Validating Resilience and Vulnerability Indices in the Context of Natural Disasters

Laura Bakkensen, Cate Fox-Lent, Laura K. Read, Igor Linkov

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

43 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Due to persistent and serious threats from natural disasters around the globe, many have turned to resilience and vulnerability research to guide disaster preparation, recovery, and adaptation decisions. In response, scholars and practitioners have put forth a variety of disaster indices, based on quantifiable metrics, to gauge levels of resilience and vulnerability. However, few indices are empirically validated using observed disaster impacts and, as a result, it is often unclear which index should be preferred for each decision at hand. Thus, we compare and empirically validate five of the top U.S. disaster indices, including three resilience indices and two vulnerability indices. We use observed disaster losses, fatalities, and disaster declarations from the southeastern United States to empirically validate each index. We find that disaster indices, though thoughtfully substantiated by literature and theoretically persuasive, are not all created equal. While four of the five indices perform as predicted in explaining damages, only three explain fatalities and only two explain disaster declarations as expected by theory. These results highlight the need for disaster indices to clearly state index objectives and structure underlying metrics to support validation of the results based on these goals. Further, policymakers should use index results carefully when developing regional policy or investing in resilience and vulnerability improvement projects.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalRisk Analysis
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2016

Fingerprint

Disasters
Southeastern United States
Gages
Hand
Recovery

Keywords

  • Index
  • Natural disaster
  • Resilience and vulnerability

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this

Validating Resilience and Vulnerability Indices in the Context of Natural Disasters. / Bakkensen, Laura; Fox-Lent, Cate; Read, Laura K.; Linkov, Igor.

In: Risk Analysis, 2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6b60ec2e68d447129d54fc4a24d377cc,
title = "Validating Resilience and Vulnerability Indices in the Context of Natural Disasters",
abstract = "Due to persistent and serious threats from natural disasters around the globe, many have turned to resilience and vulnerability research to guide disaster preparation, recovery, and adaptation decisions. In response, scholars and practitioners have put forth a variety of disaster indices, based on quantifiable metrics, to gauge levels of resilience and vulnerability. However, few indices are empirically validated using observed disaster impacts and, as a result, it is often unclear which index should be preferred for each decision at hand. Thus, we compare and empirically validate five of the top U.S. disaster indices, including three resilience indices and two vulnerability indices. We use observed disaster losses, fatalities, and disaster declarations from the southeastern United States to empirically validate each index. We find that disaster indices, though thoughtfully substantiated by literature and theoretically persuasive, are not all created equal. While four of the five indices perform as predicted in explaining damages, only three explain fatalities and only two explain disaster declarations as expected by theory. These results highlight the need for disaster indices to clearly state index objectives and structure underlying metrics to support validation of the results based on these goals. Further, policymakers should use index results carefully when developing regional policy or investing in resilience and vulnerability improvement projects.",
keywords = "Index, Natural disaster, Resilience and vulnerability",
author = "Laura Bakkensen and Cate Fox-Lent and Read, {Laura K.} and Igor Linkov",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1111/risa.12677",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Risk Analysis",
issn = "0272-4332",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validating Resilience and Vulnerability Indices in the Context of Natural Disasters

AU - Bakkensen, Laura

AU - Fox-Lent, Cate

AU - Read, Laura K.

AU - Linkov, Igor

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Due to persistent and serious threats from natural disasters around the globe, many have turned to resilience and vulnerability research to guide disaster preparation, recovery, and adaptation decisions. In response, scholars and practitioners have put forth a variety of disaster indices, based on quantifiable metrics, to gauge levels of resilience and vulnerability. However, few indices are empirically validated using observed disaster impacts and, as a result, it is often unclear which index should be preferred for each decision at hand. Thus, we compare and empirically validate five of the top U.S. disaster indices, including three resilience indices and two vulnerability indices. We use observed disaster losses, fatalities, and disaster declarations from the southeastern United States to empirically validate each index. We find that disaster indices, though thoughtfully substantiated by literature and theoretically persuasive, are not all created equal. While four of the five indices perform as predicted in explaining damages, only three explain fatalities and only two explain disaster declarations as expected by theory. These results highlight the need for disaster indices to clearly state index objectives and structure underlying metrics to support validation of the results based on these goals. Further, policymakers should use index results carefully when developing regional policy or investing in resilience and vulnerability improvement projects.

AB - Due to persistent and serious threats from natural disasters around the globe, many have turned to resilience and vulnerability research to guide disaster preparation, recovery, and adaptation decisions. In response, scholars and practitioners have put forth a variety of disaster indices, based on quantifiable metrics, to gauge levels of resilience and vulnerability. However, few indices are empirically validated using observed disaster impacts and, as a result, it is often unclear which index should be preferred for each decision at hand. Thus, we compare and empirically validate five of the top U.S. disaster indices, including three resilience indices and two vulnerability indices. We use observed disaster losses, fatalities, and disaster declarations from the southeastern United States to empirically validate each index. We find that disaster indices, though thoughtfully substantiated by literature and theoretically persuasive, are not all created equal. While four of the five indices perform as predicted in explaining damages, only three explain fatalities and only two explain disaster declarations as expected by theory. These results highlight the need for disaster indices to clearly state index objectives and structure underlying metrics to support validation of the results based on these goals. Further, policymakers should use index results carefully when developing regional policy or investing in resilience and vulnerability improvement projects.

KW - Index

KW - Natural disaster

KW - Resilience and vulnerability

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84983741959&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84983741959&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/risa.12677

DO - 10.1111/risa.12677

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84983741959

JO - Risk Analysis

JF - Risk Analysis

SN - 0272-4332

ER -