception and coping capacity also featured
Available online 13 October 2015
prominently in the case studies, yet these factors tend to be poorly reflected in many social vulnerability
Keywords: indicators. The influence of social vulnerability drivers varied considerably by disaster stage and national
Social vulnerability setting, highlighting the importance of context in understanding social vulnerability precursors, pro-
Flood
cesses, and outcomes. To help tailor quantitative indicators of social vulnerability to flood contexts, the
Case studies
article concludes with recommendations concerning temporal context, measurability, and indicator in-
Indicators
terrelationships.
& 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. Introduction manifestations in specific disasters. Interacting contextual aspects

explain, underlie, amplify, and attenuate the exposure, suscept-
Over the past decade, social vulnerability indices have emerged ibility, and coping capacity of vulnerable populations. Context is
as a leading tool to quantify and map human dimensions of ha- multifaceted and includes the geographic setting of the disaster,
zards vulnerability. From a set of seminal studies [27,31,33,37,104], pre-existing social, economic and political conditions, hazard
social vulnerability modeling research has expanded to address characteristics, degree of exposure, scales of impacts and re-
questions of scale [15,44,86], temporal change [32], specific ha- sponses, and disaster phase (e.g., before, during, after). Other im-
zards [85,87,91,97], uncertainty [57,93], validation [21,42], and portant contexts may include cultural and institutional norms,
integration with physical vulnerability [18,23,51]. Despite these societal networks, governance, and historical processes. These
diverse developments, social vulnerability indices continue to geographically and temporally varying characteristics are key for
exhibit a large degree of uniformity in index construction ap- deconstructing vulnerability, because they describe the human
proaches. This homogeneity reflects growing methodological and environmental precursors and interactions that make in-
consensus among modelers, but also highlights limitations in the dividual disasters unique. Social vulnerability theorists and case
study researchers have long made this point [64,69], yet the vast
ability to translate social vulnerability processes into composite
majority of social vulnerability indices employ equal weighting
indicators. Such uniformity may result in misleading conclusions if
and additive models based on the same leading indicators, re-
dimensions of social vulnerability pertinent to specific hazards are
gardless of context. There is a large gap between the contextual
excluded, or by contrast if weakly influential dimensions are
complexity revealed through qualitative studies and generalized,
overrepresented. Among the major challenges is to better in-
quantitative metrics produced by social vulnerability indices [70].
corporate the context in which social vulnerability occurs
Despite design and contextual shortcomings, quantitative in-
[25,28,56,61,62].
dicators offer many benefits for vulnerability reduction efforts.
Context distinguishes generalized notions of social vulner-
Quantifying social vulnerability can help identify which places are
ability, such as those often reflected in indicator studies, from its most vulnerable, and which dimensions of social vulnerability are
the key drivers. The ability of well-designed indicators to simplify
n
Corresponding author. multidimensional complexity into aggregate measures makes
E-mail address: [email protected] (C.G. Burton). them well suited for use in decision making, resource allocation,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.09.013
2212-4209/& 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
S. Rufat et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 14 (2015) 470–486 471
and project prioritization [13]. This policy relevance is increasingly on empirical studies describing social vulnerability processes and
transforming the development of indicators from academic ex- outcomes in the context of severe flood events. Using the Web
ercises into political necessities [55]. Given the demand for of Science, the following search terms were applied to identify
quantitative metrics, one response to contextual critiques is to peer-reviewed journal articles published between the years 2000
develop more contextually specific indicators. and 2013:
This study focuses on the intersecting social vulnerability
[“flood” OR “flooding”]
contexts of flood hazard, disaster phase, and national level of de-
AND
velopment. Relative to other natural hazards, floods are nearly
ubiquitous in the environment, manifesting as large regional [“social vulnerability” OR “vulnerability” OR “coping”]
floods, local flash floods, coastal storm surge, and urban drainage The article selection process is illustrated on Fig. 1. We began by
overflow. Floods can occur as both frequent and rare events, as collecting the 125 articles (top arrows). After reading through the
short and long duration, and produce adverse impacts across a abstracts, we selected those with a specific focus on the social
range of magnitudes. Human processes such as urbanization and vulnerabilities of individuals and households (second level ar-
structural defenses (e.g., levees, dams, sea walls) have a large in- rows). Hence, we excluded articles primarily focused on the phy-
fluence on the movement and severity of flooding, ameliorating sical aspects of flooding, built environment exposure, multi-hazard
impacts in some cases, but amplifying them in others. Ongoing vulnerability, or climate change. Others were removed that cen-
changes in population, land use, and climate are widely believed to tered on disaster management, quantitative indicators, or com-
presage an intensification of flood disasters. The unique char- puter simulation. Some articles were later added in a snowball
acteristics of floods and their wide array of manifestations suggest fashion based on citations in the papers reviewed. We then read
that social vulnerabilities to floods could be distinct from other the full papers, retaining those that investigated case studies
hazards. through interviews, surveys, participant observation, focus groups,
The aim of this paper is to identify and profile the leading and literature review (third level arrow). At the conclusion of this
drivers of social vulnerability to floods, with the underlying goal of process, what remained were sixty-seven empirical studies of
strengthening the foundation for indicator development. To do so social vulnerability to flood disasters. We coded them in a matrix
we conducted a meta-analysis of qualitative case studies of flood for in-depth analysis.
disasters. The remainder of the article is organized as follows. The locations of the case studies are shown in Fig. 2. The article
Section 2 details the methods used for the meta-analysis, while count is highest for the United States (dominated by investigations
Section 3 describes the key drivers identified in the case studies. of Hurricane Katrina), Western Europe, and South Asia. Mean-
The discussion in Section 4 includes recommendations for how to while, there were fewer studies situated in East Asia, Africa, and
improve quantitative indices of social vulnerability to floods, and Central and South America, despite the occurrence of floods across
conclusions are provided in Section 5. these regions. Studies in the United States and England comprise
approximately half of the total articles analyzed. The result of our
English keyword selection is a bias favoring English-speaking
2. Methods settings. For countries such as Ghana, Nepal, the Philippines, South
Africa, and Sri Lanka, there were one or two relevant peer-re-
We performed a literature review in November 2013, focused viewed articles.
Fig. 1. Overview of the systematic literature review.

472 S. Rufat et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 14 (2015) 470–486
Fig. 2. Flood case study locations.
Table 1 literature (e.g., Birkmann [14], Heinz Center [54], Phillips et al.
Theoretical indicators of social vulnerability. [80]). To pinpoint characteristics that contribute to social vulner-
ability to floods, the thematic indicators were further subdivided
Thematic indicators Specific indicators
into specific indicators. For example, income was included as a
Coping capacity Individual capacity specific indicator of the thematic indicator of socioeconomic sta-
Household capacity tus. As the review progressed, additional specific indicators were
Social capital
added to the matrix as they were encountered. In particular, we
focused on the flooding type, disaster phase, and national setting.
Demographic characteristics Age Whenever a specific indicator was described in an article as in-
Race and ethnicity
fluencing social vulnerability, the article was tallied in the matrix
Family structure
Gender under the context(s) in which it occurred.
Functional needs
Language proficiency
3. Results
Health Access
Stress A summary of the results is presented in Table 2. The thematic
Disease
Mortality
indicators are sorted by their frequency of appearance (highest to
Sanitation lowest) in the case studies, and characterized by their percentage
of citations within a given disaster stage and development context.
Land tenure Owners
Because some articles may include findings spanning multiple
Renters disaster stages, or involve cases in multiple countries, the per-
Squatters centage sums may exceed one hundred for some indicators. De-
mographic characteristics were the most frequently appearing
Neighborhood characteristics Transportation indicators of social vulnerability to floods, especially in the disaster
Population density response and recovery stages. Indicators of socioeconomic status
Housing
had the second highest frequency of occurrence with the majority
Resource dependency
of instances involving the response phase. Linking demographic
and socio-economic characteristics with social vulnerability to
Risk perception Awareness
floods suggests that processes involving characteristics such as
Prior experience
Knowledge of flood protection measures race, gender, age, and income are principal drivers of a popula-
Risk denial/acceptance tion’s ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from dama-
Trust in officials ging flood events. Other important drivers include health, coping
capacity, risk perception, land tenure, neighborhood character-
Socioeconomic status Income istics, and governance.
Wealth One way to interpret the frequency of vulnerability drivers and
Education
dimensions in Table 2 is as a measure of importance. However,
Occupation
frequency might also be dependent on research focus (i.e. the less
frequent might attract fewer studies), previous routine in the field
(i.e. path dependence, demographics were first linked to data
availability and then became commonplace in vulnerability ana-
To analyze the articles we constructed a matrix, with theore-
lysis) and theoretical frameworks (i.e. some dimensions are less
tical indicators of social vulnerability in the rows and disaster
easy to integrate or less often taken into account).
contexts in the columns. The theoretical indicators (Table 1) were
Visualizing the drivers through their interactions provides an-
drawn from themes commonly found in the social vulnerability
other perspective on indicator importance (Fig. 3). The seven
Table 2
Leading empirical indicators of social vulnerability to floods.
Driver Overall frequency (%) Flood type (%) Disaster stage (%) Development context (%)
River Coastal Urban Regional Mitigation Response Recovery Less developed More developed
Demographic characteristics 58 42 29 41 26 32 66 58 32 76
Socioeconomic status 55 44 39 53 26 17 53 42 39 61
Health 47 48 16 54 31 19 52 42 32 68
Coping capacity 39 58 23 53 24 16 48 48 54 46
Risk perception 36 62 33 48 20 46 54 21 33 67
Neighborhood quality of life 30 50 20 60 45 25 45 35 35 65
Land tenure 30 65 45 51 29 15 30 45 35 65
social vulnerabilities associated with risk perception have fewer

connections and can be interpreted to operate more in-
dependently. The findings for each of the leading drivers are dis-
cussed in the following sections.
3.1. Demographic characteristics
Demographic characteristics are among the most commonly

applied social vulnerability indicators, yet the literature often di-
verges in describing the contribution of certain demographic
variables to socially vulnerable groups. For example, while some
research argues that children are among the most vulnerable
segment of the population, they can also serve as resilience drivers
by bringing together community networks through their schooling
[100], or by providing assistance to the household during recovery
processes [61]. Similarly, women and the elderly are often con-
sidered among the most vulnerable, yet historical data on flood
fatalities reveal that young [10,65] and middle aged men are also
vulnerable due to risk-taking behavior [36], rescue activities, and
temporary impairment due to alcohol or drugs [58]. These dis-
crepancies require reexamination of the typical demographic dri-
vers. Table 3 highlights some key case studies and findings re-
garding demographic characteristics.
Fig. 3. Connectivity within and among social vulnerability drivers. Table A1 provides a detailed classification of the citation fre-
quency for demographic drivers of social vulnerability to floods.
The most frequently cited demographic characteristics are age (the
segments of the circle are associated with the leading dimensions elderly and the young), gender, race, recent migrants and single
of drivers of social vulnerability, while the width of the connec- parent families. Age is the leading demographic driver of social
tions signifies their intensity. Only those drivers that co-occurred vulnerability based on the number of citations within the litera-
ture. Extremes along the age spectrum affect mobility out of
in more than five articles are depicted. The circular plot echoes the
harm’s way and increase the burden of care following a damaging
frequency statistics in Table 2, with indicators of socio-economic
event. This is partially the result of reductions in services that may
status and demographic characteristics occurring most often in
make recovery especially difficult for age dependent populations
interactions. By frequency alone, land tenure is the least influential
[50,59,95]. The contribution of age to social vulnerability can be
of the social vulnerability drivers. However, it also has one of the offset by previous disaster experience and anticipatory behavior
most between-driver connections, indicating that land tenure during the mitigation phase; however, [77] and only a few linear
processes operate as a highly interactive dimension. By contrast, relationships between age and vulnerability have emerged from
Table 3
Key case studies involving demographic characteristics.
Study Flood event Study design Key findings
Jonkman et al. Hurricane Katrina, 2005 Dataset for 771 fatalities in the US The majority of victims were elderly, unable/unwilling to evacuate, incapable of
[59] state of Louisiana, surviving the physical flood effect and/or suffered from deterioration of basic public
health services inside and outside flooded areas.
Walker et al. UK severe flooding in June Mixed methods and workshop Children are not only flood ‘victims’, but play a key role in recovery, bringing to-
[100] 2007 with 46 flood-affected children gether community networks through schooling, leisure and friendship networks.
Zahran et al. Flood events in the U.S. Historical data on 112 flood Poor communities of color suffered disproportionately in human death and injury.
[105] (Texas), 1997–2001 casualties
studies suggesting that only the ‘very old’ and the ‘very young’ vulnerability drivers. Other studies considering demographic
tend to be more vulnerable because of their dependency status characteristics and flood damage impacts from Hurricane Katrina
and physical conditions [61]. found that minority neighborhoods did not appear more vulner-
Among the most commonly cited drivers were special needs able than non-minority neighborhoods in terms of damages sus-
populations, which include institutionalized people, those with tained [29,59,60]. In addition, and although debatable, studies
low capacity for self-care, long-term or chronically ill patients showed that it was not only race, but rather the combination of
needing continued care, and nursing home residents. For example, ethnic composition and lack mobility of the most affected neigh-
studies show that evacuation and in situ sheltering were challen- borhoods that explained the disproportionate burden on African-
ging for nursing home and hospital patients [59], and in extreme American communities following Hurricane Katrina [29].
cases, family members might prevent those needing self-care from
evacuating [99]. Limited mobility, dependence of care, and reliance 3.2. Socioeconomic status
on medication and other services are impediments to evacuation.
Conversely, recovery processes are impeded when disruption of Socioeconomic status drivers are among the most prominently
services makes caring for special needs populations difficult [50]. measured characteristics in social vulnerability studies, and man-
In addition to considering age dependent and institutionalized ifest in different ways across levels of geography. Common socio-
populations, flood vulnerability is linked to gender status where economic status indicators include measurements of household
women disproportionately accept family care responsibilities [99]. income, poverty, unemployment, educational status, wealth, in-
Gendered vulnerability was apparent in both developed [90] and equality and home value. At the individual level, lack of resources,
developing national settings [82] due to differential resource ac- power relationships, poverty, and marginalization translate into
cess, opportunities, power, rights, informal sector employment, social vulnerability through access to resources, coping behavior
and income. Women often work in low-wage informal sectors and stress [2]. At the community level, social vulnerability is de-
earning lower wages then men while suffering from a lack op- termined by relative distribution of income, access to resources,
portunity to diversify their economic activities [82]. and diversity of economic assets [45]. Table 4 highlights findings
The effect of gender on social vulnerability to floods is not from key studies involving socioeconomic characteristics; detailed
straightforward, however. This is because women are also ascribed citation frequency data are provided in Table A2.
more coping-capacities, greater commitment to knowledge of risk, It is within this context that income and poverty are key drivers
and social relations [90]. The case studies reveal that it is difficult of social vulnerability. This is primarily because income is closely
to make generalizations about women’s social vulnerability and coupled with other forms of capital that may be used as proxy
that women's dependency and needs within the context of vul- indicators for social vulnerability to floods. These indicators in-
nerable populations might have been overemphasized. Even in clude educational access, wealth, and employment type, over-
developing countries with the most inequitable societies, gender crowding in households, non-home or non-car ownership, and
alone is not predictive of social vulnerability because women’s unemployment [91]. Education provides an example of the cou-
everyday living conditions vary across socio-economic status, pling of income with other forms of capital where higher levels of
household structures, and geographic locations [5]. Within this education may lead to better paying jobs and higher incomes [19].
context, some studies found that gender had no impact on social This, in turn, may result in increased asset ownership where da-
vulnerability in the face of floods at all [61]. mage costs from flood events are higher for wealthier households
Race, class, ethnicity and immigration status are additional in absolute costs, but flood damage costs represent a lower pro-
drivers of flood-related social vulnerability since these may im- portion of the total income and capital of wealthier households. As
pose cultural and language barriers that affect residential locations a result, the coping capacity of wealthier households remains
in high hazard areas, pre-disaster mitigation, and access to post- greater than poorer households [20].
disaster resources for recovery [31]. As with gender, these drivers Conversely, lower education coincides with poverty, over-
have spurred debate over ambiguities [28,39]. For Vietnamese crowding, unemployment, income inequality, and marginalization.
migrants adversely affected by Hurricane Katrina, studies con- Even if the poor and marginalized face fewer economic damage
firmed that the group's lack of acculturation and English profi- costs, the relative impact of damaging flood events are generally
ciency were strong factors aggravating their social vulnerability greater for low- income groups. It may take years for those who
[25]. However, the lack of acculturation was also associated with cannot afford the costs of repair, reconstruction, or relocation to
close social ties and shared resources that allowed them to recover recover from even a moderately damaging event [67]. Not only do
quickly following the event with little outside assistance [98]. The poorer and marginalized populations often live in highly exposed
case of the Vietnamese immigrants is one of the most clear-cut zones with less employment and housing opportunities, they are
examples of the importance of context when identifying also less protected by formal institutions, such as those that
Table 4
Key case studies involving socioeconomic characteristics.
Ajibade et al. [5] Nigeria, 2011 Interviews (n ¼36), survey Gendered vulnerability varied with income—no differences in wealthy and middle-
(n ¼453), focus groups (n¼ 6) income areas, great differences in poor areas. Gender alone is not predictive of social
vulnerability, but it is when intersecting with income, occupation, and health care
access.
Brouwer et al. [20] Bangladesh, 2005 Survey (n¼ 672) and semi-struc- Higher flood exposure was associated with the poor (in relative terms, not absolute),
tured interviews (n ¼45) lack of land ownership, and income inequality. Income diversification was found to
be an effective adaptation strategy.
Steinführer and Kuhlicke Germany, 2002 Survey (n¼ 404) and interviews No single variable (e.g. age, income etc.) explained vulnerability of specific groups. No
[90] (n ¼30) single social group (very poor, without social networks, etc.) proved to be vulnerable
in all dimensions.
provide disaster mitigation and recovery assistance. that constitute:

Most of the empirical studies highlight that floods dis-
proportionately affect lower-socioeconomic status households. A pre-flood phase where the main issues are heart attacks while
The impact of floods vary by social class not only during the pre- performing strenuous activity such as relocating furniture or
impact and response phases of a flood event, but also during re- sandbagging;
covery and rebuilding processes [49]. The quality and pace of re- A during-flood phase where adverse impacts are mainly attrib-
covery following an event, for instance, is influenced by access to uted to drowning, vehicular accidents, flood-related injuries,
timely and sufficient external assistance [60]. However, the ability and carbon monoxide poisoning. Other adverse effects include
to obtain assistance depends on power relations, social connec- gastrointestinal illness, diarrhea, and psychological distress;
tions, and the social arrangement of flood relief [26] that are often A post-flood recovery phase where reductions in adverse health
beyond the reach of poor and marginalized populations. Likewise, effects may result from displacement of flood-affected in-
preparedness and mitigation activities, and the ability to evacuate dividuals (particularly those at increased risk of dying) to non-
requires access to economic and social resources that are often flooded areas, or increased support from care networks fol-
lacking [49]. The poor are also more likely to be working in pri- lowing a damaging event [65].
mary economic activities or doing domestic work that further
hinders their ability to recover [17]. Flood disasters often reveal 3.4. Coping capacity
larger societal inequities, even if there remain some debates on the
root causes of uneven post-disaster outcomes. Although social vulnerability analyses typically focus on the
social characteristics that influence susceptibility to adverse im-
3.3. Health pacts, social vulnerability is also a function of the capacity of
people to cope with hazard impacts in the short term, and adapt in
Flooding adversely affects mortality, physical health, and the longer term [16]. The case studies deconstruct coping capacity
mental health where the most substantial impact on health from in terms of preventative/adaptive actions taken before the onset of
floods is death by drowning. Approximately one-third of all deaths the flood, but primarily as a set of reactive strategies adopted in
during flood events occur away from floodwaters, however, and the immediate aftermath [103]. For this paper, we define coping
are the result of dehydration, stroke, lack of medical supplies [59], capacity as the aggregate of resources available to people to con-
and health issues that are often overlooked prior to flood events test the negative effects of hazards, and the practices used to de-
[4,6]. Flood deaths occurring in vehicles are primarily due to un- ploy them [11,12]. It includes both the capacities exerted by in-
necessary and risky behavior that often result in drowning or ac- dividuals and households, and those accessed through social net-
cidents associated with alcohol or drug use [36]. Deaths that occur works. Coping strategies tend to be successful when they involve
from flood-related illness are related to age, gender, disruption of accessing or allocating resources to overcome immediate needs,
medication, and public water consumption [19], whereas the ef- without sacrificing long-term viability of assets and livelihoods,
fects of flooding on psychological symptoms appear to differ ac- with the particular strategies adopted varying with social, physi-
cording to anxiety and stress, age, gender, previous health condi- cal, and geographic contexts [77]. Table 6 highlights some key case
tion and recovery duration [89]. The psychological effects of floods studies and findings regarding coping capacity, while detailed ci-
are more acute after the flood, and they are long standing [66] tation frequency data are provided in Table A4
particularly due to conflicts with insurance companies and Coping capacities often include preventative measures, and
homeowners, and disruptions of commercial, public, health and reliance on social networks. Preventative measures included
municipal services [22]. Health issues prove to be both drivers (i.e., storing food and medicine, saving money, organizing building
chronic illness, etc.) and outcomes (plague, PTSD, food insecurity, materials, and purchasing insurance [11,38]. However, most ac-
etc.) of social vulnerability to floods. Table 5 highlights findings tions taken before the flood tended to focus on structural miti-
from key selected studies involving health characteristics, while gation of homes through the elevation of structures and contents.
detailed citation frequency results are provided in Table A3. Common approaches found by Chatterjee [24] in India include
Although key drivers of health-related vulnerability to floods raising foundations, construction of a second floor, and use of an
have been identified, studies are not convergent on the demo- elevated platform within the house to store valuables and protect
graphic and societal factors associated with health outcomes that household members. Studies in Guyana and Suriname found that
are the product of flood events. Studies are also inconclusive on residents raised the level of their yards, erected barriers near
the role of flood context on health issues and mortality. Using doors, and cleaned drainage channels as the primary preventative
flood mortality, injury, and illness as an example, the literature actions [63,79]. Although moderately effective in reducing da-
shows that factors related to health vary by timing rather then mages, the use of preventative strategies is constrained by income
flood context. Here, adverse health effects are linked to phases and land tenure [20,63,78].
Table 5
Key case studies involving health characteristics.
Alderman et al. [6] Literature review Analysis of papers (2004–2011) on the re- Casualties in low-income countries, dominated by ethnic minorities who are poor,
lationship between floods and health live on floodplains and in unstable dwellings, females, the very young, and the
elderly. In medium to high-income countries, the elderly, males, and poor com-
munities of color experience more flood-related health casualties.
Lowe et al. [65] Literature review of 38 studies of floods in
Literature review Target populations differ for morbidity and mortality effects, and differ pre-,
the OECD during, and post-flood time periods.
Mason et al. [66] UK 2007 flooding Cross-sectional survey (n ¼444) 6 months Females, children, people in poor health and evacuees had higher mean scores on
following the flood PTSD, anxiety and depression after the flood.
Table 6
Key case studies involving coping capacity.
Chatterjee [24] India, 2005 Household surveys (n¼ 50) in two urban Mitigation at city and household levels was not protective; assistance for
slum settlements long-term recovery and adaptation occurred mostly at local scales via
bonding social capital.
Paul and Routray [77] Bangladesh, 2007 Household survey (n¼ 331) and secondary Adoption of coping strategies can substantially reduce flood vulnerability,
data collection in 3 coastal and inland but their effectiveness varies temporally, spatially, and across socio-demo-
villages graphic settings.
Steinführer and Kuh- Germany, 2002 Survey (n¼404) and 30 interviews in 5 vil- Major differences in the importance of social capital across demographic
licke [90] lages heavily affected by river floods characteristics and disaster phases.
Individuals can boost coping capacity by using social networks frequently identified as a social vulnerability driver during the
to connect to the emotional, social, and economic resources of mitigation and response phases of flood disasters, and in more
others. Such social capital is a function of social norms, mutual developed national settings (Table 2). Flood awareness and prior
trust, and social networks [3,71], and is often described as sets of experience were the primary perceptual aspects explored in the
bonding, bridging, and linking ties. Bonding ties link people that articles, and to a lesser extent, trust, estimation of flood risk, and
occupy similar socio-demographic levels and are geographically demographic characteristics. But in general, the findings regarding
proximal, such as families, neighbors, close friends, and work perception and vulnerability were often contradictory. Table 7
colleagues. These horizontal networks tend to be the strongest, highlights some key case studies and findings regarding risk per-
most common, and most durable of network ties. Manifestations ception; detailed citation frequency is in Table A5.
of bonding ties included remittances and sharing of seeds among Flood awareness and knowledge often served as the focus of
farmers [9], and small loans to flood-affected families for tem- investigation, predicated on the notion that awareness is a ne-
porary needs such as food, clothing, and medicine [20]. Bonding cessary precursor to preparedness [45]. Feelings of fear, un-
ties also increase knowledge capacities, in particular strengthening certainty, and worry were found to be important intermediary
memory of past disasters and exchange of information about fu- between awareness and protective action [102,88]. Indeed, several
ture risks in Poland [38], and in Ghana influencing out migration studies reported an association between low flood awareness and
by providing information about economic opportunities elsewhere limited adoption of flood protection and preparedness measures
[9]. The effectiveness of bonding ties varies with other social [17,22]. Such measures generally include elevating homes, pur-
vulnerability drivers. In Hurricane Katrina, bonding capital was chasing flood insurance, stockpiling supplies, moving building
particularly useful for low-income affected residents [53]. Mean- contents to higher floors, and evacuation. The provision of official
while, Chen et al. [25] found that strong bonding ties were asso- flood information by governments can increase awareness, but it is
ciated with improved physical and mental health outcomes in the insufficient by itself to result in reduced social vulnerability.
Vietnamese community. Prior experience with flooding [45,52,88], longer duration of
Despite the benefits of social capital, it has its limits in reducing residence [102,17,61], and shorter length of time since the pre-
social vulnerability. In a study of flooding in Germany, Steinführer vious flood event [22,38] were associated with greater awareness,
and Kuhlicke [90] found formal networks to be more important understanding, and personal action. However, greater experience
than informal networks for pre-event information gathering. So- also led to people to underestimate risks associated with large
cial capital also cannot be assumed to always operate as a positive flood events, particularly if previous flooding was less severe
force: bonding ties in Hurricane Katrina were the most important [26,38,61,81]. In particular, automobile drivers who lacked ex-
factor influencing evacuation behavior [1], but also led some perience with flash floods, took longer routes, and lived in urban
people not to evacuate who possessed the resources and ability to areas, were more likely to underestimate risk [84].
do so [53]. In both India and the United States, strong social capital Some of the strongest associations between perception and
widened divisions between dominant and marginalized groups vulnerability-reducing behavior were associated with social net-
[7], with disparities expanding over the course of the disaster [40]. works. Networks were widely found to be key information sources
for warnings and evacuation, and more important than commu-
3.5. Risk perception nication from mass media and official sources [1,52]. Housing te-
nure was associated with strong links between risk perception and
The analysis for risk perception focused assessing the state of behavior [102,90]. However, other population characteristics such
knowledge of the influence of perception on vulnerability-redu- as socioeconomic status, age, and gender had inconsistent re-
cing behavior. Across the case studies, risk perception was most lationships with the perception of risk [45,52].
Table 7
Key case studies involving risk perception.
Carroll et al. [22] England, 2005 Focus groups and interviews Low flood awareness and expectation of flooding led homeowners to eschew in-
(n¼ 46) stalling flood defenses.
De Marchi and Scolobig Italy, 2000 and 2002 Interviews (n¼ 400) Strong structural and institutional flood defenses associated with reduced flood
[34] awareness and self-protective behavior.
Siegrist and Gutscher [88] Switzerland, 2005 Surveys (n¼ 200) Negative emotions from previous flood experience are an important motivating
factor for implementation of mitigation measures.
Table 8
Key case studies involving neighborhood characteristics.
Chomsri and Sherer 2011 Mega Flood in Narrative interviews, participant People in slums and in the rural areas felt inferior, and criticized the information
[26] Thailand observation (n=10), focus group presented.
Elliott et al. [39] Hurricane Katrina Survey 6 months after Hurricane Lack of adequate transportation explains the failure of evacuation plans: immobility
Katrina (n¼ 418) is a key factor in decisions to stay or for challenges returning home.
Whittle et al. [101] June 2007 flood in the Interviews (n=18), 18-month diaries Paradoxically, the efficiency of insurers and builders may explain evacuation beha-
UK (n=44), stakeholder participation vior and length to recover. Insurance tends to monopolize all available rental ac-
commodation after the flood, the resulting lack of affordable housing available for
rent hinders reconstruction in the moderate income neighborhoods.
3.6. Neighborhood quality of life drivers settlements. They may introduce evacuation difficulties prior to an
event [43], increase the risk of disease transmission during and
Scale emerged as an important social vulnerability factor with after a flood event, and hamper post-event relief and recovery
several quality of life drivers operating at the neighborhood level processes [35].
during all disaster stages. The most common neighborhood or Other drivers of flood-related social vulnerability include po-
quality of life drivers found within the literature are linked to the pulation growth and urban sprawl, the number of schools per
prevalence of transportation access, illegal and/or uncontrolled resident, and neighborhood intersectionality considering race,
urbanization, housing quality, schools, and neighborhood inter- gender, and class. Especially in the developing burgeoning me-
sectionality. Transportation dependence is the foremost-cited tropolises, rapid urbanization and population growth are asso-
driver affecting quality of life at the neighborhood level. Hurricane ciated with the unregulated sprawl, often with informal settle-
Katrina demonstrated how a lack transportation access inhibits ments and weak infrastructural and economic bases [81]. In the
large-scale mobility and increases social vulnerability [29]. Here, it developing world, the number of schools per resident has been
is not strictly an issue of individual car ownership [91] that affects used as a proxy for educational background, access to damage
social vulnerability. Rather, unequal access to transportation al- compensation, and satisfaction with damage regulation [43].
ternatives [40] and collective dependence on public transportation Neighborhood intersectionality is a concept constructed to
[101] explained the failure of evacuation plans since immobility is foster recognition that perceived group membership can make
a key factor guiding decisions to stay prior to an event, or to return people socially vulnerable to various natural hazards. Inter-
home following an event [41]. Table 8 highlights some key case sectionality, particularly between race, gender, and class, means
studies and findings regarding neighborhood characteristics, with that no single dimensions can be reduced to the other when
detailed citation results included in Table A6. seeking to understand the wide array of populations’ abilities to
A neighborhood’s population density, urbanicity, and legiti- prepare for, respond, and recover from floods [41]. The latter
macy of settlements also impact social vulnerability to floods. suggests that the neighborhood’s context has to be grasped as a
Some authors question the historic bias towards positioning and whole to assess social vulnerability.
permitting lower income housing in floodplain areas [99], and it
may be impossible for populations occupying lower income 3.7. Land tenure
housing in floodplain areas to return following a damaging flood
event. This is partially because affordable housing that is often Property ownership can strongly influence the level of control a
rented can undergo serious inflation as rents are being paid by resident has over the adoption of protective measures and access to
insurance companies, allowing rental prices to skyrocket over- post-disaster assistance, leading to differences in flood susceptibility
night [101]. Informal or uncontrolled neighborhoods and illegal among owners, renters, squatters, and the homeless. Compared to
settlements generate mental suffering, especially in flood prone property owners, renters were associated with higher inundation le-
areas, with populations having a general feeling of being neglected vels [20], more adverse health impacts [101,95], lower economic loss
[26]. In these neighborhoods, residents were also faced with poor [1], and higher rates of displacement and job loss [41]. Although such
drainage and infrastructure [92], as well as exclusion from parti- disproportionate impacts are often associated with the lower social
cipatory processes and political leverage, leaving them unable to status of renters, the causal relationship between tenure and social
access mechanisms to reduce their social vulnerability [79]. Po- vulnerability is culturally fluid [90]. For example, in Germany, renters
pulation and built environment density are key drivers of social were well represented among the middle class [61], while in Bangla-
vulnerability that often correspond with lower income desh, landlords were found to be major contributors to post-flood
Table 9
Key case studies involving land tenure.
Land tenure
Kamel [60] Hurricane Katrina, Analysis of two government disaster Post-disaster housing and individual assistance programs favored prop-
2005 assistance programs erty owners over renters.
Steinführer and Kuhlicke Germany, 2002 Survey (n¼ 404) and 30 interviews in Local attachment, use of precautionary measures, and structural mitiga-
[90] 5 villages tion were higher among homeowners than renters.
Whittle et al. [101] England, 2007 Diaries, interviews, group discussions Post-disaster housing shortages and rent inflation led to adverse health,
(n¼ 44) financial and family life impacts
building repairs and social support [11,19]. Table 9 highlights some key Table 10
case studies and findings regarding neighborhood characteristics, de- Phase-oriented approach to indicator selection.
tailed citation results are in Table A7.
Potential Pre-flood/ During flood/ Post flood/
The social vulnerabilities among land tenure classes also varied indicators mitigation response recovery
by disaster stage, meaning that a member of particular tenure
class may be vulnerable in one disaster phase, but not another Children 7 þ
[61]. In advance of flooding, homeowners have shown a greater Young adults þ þ
Elderly þ þ
awareness of flood risks [61], deeper understanding of warnings ……
[77], taken more immediate action to reduce damage [76], and
were less likely to seek emergency shelter [42]. However, the re-
lationship between tenure and flood insurance is not clear-cut. For
instance, homeowners had higher rates of insurance purchases in importance of temporal characteristics was succinctly captured by
England [95], while Steinführer and Kuhlicke [90] concluded that ([61], p. 803)
insurance adoption rates were instead tied to age and income.
Flood insurance was a mitigative factor primarily in studies in “The same group may be vulnerable in certain event phases and
more developed nations. not vulnerable in others. This means that the same indicator may
In the aftermath of flooding, renters had lower rates of return have explanatory power in more than one phase of the event but
than homeowners [39]. This reflects a combination of greater at- with opposite meanings in terms of social vulnerability.”
tachment to place among homeowners [41,90], higher prices and
Findings from the review of demographic and health-related
availability constraints for rental properties [101], and greater
studies are particularly instructive. Children and non-whites ap-
control by homeowners over the pace and quality of repairs
peared to be the more vulnerable before the flood due to lack of
[101,39,95]. In response to flooding, property owners were also
awareness and preparedness [39,66]. During the flood, men and
more likely to make structural improvements to reduce future
flood losses [78,90]. Disparities in access to post-disaster resources middle-age populations were more vulnerable due to risk-taking
in the United States were related to the design of government behavior [58] and involvement in rescue and emergency opera-
programs for disaster assistance, which privilege homeowners tions [101]; as well as children and the elderly due to their diffi-
[60]. Renters experienced more health effects and stress than culty to swim and reach shelter or safety [10]. After the flood,
owners at the time of the flood, and remained dependent on women, single-parent families, and the elderly were found to be
owners during the recovering/rebuilding process [95]. more vulnerable due to resource availability and difficulties coping
with disruptions to long-term care and services [50].
Incorporating the phase of the flood disaster is a key to im-
4. Discussion proving the contextual validity of social vulnerability indicators
and maps. To account for temporal context, one approach is to
Academic research on social vulnerability to hazards is largely differentiate indicator development according to preparedness,
bifurcated. In one group are post-disaster case studies that collect response and recovery phases of a flood disaster. Borrowing from
empirical data to provide rich, detailed, place-specific, and hazard- Steinführer and Kuhlicke [90], Table 10 provides a demonstration
specific understandings of vulnerability processes, interactions, of this approach, with particular indicators evaluated based on
and outcomes. However, using the findings from a few individual their directional effect on vulnerability (e.g., þ increases, de-
case studies to make broad generalizations may yield unreliable creases) for each disaster phase.
conclusions [48]. In a second group are geospatial modeling stu- Such a phase-oriented approach could inform variable selection
dies, which tend to focus on the construction, mapping, and ana- (e.g., what are the key vulnerability drivers for flood recovery?),
lysis of quantitative indicators. The metrics are used to rank and weighting (what is the relative importance of indicators for flood
compare the social vulnerability of different places, yet the studies preparedness?), and aggregation (what is the individual and
often lack context and rarely attempt to validate findings. combined effect of individual indicators of flood response?). It
For social vulnerability to floods, a few studies have integrated could also make social vulnerability analysis more salient for
case study and indicator development approaches [42,46,74,91]. emergency managers, whose responsibilities are likely to be or-
But overall, connections between case study knowledge and ganized around the emergency management cycle. Currently, the
choices made in the modeling process are largely tenuous. Typi- most common internal structure for social vulnerability modeling
cally, the rationale for decisions regarding variable selection, and mapping is the thematic organization of indicators into sub-
analysis scale, weighting, and aggregation is either unstated or indices [47,70] or statistical factors [31,42,83] derived from themes
justified based on simplicity or choices made in previous studies. such as those shown in Table 1. Based on the findings of this re-
In many cases, no justification is provided at all. Better integration search, an alternative thematic structure based on disaster phase
of context can improve the ability of social vulnerability indices to should also be considered.
represent observed conditions. The results of this study highlight
several gaps in knowledge regarding the construction of social 4.2. Measurability
vulnerability indicators. Among the leading research needs for
social vulnerability indicators are accounting for temporal context, Although indicators are increasingly recognized as useful tools
improving the measurability of influential drivers, and under- for policy formulation and public communication, they are subject
standing interactions between indicators. to measurability limitations [14]. The use of social vulnerability
indicators may mislead decision-making if practical considerations
4.1. Temporal context of cost, data availability, and measurability are prioritized over
validity: does the indicator faithfully represent vulnerability pro-
A leading conclusion of the meta-analysis is that social vul- cesses? As one article put it, “understanding vulnerability and flood
nerability drivers can vary considerably with the stage of disaster. recovery is not as straightforward as mapping socio-economic char-
This reinforces the understanding of social vulnerability as a dy- acteristics ([101], p. 17).”
namic situation of which people can move in and out [79,99]. The Improving measurability is particularly important for social
Fig. 4. Heatmap of social vulnerability drivers (mentioned in more than 5 papers).
capital, risk perception, and psychosocial dimensions of health, of new geospatial indicators of social capital is also key research
which stymie standardized measurement because they are often need [8], and should be augmented by continued search for sui-
situationally dependent and may require quantification at scales table existing proxy measures.
(e.g., individual, network) different from other indicators. In- Overall, measurability challenges are important to consider
dicators for these aspects typically cannot be computed from when interpreting the rankings and spatial distributions of output
publicly available databases (e.g., national censuses) and require indicators. In contexts where social vulnerability drivers that are
the use of qualitative methods, targeted surveys, and participatory difficult to measure are particularly important, what is the
approaches. To address this caveat, scorecards have become a meaning of the index when they are not included? To what extent
popular survey mechanism, especially for researchers interested in are assertions valid that the resultant indicators measure social
understanding urban resilience (see [94], [75], [96]). Research is vulnerability? An important step in social vulnerability indicator
needed, however, to better integrate the findings of studies em- development is to consider the meaning of gaps in the input
ploying such methods. In particular, the potential of participatory information.
approaches to generate salient quantitative data is still under-
estimated [68]. 4.3. Indicator interrelationships
Measurability is also constrained by limited understanding of
“Some of these categories intersect in complex ways (for instance
underlying social vulnerability processes. For example, being a
disabled people are disproportionately likely to be poor, as are
child [100,61], an elder [77,95], a woman [36,90] and a member of
members of minority ethnic groups, women and older people); not
a minority [28,98] were protective factors in some studies. Am-
all within them are equally vulnerable and vulnerability is a dy-
biguity and nuance in the effect on social vulnerability were par-
namic rather than a static quality (people can move in and out of
ticularly pronounced for risk perception. Fielding [45] found scale
vulnerability)” ([99], p.223).
effects to risk perception, with variation between, but not within
neighborhoods, regardless of socioeconomic status and flood risk. More research is needed to further explore how social vulner-
Although structural flood protection and institutional manage- ability drivers interact, particularly across geographic and tem-
ment can reduce flood exposure, higher levels of trust in these poral scales. Examples from the case studies include examination
elements may lead to erosion of awareness and self-protective of connections between demographic characteristics, wealth, land
skills [34,61]. The belief that flood protection is an institutional as tenure, and social capital [90], race and class [41], and age, income,
opposed to a private responsibility was associated with reduced and social isolation [61,81]. The issue of flood insurance highlights
individual agency [76,90]. Collectively, many results regarding risk the interrelationships of social vulnerability drivers and effects. At
perception are too contradictory to make generalizations for in- an individual level, the purchasing of an insurance policy is
dicator selection in the flood context. The development and testing strongly correlated with income, home ownership, and mitigation
behavior [38]. Lack of insurance magnified flood impacts [65] and perception are more likely to associate coping capacity with social
slowed house rehabilitation due to delays in public or federal vulnerability rather than any other underlying cause. The heatmap
payments [50]. Meanwhile, being uninsured or having problems in Fig. 4 is based on a Pearson linear correlation of drivers' cited in
with insurers were among the leading precursors to psychological each of our respective studies. The latter takes the interaction
impacts, inducing stress or PTSD [95]. between drivers one step further by revealing precisely which
A finer understanding of the relationships between social vul- drivers are positively (red) or negatively (dark blue) correlated.
nerability drivers could benefit the weighting and aggregation This does not necessarily mean that there is some causal relation
stages of composite indicator development. The weighting of in- between the drivers, they just tend to emerge together from the
dicators should ideally reflect their relative importance in affecting empirical fieldwork, and in most cases the empirical studies dis-
social vulnerability. In practice, however, equal weighting has be- cuss the more prominent interactions.
come the norm for modelers, with typical justification similar to
the following:
5. Conclusions
“… each factor was viewed as having an equal contribution to the
county’s overall vulnerability. In the absence of a defensible
This paper has profiled the leading drivers of social vulner-
method for assigning weights, we felt this was the best option.
ability to floods, with the underlying goal of shedding light on the
([30], p. 254).”
development of social vulnerability indicators. In our view, the
However, it is more likely than not, that individual indicators field of social vulnerability measurement has entered somewhat of
differ in their degree of influence on social vulnerability. Previous a transitional period. Debates regarding definitions of social vul-
research has demonstrated that hierarchical and inductive indices nerability have been largely settled, and the need for reliable
of social vulnerability are highly sensitive to the weighting ap- metrics is well established. However, the results of this meta-
proach employed [93]. The development and testing of additional analysis demonstrate that much more work needs to be done to
defensible methodologies for indicator weighting represents a key reflect the contextual characteristics of social vulnerability pro-
research need. For indicators applied to resource allocation and cesses in measurement and mapping. The findings highlight the
planning processes, the use of context-specific weights developed situational variability of social vulnerability drivers. Not all drivers
using participatory and survey methods [74] is one path toward have a consistent influence on social vulnerability, even for the
better weighting schemes. However, for applications focused on most widely agreed upon characteristics such as age and class.
first-pass identification of vulnerable populations, comparing Some factors contribute to vulnerability in one context, yet detract
places, and advocacy, the time and resource investment required from it in another. And there can be considerable variation in the
for such an approach might be too high. identity and effect of vulnerability drivers throughout the tem-
Perhaps it is possible to generate weighting schemes applicable poral progression of a flood disaster.
to broad categories of flood contexts, for instance, leading to one set Improved incorporation of context will help produce indicators
of weights for mitigation of coastal flooding in Bangladesh, and that not only reflect vulnerability as a state, but also as a situation.
another for recovery from river flooding in England. If shown to be Empirical case studies are a rich source of situational under-
moderately valid, such an approach could represent a reasonable standing of the root causes of social vulnerability, their relative
intermediary between the default assumption of equal weights and importance, interactions between drivers, and scales (geographic,
methods involving primary data collection and analysis. Using par- administrative, and temporal) of operation. This understanding
ticipatory methods that incorporate the opinion of experts within can be of great value for decisions during quantitative indicator
the respective regions could foster such actions while assuring local construction, involving variable selection, scale of analysis, inter-
context and insight is considered. This local contextualization can be nal structure, weighting, and aggregation. Moreover, greater con-
fulfilled using web-surveys or workshops in which community lea- sideration of context, measurability, and interaction between dri-
ders, local governments, and other relevant stakeholders work to- vers can help highlight not only what is reflected in resultant
gether to guide the indicator weighting process. For an in-depth vulnerability indices, but also what is absent.
discussion on participatory methods see [72] and [73]. The measurability and simplicity features of indicators mean
Regarding indicator aggregation, additive methods are still that they will never be able to fully represent the complexity of
applied by a large proportion of social vulnerability indicators. vulnerability processes. However, strengthening linkages between
While such an approach has the advantage of simplicity, it is based empirical studies and quantitative/geospatial modeling has the
on the mathematical assumption that each vulnerability driver potential to result in more valid metrics that are suitable for de-
operates independently and that a deficit in one dimension of cision-making. The state of knowledge and research needs profiled
social vulnerability can be offset (or compensated) by a surplus in in this review represent one step in that direction.
another. However, the numerous indicator interactions profiled in
the meta-analysis (Figs. 3 and 4) make clear that such an as-
sumption is untenable in the context of social vulnerability to Acknowledgment
floods, strengthening the argument in favor of social vulnerability
modeling and mapping approaches that focus on interactions be- This research was partially supported by funds from the U.S.
tween drivers [83]. Fig. 3, for instance, illustrates the interactions National Science Foundation (1333190), Infrastructure Manage-
between social vulnerability drivers emerging from the qualita- ment and Extreme Events.
tive studies: when a paper mentions a demographic driver
(e.g. age) it is far more likely to be subsequently associated with Appendix A
socioeconomic driving factors (e.g. income) rather than factors
such as risk perception. Conversely, case studies focused on risk See Tables A1–A7
Table A1
Frequency of demographic vulnerability drivers.
Driver Article Impact on vulnerability Main disaster stage Flood type Development context
count
S. Rufat et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 14 (2015) 470–486

Increasing (%) Decreasing (%) Mitigation (%) Response (%) Recovery (%) River (%) Coastal (%) Flash Urban Regional (%) Developed (%) Developing (%)
flood (%) flood (%)
Elderly 27 81 15 30 48 37 48 41 19 48 30 70 41
Children 21 81 10 14 52 33 33 43 19 33 24 52 57
Female 15 70 15 15 55 25 55 50 20 45 15 50 55
Black 9 56 0 33 56 78 22 0 0 11 56 100 0
Single parent families 8 100 0 25 38 50 38 38 13 38 0 88 13
Female headed households 7 86 0 29 43 71 29 57 14 29 0 71 43
with children
Recent immigrants 7 57 43 29 43 71 57 14 14 57 14 100 14
Handicapped/disabled 7 100 0 29 57 43 29 29 0 43 14 71 29
Dependency 6 100 0 0 17 33 17 17 0 33 33 67 33
Low capacity for self-care 6 100 0 17 83 50 50 33 0 50 33 67 33
Non white 6 67 17 33 83 67 33 17 0 33 17 100 0
Middle age 6 67 17 33 50 33 50 17 17 17 17 100 0
Male 5 100 0 20 100 20 60 40 40 20 40 100 0
Twenties 4 100 0 0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 100 0
Institutionalized 4 100 0 25 25 25 25 25 0 50 25 100 25
Non-native speakers/lan- 4 75 0 0 0 75 50 50 25 75 25 100 0
guage barriers
Hispanic 4 50 50 0 25 100 0 0 0 50 50 100 0
Acculturation 3 67 33 0 33 67 33 33 0 100 67 100 0
Nursing home residents 2 100 0 50 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 100 50
People per housing unit 2 100 0 50 50 0 100 50 50 100 50 100 0
Social security beneficiaries 2 100 0 50 100 100 0 0% 0 50 50 100 0
Households with small 1 100 0 100 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0
children
Living space per person 1 0 100 100 0 0 100 100 0 100 0 100 0
Rooms per housing unit 1 0 100 100 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 100 0
Total 38 79 12 20 41 35 42 30 14 41 26 53 29
481
482
Table A2
Frequency of socioeconomic vulnerability drivers.

Driver Frequency Impact on vulnerability Main disaster stage Flood type Development context
Increasing (%) Decreasing (%) Mitigation (%) Response (%) Recovery (%) River (%) Coastal (%) Flash Urban flood Regional (%) Developed (%) Developing (%)
flood (%) (%)
Poverty and deprivation 20 90 0 20 50 40 40 35 15 65 30 55 45

Household or per capita 15 80 0 0 40 27 47 20 0 33 20 40 60
income
Unemployed 11 82 0 18 18 36 27 18 9 45 27 82 18
Poverty rate 10 80 0 20 40 30 40 10 0 70 20 40 60
Adults with no high school 10 60 0 20 60 40 50 30 0 50 20 40 60
diploma
Fishing, agriculture, 8 25 0 13 50 38 25 38 0 25 13 25 75
forestry
Literacy rate 6 67 0 50 33 50 17 17 0 33 33 17 83
Informal sector/day 5 100 0 20 40 40 40 20 0 40 20 0 100
laborer
Income inequality 4 100 0 50 75 50 25 0 0 50 50 25 75
Wealth/savings 4 100 0 25 50 25 50 25 0 50 25 25 75
No secondary degree 4 100 0 25 0 75 50 50 25 25 25 75 25
education
Managerial sector 3 33 67 33 33 67 0 33 0 67 33 67 33
House value 2 100 0 50 0 50 50 50 0 50 50 100 0
Service sector 2 50 50 0 0 100 0 50 0 50 50 100 0
Households with no 1 100 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 100 0
telephone
Total 36 77 3 20 40 41 44 39 5 52 26 47 53
Table A3
Frequency of health vulnerability drivers.
Driver Frequency Impact on vulnerability Main disaster stage Flood type Development context
Increasing (%) Decreasing (%) Mitigation (%) Response (%) Recovery (%) River (%) Coastal (%) Flash Urban flood Regional (%) Developed (%) Developing (%)
flood (%) (%)
Stress and mental health 20 95 0 20 40 55 45 25 20 50 40 80 30

Hygiene and sanitation 12 92 0 17 42 8 42 25 17 67 25 42 58
Hospital/clinic availability 11 100 0 27 45 36 45 36 27 45 27 64 36
and access
Medically dependent 9 100 0 22 56 56 44 22 11 44 33 78 22
Chronically ill and long- 8 100 0 38 25 50 38 38 25 50 25 63 38

term sick
Access to clean drinking 8 100 0 38 75 38 63 38 0 63 38 50 63
water
Skin disease 5 100 0 20 100 40 80 40 20 40 20 20 80
Vector borne disease 4 100 0 25 75 50 50 50 25 50 25 25 75
Food insecurity 4 100 0 25 75 25 50 0 0 50 25 25 75
Pregnant women 3 100 0 67 100 67 67 33 33 33 33 67 67
Health insurance 2 100 0 0 50 100 50 50 50 50 50 100 0
Total 31 98 0 26 54 42 48 16 19 54 31 58 46
Table A4
Frequency of coping capacity vulnerability drivers.
Driver Frequency Main disaster stage Flood type Development context
Mitigation (%) Response (%) Recovery (%) River (%) Coastal (%) Flash flood (%) Urban flood (%) Regional (%) Developed (%) Developing (%)
Social Networks 21 14 33 33 24 5 5 52 24 38 62
Social Capital 18 11 22 22 22 0 0 44 28 67 33
Individual/ household action 3 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 100
Reliance on emotional support 3 33 100 67 0 0 0 67 33 100 0
Total 26 20 31 29 58 2 2 53 24 51 49
483
484
Table A5
Frequency of risk perception vulnerability drivers.
Prior experience with floods 19 42 42 21 63 32 21 47 16 63 42

Self protective actions 7 29 43 29 71 43 29 29 14 43 57
Quality/trust in disaster forecast 4 50 75 50 50 50 0 50 25 50 50
Knowledge about flood protection measures 3 67 67 33 67 67 33 67 0 67 67

Flood warnings 2 50 50 50 50 50 50 100 50 50 50
Length of time since last flood event 2 0 0 0 50 50 0 0 50 50 0
Overconfidence/ risk-taking behavior 2 0 100 0 50 0 50 0 50 100 0
Flood event characteristics 2 0 50 50 0 0 50 50 0 50 50
Risk denial 2 50 50 0 50 0 50 50 0 50 50
Others 3 33 33 33 33 0 0 33 33 67 33
Total 24 37 48 26 62 33 24 48 20 59 43
Table A6
Frequency of neighborhood quality of life vulnerability drivers.
Public transportation (dependence) 6 50 67 33 50 17 17 67 50 100 0

Housing quality 5 20 60 20 20 40 20 80 60 40 60
Illegal or uncontrolled urbanization 4 75 25 0 25 25 25 50 25 50 50
Rented accommodations 4 20 40 60 40 40 20 60 40 80 20
Mobile or modular homes 3 33 33 33 100 100 67 100 33 67 33
Density 3 67 33 0 33 0 0 33 67 33 67
Rural/urban 3 33 67 33 67 0 0 33 67 33 33
Crime rates 2 0 50 50 0 0 0 50 50 50 50
Others 5 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 67 33
Total 20 38 47 29 41 29 21 59 47 85 35
Table A7
Frequency of land tenure vulnerability drivers.
Mitigation (%) Response (%) Recovery (%) River (%) Coastal (%) Flash Urban Regional (%) Developed (%) Developing (%)
flood flood
(%) (%)
Renters 14 14 21 64 50 43 21 43 36 93 7
insurance 8 13 0 88 25 13 25 63 38 100 0
Public 8 0 38 63 63 50 38 63 38 100 0
Tenants
Squatters/ 8 13 25 25 38 38 0 75 13 0 100
slum
dwellers
Homeowners 5 40 40 20 60 20 0 20 20 60 40
Total 20 14 23 56 47 35 19 53 30 74 26
References
[23] J. Chakraborty, G.A. Tobin, B.E. Montz, Population evacuation: assessing
spatial variability in geophysical risk and social vulnerability to natural ha-
[1] F.O. Adeola, Katrina cataclysm: does duration of residency and prior ex- zards, Nat. Hazard. Rev. 6 (1) (2005) 23–33.
perience affect impacts, evacuation, and adaptation behavior among survi- [24] M. Chatterjee, Slum dwellers response to flooding events in the megacities of
vors? Environ. Behav. 41 (4) (2009) 459–489. India, Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 15 (4) (2010) 337–353.
[2] W.N. Adger, Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in coastal [25] A. Chen, V. Keith, K. Leong, C. Airriess, W. Li, K. Chung, C. Lee, Hurricane
Vietnam, World Dev. 27 (2) (1999) 249–269. Katrina: prior trauma, poverty and health among Vietnamese-American
[3] K.F. Adler, Natural Disasters as a Catalyst for Social Capital: A Study of the survivors, Int. Nurs. Rev. 54 (4) (2007) 324–331.
500-year Flood in Cedar Rapids, University Press Of America, Iowa, 2014. [26] J. Chomsri, P. Sherer, Social vulnerability and suffering of flood-affected
[4] M. Ahern, R.S. Kovats, P. Wilkinson, R. Few, F. Matthies, Global health impacts people: case study of 2011 mega flood in Thailand, Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci.
of floods: epidemiologic evidence, Epidemiol. Rev. 27 (1) (2005) 36–46. (2013) 491–499.
[5] I. Ajibade, G. McBean, R. Bezner-Kerr, Urban flooding in Lagos, Nigeria: [27] G. Clark, S. Moser, S. Ratick, K. Dow, W. Meyer, S. Emani, W. Jin, J. Kasperson,
patterns of vulnerability and resilience among women, Glob. Environ. R. Kasperson, H. Schwarz, Assessing the vulnerability of coastal communities
Change 23 (6) (2013) 1714–1725. to extreme storms: the case of revere, MA, USA, Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob.
[6] K. Alderman, L.R. Turner, S. Tong, Floods and human health: a systematic Change 3 (1) (1998) 59–82.
review, Environ. Int. 47 (2012) 37–47. [28] T.W. Collins, A.M. Jimenez, S.E. Grineski, Hispanic health disparities after a
[7] D.P. Aldrich, The externalities of strong social capital: post-Tsunami recovery flood disaster: results of a population-based survey of individuals experi-
in southeast India, J. Civ. Soc. 7 (1) (2011) 81–99, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ encing home site damage in El Paso (Texas, USA), J. Immigr. Minor. Health 15
17448689.2011.553441. (2) (2013) 415–426.
[8] D.P. Aldrich, Response to my critics, Risk, Hazard & Crisis in Public Policy 4 (1) [29] C.E. Colten, Vulnerability and place: flat land and uneven risk in New Or-
(2013) 32–43, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.26. leans, Am. Anthropol. 108 (4) (2006) 731–734.
[9] F.A. Armah, D.O. Yawson, G.T. Yengoh, J.O. Odoi, E.K.A. Afrifa, Impact of floods [30] S.L. Cutter, The vulnerability of science and the science of vulnerability, Ann.
on livelihoods and vulnerability of natural resource dependent communities Assoc. Am. Geogr. 93 (1) (2003) 1–12.
in Northern Ghana, Water 2 (2) (2010) 120–139. [31] S.L. Cutter, B.J. Boruff, W.L. Shirley, Social vulnerability to environmental
[10] S.T. Ashley, W.S. Ashley, Flood fatalities in the United States, J. Appl. Me- hazards, Soc. Sci. Q. 84 (1) (2003) 242–261.
teorol. Climatol. 47 (3) (2008) 805–818. [32] S.L. Cutter, C. Finch, Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to
[11] T. Aßheuer, I. Thiele-Eich, B. Braun, Coping with the impacts of severe flood natural hazards, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105 (7) (2008) 2301–2306.
events in Dhaka slums-the role of social capital, Erdkunde 67 (1) (2013) [33] S.L. Cutter, J.T. Mitchell, M.S. Scott, Revealing the vulnerability of people and
21–35. places: a case study of Georgetown County, South Carolina, Ann. Assoc. Am.
[12] P. Billing, U. Madengruber, Overcoming the black hole: outline for a quan- Geogr. 90 (4) (2000) 713–737, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0004-5608.00219.
titative model to compare coping capacities across countries, in: J. Birkmann [34] B. De Marchi, A. Scolobig, The views of experts and residents on social vul-
(Ed.), Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient nerability to flash floods in an Alpine region of Italy, Disasters 36 (2) (2012)
Societies, TERI Press, Tokyo, 2006, pp. 403–415. 316–337.
[13] J. Birkmann, Indicators and criteria, in: J. Birkmann (Ed.), Measuring Vul- [35] A.M. Dewan, Vulnerability and Risk Assessment, Floods in a Megacity,
nerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies, United Springer Geography, Netherlands (2013), p. 139–177.
Nations University Press, Tokyo, 2006, pp. 55–77. [36] S. Doocy, A. Daniels, S. Murray, T.D. Kirsch, The human impact of floods: a
[14] J. Birkmann, Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster historical review of events 1980–2009 and systematic literature review, PLoS
Resilient Societies, United Nations University Press, Tokyo, 2006. Curr. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/currents.dis.
[15] J. Birkmann, Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: applic- f4deb457904936b07c09daa98ee8171a.
ability, usefulness and policy implications, Environ. Hazard. 7 (1) (2007) [37] A. Dwyer, C. Zoppou, O. Nielsen, S. Day, S. Roberts, Quantifying Social Vul-
20–31, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.04.002. nerability: A Methodology for Identifying Those at Risk to Natural Hazards,
[16] J. Birkmann, O.D. Cardona, M.L. Carreño, A.H. Barbat, M. Pelling, Geoscience Australia, Canberra, 2004.
S. Schneiderbauer, S. Kienberger, M. Keiler, D. Alexander, P. Zeil, et al., [38] J. Działek, W. Biernacki, A. Bokwa, Challenges to social capacity building in
Framing vulnerability, risk and societal responses: the MOVE framework, flood-affected areas of southern Poland, Nat. Hazard. Earth Syst. Sci. 13 (10)
Nat. Hazard. 67 (2) (2013) 193–211. (2013) 2555–2566.
[17] J. Birkmann, N. Fernando, Measuring revealed and emergent vulnerabilities [39] J.R. Elliott, A. Bellone Hite, J.A. Devine, Unequal return: the uneven reset-
of coastal communities to tsunami in Sri Lanka, Disasters 32 (1) (2008) tlements of new orleans’ uptown neighborhoods, Organ. Environ. 22 (4)
82–105. (2009) 410–421.
[18] B.J. Boruff, C. Emrich, S.L. Cutter, Erosion hazard vulnerability of US coastal [40] J.R. Elliott, T.J. Haney, P. Sams-Abiodun, Limits to social capital: comparing
counties, J. Coast. Res. (2005) 932–942, http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/04-0172.1. network assistance in two New Orleans neighborhoods devastated by Hur-
[19] B. Braun, T. Aßheuer, Floods in megacity environments: vulnerability and ricane Katrina, Sociol. Q. 51 (4) (2010) 624–648, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
coping strategies of slum dwellers in Dhaka/Bangladesh, Nat. Hazard. 58 (2) j.1533-8525.2010.01186.x.
(2011) 771–787. [41] J.R. Elliott, J. Pais, Race, class, and Hurricane Katrina: social differences in
[20] R. Brouwer, S. Akter, L. Brander, E. Haque, Socioeconomic vulnerability and human responses to disaster, Soc. Sci. Res. 35 (2) (2006) 295–321.
adaptation to environmental risk: a case study of climate change and [42] A. Fekete, Validation of a social vulnerability index in context to river-floods
flooding in Bangladesh, Risk Anal. 27 (2) (2007) 313–326. in Germany, Nat. Hazard. Earth Syst. Sci. 9 (2) (2009) 393–403.
[21] C.G. Burton, Social vulnerability and hurricane impact modeling, Nat. Hazard. [43] A. Fekete, Spatial disaster vulnerability and risk assessments: challenges in
Rev. 11 (2) (2010) 58–68. their quality and acceptance, Nat. Hazard. 61 (3) (2012) 1161–1178.
[22] B. Carroll, R. Balogh, H. Morbey, G. Araoz, Health and social impacts of a flood [44] A. Fekete, M. Damm, J. Birkmann, Scales as a challenge for vulnerability as-
disaster: responding to needs and implications for practice, Disasters 34 (4) sessment, Nat. Hazard. 55 (3) (2010) 729–747, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
(2010) 1045–1063. s11069-009-9445-5.
[45] J.L. Fielding, Inequalities in exposure and awareness of flood risk in England [75] Ove Arup and Partners International, City Resilience Framework, 2014
and Wales, Disasters 36 (3) (2012) 477–494. 〈https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/app/uploads/City-Resilience-Frame
[46] C. Finch, C.T. Emrich, S.L. Cutter, Disaster disparities and differential recovery work1.pdf〉 (accessed 22.09.15).
in New Orleans, Popul. Environ. 31 (4) (2010) 179–202. [76] D.J. Parker, S.J. Priest, S.M. Tapsell, Understanding and enhancing the public
[47] B.E. Flanagan, E.W. Gregory, E.J. Hallisey, J.L. Heitgerd, B. Lewis, A social behavioural response to flood warning information, Meteorol. Appl. 16 (1)
vulnerability index for disaster management, J. Homel. Secur. Emerg. Manag. (2009) 103–114.
8 (1) (2011) 3. [77] S.K. Paul, J.K. Routray, Household response to cyclone and induced surge in
[48] J.D. Ford, E.C.H. Keskitalo, T. Smith, T. Pearce, L. Berrang-Ford, F. Duerden, coastal Bangladesh: coping strategies and explanatory variables, Nat. Hazard.
B. Smit, Case study and analogue methodologies in climate change vulner- 57 (2) (2011) 477–499.
ability research, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Clim. Change 1 (3) (2010) 374–392, [78] M. Pelling, What determines vulnerability to floods; a case study in Geor-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcc.48. getown, Guyana, Environ. Urban. 9 (1) (1997) 203–226.
[49] A. Fothergill, L. Peek, Poverty and disasters in the United States: a review of [79] M. Pelling, Participation, social capital and vulnerability to urban flooding in
recent sociological findings, Nat. Hazard. 32 (1) (2004) 89–110. Guyana, J. Int. Dev. 10 (4) (1998) 469–486.
[50] R. Green, L.K. Bates, A. Smyth, Impediments to recovery in New Orleans' [80] B. Phillips, D. Thomas, A. Fothergill, L. Blinn-Pike, Social Vulnerability to
upper and lower Ninth Ward: one year after Hurricane Katrina, Disasters 31 Disasters, CRC Press, 2010.
(4) (2007) 311–335. [81] E. Porio, Vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience to floods and climate
[51] S. Greiving, M. Fleischhauer, J. Lückenkötter, A Methodology for an in- change-related risks among marginal, riverine communities in Metro Man-
tegrated risk assessment of spatially relevant hazards, J. Environ. Plan. ila, Asian J. Soc. Sci. 39 (4) (2011) 425–445.
Manag. 49 (1) (2006) 1–19, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640560500372800. [82] A. Rofi, S. Doocy, C. Robinson, Tsunami mortality and displacement in Aceh
[52] J. Harvatt, J. Petts, J. Chilvers, Understanding householder responses to nat- province, Indonesia, Disasters 30 (3) (2006) 340–350.
ural hazards: flooding and sea-level rise comparisons, J. Risk Res. 14 (1) [83] S. Rufat, Spectroscopy of urban vulnerability, Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 103 (3)
(2011) 63–83. (2013) 505–525.
[53] R.L. Hawkins, K. Maurer, Bonding, bridging and linking: how social capital [84] I. Ruin, J.-C. Gaillard, C. Lutoff, How to get there? assessing motorists flash
operated in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, Br. J. Soc. Work 40 (6) flood risk perception on daily itineraries, Environ. Hazard. 7 (3) (2007)
(2010) 1777–1793. 235–244.
[54] Heinz Center, Human Links to Coastal Disasters, The H. John Heinz III Center [85] L. Rygel, D. O’Sullivan, B. Yarnal, A method for constructing a social vulner-
for Science, Economics and the Environment, 2002. ability index: an application to hurricane storm surges in a developed
[55] J. Hinkel, Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity: towards a clar- country, Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 11 (3) (2006) 741–764.
ification of the science–policy interface, Glob. Environ. Change 21 (1) (2011) [86] M.C. Schmidtlein, R.C. Deutsch, W.W. Piegorsch, S.L. Cutter, A sensitivity
198–208, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.08.002. analysis of the social vulnerability index, Risk Anal. 28 (4) (2008) 1099–1114.
[56] I.S. Holand, P. Lujala, Replicating and adapting an index of social vulnerability [87] M.C. Schmidtlein, J.M. Shafer, M. Berry, S.L. Cutter, Modeled earthquake
to a new context: a comparison study for Norway, Prof. Geogr. 65 (2) (2012) losses and social vulnerability in Charleston, South Carolina, Appl. Geogr. 31
312–328, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2012.681509. (1) (2011) 269–281, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.06.001.
[57] B. Jones, J. Andrey, Vulnerability index construction: methodological choices [88] M. Siegrist, H. Gutscher, Natural hazards and motivation for mitigation be-
and their influence on identifying vulnerable neighborhoods, Int. J. Emerg.
havior: people cannot predict the affect evoked by a severe flood, Risk Anal.
Manag. 4 (2) (2007) 269–295.
28 (3) (2008) 771–778.
[58] S.N. Jonkman, I. Kelman, An analysis of the causes and circumstances of flood
[89] C. Stanke, V. Murray, R. Amlôt, J. Nurse, R. Williams, The effects of flooding on
disaster deaths, Disasters 29 (1) (2005) 75–97.
mental health: outcomes and recommendations from a review of the lit-
[59] S.N. Jonkman, B. Maaskant, E. Boyd, M.L. Levitan, Loss of life caused by the
erature, Public Libr. Sci. Curr.: Disasters 4 (2012).
flooding of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina: analysis of the relationship
[90] A. Steinführer, C. Kuhlicke, Social vulnerability and the 2002 flood: country
between flood characteristics and mortality, Risk Anal. 29 (5) (2009)
report Germany (Mulde River). FLOODsite Report T11-07-08, 2007.
676–698.
[91] S.M. Tapsell, E.C. Penning-Rowsell, S.M. Tunstall, T.L. Wilson, Vulnerability to
[60] N. Kamel, Social marginalisation, federal assistance and repopulation pat-
flooding: health and social dimensions, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A:
terns in the New Orleans metropolitan area following Hurricane Katrina,
Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 360 (1796) (2002) 1511–1525.
Urban Stud. 49 (14) (2012) 3211–3231.
[92] M. Taş, N. Taş, S. Durak, G. Atanur, Flood disaster vulnerability in informal
[61] C. Kuhlicke, A. Scolobig, S. Tapsell, A. Steinführer, B. De Marchi, Con-
settlements in Bursa, Turkey, Environ. Urban. 25 (2) (2013) 443–463.
textualizing social vulnerability: findings from case studies across Europe,
[93] E. Tate, Social vulnerability indices: a comparative assessment using un-
Nat. Hazard. 58 (2) (2011) 789–810.
certainty and sensitivity analysis, Nat. Hazard. 63 (2) (2012) 325–347.
[62] H. Lein, The poorest and most vulnerable? On hazards, livelihoods and la-
[94] Torrens Resilience Institute, Community Disaster Resilience Scorecard
belling of riverine communities in Bangladesh, Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 30 (1)
Toolkit, 2012 〈http://torrensresilience.org/images/pdfs/toolkit/tritoolkit.pdf〉
(2009) 98–113.
(accessed 22.09.15).
[63] F. Linnekamp, A. Koedam, I.S.A. Baud, Household vulnerability to climate
[95] S. Tunstall, S. Tapsell, C. Green, P. Floyd, C. George, The health effects of
change: examining perceptions of households of flood risks in Georgetown
and Paramaribo, Habitat. Int. 35 (3) (2011) 447–456. flooding: social research results from England and Wales, J. Water Health 4
[64] D.M. Liverman, Vulnerability to global environmental change, in: R. (3) (2006) 365–380.
E. Kasperson, K. Dow, D. Golding, J.X. Kasperson (Eds.), Understanding Global [96] UNISDR, Disaster resilience scorecard for cities, 2014 〈http://www.unisdr.
Environmental Change: The Contributions of Risk Analysis and Management, org/2014/campaign-cities/Resilience Scorecard V1.5.pdf〉 (accessed 22.09.15).
Clark University, Worcester, MA, 1990, pp. 27–44. [97] K. Vincent, Creating an index of social vulnerability to climate change in
[65] D. Lowe, K.L. Ebi, B. Forsberg, Factors increasing vulnerability to health ef- Africa, Working paper 56, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research,
fects before, during and after floods, Int. J. Environ. Res. public Health 10 (12) London, 2004.
(2013) 7015–7067. [98] L. Vu, M.J. VanLandingham, Physical and mental health consequences of
[66] V. Mason, H. Andrews, D. Upton, The psychological impact of exposure to Katrina on Vietnamese immigrants in New Orleans: a pre-and post-disaster
floods, Psychol. Health Med. 15 (1) (2010) 61–73. assessment, J. Immigr. Minor. Health 14 (3) (2012) 386–394.
[67] M. Masozera, M. Bailey, C. Kerchner, Distribution of impacts of natural dis- [99] G. Walker, K. Burningham, Flood risk, vulnerability and environmental jus-
asters across income groups: a case study of New Orleans, Ecol. Econ. 63 (2) tice: evidence and evaluation of inequality in a UK context, Crit. Soc. Policy
(2007) 299–306. 31 (2) (2011) 216–240.
[68] L. Mayoux, R. Chambers, Reversing the paradigm: quantification, participa- [100] M. Walker, R. Whittle, W. Medd, K. Burningham, J. Moran-Ellis, S. Tapsell, It
tory methods and pro‐poor impact assessment, J. Int. Dev. 17 (2) (2005) came up to here: learning from children flood narratives, Child. Geogr. 10 (2)
271–298. (2012) 135–150.
[69] J.K. Mitchell, N. Devine, K. Jagger, A contextual model of natural hazard, [101] R. Whittle, W. Medd, H. Deeming, E. Kashefi, M. Mort, C. Twigger-Ross,
Geogr. Rev. 79 (4) (1989) 391–409. G. Walker, N. Watson, After the Rain—learning the lessons from flood re-
[70] D. Mustafa, S. Ahmed, E. Saroch, H. Bell, Pinning down vulnerability: from covery in Hull, final project report for Flood, Vulnerability and Urban Resi-
narratives to numbers, Disasters 35 (1) (2011) 62–86, http://dx.doi.org/ lience: a real-time study of local recovery following the floods of June 2007
10.1111/j.1467-7717.2010.01193.x. in Hul", Lancaster University, Lancaster UK, 2010.
[71] Y. Nakagawa, R. Shaw, Social capital: a missing link to disaster recovery, Int. J. [102] K.F. Willis, K. Natalier, M. Revie, Understanding risk, choice and amenity in an
Mass Emerg. Disasters 22 (1) (2004) 5–34. urban area at risk of flooding, Housing Stud. 26 (02) (2011) 225–239.
[72] M. Nardo, M. Saisana, A. Saltelli, S. Tarantola, Tools for Composite Indicators [103] B. Wisner, P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, I. Davis, At Risk: Natural Hazards, People
Building, Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Ispra, Italy, 2005. Vulnerability and Disasters, Second edn, Routledge, New York, NY, 2004.
[73] OECD, Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and [104] S.Y. Wu, B. Yarnal, A. Fisher, Vulnerability of coastal communities to sea level
User Guide, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, rise: a case study of Cape May County, New Jersey, USA, Clim. Res. 22 (2002)
Paris, 2008. 255–270.
[74] G. Oulahen, L. Mortsch, K. Tang, D. Harford, Unequal vulnerability to flood [105] S. Zahran, S.D. Brody, W.G. Peacock, A. Vedlitz, H. Grover, Social vulnerability
hazards: ground truthing a social vulnerability index of five municipalities in and the natural and built environment: a model of flood casualties in Texas,
Metro Vancouver, Canada, Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 105 (3) (2015) 473–495. Disasters 32 (4) (2008) 537–560.

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction: Samuel Rufat, Eric Tate, Christopher G. Burton, Abu Sayeed Maroof

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction: Samuel Rufat, Eric Tate, Christopher G. Burton, Abu Sayeed Maroof

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction: Samuel Rufat, Eric Tate, Christopher G. Burton, Abu Sayeed Maroof

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 14 (2015) 470–486

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

Social vulnerability to ﬂoods: Review of case studies and implications

1. Introduction manifestations in speciﬁc disasters. Interacting contextual aspects

Fig. 1. Overview of the systematic literature review.

Fig. 2. Flood case study locations.

social vulnerabilities associated with risk perception have fewer

3.1. Demographic characteristics

Demographic characteristics are among the most commonly

Study Flood event Study design Key ﬁndings

Study Flood event Study design Key ﬁndings

provide disaster mitigation and recovery assistance. that constitute:

Study Flood event Study design Key ﬁndings

Study Flood event Study design Key ﬁndings

Study Flood event Study design Key ﬁndings

Study Flood event Study design Key ﬁndings

Study Flood event Study design Key ﬁndings

Fig. 4. Heatmap of social vulnerability drivers (mentioned in more than 5 papers).

S. Rufat et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 14 (2015) 470–486

S. Rufat et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 14 (2015) 470–486

Poverty and deprivation 20 90 0 20 50 40 40 35 15 65 30 55 45

Stress and mental health 20 95 0 20 40 55 45 25 20 50 40 80 30

S. Rufat et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 14 (2015) 470–486

Driver Frequency Main disaster stage Flood type Development context

Driver Frequency Main disaster stage Flood type Development context

Prior experience with ﬂoods 19 42 42 21 63 32 21 47 16 63 42

S. Rufat et al. / International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 14 (2015) 470–486

Driver Frequency Main disaster stage Flood type Development context

Public transportation (dependence) 6 50 67 33 50 17 17 67 50 100 0

Driver Frequency Main disaster stage Flood type Development context

You might also like