2571 Q IWA Publishing 2009 Water Science & Technology—WST | 60.

10 | 2009

Flood vulnerability indices at varying spatial scales

S. F. Balica, N. Douben and N. G. Wright

ABSTRACT

Populations around the world are vulnerable to natural disasters. Such disasters are occurring S. F. Balica
N. G. Wright
with increased frequency as a consequence of socio-economic and land-use developments and UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education,
Delft,
due to increased climate variability. This paper describes a methodology for using indicators to The Netherlands
compute a Flood Vulnerability Index which is aimed at assessing the conditions which E-mail: [email protected];
[email protected]
influence flood damage at various spatial scales: river basin, sub-catchment and urban area.
N. Douben
The methodology developed distinguishes different characteristics at each identified spatial scale, Waterboard Brabantse Delta,
Breda,
thus allowing a more in-depth analysis and interpretation of local indicators. This also pinpoints The Netherlands
local hotspots of flood vulnerability. The final results are presented by means of a standardised E-mail: [email protected]

number, ranging from 0 to 1, which symbolises comparatively low or high flood vulnerability
between the various spatial scales. The Flood Vulnerability Index can be used by international
river basin organisations to identify and develop action plans to deal with floods and flooding
or on smaller scales to improve local decision-making processes by selecting measures to
reduce vulnerability at local and regional levels. In this work the methodology has been applied
to various case studies at different spatial scales. This leads to some interesting observations
on how flood vulnerability can be reflected by quantifiable indicators across scales, e.g. the
relationship between the flood vulnerability of a sub-catchment with its river basin or the weak
relation between the flood vulnerability of an urban area with the sub-catchment or river basin
which it belongs to.
Key words | flood exposure, flood resilience, flood risk management, flood susceptibility,
vulnerability indices

INTRODUCTION

A hazardous event is any type of event which disrupts the DEFINING VULNERABILITY
normal activities of human society and natural habitats; the
Researchers’ notion of vulnerability has changed over the
most common form of which is floods. Floods are regarded
past two decades and consequently there have been several
as the most dangerous and harmful natural disaster
attempts to define and capture what is meant by the term.
(Douben 2006). In 1992, the International Panel of Climate Change
This paper discusses the development and application IPCC defined vulnerability as the degree of incapability to
of a Flood Vulnerability Index (FVI), an indicator-based cope with the consequences of climate change and sea-level
index which presents flood vulnerability as a single number, rise, after years IPCC, through Watson et al. (1996) defined
applicable for a range of different spatial scales. It also it “as the extent to which climate change may damage or
demonstrates that the approach is applicable for various harm a system; it depends not only on a system’s sensitivity
spatial scales, ranging from river basins to urban areas. but also on its ability to adapt to new climatic conditions”.
doi: 10.2166/wst.2009.183

Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/60/10/2571/447191/2571.pdf

by guest
 2572 S. F. Balica et al. | Flood vulnerability indices Water Science & Technology—WST | 60.10 | 2009

Blaikie et al. (1994) describe vulnerability as a measure of a more it is susceptible (Messner & Meyer 2006) to its forces
person or a group’s exposure to the effects of a natural and impacts and the less resilient it is to these causes.
hazard, including the degree to which they can recover from Exposure can be understood as the values that are
the impact of that event. present in the areas potentially threatened by floods. In case
Green (2004) expresses vulnerability as the potential for of the Flood Vulnerability Index, exposure is defined (Balica
a receptor to be harmed. These last three (quite similar) 2007) as “the predisposition of a system to be disrupted by a
definitions are contemporaneous and express vulnerability flooding event due to its location in the same area of
as potential damage or harm. Kelly & Adger (2000) discuss influence”.
on the consideration of some assessments of vulnerability as Susceptibility relates to system characteristics, including
the end point of any appraisal, others as the focal point, and the social context of flooding damage formation. In this paper,
yet others as the starting point. van der Veen & Logtmeijer susceptibility is defined as the elements exposed within
(2005) broadened the concept of vulnerability to explain the system, which influence the probabilities (Turner II
flood vulnerability from an economic point of view. et al. 2003) of being harmed at times of hazardous floods.
Gheorghe (2005) explains vulnerability as a function of The term ‘elements exposed’ includes all elements of the
susceptibility, resilience, and state of knowledge. In 1999, human system, the built environment and the natural
Klein and Nicholls express vulnerability for the natural environment that are exposed to flooding in a given area.
environment as a function of three main components: Resilience to flooding damages can be considered only
resistance, resilience and susceptibility. Messner & Meyer in places with past events, since the main focus is on the
(2006) and Merz et al. (2007), narrowed the definition of experiences gained during and after historical floods. In this
vulnerability to elements at risk, exposure (damage poten- paper resilience is defined as the capacity of a system
tial) and (loss) susceptibility, instead Mitchell (2002) is to suffer any perturbation, like floods, by maintaining
expressing vulnerability as a function of exposure, resilience significant levels of efficiency in its social, economic,
and resistance. Adger (2006) spotlighted the vulnerability as environmental and physical components.
the state of susceptibility to harm from exposure to stresses
associated with environmental and social change and from
the absence of capacity to adapt.
In this paper, vulnerability is considered as the extent of
WATER RESOURCES SYSTEMS
harm, which can be expected under certain conditions of
exposure, susceptibility and resilience. More specific in the The water resources systems studied in this paper are
case of floods: the extent to which a system is susceptible to divided into interdependent sub-systems. The Natural River
floods due to exposure, a perturbation, in conjunction with its sub-System, in which the physical and biological processes
capacity/incapacity to be resilient, to cope, recover or adapt. take place, the Socio-Economic sub-System, which includes
By combining all the above-mentioned definitions, the the societal (human) activities related to the use of the
general vulnerability concept can be expressed as: natural river system and the Administrative and Insti-
tutional sub-System, including legislation and regulation,
Vulnerability ¼ Exposure þ Susceptibility 2 Resilience
where the decision-making, planning and management
processes take place (van Beek 2006).
All societies are vulnerable to floods, under different
Each of these three sub-systems is defined by certain
cases and situations, which make them somewhat unique.
conditions. The Natural River System is delimited by
climate and (geo) physical conditions, the Socio-Economic
System is formed by demographic, social and economic
Factors of vulnerability
conditions, and the Administrative and Institutional System
In general, an element which is being harmed by floods is is formed and bounded by the constitutional, legal and
more vulnerable, the more it is exposed to a hazard and the political system.

Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/60/10/2571/447191/2571.pdf

by guest
 2573 S. F. Balica et al. | Flood vulnerability indices Water Science & Technology—WST | 60.10 | 2009

The relationship between floods and water resource Activities such as deforestation, urbanization and industri-
alization have enhanced environmental degradation,
Generally, river systems are affected by floods at three main
creating effects like climate variability and sea level rise,
scales, with boundaries depending on their spatial scale: the
increasing the potential occurrence of floods.
river basin, the sub-catchment and the urban area.
The physical component is comprises geo-morphological
Floods distress four components: social, economic,
and climatic characteristics of the system, and different
environmental and physical of the water resources system
infrastructures, like channels, reservoirs, dams, weirs, levees
(ISDR 2004), each of them belongs to one of the subsystems
which have shaped its physical conditions. The physical
described before, and their interactions affect the possible
component relates to the predisposition of infrastructure
short term and long term damages. The components can be
to be damaged by a flooding event. More than being
assessed by different indicators to understand the vulner-
affected by floods, this component may reduce its adverse
ability of the system to floods
consequences.
The social and economic components comprise the
socio-economic and the administrative and institutional
sub-system, whereas the environmental and physical comp-
onents are part of the natural river sub-system. Different spatial scales

The understanding of flood vulnerability of different river

Components of vulnerability basins starts with categorisation. The different categories
which can be distinguished in a river basin are related to
The social component, the flooding affects the day to day
size and to inherent characteristics.
lives of the population that belongs to the system. This
The advantages of identifying these categories can be
component relates to the presence of human beings and
summarised as follows.
encompasses issues related to e.g. deficiencies in mobility of
human beings associated with gender, age, or disabilities † Vulnerability is geographically and socially differen-
(van Beek 2006); Floods can produce destruction of houses, tiated. Any assessment at national level must take into
disruption in communication ways, or even kill people. account regional patterns of vulnerability within the
Included in this component are the administrative arrange- country and the distribution of vulnerability within the
ments of the society, consisting of institutions, organizations national community (Adger et al. 2004);
and authorities at their respective level. † It is increasingly recognised that vulnerability is a
The economic components are related to income or dynamic characteristic, a function of the constant
issues which are inherent to economics that are predisposed evolution of a complex of interactive processes
to be affected (van Beek & Loucks 2005; Gallopin 2006). (Leichenko & O’Brien 2002);
Many economic activities which can be affected by flooding † Spatial heterogeneity results in a more accurate descrip-
events, among them are adversely agriculture, fisheries, tion of reality;
navigation, power production, industries, etc. The break- † Including differences in vulnerability components and
down of these activities can influence the economic vulnerability factors;
prosperity of a community, region or a country. † Political and administrative division can either facilitate
In recent years floods have intensified due to e.g., lack or impede the availability of data, according to certain
of environmental awareness, creating even more damages scales. Data from river basins stretching out over more
to the ecosystems; if the flood water is polluted or if large then one country will be more difficult to estimate; data
sedimentation processes occur, ecological systems can be from urban areas may vary from country data;
disrupted significantly (Haase 2003). The environmental † The final results will be more applicable and under-
component continues to relate to the interrelation between standable through accumulation of knowledge of how
the sector and the environment and the vulnerability vulnerability is distributed and how it is developing
associated with this interaction (Villagran de Leon 2006). throughout the world.

Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/60/10/2571/447191/2571.pdf

by guest
 2574 S. F. Balica et al. | Flood vulnerability indices Water Science & Technology—WST | 60.10 | 2009

Dividing the FVI into spatial scales, i.e. river basin, Since the development of the FVI involves the
sub-catchment and urban areas, and in different understanding of different relational situations and charac-
components, i.e. social, economic, environmental and teristics of a river system exposed to flood risks, a deductive
physical components, and linking them with the factors approach to identify the best possible indicators has been
of vulnerability, i.e. exposure (E), susceptibility (S) and used, based on existing principles and the conceptual
resilience (R) can assist in identifying weak points of a flood framework of vulnerability.
defence system, and hence assist in devising strategies for Almost 80 potential indicators have been examined to
improvement of the overall system. upgrade the existing methodology of Connor & Hiroki
(2005), taking into account the previously mentioned
geographical scales: that is, river basin (R), sub-catchment
(S) and urban areas (U). A composite index approach was
FLOOD VULNERABILITY INDEX METHODOLOGY
used, used also in the construction of Climate Vulnerability
The Flood Vulnerability Index (FVI) aims to identify Index (Sullivan & Meigh 2005).
hotspots related to flood risk in different regions of the
world, so that it can be applied as a tool to assist planners
and policy makers in prioritising their areas of intervention General FVI equation for all scales
and also as an instrument to provide useful information for The proposed general FVI Equation (1) links the values of all
awareness raising. The main concept consists of identifying indicators to flood vulnerability components and factors
different characteristics of a system, making it applicable to (exposure, susceptibility and resilience), without balancing or
floods on different spatial levels. interpolating from a series of data. Using this equation allows
Connor & Hiroki (2005) presented a methodology to comparisons between different geographical scales, since the
calculate a FVI for river basins, using eleven indicators outcome of the computation is dimensionless. Dimensionless
divided in four components. The index uses two sub-indices results are necessary in order to compare FVI’s for similar
for its computation; the human index, which corresponds to components and scales for different case studies.
the social effects of floods, and the material index, which Dimensionless FVI equations are developed by using
covers the economic effects of floods. fractions with indicators as part of a numerator or denomi-
This paper describes a revised methodology to compute nator, depending on their effect on the flood vulnerability.
a FVI, based on indicators, aimed at assessing the Indicators representing exposure and susceptibility increase
conditions which induce flood damage at various spatial the flood vulnerability and are therefore placed in the
scales. The methodology, in principle, is based on sets of nominator. The resilience indicators decrease flood
indicators for the four different factors of vulnerability for vulnerability and are conversely part of the denominator:
fluvial and urban floods.
The methodology recognises different characteristics for E£S
FVI ¼ ð1Þ
R
each spatial scale identified, allowing a more in-depth
analysis and interpretation of local indicators. It also allows
Besides the FVI values for each component, standar-
selection of actions to diminish local flood vulnerability.
dised results are developed for further comparison between
components (Sullivan et al. 2003), also serving the purpose
Vulnerability indicators of easier interpretation. Standardised FVI values range
between 1 and 0; 1 being the most vulnerable to floods. The
The first step in an indicator-based vulnerability assessment
standardised formula is presented as a FVI of a system
is the selection of indicators. The indicators should allow
divided by the maximum FVI within one system (2):
decision and policy makers to recognise and set goals,
provide guidance for strategies to reduce vulnerability and FVIscale
FVIS ¼ ð2Þ
to monitor progress. FVImax

Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/60/10/2571/447191/2571.pdf

by guest
 2575 S. F. Balica et al. | Flood vulnerability indices Water Science & Technology—WST | 60.10 | 2009

Since the study of river basins covers large Flood Vulnerability Index for economic component on
heterogeneous areas, interpreting the FVI on such a scale sub-catchment scale:
can be misleading. Therefore the study of smaller spatial 2 3
LU ; U M ; Ineq ; U A
scales can lead to a more accurate evaluation of the flood FVIEc ¼ FVIEc 4 5 ð4Þ
vulnerability of a region. Interpreting the values of all sub- LEI ; F I ; AmInv; VSyear
C
; ECR

catchments in one river basin can provide a more detailed

image of the situation in the basin.
The relation of vulnerability components, indicators ½%
½%
½2
½%

Dimension of FVIEc ¼
½2
½2
½euro=euro
½m3 =m3
½2

and factors is illustrated in Table 1 for various spatial scales.
The availability of data, the importance of certain indicators 2 dimensionless;
and the condition that all FVI’s computed must be
dimensionless for the purposes of comparison, led to the Flood Vulnerability Index for environmental
formulation of the equations for each scale and for each component on sub-catchment scale:
vulnerability component. " #
Ra inf all ; DA ; U G
FVIEn ¼ FVIEn ð5Þ
LU ; EV ; N R ; U npop
Flood vulnerability index at a sub-catchment scale

The FVI methodology for the sub-catchment scale was

initially developed by using a total of 71 indicators. Since ½%
½%
½m=year

Dimension of FVIEn ¼ 2 dimensionless;
the development of the FVI involves the understanding of ½%
½m=year
½%
½%

different relational situations and characteristics of a system
with flood events, a deductive approach to identify the best Flood Vulnerability Index for physical component on
possible indicators has been used. Understanding the causes sub-catchment scale:
of floods and their main effects on the different components 2 3
of a system led to the recognition of the optimal indicators. T
FVIPh ¼ FVIPh 4 EV SC
5 ð6Þ
However, only 28 indicators have been selected for the Ra inf all ; V year ; D_L
sub-catchment FVI equations.

Equations of the sub-catchment scale ½2

Dimension of FVIPh ¼ ½mm=year
h 3 ih i 2 dimensionless;
m Km
½mm=year
m3 Km
Equations (3) to (6) reflect the vulnerability of a selected
geographical area, limited by watershed divisions rather
than administrative boundaries. The latter often adds to the
difficulty of collecting data. Summary of results of the sub-catchment scale
Flood Vulnerability Index for social component on
sub-catchment scale: For the sub-catchment scale, five case studies were selected
for comparison purposes and to relate the analysis results


PFA ; RPop ; %disable ; C m with river basins on a larger scale. The five case studies
FVIS ¼ FVIS ð3Þ
PE ; A=P; C PR ; W S ; ER ; HDI consist of the Tisza, Bega and Timis sub-catchments,
which are situated in the Danube River Basin, the Neckar
sub-catchment in the Rhine River Basin and the Mun
½ persons
½%
½2
sub-catchment in the Mekong River Basin.
Dimension of FVIS ¼
½ persons
½2
½%
½2
½%
½2
The results of the FVI’s for all components and the total
2 dimensionless; FVI, are summarised in Figure 1. It clearly shows that the

Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/60/10/2571/447191/2571.pdf

by guest
 Table 1 | Relationship between components, indicators and factors

2576
Overall Indicators

S. F. Balica et al. | Flood vulnerability indices

Relationship between components and factors

Geographic Geographic Geographic

Flood vulnerability Exposure Abb scale Susceptibility Abb scale Resilience Abb scale

Social Component Population density Pd R,S,U Past experience PE R,S,U Warning system WS R,S,U
Population in Pfa R,S,U Education (literacy rate) Ed R,S,U Evacuation routes ER R,S,U
flood area
Closeness to Cia R,S,U Preparedness/awareness A/P R,S,U Institutional IC R,S,U
inundation area capacity
Population close Pccl R,S,U Child mortality Cm R,S,U Emergency service ES R,S,U
to coastal
Population under Pp R,S,U Communication CPR R,S,U Shelters S R,S,U
poverty penetration rate
% of urbanized % UA R,S Population with access PwaS R,S,U
area to sanitation
Rural population Rpop R,S Rural population PwoWS R,S
w/o access to WS
Cadastre survey CS S,U Quality of water supply QWS S,U
Cultural heritage CH S,U Quality of energy supply QES S,U
% of disable % disable U Population growth PG S,U
Human health HH S,U
Human development HDI S,U
index
Urban planning UP U
Economic Land use LU R,S,U Unemployment UM R,S,U Investment in Amln R,S,U
component c. measure
Proximity to river PR R,S,U Income I R,S,U Infrastructure IM R,S,U

Water Science & Technology—WST | 60.10 | 2009

management
Closeness to Cia R,S,U Inequality Ineq R,S,U Dams & storage D SC R,S,U
inundation area capacity
% of urbanized % UA R,S Yearly volume Vyear R,S,U Flood insurance FI R,S,U
area
Cadastre survey CS S,U Life expectancy index LEI R,S,U Economic ECR R,S,U
recovery
Urban growth UG S,U Past experience PE S,U
Child mortality CM S,U Dikes/levees DL S,U
Regional GDP/capita GDP S
Urban planning UP U

Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/60/10/2571/447191/2571.pdf

by guest
 2577
S. F. Balica et al. | Flood vulnerability indices
Table 1 | (continued)

Overall Indicators

Relationship between components and factors

Geographic Geographic Geographic

Flood vulnerability Exposure Abb scale Susceptibility Abb scale Resilience Abb scale

Environmental Ground WL GWL R,S,U Natural reservations NR R,S,U Recovery time RTF R,S,U
component to floods
Land Use LU R,S,U Years of sustaining YSHL R,S,U Environmental EC R,S,U
health life concern
Over used area OUA R,S,U Quality of infrastructure QI R,S,U
Degrated area DA R,S,U Human health HH S,U
Unpopulated Unpop R,S Urban growth UG S,U
land area
Types of TV R,S Child mortality CM S,U
vegetation
% of urbanized % UA R,S Rainfall Rainfall
area
Forest change rate FCR R Evaporation Ev
Physical component Topography(slope) T R,S,U Buildings codes Bc U Dams & storage D SC R,S,U
capacity
Heavy rainfall HR R,S,U Frequency of occurance FO R,S,U Roads R R,S,U
Flood duration FD R,S,U Dikes/levees DL S,U
Return periods RP R,S,U
Proximity to river PR R,S,U

Water Science & Technology—WST | 60.10 | 2009

Soil moisture SM R,S,U
Evaporation rate Ev R,S,U
River discharge RD R,S,U
Flow velocity FV S,U
Storm surge SS S,U
Rainfall Rainfall S,U
Flood water depth FWD S,U
Sedimentation SL S,U
load
Yearly volume Vyear S,U

Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/60/10/2571/447191/2571.pdf

by guest
 2578 S. F. Balica et al. | Flood vulnerability indices Water Science & Technology—WST | 60.10 | 2009

Figure 1 | Comparison between sub-catchments standardised values.

Figure 2 | Comparison between FVI’s on river basin—sub-catchment—city scales
(Danube—Tisza/Bega—Timisoara; standardised values).

Mun is the sub-catchment most vulnerable to floods, except

for the environmental component, followed by the for the environmental component. In general, the Tisza
Neckar sub-catchment. Especially socially and economi- and Bega Rivers and Timisoara are relatively equal in the
cally, the Mun sub-catchment experiences a high vulner- overall results.
ability to floods. Developing plans to reduce these two Considering each component, the Danube River Basin
components may reduce the total FVI of the Mun River. is not the most economically vulnerable (FVIec) to floods.
The other three sub-catchments, the Tisza, Timis and Bega, This is, however, the case for Timisoara, due to its low
have similar values. annual amount of investment for flood mitigation, no flood
insurance and the large number of industries which can be
affected in the case of floods. For the remaining com-
Downscale analysis of results ponents, Timisoara is the least vulnerable to floods, mainly
due to a river diversion scheme upstream, which protects
The improved FVI has been applied to eleven case studies,
the city from floods.
which were selected in order to allow for a downscaling
The Bega river is overall the least vulnerable spatial
analysis of the results, in order to compare and interpret
scale. This is unsurprising, considering that there is a river
the results.
The downscale analysis was carried out for all three diversion scheme, which protects all downstream areas

spatial scales studied: river basin, sub-catchment and urban from flooding, therefore reducing the vulnerability of all

areas. In this section the results are shown for all three cities components.
studied: Timisoara (Romania), Mannheim (Germany) and
Phnom Penh (Cambodia).
The analysis was also carried out to examine the
differences of flood vulnerability between geographical
scales at all components. The FVI is different from
component to component and from scale to scale, as
shown in Figures 1 to 3.

From the Danube River Basin to Timisoara

Figure 2 illustrates the relation of the Danube River Basin

with the smaller spatial scales in the system. It can be seen
Figure 3 | Comparison between FVI’s on river basin—sub-catchment - city scales
that the Danube River Basin is most vulnerable, except (Rhine—Neckar—Mannheim; standardised values).

Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/60/10/2571/447191/2571.pdf

by guest
 2579 S. F. Balica et al. | Flood vulnerability indices Water Science & Technology—WST | 60.10 | 2009

From the Rhine River Basin to Mannheim values obtained on larger scales. However, reducing the
vulnerability to floods of a city may also reduce the
The chart shown in Figure 3 for the Rhine River Basin, the
vulnerability of a larger area.
Neckar sub-catchment and Mannheim City follows the
same line of results for the social, economic and environ-
mental components as the Danube River Basin and its
smaller scales, with the exception that the Neckar sub- DISCUSSION
catchment is the least physically vulnerable to floods.
The methodology presented here is based on sets of
The city of Mannheim is most vulnerable, both
indicators for different factors and different geographical
economically and physically (FVIph). With respect to the
scales, focusing on fluvial and urban floods.
economic component this result is rather obvious, con-
Various indicators have been taken into account to
sidering the large number of industries in the area, which in
quantify flood vulnerability. Some of the indicators originally
case of flooding would leave a permanent damage to the
proposed were not considered in the final equations, due to
economy of the region.
the difficulty of quantifying them, finding data, possible
redundancy with other indicators or with the purpose of
creating a dimensionless result for each equation.
From the Mekong River Basin to Phnom Penh
Since the methodology is based on indicators, its main
For the case of the Mekong River Basin, the city of Phnom weakness is the accuracy of data. For the results to be valid,
Penh is not situated in the Mun sub-catchment, which all data must be derived from reliable sources, specified for a
makes the analysis more direct, with only two spatial scales. precise spatial area at a defined time.
The results are highly sensitive to the decision whether Improving the weaknesses identified in this section
to include the storage volume, since the first case shows the may lead to a variation of some of the results found.
Mekong River Basin with an overall flood vulnerability This variation is very difficult to assess without certain
higher than the urban area, and the second case creates a mathematical approaches, like a sensitivity analysis, but
much larger difference in the overall results. considering the approach of the methodology and the
Downscaling is a powerful tool to assist decision homogeneity of the concepts, the variations of the results
makers in improving their investment strategies for the should stay in a relative close range.
reduction of flooding damages. Analysing which spatial In the study a comparative analysis of the results from
scale is more vulnerable to floods and in which areas this river basins and sub-catchments (downscaling) have been
vulnerability can be reduced more easily, may assist carried out to assess the robustness of the FVI methodology.
decision makers to prioritise certain projects for flood These sub-catchments were also selected because it allows
protection in local and regional areas. comparisons between river basins and sub-catchments,
Smaller spatial scales generally contain more detailed besides comparing some sub-catchments in the same
and specific indicators. There are more indicators available river basin.
to evaluate the FVI for sub-catchments and urban areas Downscaling is a powerful tool in order to assist
than for River Basins. The equations developed for each decision makers in improving their investments strategies
component result in more detailed information on smaller for the reduction of flood damages. Recognising which
scales, whilst some of these component values have no spatial scale is more vulnerable to floods and in which
influence on FVI’s for larger scales. places this vulnerability can be reduced more easily, may
On the basis of these downscaling results, it can be show decision makers to prioritize certain projects in flood
concluded that urban areas are entities of their own in terms protection in local and regional areas.
of the FVI, the results of their study are only representative As the methodology is still under development, these
for that specific area of land. FVI values of all cities in a sub- weaknesses and other issues, which might be identified in
catchment or a river basin cannot be linked to the FVI due time, can be improved leading to further adaptations of

Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/60/10/2571/447191/2571.pdf

by guest
 2580 S. F. Balica et al. | Flood vulnerability indices Water Science & Technology—WST | 60.10 | 2009

concepts or to the introduction of new concepts, resulting Haase, D. 2003 Holocene floodplains and their distribution in
in a better methodology. urban areas functionality indicators for their retention
potentials. Landsc. Urban Plan. 66, 5–18.
ISDR 2004 Living with floods, UN guidelines offer decision-makers
hope to reduce flood losses, World Water Day (22 March) the
publication Guidelines for reducing flood losses was launched
CONCLUSIONS
in Geneva, New York, Bangkok and Harare.
The conclusions concerning the development of a FVI Kelly, P. M. & Adger, W. N 2000 Theory and practice in assessing
vulnerability to climate change and facilitating adaptation.
methodology can be summarised as follows: Clim. change 47, 325 –352.
† the FVI is applicable on three different spatial scales: Leichenko, R. M. & O’Brien, K. L. 2002 The dynamics of rural
vulnerability to global change: the case of Southern Africa.
river basin, sub-catchment and urban areas;
Mitigation Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 7(1), 1 –18.
† the use of the FVI methodology improves the decision- Merz, B., Thieken, A. H. & Gocht, M. 2007 Flood risk mapping at
making process by identifying the vulnerability of flood the local scale: concepts and challenges. In: Begum, S., et al.
(eds) Flood Risk Management in Europe. pp. 231 –251.
prone areas;
Messner, F. & Meyer, V. 2006 Flood damages, vulnerability and
† comparing the various spatial scales allows for better risk perception—challenges for flood damage research.
interpretation of flood vulnerability assessment results; In: Schanze, J., et al. (eds) Flood Risk Management: Hazards,
† standardisation of results allows for better comparison Vulnerability and Mitigation Measures. Springer. pp. 149–167.
Mitchell, J. 2002 Urban disasters as indicators of global
between river systems on similar spatial scales;
environmental change: assessing functional varieties of
† the FVI is a powerful tool for policy and decision makers vulnerability, Symposium on Disaster Reduction and Global
to prioritise investments and makes the decision-making Environmental Change, Federal Foreign Office, Berlin,
process more transparent. Identifying areas with high Germany, June 20 –21.
Sullivan, C. & Meigh, J. 2005 Targeting attention on local
flood vulnerability may guide the decision-making
vulnerabilities using an integrated index approach: the
process towards better means of dealing with floods. example of the climate vulnerability index. Water Sci. Technol.
51(5), 69 –78.
Sullivan, C. A., Meigh, J. R., Giacomello, A. M., Fediw, T.,
REFERENCES Lawrence, P., Samad, M., Mlote, S., Hutton, C., Allan, J. A.,
Schulze, R. E., Dlamini, D. J. M., Cosgrove, W., Delli Priscoli,
Adger, W. N. 2006 Vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 16, J., Gleick, P., Smout, I., Cobbing, J., Calow, R., Hunt, C.,
268– 281. Hussain, A., Acreman, M. C. & King, J. 2003 The water
Adger, W. N., Brooks, N., Bentham, G., Agnew, M. & Eriksen, S. poverty index: development and application at the community
2004 New Indicators of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity, scale. Nat. Resour. Forum 27, 189 –199.
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Turner II, B. L., Kasperson, R. E., Matson, P. A., McCarthy, J. J.,
Balica, S. F. 2007 Development and Application of Flood Corell, R. W., Christensen, L., Eckley, N., Kasperson, J. X.,
Vulnerability Indices for Various Spatial Scales. Water Science Luers, A., Martello, M. L., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A. & Schiller, A.
and Engineering. Delft, UNESCO-IHE. MSc. 2003 A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. & Wisner, B. 1994 At Risk—Natural science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters, London. the United States of America 100, 8074 – 8079.
Connor, R. F. & Hiroki, K. 2005 Development of a method for van Beek, E. 2006 Water Resources Development, UNESCO-IHE,
assessing flood vulnerability. Water Sci. Technol. 51(5), 61 –67. Lecture Notes.
Douben, N. 2006 Characteristics of river floods and flooding: a van Beek, E. & Loucks, D. P. 2005 Water Resources Systems
global overview, 1985 –2003, Irrigation and Drainage 55, Planning and Management—an introduction to methods,
S9– S21, published online in Wiley InterScienc. models and applications, UNESCO—Paris.
Gallopin, G. C. 2006 Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and van der Veen, A. & Logtmeijer, C. 2005 Economic hotspots: visualizing
adaptive capacity. Glob. Environ. Change 16(3), 293 –303. vulnerability to flooding. Nat. Hazards 36(1–2), 65–80.
Gheorghe, A. (ed.) 2005 Integrated Risk and Vulnerability Villagran de Leon, J. C. 2006 Vulnerability—A conceptual and Metho-
Management Assisted by Decision Support Systems. Relevance dological review, UNU EHS, no 4/2006, Bonn, Germany.
and Impact on Governance. Springer, Dordrecht. Watson, R. T., Zinyowera, M. C. & Moss, R. H. (eds) 1996 ‘Climate
Green, C. 2004 The Evaluation of Vulnerability to Flooding, Change 1995’, in Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of
Disaster Prevention and Management, (13). Emerald Group Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. Cambridge
Publishing Limited, pp. 323 –329. University Press, Cambridge.

Downloaded from https://iwaponline.com/wst/article-pdf/60/10/2571/447191/2571.pdf

by guest