Revealing the Vulnerability of People and Places: A Case Study of Georgetown County, South Carolina

Abstract

Losses from environmental hazards have escalated in the past decade, prompting a reorientation of emergency management systems away from simple postevent response. There is a noticeable change in policy, with more emphasis on loss reduction through mitigation, preparedness, and recovery programs. Effective mitigation of losses from hazards requires hazard identification, an assessment of all the hazards likely to affect a given place, and risk-reduction measures that are compatible across a multitude of hazards. The degree to which populations are vulnerable to hazards, however, is not solely dependent upon proximity to the source of the threat or the physical nature of the hazard-social factors also play a significant role in determining vulnerability. This paper presents a method for assessing vulnerability in spatial terms using both biophysical and social indicators. A geographic information system was utilized to establish areas of vulnerability based upon twelve environmental threats and eight social characteristics for our study area, Georgetown County, South Carolina. Our results suggest that the most biophysically vulnerable places do not always spatially intersect with the most vulnerable populations. This is an important finding because it reflects the likely "social costs" of hazards on the region. While economic losses might be large in areas of high biophysical risk, the resident population also may have greater safety nets (insurance, additional financial resources) to absorb and recover from the loss quickly. Conversely, it would take only a moderate hazard event to disrupt the well-being of the majority of county residents (who are more socially vulnerable, but perhaps do not reside in the highest areas of biophysical risks) and retard their longer-term recovery from disasters. This paper advances our theoretical and conceptual understanding of the spatial dimensions of vulnerability. It further highlights the merger of conceptualizations of human environment relationships with geographical techniques in understanding contemporary public policy issues.

Indicator-based assessment of climate-change impacts on coasts: A review of concepts, methodological approaches and vulnerability indices

“…Several researchers indicate that the analysis of vulnerability often relies on the use and aggregation of indicators (Cutter et al, 2000, Moss et al, 2001, Yohe & Tol, 2002, Vincent, 2007, Abuodha and Woodroffe, 2010a. Generally, vulnerability index development involves sequential stages including the selection of indicators, normalization of indicators to a common scale, and aggregation to a final value.…”

Unravelling the association between the impact of natural hazards and household poverty: evidence from the Indian Sundarban delta

“…Vulnerability describes the losses that manifest from the occurrence of a natural hazard. This depends on both potential exposure to hazards and societal resilience which is defined as the ability to resist, absorb, and recover from hazardous effects (UNISDR 2009) with a specific focus on particular places or regions (Kasperson et al 1995;Cutter et al 2000). Socio-economic vulnerability is defined as the stress on livelihoods of individuals or collective groups as a result of the impacts of environmental changes (Adger 1999).…”

Exploratory Testing of an Artificial Neural Network Classification for Enhancement of the Social Vulnerability Index

“…The loaded demographic variables in the PCA are identified to have specific representations of vulnerability based on our existing understanding of the role of social inequality on social vulnerability, and the PCA-identified factors are used to calculate the SoVI score for each enumeration unit. The SoVI has been demonstrated at a variety of scales, from the census block level to the county level across the United States [3,7] and at the county level in Norway [8], though the PCA approach has only been demonstrated at the county level [3,8].…”

“…Such deliberation is beyond the scope of this project. As such, this study will proceed as though the traditional SoVI is a valid method, supported by more than ten years of use in the literature [2,3,7,8]. This is central to the purpose of assessing the viability of the use of an ANN to improve upon the traditional methodology.…”

“…The approach fuses two concepts in a novel way: vulnerability has to do with both proximity to hazards and political-economic factors. Cutter took this fusion a step further, however, and describes the concept of HoP as vulnerability that is a place-based characteristic of the vulnerable population where they live [2,7]. Vulnerability therefore varies at different scales, and takes into consideration generalization principles: the smaller the analysis scale, the more locally relevant the model will be for the population in that place.…”