4.5 Article

How Valid Are Social Vulnerability Models?

Journal

ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF GEOGRAPHERS
Volume 109, Issue 4, Pages 1131-1153

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2018.1535887

Keywords

index; hazards; spatial regression; social vulnerability; validation

Categories

Funding

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation under the Humans, Disasters, and the Built Environment program [1333190, 1707947]
  2. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  3. Directorate For Engineering [1333190, 1707947] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Social vulnerability models are becoming increasingly important for hazard mitigation and recovery planning, but it remains unclear how well they explain disaster outcomes. Most studies using indicators and indexes employ them to either describe vulnerability patterns or compare newly devised measures to existing ones. The focus of this article is construct validation, in which we investigate the empirical validity of a range of models of social vulnerability using outcomes from Hurricane Sandy. Using spatial regression, relative measures of assistance applicants, affected renters, housing damage, and property loss were regressed on four social vulnerability models and their constituent pillars while controlling for flood exposure. The indexes best explained housing assistance applicants, whereas they poorly explained property loss. At the pillar level, themes related to access and functional needs, age, transportation, and housing were the most explanatory. Overall, social vulnerability models with weighted and profile configurations demonstrated higher construct validity than the prevailing social vulnerability indexes. The findings highlight the need to expand the number and breadth of empirical validation studies to better understand relationships among social vulnerability models and disaster outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available