See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235259876

Addressing vulnerability through an integrated approach

Article in International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment · February 2010
DOI: 10.1108/17595901011026472

CITATIONS READS
105 2,860

3 authors, including:

David A. Mcentire Ekong J. Peters

University of North Texas University of North Texas
45 PUBLICATIONS 2,603 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 108 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David A. Mcentire on 24 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1759-5908.htm

IJDRBE
1,1 Addressing vulnerability through
an integrated approach
David McEntire
50 College of Public Affairs and Community Service, University of North Texas,
Corinth, Texas, USA, and
Colleen Gilmore Crocker MPH and Ekong Peters
University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review current theoretical approaches in disaster studies and
put forward a model of vulnerability that incorporates physical science, engineering, and social science
research.
Design/methodology/approach – A comprehensive model of vulnerability is proposed, which
includes both liabilities and capabilities from the physical and social environments. The model is related
to risk, susceptibility, resistance, and resilience to vulnerability and disasters.
Findings – This review assesses current concepts as guides for disaster management and suggests
that a more complete view of vulnerability is more apt to generate inclusive and integrated disaster
policies.
Research limitations/implications – Since this model is relatively new, its applicability needs to
be examined further in terms of the phases of disasters and the many stakeholders involved in
emergency management.
Practical implications – The holistic model of vulnerability in this paper may help emergency
managers better understand disasters and devise relevant policies to counter them. The paper
underscores the importance of broad and integrated methods for dealing with socially constructed
disasters. It is related to environmental, infrastructure, economic, political, cultural, and other variables.
Originality/value – This paper is unique in that it presents four viewpoints of vulnerability and
because it applies the proposed model to many different types of disasters.
Keywords Disasters, Modelling, Risk assessment
Paper type Research paper

International Journal of Disaster
Resilience in the Built Environment
Vol. 1 No. 1, 2010
pp. 50-64
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1759-5908
DOI 10.1108/17595901011026472
Introduction
An increasing number of devastating disaster events has caused researchers to rethink
the nature and purpose of emergency management. For instance, September 11 took
many by surprise. Scholars and practitioners failed to fully acknowledge the potential
threat of terrorism that resulted in thousands of deaths. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami
also illustrated both the limits and importance of mitigation on an international level.
We learned that nature is a powerful force, but also that a simple warning system could
have saved many lives. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita revealed the failures of
preparedness activities and an inability to react effectively. It is hard to believe that the
government and people living in such hazard-prone areas were not ready to assist the
vulnerable populations faced with such an impending disaster. It consequently appears
that emergency management faces three recurring problems: we do not focus on all
types of hazards, we are not sufficiently proactive, and we do not fully address each
component of emergency management (i.e. mitigation, preparedness, response, and
recovery). All of these challenges may result from our lack of a concept to guide policy Addressing
formation and implementation. vulnerability
Tierney (1999, p. 216) argues that the field of disaster studies “has yet to develop a
coherent theoretical perspective.” Lagadec (2006, p. 492) indicates one of the reasons a new
conceptual framework is needed derives from the linear disaster management system that
only allows “limited and marginal uncertainty, where events and the contexts in which
they occur can be clearly compartmentalized.” Yet, as he states and as many researchers 51
also believe, this is not the situation in which disasters emerge today or will occur in the
future. Quarantelli (1998, p. 240) agrees and states that disaster researchers “should at
least consider whether current efforts might be too reformist, and that what is needed is
more revolutionary, the creation of a new paradigm for disaster research.” However, a new
paradigm may “have problems of maintaining the historical and intellectual continuity in
the field” (Quarantelli, 1998, p. 278). That is to say, a cutting-edge conceptualization must
not be completely divorced from prior considerations.
For instance, sustainable hazards mitigation has been suggested as the new paradigm
by many scholars (Mileti et al., 1995). McEntire (1999, 2000, 2003) has examined this
paradigm repeatedly in his research, and he continues to call for a more adept paradigm
to improve disaster research and the emergency management profession (McEntire, 2001;
McEntire et al., 2002, McEntire, 2003, 2005b, 2008). In spite of many advantages, the
sustainability concept seems to concentrate mainly on natural hazards while other
potential threats “are still not widely recognized in the larger sustainable development
policymaking arena” (Smith and Wenger, 2006, p. 252). In addition, Mileti (1999) suggests
a change of values is needed for sustainability to be a workable solution. However, the
visible focus on hazards in this policy proposal may inadvertently downplay the extent of
human responsibility. Also, sustainability does not capture all phases of emergency
management (i.e. preparedness and response). As a result, this concept may inadvertently
glaze over what makes people and places vulnerable and resilient to all threats and events
(Cutter, 2005). Consequently, it is necessary and reasonable to begin a shift in our
understanding of disaster that also includes the fundamental features of prior research.
It is for these reasons that we need to give greater attention to a holistic perspective of
vulnerability. Seeing the increasing and visible overlap between vulnerable human
activities and the actual physical event is increasing this opinion (Susman et al., 1983;
Mileti, 1999; Perry, 2006; Buckle, 2005). Boin and Hart (2006, p. 46) believe that the causes
of vulnerability are inherent in the social and economic systems made up of the “innocent
factors” like ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, and gender that combine and create
“disruptive forces that come to represent an undeniable threat to the system.” These
variables are significant issues that create and correlate with an increase in vulnerability
to hazards, and they often result in the occurrence of disasters. Gilbert (1998) supports
this perspective stating that this new approach alters older views and questions “the
overwhelming notion of agent.” Such a process begins with an analysis of the social
vulnerability that is determined “on structural as well as contextual grounds” – and not
solely based on the agent/hazard. This realization is driving the call for more research
and more analysis of disaster vulnerability. Nonetheless, studies of vulnerability must
not be limited to our past conceptualizations.
Buckle (2005) states that vulnerability and the causes of disasters are linked, directly and
indirectly, to broader and structural social processes and dynamics. Poteyeva et al. (2006)
assert that it is necessary to also have a systematic research agenda that involves multiple
IJDRBE disciplines: engineers, epidemiologists, emergency medical personnel, social scientists,
1,1 emergency managers, researchers, terrorism experts, police, military, volunteer
organizations and many others. This goal of combining variables and the research goals
of multiple fields is not new. However, integrating field research discoveries into a more
complex approach to vulnerability will assist in the analysis of what makes a hazard a
disaster and uncover how we can assist all vulnerable populations in becoming more
52 resistant and resilient. Perry (1998, p. 199) is incredibly clear on this point:
[. . .] it is not environmental phenomena per se that are key to disasters, but the interactions of
the human use system with nature and the prospect of vulnerability on the human side
(perhaps limits on the ability to cope). Vulnerability is socially produced, but may be related
to the state of technology.
In light of these issues and the increasing necessity of a solution to the disaster problem, the
following paper will add to this discussion and present some perspectives that will
strengthen the argument for change. Utilizing McEntire’s (2004a, b, 2005b) previous
research as a platform, we will attempt to show the growing importance of vulnerability in
research and for practitioners. Specifically, we will outline the current views on
vulnerability and vulnerability reduction in physical science, engineering, structural and
organizational schools, and then illustrate the importance of combining the alternatives into
a new policy and holistic paradigm. By doing so, we will explore options for vulnerability
reduction and their application to natural disasters. We will also provide the reader with
examples of application of McEntire model to four other types of disaster situations. We will
then conclude our argument with assertions concerning the applicability of the model to
disaster research and vulnerability reduction. We will begin by discussing the methodology
utilized for this study, illustrating the current perspective on sustainability, and identifying
the conceptual background surrounding disaster vulnerability.

Methodology
Research for this paper was gathered through an extensive literature review process.
A search for key words, including sustainability and vulnerability, was undertaken in
electronic library databases, journal table of contents, and relevant bibliographic
references. A search for other concepts, including risk, susceptibility, resistance, and
resilience (RSRR), was also performed to gather pertinent findings. Once this literature
was collected, it was read with an eye toward content analysis. The findings were then
organized to form the basis of the argument presented in this paper. An attempt has
been made to illustrate the multi-disciplinary nature of disaster vulnerability, and
support a framework for increased theoretical integration. While no literature review
process could ever be considered exhaustive, it is hoped that the both the quantity of
citations and quality of widely recognized sources will lend credibility to the argument
advanced in this paper.

The current perspective

Sustainable hazards mitigation is a school of thought that has emerged forcefully and
gained notable attention from the academic community. This perspective, as discussed
in Disasters by Design (Mileti, 1999), asserts that a new policy to address rising disaster
losses is necessary. Among other things, this argument asserts that we must change
culture, protect the environment, and recognize social forces if we are to minimize
natural disasters (Mileti, 1999). Mileti accordingly stresses the need for land-use Addressing
planning, building codes, improved engineering and other mitigation strategies. vulnerability
The sustainability school has several strengths, including its focus on long-term
objectives through improved mitigation and recovery policies (McEntire and Floyd, 2003).
However, scholars have at times questioned the clarity of the concept of sustainable
development (Wisner et al., 2004). Others declare that sustainability viewpoints downplay
preparedness and response activities (Smith and Wenger, 2006), which ironically are 53
essential for a comprehensive view of emergency management. For these reasons, Aquirre
(2002) questions if sustainable development perspectives can “sustain” the disaster policy
and research community in the future. He also believes that “scholars and practitioners
are not capable, nor willing to advance this agenda” (Smith and Wenger, 2006, p. 254).
Regardless of the extent of validity of this last statement, it can be argued that one of
the major problems with the particular perspective is its reliance on the concept of
hazards. Quarantelli (1998) asserts that many researchers continue to focus on the old
hazards paradigm. He states that disasters are “overt manifestations of latent social
vulnerabilities, basically weaknesses in the social structures or social systems”
(Quarantelli, 2005, p. 345) and that the disaster stems from the social system – not
necessarily the event itself. Adger (2006, p. 271) likewise asserts that the “discourse of
hazards management [. . .] failed to engage the [. . .] causes of vulnerability within
society.” Mileti (1999, p. 3) also emphasizes that “disasters occur at the overlaps of the
physical, built, and social environments” – and he suggests that disasters are “social in
nature.” It is therefore somewhat ironic that Mileti calls his perspective sustainable
hazards mitigation. It appears, therefore, that scholars need to “‘unlearn’ in order to learn
what the issues are [. . .] and how they could contribute to a process of issue solution”
(Britton, 2005, p. 116). These arguments are driving the call for a new understanding of
disaster management based on the importance of vulnerability.

Vulnerability
In the mid-1970s, scholars began to question the “naturalness” of disasters (O’Keefe et al.,
1976). Hewitt (1983), and many of the other contributors to Interpretations of Calamity,
provided evidence that poverty is closely related to disasters and that technocratic
approaches which focus exclusively on hazards are not likely to reduce the impacts of
disasters. Hewitt argued that we need to rethink our assumptions about disasters and
implement policies that take into account social, political and economic realities. This led
to the emergence of a rapidly expanding research agenda on vulnerability, led by Blaikie
et al. (1994) among many others. It is now commonly held that “vulnerability is the root
cause of disasters” (Lewis, 1999, p. xi).
While the concept of vulnerability is frequently used within disaster research, its
definition is not always common among scholars. Researchers recognize the significance
of vulnerability in the outcome of disasters, but the differing opinions of what this
concept entails are readily apparent. Perry (2006) and Quarantelli (2005) define
vulnerability as a socially constructed issue, in which relationships and disasters are
based on social changes. Sorenson and Sorensen (2006) emphasize how vulnerability is a
socially constructed issue; that is to say, it is the social inequalities that make people
vulnerable and shape their behavior in disasters. Perrow (2006) also takes a structural
view in many of his arguments, suggesting that vulnerability is determined by
economics and politics. Wisner et al. (2004, p. 12) believe vulnerability is not related to
IJDRBE immediate disaster damages but “takes into account damages to future livelihoods due
1,1 to a person’s (or group’s) lack of resources and capacity to rebound.” There are
consequently several definitions of the concept of vulnerability.
In spite of these varying opinions, the predominant view of vulnerability concentrates
on the social, political, and economic dimensions of disasters. This school of thought is best
described by Wisner et al. (2004). They avow that vulnerability is closely related to poverty
54 and they utilize a “pressure and release” model to describe the causes of disaster. In that
model, poverty directly correlates to root causes, dynamic pressures, and unsafe
conditions. Examples of root causes would be political and economic inequities in
societies. Dynamic pressures, based on root causes, impel people to move from rural to
urban areas. This shift in the population results in unsafe conditions where people live in
marginal and hazard prone areas. Vulnerability and disaster are thus visibly linked to
each other due to structural factors. Wisner et al.’s assessment is accurate and could easily
be applied to events like Hurricane Katrina. Those most affected by Katrina were
minorities who lacked economic resources. These people were least able to protect and
prepare themselves before the event, and they had limited funds for response and
recovery.
While this social vulnerability view is undoubtedly correct, it might also be incomplete
since there are many other factors that also contribute to vulnerability (e.g. poor land-use
planning, inadequate construction, environmental degradation, cultural attitudes and
practices, law and policy, lack of planning, insufficient training, ineffective warning
systems, communication failures, failure to improvise, etc. Lewis (1999, pp. 23-36)
illustrates that there are many different types and causes of vulnerability. This may
include economic dependency, the size of a country, powerlessness, military activities,
electronic systems, environmental mismanagement, population displacement, shanty
settlements, and coastal tourism among other things. Indeed, as Cutter (2005) notes, it is
very difficult to assess all the known points of vulnerability. She therefore argues that we
must examine the linkages and interdependencies among numerous systems to better
understand vulnerability to disaster. Adger (2006, p. 268) declares that the current
research on multiple stressors and pathways is “exciting” and that it may compliment our
traditional views of vulnerability. This “newly emerging synthesis of systems-oriented
research [is] attempting [. . .] to understand vulnerability in a holistic manner” (Adger,
2006, p. 272).
One possible way to reach this goal is to focus on proneness to disaster as well as
limited capacity. Chambers (1989) believes that vulnerability is twofold: the external
risks, shocks, and stress that people are subject to and the internal ability to cope. Lewis
(1999, p. 145) also believes vulnerability is related to impact and capacity for resistance
and recovery. Adger (2006, p. 269) also asserts that we must focus on “shocks and
stressors” in addition to “capacity for adaptive action.”
In regards to proneness, Lewis (1999, pp. 4-5) asserts that “vulnerability is the degree
of susceptibility to a natural hazard” and that the potential for damage, destruction and
death “is conditioned by the decisions and actions of society over time.” Downing and
Cutter define vulnerability as a measure of exposure to the hazardous event and
likelihood that people will be adversely affected as a result (McEntire, 2008, p. 24).
McEntire (2004a, b) uses the term “liability” to describe these types of proneness to
disasters.
 Capacity, in contrast, has been referred to as the “general economic, political, and Addressing
technical strength and viability of the community to resolve issues and handle vulnerability
problems” (Smith and Wenger, 2006, p. 247). The literature emphasizes education,
training, and research focused on recovery planning as elements of capacity building
and resilience. Kelly and Adger (2000) also agree that the vulnerability of individuals
and social groups to hazards is determined by their “existent state, that is, by their
capacity” – or ability to respond and recover, and handle the extraordinary stresses and 55
event causes on their daily lives.
The presence of proneness and/or limited capacity in the vulnerability literature is not
always recognized, but many researchers have displayed the link explicitly in their work.
Boin and Hart (2006), Alwang et al. (2001) and Maxwell et al. (2000) all accept a
combination of both proneness and capability – interwoven and contributing to the
vulnerability of each person, group, and society. Vasta (2004, p. 13) cites Miller and Nigg
(1993) as developing the concept of “event vulnerability” and “consequence vulnerability.”
The first deals with proneness issues while the latter concentrates on capabilities. The
disaster literature therefore illustrates that disaster vulnerability is composed of
proneness to disaster as well as a limited ability to react when such events occur.

Four approaches to vulnerability reduction

Now that the concept of vulnerability is better understood, it is possible to turn attention on
ways to reduce it. There are, overall, four ideal types for vulnerability reduction. Two are
technocratic and two are sociological, and they each bring inherent strengths and
weaknesses to the vulnerability discussion. The physical science school stresses living in
safe areas, and it focuses mostly on exposure to hazards and risk reduction. The
engineering school concentrates on the built environment and ways to increase resistance
through construction practices and methods of fabrication. The structural school
concentrates on traditional notions of vulnerability more than the other three, and it
stresses susceptibility based on socioeconomic factors and demographic characteristics
including race, ethnicity, gender, age, and other factors. The organizational school stresses
resilience or the effectiveness of response and recovery operations concentrates on
stressing the importance of preparedness, leadership, management, and the ability to
adapt, improvise, and be creative. Each of these will be discussed in turn.

The physical science school

The physical science school stresses how location and the hazards of the natural
environment expose certain areas – and, therefore, the people who live there – to
varying threats. Its main activities include the creation of warning systems, cautious
development, environmental protection, and complete relocation of vulnerable
communities in extreme cases. Land-use planning, careful settlement patterns and the
general categorization of a place’s “hazardousness” are central to the physical science
school and its advocates. Discussed frequently by Mileti (1999), Mileti et al. (1995), Reddy
(2000) and Chakraborty et al. (2004), this school relies heavily on the analysis of the
physical environment and possible exposure to the hazard as the integral disaster
planning consideration. In short, choices in the physical environment lead to disaster
vulnerability.
What the physical science school fails to consider is the reason certain populations
have settled in high risk areas. For instance, low socioeconomic status individuals or
IJDRBE populations may not have settled in hazardous areas because of choice, but more
because of limited options (e.g. availability of housing, cost of land, etc.). In addition,
1,1 while relocation is preferred, the removal of all people who live in hazardous areas is not
always practical. Every location is faced with hazard and there is no area that is immune
some type of disaster. In addition, some people choose location because of the resources
it provides. Nevertheless, urbanization and continued settlement in known high-risk
56 areas has increased the prominence of this school.
The engineering school
The engineering school concentrates even more prominently on the built environment
and ways to increase resistance through construction practices and fabrication methods.
Lewis and Mioch (2005), Tipple (2005) and Poteyeva et al. (2006) are major proponents of
this school of thought. These and other scholars assert that building architecture,
construction materials, and critical infrastructure design play key roles in increasing
vulnerability. If we build structures and infrastructure adequately, this view asserts,
disasters losses would automatically subside (Bosher et al., 2007).
In spite of such a logical argument, the foresight required for this view is often not a
part of reality in disaster mitigation practice. Buildings are typically built to fit a need,
almost regardless of the hazard (unless it is prominent and severe). While safe design
and construction techniques are often presented in the literature or in the media after an
incident, actual structural action taken to directly reduce vulnerability often only occurs
in very high-risk areas or directly following a severe disaster with a significant degree of
public attention. While these engineering protective measures would, undoubtedly,
provide a safer built environment in hazard-prone areas (Bosher et al., 2007), the
resources and ability of millions to rebuild the structures where they live, work, and play
is not necessarily practical or possible.

The structural school

A third view that has gained considerable attention is based on the effects of
socioeconomic and demographic factors on susceptibility. It is known as the radical or
structural school. This school has some of the more prominent definitions of vulnerability.
While many researchers (Smith and Wenger, 2006; Adger et al., 2003; Weichselgartner,
2001a, b; Tierney et al., 2001) contribute to this school of thought, it is also relatively new
(at least in comparison to the hazards management approach of the past). This structural
view recognizes the impact of race, ethnicity, gender, age, poverty, and other factors on
vulnerability while sometimes disregarding the utility of each of the other aforementioned
schools. For instance, since Hurricane Katrina and Rita have highlighted the plight of
certain socioeconomic groups, the definition of vulnerability under this school relies
mainly on the susceptibility of those people’s status without initially regarding the
location in which they live, the buildings they call home, or their level of preparedness and
disaster planning activities. The main idea is that the person is made vulnerable first and
foremost due to social structure – and not necessarily by other choices they make in life.
Other variables may therefore be rendered secondary under this view of disasters.

The organizational school

The concept of resilience, which has gained force in recent literature, is a focus of the
organizational school. Resilience has been defined in many ways and at times includes
mitigation endeavors (Bosher et al., 2007). However, the resilience perspective often
relates to the effectiveness of response and recovery operations, and stresses how Addressing
preparedness, leadership, management, and the ability to adapt, improvise, and be vulnerability
creative help improve disaster activities. Resilience is therefore often related to
post-disaster activities. Tierney (2006), Bates and Peacock (1989), and many others feel
that the degree of resilience – which Smith and Wenger (2006) term as the ability to
bounce back – determines how vulnerable communities and people are. However, if the
level of resilience can only accurately defined after a disaster, it soon becomes apparent 57
that this school is not as proactive as other perspectives. Nevertheless, one of the
strengths of the organizational school is that it does not assume that all disasters can be
prevented and completely eliminated as the other perspectives may imply.

Combining the alternatives

As can be noted, each of the above schools of thought would individually help to reduce
the impact of natural hazards. However, despite the continued popularity of these
singular perspectives, it can be argued that we must apply each of these ideal types in
our policies if we are to be successful in emergency management. For instance, “we
cannot hope to minimize the effects of disasters [. . .] through the application of scientific
and engineering approaches alone” (Lewis and Mioch, 2005, p. 52). Alternatively, the
structural and organizational approaches are also incomplete in and of themselves
because they tend to discount other significant factors. Adger (2006, p. 269) reiterates
that “a number of traditions and disciplines, from economics and anthropology to
psychology and engineering, use the term vulnerability” and attempt to reduce it.
There is now growing recognition that disasters have multiple causes. Buckle (2004,
p. 5) states that vulnerability is associated with many variables: “individuals, families,
communities, organizations, infrastructure, the environmental and social, economic
and political processes.” Culture, psychology, emergency planning, demographics,
and many other factors have bearing on disasters. None of these elements exists
independently, but they all impact the other parts of the whole. For this reason, scholars
see the need for more comprehensive approaches. Cutter asserts “while each component
can be studied independently, it is the interaction that becomes more important in
understanding vulnerability” (Cutter, 2005, p. 40; Adger, 2006, p. 272).
Scholars, including Buckle, tend to agree. He recently stressed the need to concentrate
and identify the conceptual links between risk, vulnerability, resilience and capacity
(Buckle, 2004). McEntire also suggested an integrated approach in 1999, and his model
and research has continued to evolve in the decade since the original work was
published. McEntire’s research accepts the assertion that disasters are socially
constructed, but he argues that, in order to study disasters accurately, researchers must
identify and understand all types of variables (not just structural causes) as well as their
complex interactions. His recommendation is that scholars should attempt to recognize
all of the factors that lead to disasters and try to incorporate each of the elements of the
four schools mentioned above. As can be seen in the model below (Figure 1), his views are
based on reducing risk and susceptibility while also raising resistance and resilience.
McEntire’s perspective is therefore based on a broad conceptualization of vulnerability
that incorporates discussions of both proneness (i.e. liabilities) and capacities. The model
also indicates that vulnerability can create hazardous situations and change over time as
people and communities experience disasters.
IJDRBE
1,1

58
Physical Social
environment environment

Liabilities Risk/exposure Susceptibility

External hazard
Disaster/
VULNERABILITY catastrophe
Internal hazard
Capabilities Resistance Resilience

Figure 1.
Relation of hazards,
vulnerability, and
disasters/catastrophes

Since vulnerability is believed to be related to RSRR under this model, it is natural to

recognize that it has both physical and social components. Lewis (1999, p. 5) illustrates
that vulnerability may be interpreted as “a physical state of exposure related to location
and quality of construction”, but he also agrees with Quarantelli that “disasters are in
one sense the manifestation of the vulnerability of a social system” (Lewis, 1999, p. 6).
Varley (1994) also describes vulnerability as a characteristic of individuals who inhabit a
certain space – not just the physical space and location, but their social and economic
space as well. People’s place in their social environment, where they fit in their social
community and where they are positioned in the economic space or spectrum (low,
middle, upper-middle, and high income), dictates part of their physical vulnerability
(Adger, 2006, p. 272). Hill and Cutter (2001) also note that there are different types of
vulnerability. Social vulnerability includes the demographic issues that social groups
carry with them that make them susceptible. Biophysical vulnerability is the
distribution of hazardous conditions that stem from “initiating events” – like hazards.
There are consequently a number of vulnerabilities that could be mentioned and these
are due to a myriad of variables.
Being aware of these vulnerabilities, researchers are better able to better predict the
degree of disaster impact on certain ethnic, social, economic, or racial groups and all others
in a potential disaster. Variables can be articulated mathematically and diagramed
over space through statistical programs and geographical information systems.
These assessments are often how risk managers, insurance companies, and other
entities predict value losses and estimate liability issues in varying areas. This should not
suggest that the potential interactions are always known or predictable. In fact, the
opposite is also common in emergency management. Hurricane Katrina was problematic
due not only to the obvious failures relating to lax land-use planning, weak levies and
inadequate preparedness measures, but also resulted from poor decision making, the Addressing
creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and an over-emphasis on terrorism. Our vulnerability
activities in the physical, built and social environments are therefore, in reality,
complicated in many cases.
While the model described above allows for complexity, it also permits us to see the
bigger picture in a simplified manner. Johnson (2004, p. 20) concurs that “we [researchers
and emergency managers] can no longer study single components in isolation without 59
considering their interdependency with other elements or systems” and he declares that
we need to “bring the response organizations into the [. . .] assessment process as a
mitigating factor that reduces vulnerability.” In addition, the model presented above is
closely related to the literature that supports holistic thinking. Handmer and Monson
(2004, pp. 44-5) assert that vulnerability is a “multi-faceted concept” that has “emerged
as a central concept for understanding what it is about the condition of people that
enables a hazard to become a disaster.” Other scholars are also in agreement.
Daniels and Clark-Daniels (2002, p. 226) seem to concur with McEntire that:
[. . .] the ultimate goal of disaster management is comprehensive vulnerability management,
that is, “holistic and integrated activities directed toward the reduction of emergencies and
disasters by diminishing risk and susceptibility and building of resistance and resilience”.
This possible growing consensus over the complexity of vulnerability and necessity of
a combined approach may therefore contribute much to disaster research. In addition,
the model may have applicability to other types of disasters.

Applying the model to different contexts

The potential attractiveness of this model is its utilitarian usage in various situations.
An integration of the four schools described earlier would logically show applicability to
natural hazards (through land-use planning, improved construction, a reduction of
poverty, and improved emergency management). However, this model is also
transferable to diverse disaster situations. Simple, but certainly incomplete, examples
relating to industrial, intentional, biological, and technological disasters will be provided
in the remainder of the paper.

Industrial disasters
In industrial disasters, risk is due to the presence or use of hazardous
chemicals/materials and how people are vulnerable to exposure (due to proximity).
The susceptibility of exposed populations is due primarily to the location of plants by
certain neighborhoods, the neglect of safety regulations, or both. Resistance is a function
of the technology people believe should function in the industrial facility. Resilience is
based on the planning, training, and exercises undertaken by the employees of the
corporation and the community as a whole.

Intentional disasters
In intentional disasters – such as bombings and terrorism – risk is increased when there
are no set back distances, bollards, and security guards. Risk may be increased when the
scene is not secure, allowing anyone to enter and possibly set off a secondary devices.
Susceptibility is raised when there are political disagreements, cultural
misunderstandings, or religious intolerance that leads to terrorist attacks. Resistance to
IJDRBE bombings may be increased with the use of laminated glass, increased structural support
1,1 of floors and walls, and fire sprinkler systems. We become more resilient to intentional
disasters with clear evacuation procedures and when governments can identify and react
effectively to weapons of mass destruction, bombs, or terrorist incidents through the use of
intelligence information and effective emergency management systems.

60 Biological disasters
In biological disasters, physical risk is increased when people have low immunity, when
they are careless about proper hygiene, when personal distancing neglected, and when
physical contact is ignored as a cause of the spread of disease. Susceptibility is
determined by inadequate health insurance coverage or limited medical care for the
population. Susceptibility is also increased when the government is unsure of possible
events, disease progression, and the cause of disease contagion. Resistance can be
associated with many things: a person’s genetic ability to cope with certain diseases,
previous exposure, vaccines, and availability of medical technologies. In biological
terrorist attacks, resilience may be improved due to syndromic surveillance, information
dispersion, and preparedness for weapons of mass destruction.

Technological disasters
Computer disasters are an increasing possibility as the world becomes more reliant on
technology for daily activities and they are also relevant to the aforementioned model
of vulnerability. Risk is increased when there are limited fire walls and precautionary
measures like encryption and network monitoring. Susceptibility is raised if there is
not close supervision over access rights, protective programs are not kept up-to-date,
and network firewalls can easily be penetrated. Computer programs that stop the
spread of viruses and spyware as well as the ability of system users to protect their
data from corruption increase resistance. Resilience is determined by the availability of
back-up systems to kick in when primary systems fail or by accessing data remotely.
As can be seen, these examples indicate the possible breadth of this model to handle
many of the issues that impact our vulnerability to different types of disasters. As the
world of disasters becomes more complex, the study of vulnerability – along with its
causes and consequences – will need a school of thought that is capable of
encompassing a wide variety of issues. The adaptable nature of this model could also
make it attractive for disaster researchers who are interested in seeing linkages among
variables. In addition, it may have relevance to many different professionals involved in
emergency management.

Conclusion
Scholars and practitioners have argued for the development of a new paradigm in
emergency management. The hazards or agent-focused perspective has been questioned
in past and current research, and the concept of vulnerability has been introduced to
better capture the social construction of disasters. Although scholars have concentrated
on the social dimensions of vulnerability, it has been defined different ways by various
disciplines. Nevertheless, there seems to be agreement that vulnerability is based on
factors related to liabilities and capabilities and that it has physical and social elements.
While there are four predominant schools of thought on how to reduce vulnerability (e.g.
the physical science, engineering, structural, and organizational schools), the most
successful emergency management systems will incorporate the strengths of each Addressing
perspective. The central lesson of this paper is that models of vulnerability which are vulnerability
applicable to a wide range of disasters and incorporate many variables may prove most
useful to scholars and practitioners interested in disaster reduction. It is hoped that this
paper has generated some useful ideas on how to reach this laudable goal.

References 61
Adger, W.N. (2006), “Vulnerability”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 16, pp. 268-81.
Adger, W.N., Brooks, N. and Kelly, P.M. (2003), “The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive
capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation”, available at: www.cru.
uea.ac.uk/, e118/publications/Brooksetal_GEC)2005.pdf
Alwang, J., Siegel, P. and Jorgensen, S. (2001), “Vulnerability: a view from different disciplines”,
SP Discussion Paper No. 0115. Social Protection Unit, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Aquirre, B.E. (2002), “Can sustainable development help us?”, International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 111-25.
Bates, F.L. and Peacock, W.G. (1989), “Long term recovery”, International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 349-65.
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and Wisner, I. (1994), At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s
Vulnerability, and Disasters, Routledge, London.
Boin, A. and Hart, P.T. (2006), “The crisis approach”, in Rodrı́guez, H., Quarantelli, E.L. and
Dynes, R.R. (Eds), Handbook of Disaster Research, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 42-54.
Bosher, L., Dainty, A., Carrillo, P. and Glass, J. (2007), “Built-in resilience to disasters:
a pre-emptive approach”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,
Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 434-46.
Britton, N.R. (2005), “What’s a word? Opening up the debate”, in Perry, R.W. and Quarantelli,
E.L. (Eds), What is a Disaster? New Answers to Old Questions, Xlibris, Philadelphia, PA,
pp. 60-78.
Buckle, P. (2004), “Guest editor’s introduction”, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 5-8.
Buckle, P. (2005), “Disaster: mandated definitions, local knowledge and complexity”, in Perry,
R.W. and Quarantelli, E.L. (Eds), What is a Disaster? New Answers to Old Questions,
Xlibris, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 173-200.
Chakraborty, J., Tobin, G.A. and Montz, B.E. (2004), “Population evacuation: assessing spatial
vulnerability in geophysical risk and social vulnerability to natural hazards”, Natural
Hazards Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 23-34.
Chambers, R. (1989), “Editorial introduction: vulnerability, coping and policy”, IDS Bulletin,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 1-7.
Cutter, S.L. (2005), “Are we asking the right questions?”, in Perry, R.W. and Quarantelli, E.L.
(Eds), What is a Disaster? New Answers to Old Questions, Xlibris, Philadelphia, PA,
pp. 39-48.
Daniels, S.R. and Clark-Daniels, C.L. (2002), “Vulnerability reduction and political
responsiveness: explain executive decisions in US disaster policy during the Ford and
Carter Administration”, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 225-53.
Gilbert, C. (1998), “Studying disaster: changes in the main conceptual tools”, in Quarantelli, E.L.
(Ed.), What is a Disaster? Perspectives on the Question, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 11-18.
IJDRBE Handmer, J. and Monson, R. (2004), “Does a rights based approach make a difference? The role of
public law in vulnerability reduction”, International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
1,1 Disasters, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 43-59.
Hewitt, K. (1983), Interpretations of Calamity: From the Viewpoint of Human Ecology, Allen &
Unwin, Boston, MA.
Hill, A.A. and Cutter, S.L. (2001), “Methods for determining disaster proneness”, in Cutter, S.L.
62 (Ed.), American Hazardscapes: The Regionalization of Hazards and Disasters, Joseph
Henry Press, Washington, DC, pp. 13-36.
Johnson, D.E. (2004), “A call for a dynamic hazard assessment”, International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 9-22.
Kelly, P.M. and Adger, W.N. (2000), “Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate
change and facilitating adaptation”, Climatic Change, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 325-52.
Lagadec, P. (2006), “Crisis management in the twenty-first century: ‘unthinkable’ events
in ‘inconceivable’ contexts”, in Rodrı́guez, H., Quarantelli, E.L. and Dynes, R.R. (Eds),
Handbook of Disaster Research, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 489-507.
Lewis, D. and Mioch, J. (2005), “Urban vulnerability and good governance”, Journal of
Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 50-3.
Lewis, J. (1999), Development in Disaster-prone Places, Intermediate Technology, London.
McEntire, D.A. (1999), “Correspondence”, in Middleton, M. and O’Keefe, P. (Eds), Disaster and
Development: The Politics of Humanitarian Aid, Pluto Press, London, pp. 78-9.
McEntire, D.A. (2000), “Sustainability or invulnerability development? Justification for a modified
disaster reduction concept and policy guide”, PhD dissertation, University of Denver
Press, Denver, CO.
McEntire, D.A. (2001), “Trigging agents, vulnerabilities and disaster reduction: towards a holistic
paradigm”, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 189-96.
McEntire, D.A. (2003), “Searching for a holistic paradigm and policy guide: a proposal for the
future of emergency management”, International Journal of Emergency Management,
Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 298-308.
McEntire, D.A. (2004a), “Tenets of vulnerability: an assessment of a fundamental disaster
concept”, Journal of Emergency Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 23-9.
McEntire, D.A. (2004b), “The status of emergency management theory: issues, barriers, and
recommendations for improved scholarship”, paper presented at the FEMA Higher
Education Conference, Emmitsburg, MD, 8 June.
McEntire, D.A. (2005b), “Why vulnerability matters: exploring the merit of an inclusive disaster
reduction concept”, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 206-22.
McEntire, D.A. (2008), “Rising disasters and their reversal: an identification of vulnerability and
ways to reduce it”, in Pinkowski, J. (Ed.), Disaster Management Handbook, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, pp. 19-36.
McEntire, D. and Floyd, D. (2003), “Applying sustainability to the study of disasters:
an assessment of strengths and weaknesses”, Sustainable Communities Review, Vol. 6
Nos 1/2, pp. 14-21.
McEntire, D., Fuller, C., Johnson, C. and Weber, R. (2002), “A comparison of disaster paradigms: the
search for a holistic policy guide”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 267-81.
Maxwell, D., Levin, C., Armar-Klemesu, M., Ruel, M., Morris, S. and Ahaideke, C. (2000), “Urban
livelihoods and food and nutrition security in Greater Accra, Ghana”, Research Report 112,
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
Mileti, D. (1999), Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States, Addressing
Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC.
Mileti, D., Darlington, J.D., Passerini, E., Forrest, B.C. and Myres, M.F. (1995), “Toward an integration
vulnerability
of natural hazards and sustainability”, Environmental Professional, Vol. 17, pp. 117-26.
Miller, K. and Nigg, J.M. (1993), “Event and consequence vulnerability: effects on the disaster
recovery process”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Sociological
Society, Boston, MA. March 25-28, available at: http://www.udel.edu/DRC/preliminary/ 63
217.pdf
O’Keefe, P., Westgate, K. and Wisner, B. (1976), “Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters”,
Nature, Vol. 260, pp. 566-7.
Perrow, C. (2006), “Disasters ever more? Reducing US vulnerabilities”, in Rodrı́guez, H.,
Quarantelli, E.L. and Dynes, R.R. (Eds), Handbook of Disaster Research, Springer,
New York, NY, pp. 521-33.
Perry, R.W. (1998), “Definitions and the development of a theoretical superstructure for disaster
research”, in Quanrantelli, E.L. (Ed.), What is a Disaster? Perspectives on the Question,
Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 197-215.
Perry, R.W. (2006), “What is a disaster”, in Rodrı́guez, H., Quarantelli, E.L. and Dynes, R.R. (Eds),
Handbook of Disaster Research, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 1-15.
Poteyeva, M., Denver, M., Barsky, L.E. and Aguirre, B.E. (2006), “Search and rescue activities
in disasters”, in Rodrı́guez, H., Quarantelli, E.L. and Dynes, R.R. (Eds), Handbook
of Disaster Research, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 200-16.
Quarantelli, E.L. (1998), “Where we have been and where we might go: putting the elephant
together, blowing soap bubbles, and having singular insights”, in Quarantelli, E.L. (Ed.),
What is a Disaster? Perspectives on the Question, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 234-73.
Quarantelli, E.L. (2005), “A social science research agenda for the disasters of the 21st century:
theoretical, methodological and empirical issues and their professional implementation”,
in Perry, R.W. and Quarantelli, E.L. (Eds), What is a Disaster? New Answers to Old
Questions, Xlibris, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 325-96.
Reddy, S. (2000), “Factors influencing the incorporation of hazard mitigation during recovery”,
Natural Hazards, Vol. 22, pp. 185-201.
Smith, G.P. and Wenger, D. (2006), “Sustainable disaster recovery: operationalizing an existing
agenda”, in Rodrı́guez, H., Quarantelli, E.L. and Dynes, R.R. (Eds), Handbook of Disaster
Research, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 234-57.
Sorenson, J.H. and Sorensen, B.V. (2006), “Community processes: warning and evacuation”,
in Rodrı́guez, H., Quarantelli, E.L. and Dynes, R.R. (Eds), Handbook of Disaster Research,
Springer, New York, NY, pp. 183-99.
Susman, P., O’Keefe, P. and Wisner, B. (1983), “Global disasters, a radical interpretation”,
in Hewitt, K. (Ed.), Interpretations of Calamity, Allen & Unwin, Boston, MA, pp. 263-83.
Tierney, K.J. (1999), “Toward a sociology of risk”, Sociological Forum, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 215-42.
Tierney, K.J. (2006), “Businesses and disasters: vulnerability, impacts, and recovery”, in Rodrı́guez,
H., Quarantelli, E.L. and Dynes, R.R. (Eds), Handbook of Disaster Research, Springer,
New York, NY, pp. 275-96.
Tierney, K., Lindell, M.K. and Perry, R.W. (2001), Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness
and Response in the United States, Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC.
Tipple, G. (2005), “Housing and urban vulnerability in rapidly-developing cities”, Journal of
Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 66-75.
Varley, A. (1994), Disasters, Development, and Environment, Wiley, New York, NY.
IJDRBE Vatsa, K.S. (2004), “Risk, vulnerability, and asset-based approach to disaster risk management”,
International Journal of Sociology & Social Policy, Vol. 24 Nos 10/11, pp. 1-48.
1,1 Weichselgartner, J. (2001a), “Disaster mitigation: the concept of vulnerability revisited”, Disaster
Prevention and Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 85-94.
Weichselgartner, J. (2001b), “Natural disaster research: the concept of vulnerability”, Landscape
Ecological Papers, Vol. 16, pp. 107-15.
64 Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T. and Davis, I. (2004), At Risk: Natural Hazards People’s
Vulnerability, and Disaster, Routledge, London.

Further reading
Dilley, M. and Boudreau, T.E. (2001), “Coming to terms with vulnerability: a critique of the food
security definition in food policy”, Food Policy, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 229-47.
Hills, A. (2005), “Insidious environments: creeping dependencies and urban vulnerabilities”,
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 12-20.
McEntire, D.A. (2005a), “Revolutionary and evolutionary change in emergency management:
assessing the need for a paradigm shift and the possibility of progress in the profession”,
paper presented at the FEMA Higher Education Conference.

Corresponding author
David McEntire can be contacted at: mcentire@unt.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats