By Kashif Rahim Burki, Development Practitioner and Researcher

1. What is Vulnerability and Why Does It Matter?

In an era of increasing climate-related hazards and other environmental threats, understanding why some communities suffer more than others is a critical scientific and social challenge. From hurricanes along coastlines to droughts in farming regions, the impacts of environmental events are not distributed equally. This unequal distribution of harm prompted a paradigm shift in hazards research, a move away from a purely technocratic, hazard-focused view of risk toward a more people-centred, social-structural understanding (Mustafa, 1998; Oliver-Smith, 1996). The concept of vulnerability is central to this shift, providing the analytical framework for moving beyond simply mapping physical hazards to understanding the social conditions that shape a community’s ability to prepare for, withstand, and recover from a disaster.

As synthesized from the foundational work of hazards researchers (e.g., Emrich 2011; Cutter 2003), vulnerability can be defined as:

Vulnerability describes the differential impacts of environmental threats on people and the places where they live and work. It is a measure of the circumstances that put people and places at risk and those conditions that reduce their ability to respond to environmental threats.

The purpose of this overview is to break down community vulnerability into the three core components that researchers use to measure and understand it: exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. This three-part analytical lens is the standard used by scientists and policymakers, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to gain a complete picture of risk.

2. The Three Pillars of Vulnerability Analysis

The most widely used framework defines vulnerability as a function of three distinct but interconnected dimensions: Exposure, Sensitivity, and Adaptive Capacity. By analysing these three pillars separately before combining them, researchers and planners can identify the specific drivers of risk in a community. This detailed understanding is essential for developing targeted interventions to reduce harm and build resilience. We will now explore each of these pillars in detail.

3. Pillar 1: Exposure – Who and What Is in Harm’s Way?

Definition: Exposure is the presence of people, livelihoods, infrastructure, or other assets in places that could be adversely affected by a hazard. It can also be defined as the degree of climate stress, such as long-term changes in temperature or precipitation, affecting a particular system or area (Ericksen, 2008; Gebreegziabher, 2016; Emrich, 2011).

The ‘So What?’: Put simply, a community cannot be vulnerable to a hazard if it is not exposed to it. This component measures the physical reality of a hazard’s potential footprint. It answers the fundamental question: Who or what is in the path of potential harm?

Examples of Hazard Exposure

The following table illustrates how exposure can manifest in different community types.

Farming / Rural Communities	Urban / Densely Populated Areas
Farming communities in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia are located in agro-ecological zones exposed to long-term changes in temperature and precipitation (Gebreegziabher, 2016).	Coastal cities in the southern United States have large populations and critical infrastructure located in areas exposed to hurricane winds and sea level rise (Emrich, 2011).
In Pakistan, poor rural communities are forced to live and farm on marginal lands within the known floodplains of the Ravi and Chenab rivers, subjecting their homes and crops to periodic inundation (Mustafa, 1998).	In the Philippines, middle-class communities expanded into previously unclassified flood-prone riverbank areas as cities grew, leading to devastating losses during Tropical Storm Washi (Ignacio, 2015).

However, being in a hazard zone is a necessary but insufficient condition for vulnerability. The critical next question is not if a community is in harm’s way, but how deeply it will be affected when the hazard strikes, which is a matter of its internal sensitivity.

4. Pillar 2: Sensitivity – How Deeply Is a Community Affected?

Definition: Sensitivity is the degree to which a system is affected, either adversely or beneficially, by a climate-related stressor or hazard. Unlike exposure, which is external, sensitivity is an internal characteristic of a community or system (Gebreegziabher, 2016).

The ‘So What?’: Two communities can have identical exposure to a flood, but one may suffer far greater damage because its economy, social fabric, or population characteristics make it more sensitive to that flood’s impacts. This dimension functions as an amplifier in the vulnerability equation; the more sensitive a system is, the greater the impact of any given exposure.

Examples of Community Sensitivity

Farming / Rural Communities	Urban / Densely Populated Areas
The agricultural sector in the Nile Basin is highly sensitive to climate change because it is dominated by rain-fed farming, making it entirely dependent on precipitation patterns (Gebreegziabher, 2016).	An urban economy that revolves around a single sector, such as fishing, is particularly sensitive to losses from a disaster that impacts that specific industry (Bergstrand, 2015).
Small farmers in Pakistan are highly sensitive because their primary cash crops are grown during the flood season, making their main source of income especially susceptible to flood damage (Mustafa, 1998).	Communities with a high percentage of elderly residents or those with pre-existing health conditions (e.g., diabetes) are more sensitive, as these populations suffer disproportionately from health impacts during events like heat waves (Reid et al., 2009; Bergstrand, 2015).

While exposure and sensitivity highlight a community’s susceptibilities, they represent only half of the vulnerability equation. To complete the picture, we must turn to the proactive dimension that determines a community’s capacity to withstand and recover from these impacts: its adaptive capacity.

5. Pillar 3: Adaptive Capacity – The Ability to Adjust and Cope

Definition: Adaptive capacity is the ability or potential of a system to successfully adjust to climate change and other hazards. This includes the ability to moderate potential damages, take advantage of opportunities, or cope with the consequences of an event (Gebreegziabher, 2016; Ericksen, 2008).

The ‘So What?’: This is the crucial dimension that determines a community’s resilience. It is the counteracting force in the vulnerability equation, serving to reduce the net impact of exposure and sensitivity. A community with high adaptive capacity can reduce its overall vulnerability, even if its exposure and sensitivity are high, by drawing upon its collective resources and assets.

Key Indicators of Adaptive Capacity

Adaptive capacity is often measured by assessing a community’s access to different forms of capital.

Type of Resource	Farming / Rural Community Examples	Urban Community Examples
Human Capital	– Higher education levels of household heads – Access to agricultural training and extension services (Gebreegziabher, 2016)	– Access to and ability to understand warning information – Ability to navigate complex disaster recovery programs (Bergstrand, 2015; See, 2015)
Social Capital	– Strong social networks for mutual support during peak agricultural seasons (e.g., cooperatives like Debbo and jigge in Ethiopia) – Funeral associations that act as social safety nets (e.g., Ider) (Gebreegziabher, 2016)	– Presence of diverse civic organizations – High levels of citizen participation (e.g., voting rates) that indicate collective competence (Bergstrand, 2015)
Financial Capital	– Greater number of livestock or larger farm size – Access to credit to purchase seeds or repair equipment (Gebreegziabher, 2016)	– Higher median household income – Access to hazard insurance to cover losses – Remittances from overseas workers providing a financial buffer (Bergstrand, 2015; Ignacio, 2015)
Physical Capital	– A residence with a durable metal roof – Proximity to markets for selling produce (Gebreegziabher, 2016)	– Well-maintained housing stock and infrastructure – Presence of redundant systems, such as multiple hospitals or evacuation roadways, ensuring continuity of service (Bergstrand, 2015; See, 2015)

These three pillars do not exist in isolation. They interact in a dynamic way to determine a community’s overall level of vulnerability to a given threat.

6. Putting It All Together: The Vulnerability Equation

True vulnerability is the net result of these three dimensions interacting. While not a precise mathematical formula, researchers often use a conceptual equation to illustrate this relationship:

Overall Vulnerability = (Exposure + Sensitivity) – Adaptive Capacity

This conceptual equation shows that Exposure and Sensitivity add to a community’s vulnerability, while Adaptive Capacity subtracts from it, acting as a buffer against potential harm. This interaction produces several critical insights:

• High exposure does not always mean high vulnerability. A wealthy coastal community with high adaptive capacity (e.g., better infrastructure, access to insurance) may be highly exposed to hurricanes but less vulnerable overall than an inland, low-income community with low adaptive capacity exposed to a less severe flood (Emrich, 2011; Bergstrand, 2015).
• Vulnerability can be created by human systems. In one region of Pakistan, the construction of a spillway was engineered to protect the lands of politically powerful landlords. This decision dramatically increased the flood exposure and vulnerability of the poorer downstream village of Pindi, showing how political and economic decisions can manufacture risk for marginalized groups (Mustafa, 1998).
• Extreme exposure can overwhelm high adaptive capacity. In the Philippines, several middle-class communities with relatively low social vulnerability (e.g., better housing, higher education) suffered immense damage from Tropical Storm Washi. They had unknowingly expanded into a zone of extreme flood hazard, demonstrating that in some cases, the physical hazard is so great it can override a community’s inherent strengths (Ignacio, 2015).

This integrated view of risk, which combines the physical hazard with the social landscape, is what makes the concept of vulnerability so powerful for creating safer and more equitable communities.

7. Why This Framework Matters

Understanding vulnerability requires looking at three core dimensions: who and what is in harm’s way (Exposure), how susceptible a community is to that harm (Sensitivity), and what resources it has to cope and recover (Adaptive Capacity). The dynamic interplay between these factors determines a community’s final risk profile.

The most important takeaway is that vulnerability is not simply about being in the path of a hazard. It is a deeply social condition shaped by a community’s demographics, wealth, social networks, infrastructure, and political power. Ultimately, the vulnerability framework is not just an academic exercise; it is a diagnostic tool. By dissecting risk into these three components, it provides policymakers with specific levers to pull, whether that means investing in floodwalls (to reduce Exposure), diversifying agricultural economies (to reduce Sensitivity), or funding community health programs (to increase Adaptive Capacity). It transforms disaster management from a reactive response to a proactive strategy for building just and resilient societies.

References:

Ali, S. M. A., Sherman-Morris, K., & Ambinakudige, S. (2022). Spatial Exploration of Social Vulnerability and COVID-19-Related Health Outcomes in Mississippi. Southeastern Geographer, 62(3), 213–230. JSTOR.

Arias, P. A., Villegas, J. C., Machado, J., Serna, A. M., Vidal, L. M., Vieira, C., Cadavid, C. A., Vieira, S. C., �ngel, J. E., & Mej�a, �scar A. (2016). Reducing Social Vulnerability to Environmental Change: Weather, Climate, and Society, 8(1), 57–66. JSTOR.

Bergstrand, K., Mayer, B., Brumback, B., & Zhang, Y. (2015). Assessing the Relationship Between Social Vulnerability and Community Resilience to Hazards. Social Indicators Research, 122(2), 391–409. JSTOR.

Cutter, S. L. (2003). Presidential Address: The Vulnerability of Science and the Science of Vulnerability. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(1), 1–12. JSTOR.

Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242–261. JSTOR.

Cutter, S. L., & Emrich, C. T. (2006). Moral Hazard, Social Catastrophe: The Changing Face of Vulnerability along the Hurricane Coasts. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604, 102–112. JSTOR.

Davino, C., Gherghi, M., Sorana, S., & Vistocco, D. (2021). Measuring Social Vulnerability in an Urban Space Through Multivariate Methods and Models. Social Indicators Research, 157(3), 1179–1201. JSTOR.

de Sherbinin, A., & Bardy, G. (2015). Social vulnerability to floods in two coastal megacities: New York City and Mumbai. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 13, 131–165. JSTOR.

Eddy, C., & Sase, E. (2015). Implications of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster. Journal of Environmental Health, 78(1), 26–33. JSTOR.

Emrich, C. T., & Cutter, S. L. (2011). Social Vulnerability to Climate-Sensitive Hazards in the Southern United States. Weather, Climate, and Society, 3(3), 193–208. JSTOR.

Ericksen, P. J. (2008). What Is the Vulnerability of a Food System to Global Environmental Change? Ecology and Society, 13(2). JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26268000

Flanagan, B. E., Hallisey, E. J., Adams, E., & Lavery, A. (2018). Measuring Community Vulnerability to Natural and Anthropogenic Hazards: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Social Vulnerability Index. Journal of Environmental Health, 80(10), 34–37. JSTOR.

Gebreegziabher, Z., Mekonnen, A., Deribe, R., Boka, J., & Abera, S. (2016). Mapping Vulnerability to Climate Change of the Farming Sector in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia: Environment for Development Initiative; JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep15047

Gillani, S. Y. M., Rehman, H. U., & Gill, A. R. (2009). Unemployment, Poverty, Inflation and Crime Nexus: Cointegration and Causality Analysis of Pakistan. Pakistan Economic and Social Review, 47(1), 79–98. JSTOR.

Hogan, D. J., & Marandola, E. (2012). Bringing a population-environment perspective to hazards research. Population and Environment, 34(1), 3–21. JSTOR.

Hunter, L. M. (2005). Migration and Environmental Hazards. Population and Environment, 26(4), 273–302. JSTOR.

Ignacio, J. A. F., Cruz, G. T., Nardi, F., & Henry, S. (2015). Assessing the effectiveness of a social vulnerability index in predicting heterogeneity in the impacts of natural hazards: Case study of the Tropical Storm Washi flood in the Philippines. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 13, 91–129. JSTOR.

Lazarus, N. W. (2014). Re-specifying disaster risk: Concepts, methods, and models. GeoJournal, 79(5), 635–648. JSTOR.

Lori Peek. (2008). Children and Disasters: Understanding Vulnerability, Developing Capacities, and Promoting Resilience—An Introduction. Children, Youth and Environments, 18(1), 1–29. JSTOR.

Mustafa, D. (1998). Structural Causes of Vulnerability to Flood Hazard in Pakistan. Economic Geography, 74(3), 289–305. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/144378

Oliver-Smith, A. (1996). Anthropological Research on Hazards and Disasters. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25, 303–328. JSTOR.

Oulahen, G., Mortsch, L., Tang, K., & Harford, D. (2015). Unequal Vulnerability to Flood Hazards: ‘Ground Truthing’ a Social Vulnerability Index of Five Municipalities in Metro Vancouver, Canada. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105(3), 473–495.

Peng, N. (2019). Inequality and the Social Compact in Singapore. Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, 36(3), 355–379. JSTOR.

Reid, C. E., O’Neill, M. S., Gronlund, C. J., Brines, S. J., Brown, D. G., Diez-Roux, A. V., & Schwartz, J. (2009). Mapping Community Determinants of Heat Vulnerability. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(11), 1730–1736. JSTOR.

Ryder, S. S. (2017). A Bridge to Challenging Environmental Inequality: Intersectionality, Environmental Justice, and Disaster Vulnerability. Social Thought & Research, 34, 85–115.

See, J. C. G., & Porio, E. E. (2015). Assessing Social Vulnerability to Flooding in Metro Manila Using Principal Component Analysis. Philippine Sociological Review, 63, 53–80. JSTOR.

Segnestam, L., Simonsson, L., Rubiano, J., & Morales, M. (2006). Vulnerability and natural hazards? Concepts and framework (Cross-Level Institutional Processes and Vulnerability to Natural Hazards in Honduras, pp. 11–18). Stockholm Environment Institute; JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep00555.8

Younus, M. A. F. (2014). Flood Vulnerability And Adaptation To Climate Change In Bangladesh: Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 16(3), 1–28. JSTOR.