Fiche du document
- handle: 10670/1.wsoho8
- halshs: halshs-02485376
- doi: 10.1080/24694452.2018.1535887
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1080/24694452.2018.1535887
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/grantAgreement//NSF 1333190/EU/Measuring social equity in flood recovery funding/U.S. National Science Foundation 1333190
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/grantAgreement//NSF 1707947/EU/Humans, Disasters, and the Built Environment program/U.S. National Science Foundation 1707947
info:eu-repo/semantics/OpenAccess
Sujets proches
Bibliography--Indexes Dictionaries, indexes, etc Indices Urban housing Homes Slum clearance Housing needs Housing--Social aspects Houses Affordable housing ResidencesCiter ce document
Samuel Rufat et al., « How Valid Are Social Vulnerability Models? », HAL-SHS : géographie, ID : 10.1080/24694452.2018.1535887
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
Social vulnerability models are becoming increasingly important for hazard mitigation and recovery planning, but it remains unclear how well they explain disaster outcomes. Most studies using indicators and indexes employ them to either describe vulnerability patterns or compare newly devised measures to existing ones. The focus of this article is construct validation, in which we investigate the empirical validity of a range of models of social vulnerability using outcomes from Hurricane Sandy. Using spatial regression, relative measures of assistance applicants, affected renters, housing damage, and property loss were regressed on four social vulnerability models and their constituent pillars while controlling for flood exposure. The indexes best explained housing assistance applicants, whereas they poorly explained property loss. At the pillar level, themes related to access and functional needs, age, transportation, and housing were the most explanatory. Overall, social vulnerability models with weighted and profile configurations demonstrated higher construct validity than the prevailing social vulnerability indexes. The findings highlight the need to expand the number and breadth of empirical validation studies to better understand relationships among social vulnerability models and disaster outcomes.