Defining vulnerability depends on the kind of crisis context
and also on the expected results. I believe that connecting it with resilience
will help our outcome in any specific crisis domain.
Vulnerability is the degree of:
i)
Exposure to risks of a system (an individual, a population, an organization)
when damaged by an event or a crisis (natural or man-made) and;
ii)
Its inability to cope with the consequences of the impact received and/or
the uncertainty of the situation (lack of resilience).
Or
Vulnerability is the lack of resilience and the degree of exposure to face uncertainty
and unexpected situations or events.
Below is the rationale that explains the following
definition in a crisis context:
Since the adoption of
the Hyogo Framework, the main goal of hazard planning and disaster risk
reduction has slightly shifted to focusing more on building community
resilience rather than only reducing vulnerability.
Vulnerability increases exponentially in the lack of preparedness
and has an inverse correlation with resilience and exposure to risks while has a
direct correlation with uncertainty. They are not antagonist concepts because
resilience doesn’t eliminate vulnerability nevertheless reduces our exposure
and the impact we receive. In a disaster, being prepared and resilient could
not avoid the existent vulnerabilities but could reduce enormously the impact
and our exposure too. Vulnerability and Resilience have been connected
imperatively (see V2R doc) in all kind of studies since both are in the same
path to sustainability and survival (survival of the fittest vs. survival of
the more resilient).
As resilience deals with complex systems, a system of
systems in reality, vulnerability has cross-cutting areas of influence too. The
individual connects with the community and this with the institutions and those
with the global approach. Taking this into account, is very interesting to see how
different -but collaterally interlinked areas- from disaster management to
social-ecological systems (SESs), define vulnerability. Anyway, the most important side of the equation is not to define
holistically vulnerability but how to measure the benefits of implementing
resilience to ensure adequate funding; capacity building to reduce both vulnerability
and exposure and increase awareness of implementation.
Below the definitions aforementioned:
1.
V2R: Vulnerability is the degree to which a
population or system is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, hazards and
stresses, including the effects of climate change (see From Vulnerability to
Resilience below)
2.
UNISDRR http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology#letter-v
: The characteristics
and circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to
the damaging effects of a hazard.
Comment: There are many aspects of vulnerability, arising from various physical, social, economic, and environmental factors. Examples may include poor design and construction of buildings, inadequate protection of assets, lack of public information and awareness, limited official recognition of risks and preparedness measures, and disregard for wise environmental management. Vulnerability varies significantly within a community and over time. This definition identifies vulnerability as a characteristic of the element of interest (community, system or asset) which is independent of its exposure. However, in common use the word is often used more broadly to include the element’s exposure.
3. ISO guide73:2009: Intrinsic properties of something resulting in susceptibility to a risk source
that can lead to a consequence.
4. Vulnerability
analysis – Susceptibility of an event successfully materializing that has the potential
to disrupt the achievement of objectives and the activities and processes that support
them (“how”).
5. Vulnerability is the set of
characteristics and circumstances of an individual, household, population
group, system or asset that make it susceptible (or sensitive, in the case of
ecosystems) to the damaging effects of a hazard and/or effects of climate
change. These characteristics and circumstances can be physical, institutional,
political, cultural, social, environmental, economic and human.
There are too many models in place now, but they are pretty
much built in silos, for very specific purposes and it is difficult to
extrapolate them to different environments or situations. The excess of details
of some don’t allow them to be used in other environments and the lack of
details of others doesn’t provide the rationale to justify the implementation
of resilience with concise data.
There is a need to build a flexible maturity model system which measures the areas where we find
vulnerabilities. It needs to be flexible because every system is composed by
complex different systems, and then there is no solution that fits all the
variables. It has to be adapted to every particular environment, to every
community, while keeping commonalities. Coincidentally not everything could be
done at once, so we need to establish this maturity model (MM) that welcomes
all the systems from immaturity to complex developed systems. Mapping the
status of vulnerabilities by areas and defining how implementing resilience and
reducing exposure will benefit the community is a tedious but fundamental job
to be done. The challenge is how to build such a maturity system without
getting lost in the details and the data. Once this is built, it will be very
useful for organizations and communities worldwide. Flexibility, adaptability
and transformability are the main requirements for this MM, not just a
collection, compilation of data but a real analysis system that gives results
on what works, why success is achieved in reducing vulnerabilities and how much
the implementation effort costs. If that is achieved, the funding required will
be better obtained. The problem we face now is how to justify the
implementation of something we can hardly measure.
One recommendation that I believe will worth the investment
of time and effort, is to have a reading through the methodology of the ISO series:
9000 Quality Management Standards, the 14000 series on environmental management
and the ISO 31000 risk management. They have been proven very successful for
the private sector and Governments worldwide. In this sense a Social Resilience
standard is to be developed the next year, I will keep you updated on the
Committee formation and the need for support and ideas.