Author’s Accepted Manuscript

Social Vulnerability Indicators in Disasters:

Findings from a Systematic Review

Farin Fatemi, Ali Ardalan, Benigno Aguirre,

Nabiollah Mansouri, Iraj Mohammadfam

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdr

PII: S2212-4209(16)30274-6
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.09.006
Reference: IJDRR416
To appear in: International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
Received date: 11 June 2016
Revised date: 17 September 2016
Accepted date: 18 September 2016
Cite this article as: Farin Fatemi, Ali Ardalan, Benigno Aguirre, Nabiollah
Mansouri and Iraj Mohammadfam, Social Vulnerability Indicators in Disasters:
Findings from a Systematic Review, International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.09.006
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Social Vulnerability Indicators in Disasters: Findings from a Systematic Review

Farin Fatemia, Ali Ardalanb,c*, Benigno Aguirred, Nabiollah Mansourie, Iraj Mohammadfamf

a
Department of Disaster Public Health, School of public Health, Tehran University of Medical
Sciences, Ghods Ave., Poursina Ave., Tehran, Iran.

b
Department of Disaster Public Health, School of public Health, Tehran University of Medical
Sciences, Ghods Ave., Poursina Ave., Tehran, Iran
c
Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Harvard University, USA, Cambridge.
d
Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware.
e
Department of HSE, Science, and Research Branch of Islamic Azad University, Poonak SQ.,
Tehran, Iran.
f
Department of Occupational Health, School of public Health, Hamadan University of Medical
Sciences, Mahdiyeh St., Hamadan, Iran.

f-fatemi@razi.tums.ac.ir
aardalan@tuma.ac.ir
aguirre@udel.edu
nmansourin@gmail.com
iraj_f@yahoo.com

*
Correspondence: Ali Ardalan, Department of Disaster Public Health, School of public Health,
Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Ghods Ave., Poursina Ave., Tehran, Iran. Tel./fax:+98-
21-88991108.

Abstract
Social factors are one of the most important causes of vulnerability of exposed communities to disasters.
Until now, however, most studies have been done in the developed countries. Thus, the aim of this paper is to
review the social vulnerability indices and their validity in disasters within the period 1985-2015 and to develop a
suitable classification to make sense of social vulnerability indices in the Iranian context. This study took place in
2015. It used bibliographies, citation databases, and other available records to find an answer to the question of what
are the valid social vulnerability indicators in disasters. It examined 43 peer-reviewed English and Persian language
journals. Initially, it found 32 indicators and 150 variables, but it was possible to subsume them into a few valid
social vulnerability indicators. These were gender, public health condition, public infrastructures and migration.
They are the five top categories of social vulnerability that are most useful in the Iranian context. Most studies have
been limited to measure social vulnerability index in natural disasters settings. Consequently, additional research is
needed to develop the indices of social vulnerability in man-made disasters and to develop appropriate variable
weighting schemes and valid indices.

Keywords

Social vulnerability, Indicators, Disasters, Validity

1. Introduction

There have been many descriptions of social vulnerability over the last two decades, but still lacking is a
comprehensive definition that will meet the requirements of various social and humanistic disciplines. The use of the
concept of vulnerability in the disaster literature started in the 1970s (Emrich & Cutter, 2011). During the 1980s, the
recognition grew of the importance of fundamental characteristics of environmental, economic, social and political
causes of vulnerability. These included population density, gender discrimination, socioeconomic status, and public
health conditions and are widely considered to be the most important causes of vulnerability of individuals exposed
to disasters and emergencies ( (Kelly, 1987; Hewitt, 1997; Kasperson et al., 1988; Twigg, 2001; International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction [UNISDR], 2004; Wisner, Blaikie, Cannon & Davis, 2004; United Nations
Development Program [UNDP], 2004; Li et al., 2010; Zhang & Huang, 2013; Wolkin et al., 2015.) In Iran, despite
its exposure to earthquakes and other hazards, very few studies of social vulnerability have been done, a matter we
wish to address by extracting and categorizing the relevant indicators.
Social vulnerability taps on a broad range of susceptibilities at the individual and community level: lack of
access to resources and lifelines, insufficient information and well-being; and certain beliefs and customs (Cutter,
Mitchell & Scott, 2000; Martins, Silva & Cabral, 2012; Yang, He, Du & Sun, 2015; Aliabadi, Sarsangi & Modiri,
2015; Barata, Ribeiro & Cassanti, 2011). Also, some indicators measuring deficiencies in infrastructure make people
with compromised statuses more socially vulnerable to environmental hazards (Hewitt, 1997; Enarson, 2007). On
the other hand, social vulnerability is context-dependent and is often associated with the degree of exposure to
extreme events, and with the preparedness and resilience of individuals and social groups (Wisner & Luce, 1993;
Wisner, Blaikie, Cannon & Davis, 1994; González, 2009). Nevertheless, there is no answer to the question of what
indicators should be used in specific contexts to guide mitigation tools to reduce the harmful consequences of
natural or man-made disasters. There is a need to assess vulnerability indices and their validity for contributing to
informed policy making (Gall, 2007). Validity means the selected indicators are replicable and represent their
underlying concepts appropriately. They are used in international studies to measure the social vulnerability of many
countries and areas. However, there is no universal answer to above question, which is a function of the culture and
organization of different societies.
Iran is prone to various disasters, and it can profit by developing internationally valid Social Vulnerability
Indices for simplifying complex events, guide disaster risk management and establish appropriate mitigation
programs, particularly for man-made catastrophes. Some available texts have focused on Indicators of Social
Vulnerability in natural disasters. A challenging area in this field is what changes if any, are necessary to use natural
hazard indicators in studies of the vulnerability of populations to man-made hazards. This review aims to show
which indicators could be used to measure the social vulnerability of populations in disasters and the extent of their
validity.

2. Methods

2.1. Data Sources

This study conducted in September 2015. For the purpose of this review, both bibliographic and citation
databases were the main sources of information. They were accessed both in February and in August of 2014. The
bibliographic sites were Pubmed, Elsevier, Scopus, and the citation sites ProQuest, and Springer and Iran Medex for
Persian articles. We searched the ProQuest database which has only contains dissertations from different parts of the
world in English language. Also reviewed were other available electronic resources such as books, the website of
universities, and documents and reports from international organizations. The references of the items identified were
another fruitful source of appropriate material. In what is a type of “snowball method” for finding more sources that
went on during the entire data collection.

2.2. Search Strategy

Excepting snowball material, all other sources of written material were obtained using the same search
strategy. The following terms were used when using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)): (“Social vulnerability”)
AND (indicators OR components) AND (disast* OR natural hazard* OR technological hazard*).

2.3. Inclusion Criteria

Included articles were that published in academic journals, focused on empirical research and were within
the scope set by the research question. Also, the papers related to the process of identifying and measuring the social
vulnerability indices, even if they were narrative, included in this study.

2.4. Exclusion Criteria

Excluded articles were those published before 1985, appeared in non-academic journals, focused on
modeling and theory development of social vulnerability without conducting substantive empirical studies, were
written in Persian and the English languages. Once identified, they were followed by descriptive and thematic
analyses.
 Finally, the PRISMA1 Checklist appraisal tool was completed for the manuscript. Figure 1 gives a quick
review of how this study assembled the data used in the analysis.
Identification

Potential citation via electronic Potential citation via google scholar

database (n = 311) and other sources (n = 35)

Total literature found by systematic searching and

snowball method (n = 346)
Screening

Duplicates discarded
(n = 30)
Citation included by abstract
review (n = 137)

Citation excluded by
abstract review (n = 30)
Full text studies excluded by
Eligibility& Included

criteria (n = 137)

Full text studies included in

review (n = 43)

Figure. 1. Flow diagram of the search and selection of papers

3. Results

1
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). PRISMA checklist is an evidence-based
minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews. You can control your manuscript with it before sending for a journal.
(http://www.prisma-statement.org/)
 The gross number of articles in bibliographic, citation databases, and other resources were 185, 111 and 35,
respectively. After the initial search, we used the snowball method to identify 15 other articles. Altogether 43
qualified articles were analyzed in this study.

3.1. Descriptive Analysis

While the Asian continent has the highest frequency and magnitude of disasters in the world, more studies
come from the USA than from any other country. The most commonly used methods for the analysis of social
vulnerability were Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and Geographic
Information System (GIS) which was used in 15 articles to map and help manage, identify and visualize the Social
Vulnerability Index (SoVI) of specific areas. The concept of social vulnerability in disasters has been paid much
more attention in the recent six years than in previous years. The large proportion of published studies in the period
2010-15 confirmed this claim. The findings also indicate that an enormous proportion of papers (83%) tried to
determine the proper indicators of social vulnerability in different types of natural disasters such as an earthquake,
flood, and hurricane. By way of contrast, less than 7% of the studies focused on the social vulnerability of man-
made disasters and emergencies. The rest (10%) analyzed social vulnerability in both natural and technological
hazards. The instances of included articles and their characteristics have been shown in table 1.

Table. 1. Papers analyzed for the systematic review of literature

Disa
sters Source of
Countr Natu Man stud Methodolog
Author Year Type selected
y ral - y objective y
mad
indicators
e
Measuring
social and
physical
vulnerability Literature
Original
2
Aliabadi IRI √ assessment of AHP2 review, expert
2015 research
old texture judgment
against
earthquake.

GIS-based
mapping of Literature
Original
2 AHP,
Rahman BGD √ vulnerability review, expert
2015 research GIS3
to earthquake judgment
and fire

2
Analytic hierarchy process
3
Geographical Information System
 Disa
sters Source of
Countr Natu Man stud Methodolog
Author Year Type selected
y ral - y objective y
mad
indicators
e
hazard in
Dhaka city,
Bangladesh.

Presenting a
mathematical
model to Literature
Original
2
Ge* CHN √ establish a SoVI review,
2014 research
model of secondary data
SoVI4.

Proposing a
framework of
Data Literature
Original
2 SVI at the
Lee TWN √ Normalization review.
2014 research township
GIS secondary data
level.

Examining
two multi-
criteria
methods to
reveal the
Original
2 SoVI, Literature
Armas ROM √ social
2013 research SEVI5 review
vulnerability
in an
earthquake
context.

Analyzing the
social
vulnerability
to hazards
Data Literature
and the
Original
2 Normalization review
Zhang CHN √ √
sensitivity of
2013 research AHP6, contextualizatio
influencing
SoVI n
factors to
risk.

Analysis of
social
vulnerability
Original
2 Normalization Literature
Holand NOR √ to
2013 research data,SoVI review
technological
and social
risks.

4
Social Vulnerability Index
5
Socioeconomic Vulnerability Index
6
Analytic Hierarchy Process
 Disa
sters Source of
Countr Natu Man stud Methodolog
Author Year Type selected
y ral - y objective y
mad
indicators
e

Proposing a
model of
Martins social
Original
2 Literature
POR √ vulnerability MCA7,GIS
2012 research review
to seismic
risk
assessment.
Literature
2
Van Zandt AHP reviews, expert
2012
judgment
Development Census
2Original of a SoVI for tracts, Literature
Flanagan USA √
2011 research use in disaster Percentile review
management. rank
Assessing
relative
vulnerability
between Factor
2Original municipalities analysis, Literature
Holand NOR √
2011 research to identify the SeVI, BEVI8, review
ones most in PCF9
need of
mitigation.

Presenting a
household
level social
2Original vulnerability Theory- Literature
Vincent ZAF √
2010 research to climate Driven, AHP review
change in
developing
countries.
Addressing
the social
2Original vulnerability SoVI Literature
Burton USA √
2010 research in hurricane review
impact
modeling.
Assessing
social
vulnerability Literature
2Original Census data,
Roshti IRI √ to the review, Expert
2010 research AHP,GIS
earthquake in Panel
Zanjan, Iran.

7
Multi-Criteria Analysis
8
Built Environment Index
9
Principal Components Factoring
 Disa
sters Source of
Countr Natu Man stud Methodolog
Author Year Type selected
y ral - y objective y
mad
indicators
e
Developing
and
validating of
Factor
2Original a social Literature
Fekete GER √ analysis,
2009 research vulnerability review
SoVI
map in river-
floods.

Expanding
the analysis
of social Literature
2Original vulnerability Factor review, multi-co
Manuel POR √ √
2009 research to analysis,SoVI linearity
technological analysis
and social
risks.
Examining
the spatial
linkage
between
2Original Factor Literature
Schmidtlein USA √ social
2008 research analysis,SoVI review
vulnerability
and estimated
earthquake
losses.
Describing
the impacts of
disasters
within the
2Narrativ Descriptive Literature
Donner USA √ √
context and
2008 e analyses review
broader
human
ecological
forces.
Presenting
empirical
evidence on
the spatial
2Original Factor Literature
Cutter USA √ and temporal
2008 research analysis,SoVI review
patterns in
social
vulnerability
in U.S.A.
Assessing the
state of social
science
2Technica
Phillips* USA √ research - -
2007 l paper
specific to
populations at
risk vis-à-vis
 Disa
sters Source of
Countr Natu Man stud Methodolog
Author Year Type selected
y ral - y objective y
mad
indicators
e
weather
forecasting
and warnings.

Assessing
spatial
variability
in
geophysical
Chakrabort 2Original Mathematic Literature
USA √ risk and
y 2005 research al relations review
social
vulnerability
to natural
hazards.

Determining
specific
variables
Normalizati
that
on data, PCA
2Original characterized Literature
Cutter USA √ √
2003 research the broader review
dimensions of
social
vulnerability.

Examining
the
vulnerability
of the
industrializin
Souza 2 Narrative
BRA Narrative g√countries -
Porto 2003 analysis
regarding
some
environmenta
l risks.

Presenting a
method for
assessing
vulnerability
in spatial
2Original Literature
Cutter USA √ √ using
terms SoVI, GIS
2000 research review
both
biophysical
and social
indicators.
 Disa
sters Source of
Countr Natu Man stud Methodolog
Author Year Type selected
y ral - y objective y
mad
indicators
e
Identifying
the
relationship
between
certain social
and economic
1Original Descriptive Literature
Morrow USA √ characteristic
1999 research analyses review
s and
increased
hazard risk in
developed
nations.

Providing a
conceptual
model of Literature
1Original social the household review, semi-
Adger VIE √
1999 research vulnerability survey, SoVI structured
to climate interview
change.

*Only abstract of paper was available

3.2. Thematic Analysis

We could exclude 32 indicators and 160 relevant variables for measuring social vulnerability during the
analysis of 43 reviewed papers. It means that most of the studies had the same indicators of social vulnerability
which were given different names, and more than one variable was used to tap the same underlying indicator.
For instance, the indicator of female population were measured by four different variables in the reviewed
studies. The relevant variables were defined as percentage of female, percentage of female headed households, ratio
of widows and women with three children or more dependent on the objectives and place of studies.
All of the studies used social vulnerability indicators such as percent of females in a population, age,
education, social and economic status, public health condition, employment, and accessibility to medical resources
and public infrastructures. The other indices of social vulnerability most commonly used were housing unit status,
distribution of working populations in different sectors, and physically challenged and special needs population.
Also, the indicators of social vulnerability have been categorized in less than 50% of reviewed articles. For
instance, Flanagan et al. categorized these indicators in to 4 groups in their study at 2011. These categories were
socioeconomic status, household composition/disability, minority status/language and housing/transportation. In the
other study the categories of social vulnerability were population density, gender, age, disability and illiterate. So,
theses categorizing seem to be described in the terms of time and place.
 Table. 2. Classification of the included papers according to social vulnerability indicators and
related variables

Va Re Indicator Vari
Indicators Reference
riables ference s ables
Percentage Lee (2014), Crude birth Lee (2014), Cutter (2003, 2008),
of female Lixin rate Ge (2013), Chen (2013), Holand
Percentage (2013), Positive birth (2011, 2013).
Cutter rate
of female
(2003,2007) population
headed , Fekete growth
households (2009), Ge
Ratio of (2013), Li Growth rate of
(2010), resident
widows 
Martins population
(2012), Minimum level Lee (2014), cutter (2003),
Female Morrow of education Lixin (2013), Burton (2010),
population (1999), Holand (2011), Fekete (2009),
Emrich Martins (2012), Flanagan (2011),
(2011), Wood (2010), Chen (2013),
Women with Wood Armas (2013), Nan (2013),
three (2010), Schmidtlein (2008),Roshti (2010),
children or Chen Ghadiri (2012).
more (2013),
Armas
(2013),
Nan (2013),
Roshti
(2010).
Lee Percentage of
(2014),Lixin the population
Percentage (2013), aged 15 years
Education or older with
of elderly Cutter
(2008), educational
population attainment
Holand
(2013), below a high
Chakraborty school diploma
Percentage (2005), Graduates with
of children Fekete only
under five (2009), elementary
education
Age years old Martins
structure (2012), Percentage of
Residents Chen
graduates with
from age 30 (2013), Li
high school
to 50 (2010),
Armas graduation
Residents (2013), People
age 65 and Schmidtlein graduated from
older (2008), college
Manuel Percent of Chen (2013), Ge
(2009), Rural-urban population (2013),Fekete (2009), Holand
Median age Roshti areas living in urban (2013).
(2010). areas
 Holand Percent of
Percentage (2011), Ge population
of household (2013), living in rural
Schmidtlein areas
Average (2008), Per capita Lee (2014), Holand (2011,2013),
household Martins income Ge (2013),
size (2012), Burton (2010), Cutter
Family Wood (2003,2008), Wood (2010), Adger
Ratio of high
structure (2010), (1999), Chen (2013), Li (2010),
incomes
Chen Armas (2013), Nan (2013),
(men)
(2013), Nan Schmidtlein (2008), Ghadiri
Divorce rate (2013), (2012).
Lixin
(2013),
Roshti
(2010).
Income
Resident Lee (2014), Ratio of high
population Holand incomes
density (2011,2013) (women)
, Martins
Average
(2012),
Population number of
Armas
characteristic Population wage earners
(2013), Nan
s per per
(2013),
settlement household
Roshti
area (2010),
Fekete
(2009).
Indicator
Indicators Variables Reference Variables Reference
s

Percent of Burton Unemploymen Lee (2014), Flanagan (2011),Lixin

Hispanic, (2010), t rates of (2013),Holand (2011),
Percent of Cutter population (15 Cutter(2003,2008), Fekete
(2003, years or (2009), Burton (2010),
Asian, and
2008), older) Schmidtlein (2008), Martins
Race and other Schmidtlein (2012), Wood (2010), Chen
Ethnicity minorities. (2008), (2013), Armas (2013), Nan
Emrich Foreign (2013),Manuel (2009),Roshti
(2011), Li employed (2010).
foreigners (2010),
Holand employment
(2013). 

Percentage Lixin Percentage of

of persons (2013), civilian labor
five years of Burton force
(2010), participation
age or older
Flanagan High
Minority who speak (2011), qualification
English less Chen employed
than “well.” (2013), Nan
(2013), Percentage of
Percentage
Holand women with
 of ethnic (2011). no economic
minorities activity
Percentage Percentage of
of employed in
household primary
industry:
living in
farming,
rented or fishing,
seasonal Working Lee (2014), Burton (2010),Holand
Lee (2014), mining,
population (2011,2013),Cutter(2003),Schmidt
houses forestry
Burton in primary lein (2008), Chen (2013), Nan
Percentage (2010), sector (2013).
of Cutter Superficial
household (2000,2003)
measure of
living in , Wood
(2010), cultivated land
mobile
Chakraborty
homes
(2005),Feket
e (2009), Percent Burton (2010), Cutter(2003,2008)
Housing units employed in Holand (2011), Schmidtlein
Wood
status Housing transportation, (2008), Adger (1999), Wood
(2010),
density Chen Working communicatio (2010), Chen (2013), Manuel
(2013), Li population ns, and other (2009).
(2010), in public utilities
Number of Schmidtlein secondary Percent
household (2008), sector employed in
living per Holand service
(2013),Rosh occupations
housing
unit ti (2010),
Percentage Armas Percentage of Holand (2011), Chen (2013),
(2013). Schmidtlein (2008), Manuel
of employed in
household Working health care, (2009).
population
without social services,
in tertiary
piped water sector and managerial
in their work
houses
Percentage Fekete (2009), Ghadiri (2012).
Relative
of old -
Martins inequality
house
(2012),
Number of Percent Burton (2010), Wood (2010),
Flanagan
manufacturin females Schmidtlein (2008), Holand
(2011),
g Gender participating in (2013).
Fekete equality civilian labor
establishmen (2009), index force
Building ts per square Chakraborty
construction mile (2005), Lee
(2014), people who are Lee (2014), Martins (2012),
Quality of Holand totally Morrow (1999), Li (2010),
housing (2011, dependent on Vincent (2010).
2013), Strength of social services
Land in Nan (2013), social Membership of
Manuel network social capital
farms as a
(2009). groups
percent of
total land
 Indicator
Indicators Variables Reference Variables Reference
s

Ratio of Adger (1999), Chen (2013),

GDP Per Lixin Dependency dependent Armas (2013), Vincent (2010).
capita (2013), 
people in total
Fekete population
Sound public (2009), Average age of
Cutter
finance water pipelines
(2000,
Burton Sport and
Median leisure
(2010),
housing units Holand equipment per
value (2011, 1000
2013), Ge inhabitants
Average (2013), Length of
number of Schmidtlein municipal
Social and occupied (2008), roads (km per
economic Morrow capita) Manuel (2009), Lee (2014),
room per
status household (1999), Cutter(2003), Lixin (2013),
Emrich Public Number of Burton (2010), Fekete (2009), Ge
Living space
(2011), infrastructur subway (2013), Morrow (1999), Emrich
per Flanagan e and (2011), Chen (2013), Li (2010),
household stations per
(2011), lifelines square Nan (2013), Holand (2011,
(per Adger kilometer 2013), Manuel (2009),Roshti
person) (1999), (2010).
Percentage Wood Old
of living in (2010), infrastructure
Chakraborty
poverty
(2005), Lee
(2014) Chen No. of exit
Engel routes per
(2013), Li
coefficient (2010). 1000
inhabitants*
Institutional Number of fire
policies and stations per
square
programs kilometer
Number of Cutter Percentage of
(2003), Ge individuals
Manufacturi
(2013), who are in
ng Marrow,
Commercial institutionalize
establishmen Holand
and d group
ts per square (2011, Schmidtlein (2008), Flanagan
industrial persons quarters
mile 2013), (2011), Burton (2010), Cutter
in group
Manuel (2003), Li (2010).
Earnings (in quarters Percentage of
(2009), persons who
$1,000) in all
Porto are in non-
industries (2003). institutionalize
per square d group
mile quarters
Investment Level of - Morrow (1999), Li (2010).
 in fixed democracy
assets per
square
kilometer
Value of all Percentage of
property, population
farm who are
immigrants
products sold
per square
mile Burton (2010), Morrow (1999),
Percentage migration Schmidtlein (2008), Holand
of (2013).
municipality
High out-
’s
migration
expenditure
on debt Holand
Municipal
service (2011), Nan
viability
(2013).
Percentage of
residents
Infrastructur covered by
e investment subsistence
allowances
from the gov.
Number of Lee (2014), Percentage of
hospital beds Cutter(2003 physically and
) mentally
per 1000
Lixin challenged
inhabitants (2013), Disabled population
Lee (2014), Lixin (2013), Morrow
(1999), Cutter(2003), Chakraborty
Burton and special Percentage of
physicians (2005), Fekete (2009), Chen
(2010), needs households
(2013), Vincent (2010), Roshti
per 10000 Fekete population with physically
(2010).
Public health persons (2009), Ge challenged
condition (2013), members
Morrow Rehabilitation
(1999) centers per
Distance to Emrich residents
(2011),
medical
Chen
services (2013),
Holand
(2013)
Indicator
Indicators Reference Variables Reference
Variables
s

Per capita Fekete

Social (2009),Burt
Social Security on (2010), Stakeholder
- Wood (2010)
security recipients Wood involvement
Percentage (2010), Li
of Social (2010), Nan
 Welfare (2013),
receptionist Schmidtlein
Percentage (2008),
of receiving Holand
invalidity (2011).
pension
Percentage
of social
services

The valid indicators of social vulnerability and the relevant variables which have been extracted from the
studies.

4. Discussion

During the period of this study, increasingly used were indicators of social vulnerability. However, only a few of the
studies tried to validate them (see Table 2). It is important to underscore that there are two sides to the validity of an
index, conceptual and methodological validity (Ge et al., 2013, Fekete, 2009). The literature review shows that the
validity of social vulnerability indices in Iran is little known. Most probably, the complexity of calculating social
vulnerability indices and the lack of access to accurate statistics are the reasons that such studies have not attracted
sustained research attention from scholars in Iran. At present, there are only four published studies of people’s
social vulnerability to the earthquake hazard in Iran (Roshti, 2010; Ghadiri, 2013; Zebardast, 2013; Aliabadi,
Sarsangi & Modiri, 2015). One research highlighted the role of knowledge and risk attitude on the likely severity of
the social vulnerability. The results showed that promotion of knowledge and proper attitude towards risk is not
enough to decrease social vulnerability; instead, studies of vulnerability need to identify the best ways to reduce
poverty and increase people’s accessibility to medical, educational, and other resources (Ghadiri, 2013). In a second
study, the social vulnerability indices were investigated in four broad categories of population, housing, socio-
economic status and physical distance, to estimate the social vulnerability to the earthquake in understudied areas of
the country (Roshti, 2010; Aliabadi, Sarsangi & Modiri, 2015). Studying these indices in the Iranian context and
estimating the social vulnerability of subpopulations may help the authorities and policy makers to optimize
resources in disaster management. The Iranian context could profit from using the following categories of social
vulnerability indicators:
 Fig. 1. Categorizing the indicators of social vulnerability
4.1. Gender
In most societies particularly in developing countries, a discriminatory atmosphere to women results in gender
inequalities, constraints, and limited access to resources that highlight the greater vulnerability of the female
population. Women’s higher rates of mortality and poverty in different disasters are well known (Phillips, 1993;
Wisner, Blaikie, Cannon & Davis, 1994). Retrospective studies show that the female population has lesser access to
resources and information that affects their physical and mental health during and after disasters (Sohrabizadeh,
Tourani & Khankeh, 2014). Studies outside of Iran indicate that the percentage of the female population and the
proportion of female-headed households have positive and significant statistical effects on the quantity and
seriousness of their social vulnerability (Cutter & Finch, 2008; Cutter, Boruff & Shirley, 2003; Li et al., 2010; Lixin,
Xi, Linging & Dong, 2014). Similar studies are needed for Iran, to establish with greater certainty the difficulties
ahead. Iranians need to develop much higher awareness of these problems faced by women in disasters as well as
establish practical means to ameliorate their effects. Solutions to this national problem are urgently needed.

4.2. Demographic characteristics

At times, racial, ethnic, and minority social identities bring about the social and economic marginality of people,
which impact disaster management plans for the mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery phases of disasters
(Morrow, 1999; Chen, Cutter, Emrich & Shi, 2013; Quarantelli, 1996, Phillips & Morrow, 2007). An effective
disaster mitigation system must try to ameliorate these discriminatory practices. These processes have an undeniable
role in the culture of Iran and its regions, which include various ethnicities and subcultures. Researchers have not
sufficiently considered the relationship between culture and disaster (Webb, Wachtendorf & Eyre, 2000.) In Iran,
religious beliefs probably are associated with disasters. If recognized, this meaningful relationship could enhance the
community’s ability to respond to and recover from a disaster. These studies show that families who attribute some
tragic events (missing child or other members of the family) to God during disasters and interpret them as “acts of
God” have greater tolerance of tragedy if compared to families that do not use a religious explanation for tragic
losses (Javadian, 2007).
The distribution of age group in a study population affects social vulnerability. Children and elderly people
living alone are dependent on others and likely to require protection, financial support, transportation, medical care,
access to needed medications, and assistance with ordinary daily activities during disasters (Quarantelli, 1999;
Morrow, 1999; Schmidtlein, Deutsch, Piegorsch & Cutter, 2008; Schmidtlein & King, 1995; Eidson, Lybarger,
Parsons, Maccormack & Freemen, 1990; Rosenkoetter, Covan, Cobb, Bunting & Weinrich, 2007; Ardalan et al.,
2010b). Children less than 5 and people 65 years and older are also likely to be more vulnerable to disasters and
require special treatment by disaster response planners and operational officers (Quarantelli, 1996; Cutter, Boruff &
Shirley, 2003; Flanagan, Gregory, Hallisey, Heitgerd & Lewis, 2011).
The relationship between education and vulnerability to disaster is not well understood. People with higher
level of education have more access to resources and are better able to cope with problems caused by disasters,
although this hypothesized relationship is not confirmed by studies in Iran and other countries to the extent that is
required to give it cross-national validity (Wood, Burton & Cutter, 2010; Ge et al., 2013; Armas & Gavris, 2013).
The traditional family structure of two parents and children has decreased in the United States (Flanagan,
Gregory, Hallisey, Heitgerd & Lewis, et al., 2011) and throughout the world. Nowadays the rate of divorce has
increased in Iran (Aghajanian & Thompson, 2013) and therefore, there are more cases of single-parent households,
which may make this subpopulation more prone to greater vulnerability in a disaster, but again it is not a topic that
has attracted the attention of researchers.

4.3. Socio-economic status

Economically poorer people in comparison to those in other categories are more affected by extreme
events. Structural maintenance and mitigation initiatives are often out of reach for low-income households (Burton,
2010). Also, the monetary value of their property may be less than that of high-income households. Thus, for
economically poorer households losing property in a disaster is a greater problem and is proportionately harder to
replace ( De Oliveira Mendez, 2009). In Iran, this was the experience of poor people in the 2003 Bam earthquake, in
which victims that had lost their property and did not have another source of support, were forced to live in the tents
for a long time (Ghafori & Hosseini, 2008).
Elevated levels of unemployment are found together with high levels of vulnerability in situations of crisis
and disaster (Burton, 2010; Adger, 1999; Roshti, 2010.) Poverty is an important aspect of increased social
vulnerability because of its direct association with access to resources which affects coping with the impacts of
disasters. This is shown by the great and unnecessary suffering of old people in poverty and near poverty residing in
the central section of New Orleans that did not have privately owned cars or other means of transportation to
evacuate from their houses and move to safer ground (Adger, 1999). Moreover, some people may lose their
properties and jobs in disasters. The unemployed population and those near the poverty line cannot provide income
for their family and if this condition persists they become poor, like what happened to Iranian farmers who lost their
properties and crops in floods due to lack of an effective early warning system (Ardalan et al., 2010a). Therefore,
social security and other programs for protecting affected people from or in the aftermath of disasters, and thus
decreasing their social vulnerability, is necessary and a matter that should be given urgent attention by the Iranian
government.
The variables that increase the social vulnerability in this category involve the unemployed population, a
higher percentage of the low-income population, and renters ( Zhang & Huang, 2013; Holand, Lujala & Rod, 2011).
4.4. Public resource provision
The literature divides this category into two main subgroups:
4.4.1 Public health condition
Accessibility of households to medical care resources is a significant correlate of health in a population
(Morrow, 1999). Improved medical care reduces the susceptibility of individuals to illness and the potential impact
of disasters. Poor public health is usually associated with other indicators such as lower socioeconomic status and
the lower quality of housing units ( De Oliveira Mendez, 2009).
4.4.2 Public infrastructures
Physical environment characteristics include public infrastructures such as the number of schools, fire
stations, public transportation and the average age of public water systems and pipelines that can affect population
vulnerability in disasters and emergencies. If evacuation is needed, access to exit paths and the number and quality
of roads will determine the extent to which vehicles can be used in evacuations and injuries and deaths prevented.
Therefore, limited access to public resources makes residents more socially vulnerable to the effects of hazards
(Cutter, Mitchell & Scott, 2000; Holand & Lujala, 2013).

4.5. Disability and special needs

People who are disabled are also more likely to be vulnerable to disasters (Morrow, 1999). Populations
residing in group quarters such as psychiatric institutions, nursing homes, and college dormitories have a particular
vulnerability, such as when nursing homes lack emergency evacuation plans. US. Census data can be used to
identify these places of residence in the city, but this knowledge is insufficient if it is either not used or used
inappropriately by local emergency managers (Chakraborty, Tobin & Montz, 2005). Disasters and emergency
education and staff training in these institutions will prepare their employees and resident population to establish and
develop the suitable reactions in extreme events that will increase their chances to save lives. Such training should
be available in the community and to households with a member suffering from a disability or a long-term disease.
The effects of variables that increase social vulnerability are magnified in the case of families with a physically or
mentally challenged member, as well as in homes with a member suffering from a long term/recurrent disease (Lee,
2014; Vincent & Cull, 2010). This category of problems needs to receive more attention in Iran, for the country
lacks the required capacities and programs to address it.

4.6. Challenges of indicators validity

 The contextual nature of social vulnerability and the difficulties of validation create challenges to the
development of robust indicators. These challenges are as follows:
First, the concepts associated with social vulnerability are complex; their meanings change in different
research communities. Thus, it is often difficult to find empirical evidence about social vulnerability and establish
viable metrics for measuring it (Cutter & Finch, 2008). Second, the vulnerability operates in two broad ways. The
first is when it understood as a holistic and generic concept, encompassing many complex interrelations. The second
is when it is seen as a single, one-dimensional concept, focusing on a specific item related to a specific hazard
(Fekete, 2009). Third, for methodological reasons social vulnerability is hard to estimate. These differences in
definitions cause confusion. Indicators always are indirect numerical surrogates of real phenomena, and quantitative
assessments of qualitative phenomena are subject to generalizations to achieve computation and comparability,
which may be inaccurate and inapplicable (Ge et al., 2013).
Despite these constraints, few researchers tried to produce valid indicators of social vulnerability by
applying some methods. For example, Fekete ( 2009) validated the social vulnerability indices in the context of river
floods in Germany by analyzing a data set using a logistic regression model. Ge et al. (2013) conducted this
validation with the disaster index based on aggregated disaster loss data in the Yangtze River Delta, China. Holand
& Lujala (2013) validated these indicators with empirical evidence of factors influencing vulnerability in the context
that had relevance for local-level assessment in Norway. In another study, the indicators of social vulnerability of
the female population, socio-economic status, and population growth were validated using empirical findings from
Bucharest, Romania (Armas & Gavris, 2013).

4.7. Social vulnerability to man-made hazards

A large proportion of the studies identify indicators of social vulnerability to different types of natural
hazards. Attention should be paid to determine if these indicators are also a good measure of the social vulnerability
to technological hazards and man-made disasters, particularly in industrializing countries such as Iran.
Competition in global markets and rapid economic growth and industrialization processes create powerful
incentives to ignore regulations or safety measures to protect the environment, the community, and workers from
technical hazards. These conditions increase the vulnerability of social groups such as workers, the poor, and people
in lower income and socioeconomic status. The most common indices that have a significant association to social
vulnerability from industrial hazards in developing countries attempt to represent these conditions (Souza Porto &
Freitas, 2003).
After finalizing the indicators of social vulnerability, estimating the social vulnerability index in various
areas of Iran could help to address the pressing priorities in disaster management programs. For example, in the
preparedness phase of disaster management, investment in decreasing the relevant core indicators of social
vulnerability will help policy makers to improve the sustainable disaster risk reduction measures in the country.

5. Limitation
 In this systematic review the articles in English and Persian language were included. As well as, access to
full text of several articles wouldn’t be possible because of sanctions and economic difficulties.

6. Conclusion

This study highlights the indicators of the social vulnerability in disasters, as well as their relative validity,
with the intent of helping government officials establish the appropriate programs and funding of studies in Iran that
are needed to decrease the harmful consequences of disasters. Effective hazard mitigation and emergency response
must begin with an understanding of the complex ways in which social, economic and political organization of a
society create substantial differences in the vulnerability of those who are meant to protect. To our current
knowledge, the indicators that make people and places vulnerable to disasters are mostly limited to studying natural
hazards. Additional comparative studies are needed to develop the appropriate set of indicators of social
vulnerability in man-made disasters, such as chemical spills, for an all-hazards approach to emergency management,
which we approve, does not eliminate the need to understand the specific causes and effects of different hazards, if
any. Indicators of social vulnerability in natural disasters may be useful to study technical risks, although still to be
done are studies that would compare the generalizability and validity of these indices.

Reference
Adger, W. N. (1999). Social Vulnerability to Climate Change and Extremes in Coastal Vietnam. World
Development, 27, 249-269.
Aghajanian, A., & Thompson, V. (2013). Recent divorce trend in Iran. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 54, 112-
125.
Aguirre, B. E. (2002). Can sustainable development sustain us? Mass emergencies and disasters, 20, 111-125.
Aliabadi, S. F., Sarsangi, A., & Modiri, E. (2015). The social and physical vulnerability assessment of old texture
against earthquake (case study: Fahadan district in Yazd City). Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 8, 10775-10787.
Ardalan, A., Holakouie N.K., Mahmoodi, M., Zanganeh, A., Keshtkar, A., Honarvar, M., & Kabir, M.F. (2010a.).
Flash flood preparedness in Golestan province of Iran: A community intervention trial. American Journal of
Disaster Medicine, 5, 197-214.
Ardalan, A., & Mazaheri, M. (2010b). Elders' needs following the disasters: Older people’s needs following major
disasters: a qualitative study of Iranian elders' experiences of the Bam earthquake. Ageing and Society, 30, 11-23.
Armas, I., & Gavris, A. (2013). Social vulnerability assessment using spatial multi-criteria analysis (SEVI model)
and the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI model) – a case study for Bucharest, Romania. Natural Hazards and Earth
System Sciences, 13, 1481-1499.
Barata, R.B., De Almedia Ribeiro, M.C.S., & Cassanti, A.C. (2011). Social vulnerability and health status: A
household survey in the central area of a Brazilian metropolis. Cadernos de Saude Publica, 27, 164-175.
Burton, C.G. (2010). Social vulnerability and hurricane impact modeling. Natural Hazards Review, 11, 58-68.
Chakraborty, J., Tobin, G.A., & Montz, B.E. (2005). Population evacuation: Assessing spatial variability in
geophysical risk and social vulnerability to natural hazards. Natural Hazards Review, 6, 23-33.
Chen, W., Cutter, S.L., Emrich, C.T., & Shi, P. (2013). Measuring Social Vulnerability to Natural Hazards in the
Yangtze River Delta Region, China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci., 4, 169-181.
Cutter, S.L., Boruff, B.J., & Shirley, W.L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social science
quarterly, 84, 242-261.
Cutter, S.L. & Finch, C. (2008). Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 2301-2306.
Cutter, S.L., Mitchell, J., & Scott, M. (2000). Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: A case study of
Georgetown county, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90, 713-737.
Mileti, D.S. (1999). Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Washington, DC:
Joseph Henry Press.
De Oliveira Mendez, J.M. (2009). Social vulnerability indexes as planning tools: Beyond the preparedness
paradigm. Journal of Risk Research, 12, 43-58.
Donner, W., & Rodriguez, H. (2008). Population composition, migration, and inequality: The influence of
demographic changes on disaster risk and vulnerability. In Social Forces, 87, 1089-1114.
Eidson, M., Lybarger, J.A., Parsons, J.E., Maccormack, J.N., & Freeman, J.I. (1990). Risk Factors for Tornado
Injuries. International Journal of Epidemiology, 19, 1051-56.
Emrich, C.T., & Cutter, S.L. (2011). Social Vulnerability to Climate-Sensitive Hazards in the Southern United
States. American Meteorological Society, 3, 193-208.
Enarson, E. Chapter 13: Identifying and addressing social vulnerabilities.
Fekete, A. (2009). Validation of a social vulnerability index in context to river-floods in Germany. Natural Hazards
and Earth System Science, 9, 393-403.
Flanagan, B.E., Gregory, E.W., Hallisey, E.J., Heitgerd, J.L.. & Lewis, B. (2011). A Social Vulnerability Index for
Disaster Management. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 8.
Gall, M. (2007). Indices of social vulnerability to natural hazards: A comparative evaluation. Doctor of Philosophy,
University of South Carolina.
Ge, Y., Dou, W., Gu, Z., Qian, X., Wang, J., Xu, W., Shi, P., Ming, X., Zhou, X., & Chen, Y. (2013). Assessment of
social vulnerability to natural hazards in the Yangtze River Delta, China. Stochastic Environmental Research and
Risk Assessment, 27, 1899-1908.
Ghadiri, M. (2013). The role of knowledge and risk attitude in social vulnerability differences to the earthquake in
Tehran city. Geography and city logistic, 6, 1-16.
Ghafori, M., & Hosseini, M. (2008). Post-Bam earthquake: recovery and reconstruction. Nat Hazards, 44, 229-241.
Gonzalez, L.M. (2009). Social vulnerability and demographic dynamicity in Argentina, 2001-07. Cuadernos
Geograficos.
Hewitt, K. (1997). Regions of Risk: a geographical introduction to disasters, Essex, Addison Wesley Longmann.
Holand, I.S., & Lujala, P. (2013). Replicating and Adapting an Index of Social Vulnerability to a New Context: A
Comparison Study for Norway. Professional Geographer, 65, 312-328.
Holand, I.S., Lujala, P., & Rod, J.K. (2011). Social vulnerability assessment for Norway: A quantitative approach.
Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift, 65, 1-17.
Javadian, R. (2007). Social work responses to earthquake disasters A social work intervention in Bam, Iran.
International Social Work 50, 334-346.
Manuel, J., & Mendez, O. (2009). Social vulnerability indexes as planning tools: beyond the preparedness paradigm.
Journal of Risk Research, 12, 43-58.
Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H.S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperso, J.X., & Ratick, S. (1988). The
Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework. Risk Analysis, 8, 177-187.
Kelly, G. (1987). The Importance of the Urban Environment for Accidental Consequences. Radiation Protection
Dosimetry, 21, 13-20.
Lee, Y. J. (2014). Social vulnerability indicators as a sustainable planning tool. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 44, 31-42.
Li, F., Bi, J., Huang, L., Qu, C., Yang, J., & Bu, Q. (2010). Mapping human vulnerability to chemical accidents in
the vicinity of chemical industry parks. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 179, 500-506.
Lixin, Y., Xi, Z., LinglingI, G., & Dong, Z. (2014). Analysis of social vulnerability to hazards in China.
Environmental Earth Sciences, 71, 3109-3117.
Martins, V.N., Sousa E.S.D., & Cabral, P. (2012). Social vulnerability assessment to seismic risk using multicriteria
analysis: the case study of Vila Franca do Campo (So Miguel Island, Azores, Portugal). Nat Hazards, 62, 385-404.
Morrow, B.H. (1999). Identifying andMapping Community Vulnerability. Disasters, 23, 1-18.
Phillips B.D., & Morrow, B.H. (2007). Social science research needs: focus on vulnerable populations, forecasting,
and warnings. Natural hazards review, 8.
Phillips, B.D. (1993). Cultural Diversity in Disasters: Sheltering, Housing, and Long-term Recovery. International
Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 11, 99-110.
Quarantelli, E. (1996). The future is not the past repeated: projecting disasters in the 21st century from current
trends. Contingencies and Crisis Management, 4, 228-240.
Quarantelli, E. (1999). Implications for programs and policies from future disaster trends. Risk management, 1, 9-19.
Rahman, N., Ansary, M.A., & Islam, I. (2015). GIS-based mapping of vulnerability to earthquake and fire hazard in
Dhaka city, Bangladesh. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 13, 291–300.
Rodriguez, H., & Barnshaw, J. (2006). The social construction of disasters: from heatwave to worst-case scenarios.
Contemporary Sociology, 35, 218-223.
Rosenkoetter, M.M., Covan, E.K., Cobb, B.K., Bunting, S., & Weinrich, M. (2007). Perceptions of Older Adults
Regarding Evacuation in the Event of a Natural Disaster. Public Health Nursing, 24, 160-168.
Roshti, A.M. (2010). Social Vulnerability Assessment to Earthquakes in Cities. Case study: Zanjan city. Municipal
and regional researches and Studies, 7, 71-90.
Sanders, P., Guaralda, M., & Carolli, L. (2014). Urban Form at the Edge: Proceedings from ISUF 2013. Brisbane,
Queensland: Queensland University of Technology (QUT).
Schmidtlein, T., & King, P. (1995). Risk factors for death in the 27 March 1994 Georgia and Alabama tornados.
Disasters, 19, 170-77.
Schmidtlein, M.C., Deutsch, R.C., Piegorsch, W.W., & Cutter, S.L. (2008). A sensitivity analysis of the social
vulnerability index. Risk analysis, 28, 1099-1114.
Sohrabizadeh, S., Tourani, S., & Khankeh, H.R. (2014). The Gender Analysis Tools Applied in Natural Disasters
Management: A Systematic Literature Review. PLOS Currents Disasters.
Souz Porto, M.F., & Freitas, C. M. (2003). Vulnerability and industrial hazards in industrializing countries: An
integrative approach. Futures, 35, 717-736.
Social security organization. (2012). Iran population census. Tehran: Iran.
Twigg, J. (2001). Sustainable Livelihoods and Vulnerability to Disasters. Benfield Greig Hazard Center, for the
Disaster Mitigation Institute.
United Nations Development Program. (2004). Reducing disaster risk: a challenge for development. A Global
Report. New York: UNDP-Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR).
United Nations. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. (2013). Using Science for Disaster Risk Reduction.
Geneva: UN Publications.
United Nations. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. (2004). Living with risk: a global review of disaster
reduction initiatives. Geneva: UN Publications.
Vincent, K., & Cull, T.A. (2010). Household Social Vulnerability Index (HSVI) for Evaluating Adaptation Projects
in Developing Countries. PEGNet Conference 2010: Policies to foster and sustain equitable development in times of
crises, Midrand: Spain.
Webb, R.G., Wachtendorf, T., & Eyre, A. (2000). Bringing culture back in: exploring the cultural dimensions of
disaster. Mass emergencies and disasters, 18, 5-19.
Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (1994). At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and
Disasters. Routledge: London.
Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2004). At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and
Disasters. London: Routledge.
Wisner, B. & Luce, H. (1993). Disaster vulnerability: Scale, power, and daily life. Geo Journal, 20, 127-140.
Wolkin, A., Patterson, J. R., Harris, S., Soler, E., Burrer, S., Mcgeehin, M., & Greene, S. (2015). Reducing Public
Health Risk During Disasters: Identifying Social Vulnerabilities. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management, 12, 809-822.
Wood, N.J., Burton, C.G., & Cutter, S.L. (2010). Community variations in social vulnerability to Cascadia-related
tsunamis in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Nat Hazards, 52, 369-389.
Yang, S., He, S., Du, J., & Sun, X. (2015). Screening of social vulnerability to natural hazards in China. Nat
Hazards, 76, 1-18.
Zebardast, E. (2013). Constructing a social vulnerability index to earthquake hazards using a hybrid factor
analysis and analytic network process (F’ANP) model. Nat Hazards, 65: 1331. doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0412-
1.
Zhang, N., & Huang, H. (2013). Social vulnerability for public safety: A case study of Beijing, China. Chinese
Science Bulletin, 58, 2387-2394.