People Vulnerability before, during and after a Disaster: A Dynamic Taxonomic Approach

Abstract

This chapter provides a taxonomic approach to vulnerability precursors and relevant inhibitors, tackling the entire disaster management cycle, through the analysis of various vulnerability factors “before, during, after” a disaster. Specifically, following the analysis of various existing approaches and models of human vulnerability in disasters, this work proposes an actionable roadmap to identify the criticality points (Critical Vulnerability Indicators - CVIs) under a comprehensive and inclusive approach. In this regard, the following aspects have been elicited: (i) the background; intrinsic weaknesses or possible non-compliance conditions, as well as the social and economic status; (ii) the human-environment interaction; (iii) the governance model; policies and approaches to disaster risk management; (iv) the tools; application of new technologies and modeling tools. This taxonomic approach allows the comprehensive understanding of vulnerability associated with different vulnerable groups and beyond; it aims at a better understanding of the mechanisms that activate and maintain vulnerability, under a dynamic and contextual perspective, highlighting the importance of human variability and interaction with the physical environment. The proposed vulnerability analysis approach could help the policymakers or the relevant authorities to identify the critical points for building inclusive disaster risk reduction and resilience strategies.

1. Introduction

In a world facing unprecedented changes in climate conditions, as well as considering urbanization, population growth, and existing social and economic inequalities, building disaster resilience against multi-hazards under the lens of inclusiveness is a challenging and urgent issue. The Sendai framework [1] defines strategies aiming at disaster risk prevention and impact reduction; among them is the need to reduce exposure and vulnerability of social groups and individuals. According to the United Nations Disaster Risk Reduction Office (UNDRR), vulnerability is one of the components that define disaster risk; therefore, it is important to develop a taxonomy of it for a better understanding of the factors that can act as precursors or inhibitors of the effects of a disaster, as well as for improving the management of contextual variables during a disaster and for building disaster resilience.

Nevertheless, any type of vulnerability analysis should be seen through an inclusive lens, considering human variability in its broadest sense, in which the specific needs of each person are considered. The need to consider human variability is exacerbated in an emergency in terms of identifying the criticalities related to people’s ability to respond in an emergency, or the contribution of the environment, devices, and procedures that could affect emergency response capacities. For example, the difficulties that an obese person or someone with heart problems may encounter in an emergency scenario, as well as his/her capabilities to respond with autonomy to the emergency may be different from a person with cognitive or sensorial impairments or a foreigner. Human interaction with the physical environment relates to all the external surroundings and conditions in which someone lives, or maybe when an event occurs; it influences a person’s health or well-being and capability to react and reverse a situation. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of the overall context is vital for tackling any type of vulnerability driver, namely the environment and its context, among the most critical aspects that lead to greater vulnerability in individuals and social groups. Hence, it is crucial to move beyond the idea of classifying the vulnerability factors associated “only” with individuals or groups, rather than understanding the mechanisms that activate vulnerability, as well as the interdependencies among them, thus introducing a more dynamic and contextual perspective.

In that context, this work strives to provide a proposal for a taxonomy of vulnerability considering the above aspects and make it a tool capable of supporting the strategies to be adopted “before, during, and after” an emergency event. It aims at better understanding and identification of the factors that may act as precursors or inhibitors of vulnerability, contributing to its management. Under this framework, several models relevant to human vulnerability were surveyed to tackle the multidimensional and changeable nature of vulnerability, encompassing social, economic, environmental, and institutional factors. As a step forward, this work identifies a series of criticality points (Critical Vulnerability Indicators - CVIs) under a comprehensive and inclusive approach. Developed within the recent research in the framework of the CORE (sCience& human factOr for Resilient sociEty) H2020 project [2], the proposed taxonomic approach provides a classification of vulnerability associated with different vulnerability patterns, tackling the importance of human variability and the interaction with the physical environment. Though, it goes beyond the classification of vulnerable categories, aiming at a better understanding of the mechanisms that activate and maintain vulnerability, under a dynamic and contextual perspective.

2. Analyzing variables and eliciting mechanisms of vulnerability: state of the play

The last two decades have seen an evolution of vulnerability concepts from intrinsic people’s, societal characteristics, or categorizations toward a more dynamic and ecosystem-driven approach. The research presented in this work is in line with this trend and has started from a comparative analysis of the most acknowledged vulnerability models with the aim to deliver a framework for vulnerability interpretation and forecast based on the relation of humans with their socio-physical context [3, 4].

‘Vulnerability’ can be defined as “the quality or state of being exposed to the possibility of being attacked or harmed, either physically or emotionally” [5]. This is a general definition that sets an overall framework for the concept which can be further modified for specific contexts. In more detail, Sendai Framework terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction defines vulnerability as the characteristics determined by physical, social, economic, and environmental factors or processes that increase the susceptibility of an individual, a community, assets, or systems to the impacts of hazards [6].

Bohle [7] proposes a vulnerability model with two aspects: an external side, which is linked to exposure to risks and influenced by various factors such as political-economic approaches, human ecology perspectives, and the entitlement theory; and an internal side, called “coping”, which is related to the capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the impact of a hazard, and is influenced by the crisis and conflict theory, action theory approaches, and models of access to assets.

Pelling [8] depicts a human vulnerability model defined by exposure, resistance, and resilience. In his model, exposure is related to the location and characteristics of the hazard. Resistance is related to the economical, psychological, and physical health, as well as the capacity of individuals or communities to withstand the impact of the event, while resilience is defined as the ability to cope with or adapt to the hazard stress through preparedness and spontaneous adaptations once the event has manifested itself.

When looking at the capability to react to and recover from adverse events, a key reference is represented by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) from WHO [9]. The ICF is a multipurpose classification system designed to serve various disciplines and sectors, such as education, transportation, health, and community services in general. It includes a list of environmental factors and is designed to serve various disciplines and sectors, as well as different countries and cultures, providing a common language and framework for describing the level of functioning of a person within its unique environment, which consequently leads to intrinsic and contextual vulnerability features in relation to specific risks and situations [10]. The ICF aims to provide a scientific basis for understanding and studying health and health-related states, outcomes, determinants, and changes in health status and people’s functioning. Additionally, it permits the comparison of data across countries, healthcare disciplines, services, and time and provides a systematic coding scheme for health information systems.

Another comprehensive approach to vulnerability assessment has been developed within the EU FP7 MOVE project [11]. It is based on a comprehensive and multidimensional conceptual framework that focuses on vulnerability and risk to natural hazards. This framework is built on two key concepts: the first one views risk as the outcome of society’s exposure to hazards as well as its vulnerability, while the second involves risk management and adaptation, aiming to alter the initial vulnerability conditions or hazards. A previous extensive taxonomy of vulnerability was developed by Birkmann [12], in which vulnerability is conceptualized at a series of increased degrees of complexity and scales, from intrinsic factors to the likelihood to experience harm up to the combination of multiple dimensions encompassing physical, social, economic, environmental, and institutional features.

The framework named “Progression of Vulnerability or Pressure and Release (PAR) [13] has a strong focus on social aspects, interpreting vulnerability as a characteristic of the poorest of the poor in every society, especially those who not only suffer income poverty but are also politically marginalized (no voice in decisions that affect them), spatially marginalized (resident in urban squatter settlements or in remote rural locations), ecologically marginalized (livelihoods based on access to meager natural resources or living in degraded environments), and economically marginalized (poor access to markets).

Institutional studies on the epidemiology of injury and death in disasters in the United States, support a dynamic model, avoiding people’s categorization which are conventionally considered “vulnerable” and who are suffering disproportionately—women, elderly people, undocumented immigrants, etc. [14]; it is highlighted that patterns of vulnerability are far too complex and dynamic to support such sweeping generalizations [15].

Cannon’s model [16] breaks vulnerability down into five components: livelihood strength and resilience, wellbeing and baseline status, self-protection, social protection, and governance, identifying links, connections, and disconnections among those components, as well as allowing to elicit vulnerability mechanisms. Similarly, Turner and colleagues [17] propose a socioecological model, highlighting human-environment linkages with feedback loops, encompassing multiple scales and dynamics that can be cross-scale, in place, and beyond place.

Forensic Investigations of Disasters (FORIN) approach [18] is grounded in a theory of social construction of disaster risk. It focuses on tackling risk creation factors, aiming at underlying, root causes and dynamic processes in critical events, which are linked to triggering events, exposure of social and environmental elements, social and economic structures of exposed communities, vulnerability, resilience, and institutional and governance elements.

Hufschmidt [19] model represents the flow and causal cascade due to the political, economic, cultural, and environmental settings of a society, the socioeconomic profile of a community, as well as the access to resources. According to the same model, access to resources determines the adaptive capacity of a community; particularly, adaptive activities can be realized before and in the aftermath of a harmful event or disaster.

The models and frameworks surveyed above highlighted the multidimensional and changeable nature of vulnerability, encompassing social, economic, environmental, and institutional factors. They emphasized the importance of understanding exposure, resistance, resilience, coping capacity, access to resources, and the socioecological context in assessing and addressing vulnerability to hazards and disasters. However, it can be observed that interactions among the identified layers and category of variables are only mentioned at a higher level, making it poorly applicable in practice the identification and consequent management of specific factors that influence at small and local scales the level of vulnerability for individuals or small specific groups. From this brief overview, it is evident that comprehensively addressing vulnerability in actual preparedness and response operations is a crucial, yet challenging topic for the inclusive and fair implementation of risk and disaster management. Thus, any improvements will strongly rely on the extent to which vulnerability mechanisms before, during, and after disasters are known, understood, and incorporated in policies and plans for Disaster Risk Reduction and Management.

3. Needs and challenges for vulnerability consideration in policies and plans

Why does vulnerability matter? Vulnerability should be included in the general understanding of disaster risk because in that way it is acknowledged the fact that it does not only depend on the severity of the hazard, or on the number of people and the assets exposed, but also on certain vulnerability precursors and exposure characteristics. The levels of vulnerability and exposure help to explain why particular hazards, which are not extreme, can lead to extended disaster impact, while others do not. Particularly, it is often people’s vulnerability that is the greatest factor in determining their risk [20].

Disasters can have multiple impacts – death, injury and health impacts, displacement, damage to homes and goods, deaths of livestock, food insecurity, disrupted livelihoods, and more. Data concerning 2022, compared with the past years, shows how everyone is vulnerable to natural hazards worldwide; the Emergency Event Database EM-DAT recorded 387 natural hazards and disasters globally [21], resulting in the loss of 30,704 lives (three times higher than in 2021) [22] and affecting 185 million individuals. Economic losses totaled around US$ 223.8 billion. For example, the heat waves caused over 16,000 excess deaths in Europe, while droughts affected 88.9 million people in Africa. Hurricane Ian single-handedly caused damage costing US $ 100 billion in the Americas. The human and economic impact of disasters was relatively higher in Africa, e.g., with 16.4% deaths compared to 3.8% in the previous two decades. However, it was relatively lower in Asia despite experiencing some of the most destructive disasters in 2022 [22].

Based on the UNDRR, Global Survey Report on Persons with Disabilities and Disasters in 2023, it came out that persons with disabilities are considered vulnerable to disasters and hence, the world must act on unacceptable failures to protect them [23]. However, it is necessary to outline the difference between persons with disability and disaster vulnerability to better define the scope of this section. According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) - art. 1, persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments that, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others [24]. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that about 16% of the global population (1.3 billion people) currently experience significant disability, and this number is increasing due to the population aging and the increase of non-communicable diseases (−hidden disabilities) [25]. Almost everyone will temporarily or permanently experience disability at some point in their life due to different factors [25].

However, it should be mentioned that persons with disabilities in poor countries have heavier consequences due to the fact that vulnerability is determined by conditions linked not only to their disability but also other structural risks, such as high levels of poverty, poor sanitation, low levels of education, limited resources of health and social care, and a lack of safety nets [26]. Hazards may transform into disasters for persons with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries, and disasters can have devastating effects on the social capital of persons with disabilities, disrupting or destroying vital social support systems [27]. Another crucial aspect highlighted in 2007 in the World Disaster Report by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), is that some disasters also create a significant number of new disabilities.

To promote inclusion and accessibility in the urban environment and to make cities resilient, the UNDRR developed an annex for the inclusion of persons with disabilities [28], which was added and included as a complement to the Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Cities. Specifically, it has been recommended to (essential 01) include persons with disabilities in disaster risk governance and (essential 02) in the creation of disaster risk scenarios because persons with disabilities have first-hand experience of the challenges they face and know better what can be done to enhance their wellbeing. Inclusion of persons with disabilities in land use/building codes (essential 04) to promote accessible and resilient urban design and development. To this end, capacities need to be developed or strengthened in the key areas of disaster risk reduction; understanding risk, prevention, mitigation, response, and recovery planning, all with a disability-inclusive approach, engaging persons with disabilities in institutional capacity (essential 06). The response to disaster must include persons with disabilities and their needs, creating contingency plans for populations most at risk - including persons with disabilities. Moreover, it is necessary to conduct regular training drills and exercises covering all aspects of the overall emergency response “system,” including community and volunteer considerations with an inclusive lens. There is a need to integrate various professional groups (engineers, contractors, Organizations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs), health professionals with expertise on disability, social workers, accessibility experts, etc.) into response preparedness in order to involve them efficiently and effectively in preparedness, response, and recovery operations (essential 09) [28].

A further challenge and need to consider vulnerability in policymaking is the climate change threat that is affecting people’s lives now; populations around the world are experiencing intensive floods, storms, droughts, heatwaves, and wildfires, which are expected to get even worse in the coming years. At the same time, climate change is a risk amplification factor; rising temperatures [29] are negatively impacting ecosystems [30], sea levels, and storm surges, affect the rainfall patterns, but also amplify the intensity of extreme weather events; as a result, the increasing volatility and unpredictability of the impacts, exacerbate the vulnerabilities of the affected communities. The IFRC estimates that about 108 million people needed international humanitarian assistance in 2018 because of weather or climate-induced disasters, while many more people were affected and needed to rebuild their lives using their own resources - often with support from family, communities, and governments. If the projected increases are coupled with the frequency and intensity of weather extremes with the growing number of people living in poverty, about 200 million people a year are expected to need humanitarian assistance by 2050.

Disasters and conflicts themselves also play a major role in driving vulnerability and exposure to future hazards [31]. Disasters can keep people in, or return people to, poverty and other situations of vulnerability. When hazards combine, they can multiply each other’s impact in ways governments, civil society, and the humanitarian sector have not faced before. These include not only rising climate- and weather-related threats, but also other shocks, such as pandemics and epidemics, earthquakes, and financial crashes [32].

According to the above, there are certain challenges to tackle vulnerability issues in disasters that are interconnected with inequalities: (a) lack of information and knowledge of disability issues among governments and relief organizations; (b) exclusion of persons with disabilities from disaster management and relief; (c) inaccessibility of physical environments, preparedness measures, shelters, and relief aid; and (d) stigma and discrimination [22]. Another challenge is the systemic risks; as multiple disasters increase in frequency and intensity there is less time for the communities to recover between them. These multiple shocks act like a domino effect that obstructs populations from acting timely and coping with all the possible risks; for example, the dangers of cyclones, flooding, drought, and heat waves existed while the world was adapting to the COVID-19 pandemic.

4. Advancing actionability of vulnerability dynamics and pattern

Advancing actionability among the involved parties for combating emerging risks in a scene of uncertainties, dynamic conditions, and multiple emergencies, as described in the previous sections, seems to be at the forefront of building disaster risk reduction strategies and making cities and communities resilient agendas [33]. In this direction, tackling vulnerabilities is a fundamental element for advancing people’s coping capacity. However, trying to create just an inventory of vulnerabilities is not enough, if there is not a clear understanding of the mechanisms that activate or preserve such vulnerabilities, or if not be seen from a dynamic and contextual perspective. As the first step, different types of vulnerability patterns were reviewed, and it became apparent that vulnerability is a changing situation, challenging the inclusive and fair implementation of risk and disaster management [34]; this statement was also proved in Section 2 of this work.

As a step forward, in this section, there is an effort to provide a taxonomic approach of vulnerability precursors and relevant inhibitors, tackling the entire disaster management cycle; vulnerability “before, during, after” a disaster, addressing different types of vulnerability. This taxonomic approach could be used to assist the policymakers and the relevant authorities in identifying the critical points for building state-of-the-art disaster risk reduction and inclusive resilience strategies.

Specifically, an actionable roadmap is proposed, where critical vulnerability indicators (CVIs) are identified and classified as follows (see Figure 1):

1. Background: Intrinsic weaknesses or possible non-compliance conditions, as well as the social and economic status and inequalities.

2. Human-environment interaction.

3. Governance model; policies and approaches to disaster risk management.

4. Means and tools to cope with disasters; application of new technologies and modeling tools.

Figure 1.

Actionable roadmap of critical vulnerability indicators (CVIs) and their interdependencies.

The above indicators are to be considered in the context of the phases of the “disaster cycle”, to represent what occurs “before, during, and after a disaster event”. In this way it is easier to identify the different problems and weaknesses and hence, organize and apply the most efficient methods and available tools of intervention, aiming at reducing the consequences of an emergency event. The idea is that this roadmap is dynamic, meaning that it should be regularly updated based on the specific conditions and the characteristics of the studied region (demographics, social or financial status, geographical area, etc.).

To better understand the usability of the roadmap and the interdependencies among the proposed CVIs illustrated in Figure 1, an explanation per indicator is given as follows:

The CVI (i), “Background” describes the inherent weakness and is subdivided into three different categories: (ia)“Personal factors related to Communities”; for example, data gathering by the relevant authorities or the stakeholders, regarding the age, disabilities or impairments of the people that dwell in the area of their responsibility; the limitations and specific needs for assistance of those people before, during and after an emergency should be recorded by the relevant parties in order to prepare the evacuation plans accordingly, (ib) “Environmental factors related to Ecosystems”; this has to do with recording of parameters related to climate crisis and environmental degradation, or of the failures and mistakes of the built environment (e.g., cities built at areas directly exposed to hazards, such as wildfires or floods); non-accessibility standards of buildings or shelters obstructing the safe evacuation for all in case of an emergency; lack of universal design, (ic) Social and economic status; recording of inequalities relevant to gender, nationality, religion, culture; financial, social inequalities and lifestyle, e.g., recording the number of homeless people who are directly exposed to disasters, as well as the undocumented people, the refugees, the migrants, etc.; addressing the educational inequalities and find supportive financial mechanisms by the local government.

The CVI (ii), “Human-environment interaction” is considered critical for vulnerability assessment because it is related to the human factor; human variability, and interaction with various environmental factors. According to ICF [9] there are several environmental factors, meaning the physical, social, and attitudinal environment in which people live and conduct their lives, that can function either as barriers to or facilitators of the person’s functioning. In that prospect, it is important to tackle the built environment usability and affordance, specifically for people with impairments; the lack of accessible environment is the reason for the vulnerability of those people, e.g., in case of an emergency evacuation, accessible design of the building affects the self-evacuation capacity of people with impairments. Another issue to tackle under CVI (ii), is people’s risk perception in case of an emergency to be self-protected, and hence reduce their vulnerability; this requires a widespread and shared safety culture and familiarization of the population in following the guidelines by authorities, as well as training on how to react in emergencies and evacuate under an inclusive perspective. The relevant stakeholders should organize simulation exercises on a regular basis for inclusive disaster preparedness and response, as well as run campaigns for raising awareness, especially for the populations that dwell in disaster-prone areas; engaging citizens in disaster preparedness and response activities with the participation of local organizations, as well as organizations of persons with disabilities (OPDs) which are actively involved in planning for a potential disaster event in any area of the territory, as well as for responding to such events and for post-disaster reconstruction and rehabilitation.

The CVI (iii), “Governance model” is a critical factor that affects vulnerability, since it outlines the level of involvement of different parties, “before, during, and after a disaster”, addressing the possible interdependencies and interactions among the various stakeholders and individuals that cope with disaster emergencies. This factor is subdivided into two different categories, namely (ia) “Policies”; for example, the locally-led action policy in terms of using local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge in disaster risk management; multi-sectoral cooperation in disaster management; horizontal application of accessibility strategies in all sectors, as well as risk-informed and inclusive policy-making, by engaging vulnerable groups of population in disaster planning and response; civil protection guidelines provided in accessible formats, and (ib) “Approaches”; for example, application of a bottom-up combined with a top-down approach in disaster risk management by the governments, under a people-centered framework; promote safety culture at multi-sectoral level; involvement of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the disaster management cycle phases, namely “before, during, after a disaster”.

Finally, the CVI (iv), “Means and tools to cope with disasters” summarizes all the available capabilities to restrain the vulnerability drivers that can be identified based on CVIs (i) to (iii), explained above. It includes the possible application of new technologies and modeling tools for anticipating risks. In that context, this may include tools for accessible broad-casting of emergency messages (multilingual alarms); inclusive and multi-hazard early warning systems; evacuation and risk models; inclusive training platforms and accessible smart-phone apps for emergencies; accessible crowdsourcing and social networks; data aggregation of disaster risks and big data management using AI; integration of robotic platforms, such as UAVs or UGVs in emergency management, before, during, and after a disaster, considering also the human-machine interface interaction. It is apparent that the list of available means and tools for coping with disasters should be dynamically updated to be state-of-the-art.

In Table 1, it is shown how the CVIs described above could be used by the policymakers and the relevant authorities, firstly, to identify all the possible vulnerability drivers (vulnerability precursors and inhibitors), as well as the interdependencies among them (see Figure 1) and secondly, to plan accordingly the prevention and mitigation measures for building resilience strategies, based each time on the available means and approaches, as well as the governance model; this should be done “before, during, and after a disaster”, considering the vulnerability dynamics under an inclusive perspective.

Disaster phases	Before	During	After
Vulnerability drivers:	Vulnerability Precursors and Inhibitors	Vulnerability Precursors and Inhibitors	Vulnerability Precursors and Inhibitors
	Background (CVI-i); Human-Environment Interaction (CVI-ii)
Disaster management cycle:	Preparedness-Prevention	Response	Recovery
Coping capacity/resilience:	Governance Model(CVI-iii)/Instruments &Means (CVI-iv)

Table 1.

Interconnection of vulnerability “before-during-after” a disaster with the CVIs presented in Figure 1, inside the disaster management cycle [34].

This approach has been recently introduced and elaborated under the CORE H2020 project. Specifically, vulnerability analysis “before, during, and after a disaster” was performed for selected “vulnerable groups”, explaining why these people are at high risk in emergencies based on the critical vulnerability indicators presented in Figure 1. In that context, ten (10) vulnerability sources were identified, together with specific sub-groups (Table 2) [34].

Vulnerability types	Vulnerable group
1. Vulnerability per age	Sub-groups; 1.1. (0–5 years old); Newborn (ages 0–4 weeks); Infant (ages 4 weeks - 1 year); Toddler (ages 1–3 years) Preschooler (ages 3–5 years); 1.2 (6–18 years old); School-aged child (ages 6–13 years); Adolescent (ages 14–18 years); 1.3 (19–29 years old); Young adult; 1.4 (30–64 years old); Adult; 1.5 (>65 years old); Youngest-old (ages 65–74 years); Middle-old (ages 75–84 years); Oldest-old (ages more than 85 years)
2. Vulnerability per type of Disability/Impairment or Other diseases	Sub-groups; 2.1 People with movement disability, e.g. lower or upper limps impairment and/or body disability; Wheelchair users; Users of walkers or canes; 2.2 People with sensorial disability; Deaf, Blind; Deafblind; 2.3 People with cognitive disabilities/Neurodevelopmental Disorders; Intellectual Disabilities; Communication Disorders; Autism spectrum disorder; Learning disorder; Down syndrome (Neurogenetic disorder), etc.; 2.4 People with Schizophrenia and Other Phychotic Disorders; Depressive disorder; Bipolar disorder; Anxiety disorder; Epilepsy, etc.; 2.5 People with Neurodegenerative disorders or neurological problems; Alzheimer disease (dementia); Parkinson’s disease; Multiple sclerosis; Fibromialgia, etc.; 2.6 Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders; Alcohol use disorder; Drug addiction, etc.; 2.7 People with other diseases; COVID-19; Hidden disabilities (i.e. early-stage illness such as dementia, SLA, of chemo-therapy patients); Chronic disease e.g., respiratory problems (asthma), high blood pressure disorders, diabetes, allergies, etc.; 2.8 People after surgery or accidents; Temporary disability (movement, sensorial, etc.); Permanent disability (movement, sensorial, etc.)
3. Vulnerability due to Pregnancy	No sub-groups were identified for the respective groups on the left column
4. Vulnerability of caregivers and personal assistants
5. Vulnerability of tourists, foreign workers/exchange students
6. Vulnerability of homeless people
7. Vulnerability of discriminated people
8. Vulnerability of people without a social safety network/Internally displaced people
9. Vulnerability of Undocumented people/Illegal Migrants
10. Vulnerability of Refugees/ Asylum seekers/Migrants

Table 2.

Vulnerability types and related vulnerable groups and/or sub-groups.

In order to better understand how to analyze vulnerability “before, during, and after”, considering the human variability, indicative examples are given in Table 3, explaining why these people are at risk in each phase of the disaster cycle [34].

Vulnerability type	Before	During	After
Age; Group: 0–5 years old	They are depended on their parents, relatives, babysitters or any other helpers They are not aware of risks Limited interaction with environment Non or inadequate training of their supportive members in emergency preparedness/response	None or limited understanding of the emergency risk /alarms None or limited evacuation capability on their own Inability or difficulty to reach safe places on their own	Demanding recovery (after-shock) Regular and on-going support by child psychologists Medical support in case of injury Financial support needs Safe Shelter: food suitable for 0–5 years/water needs
Age; Group: >65 years old	Impairments/Difficulties: Mental Physical Sensory Mobility Communication Perception Physical decline Age discrimination Inadequate services for older people/poverty	Limited risk perception Low accessibility or understandability of emergency messages Lack of knowledge on how to react in emergencies/wrong decision making/no self-protection Difficulty or inability to evacuate and reach accessible safe places by themselves/possibly need help Difficulty into following guidelines by authorities/cooperate with the rescuers	On-going support by psychologists/psychiatrists Medical support in case of injury/ Difficult health recovery Financial support needs Safe Shelter/food /water needs/access to medicine
Persons with disabilities; Group: People with cognitive disabilities or Neurodevelopmental Disorders	Low-risk perception Limited interaction with environment/communication Limited understanding of disaster risks Lack of awareness Inaccessible disaster preparedness plans Systemic discrimination	Difficulty to perceive or comprehend the severity of an emergency situation or the need of evacuation in emergency Difficulty or inability to understand messages/alarms/signs Difficulty or inability to evacuate by themselves and reach accessible shelters Difficulty to follow guidelines by authorities or communicate/interact with the rescuers	On-going support by psychiatrists/special treatment experts Medical support in case of injury/ Trained paramedics and doctors are needed based on the specific type of impairment Financial support needs Difficulty in mental health recovery Working place or School adaptation difficulties Safe Shelter: food/water needs/access to medicine
Homeless people	Directly exposed to environmental hazards Poor lifestyle Lack of safety culture Limited resources Social isolation Lack of access to housing and other material needs Disabilities, chronic physical conditions, and behavioral health needs	Lack of home/shelter that can be protected Low accessibility to information and early warning Lack of knowledge on how to react in emergencies Difficulty or inability to evacuate by themselves and reach safe places Difficulty to communicate and interact with the rescuers	On-going support by psychologists/sociologists Medical support in case of injury Financial support needs/ difficulty to find a safe place to recover Legal/therapy support if needed to re-integrate them back to society. Safe Shelter: food /water needs/access to medicine
Tourists, foreign workers/exchanged students	Limited understanding of disaster risks in a foreign country Limited communication capacity due to language Limited or no understanding of signs, labels, escape plans due to language	Limited understanding of emergency messages in a foreign country Limited communication capacity due to language in case of emergency Limited interaction with the rescuers due to language or cultural specificities Limited or no understanding of emergency signs, labels, escape plans due to language that obstruct them from reaching a safe refuge area	On-going support by psychologists/sociologists Medical support in case of injury Financial support needs in cooperation with their country Safe Shelter: food /water needs/free access to medicine Need to contact with relatives abroad, or embassies of the home countries

Table 3.

Example of vulnerability dynamics “before-during-after” a disaster for indicative groups: why are they at risk? (adapted from [34]).

Table 3 of the vulnerability analysis indicates the big picture of the problems and weaknesses, as well as the needs and the interaction with the environment for indicative groups of people in each disaster phase, so that to be considered by the policy makers or the relevant authorities for preparing disaster preparedness and response plans, or other prevention and mitigation measures with inclusive criteria. This analysis, together with the roadmap of the critical vulnerability indicators (CVIs) previously showcased, could be a basis for further elaboration on the direction of building disaster resilience strategies.

5. Conclusions

Based on the findings of this work, it seems that to increase communities’ resilience, it is necessary to consolidate a new approach that involves multiple aspects and factors in relation to human variability and behavior within the actual contingency conditions and the real physical environment. Climate change, population growth, or migration can also contribute to the variability of disaster risks, emphasizing the need for inclusive strategies. Human and environmental factors, such as settlement patterns, urbanization, and socio-economic conditions, significantly determine disaster risk, with inequalities exacerbating vulnerability [35]. Addressing these inequalities is essential for effective disaster risk reduction [36]. Reducing risk goes beyond minimizing the damage caused by disasters and involves building a culture of safety and resilience, as well as addressing and underlying the risk factors [28]. Policies and practices for disaster risk management should be based on an understanding of disaster risk in all its dimensions of vulnerability, capacity, and exposure of persons and assets [37].

In this context, our work highlights the importance of developing a taxonomic approach for facilitating vulnerability understanding and assessment, as well as for helping in building strategies to anticipate disaster risks and effectively act “before, during, and after” a disaster with inclusive criteria. This work provides policymakers or the relevant authorities with an actionable conceptual tool that could help them identify critical vulnerability indicators (CVIs), support the understanding of vulnerability mechanisms, and improve the management of contextual variables.

Specifically, the proposed (CVIs) included: (i) the background; intrinsic weaknesses or possible non-compliance conditions, as well as the social and economic status; (ii) the human-environment interaction; (iii) the governance model; policies and approaches to disaster risk management; (iv) the tools; application of new technologies and modeling tools. Indicative examples were given to explain the four suggested (CVIs). Tackling vulnerabilities under the proposed approach facilitates the identification of the possible problems and weaknesses per disaster phase and the definition of vulnerability drivers. It also helps to understand interactions and interdependencies among the different sectors so that we can timely engage all the necessary parties in disaster management and strengthen the coping capacity of the communities at risk, using each time the proper state-of-the-art prevention and mitigation tools each. It should be highlighted that the proposed vulnerability taxonomic approach complies with the overall UNDRR Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Cities approach [28], and can be used complementarily in a variety of contexts.

As a bottom line, it seems that trying to create just an inventory of vulnerabilities is not enough to strengthen the disaster resilience of communities. Based on the surveyed vulnerability models, it became evident that interactions among the identified layers and categories of variables so far have only been discussed at a higher level. This fact makes it challenging to apply them in practice for identifying and managing specific factors that influence the vulnerability of individuals or small groups on a local scale. On the other hand, it is important to realize that the one solution-fits-all models cannot be applied, especially under an inclusive approach; it is important to take into account human variability and behavior, considering the spectrum of functioning in a broader sense and interaction with the physical environment at multiple scales, and adopting an inclusive dynamic approach for building disaster resilience. The identification of critical points (Critical Vulnerability Indicators - CVIs), as well as the vulnerability types “before, during, and after” a disaster provided in this work could, represent an effective and dynamic approach to manage vulnerabilities with inclusive criteria, in which all social, economic, and political aspects are analyzed, transversally, considering them and their impact on individuals in the whole disaster cycle. This approach allows to address multifaceted issues related to vulnerability, with the aim of reducing the consequences of a critical event and taking an extra step toward an inclusive safety concept, going beyond the idea of classifying vulnerability factors and vulnerable groups into a fixed scheme and allowing the consideration of a wider spectrum of human variability within specific and real contexts. It could also support the advances in the design and use of new methods, tools, and technological solutions as a tangible step toward collective resilience, systematizing the entire supply chain, and engaging each individual actor or community in the broadest sense of disaster resilience.

Acknowledgments

This paper includes research results developed as part of the CORE — Science and Human Factors for Resilient Society project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under grant agreement No. 101021746.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.