A leading challenge in measuring social vulnerability to hazards is for output metrics to better reflect the context in which vulnerability occurs. Through a meta-analysis of 67 flood disaster case studies (1997–2013), this paper profiles the leading drivers of social vulnerability to floods. The results identify demographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, and health as the leading empirical drivers of social vulnerability to damaging flood events. However, risk perception and coping capacity also featured prominently in the case studies, yet these factors tend to be poorly reflected in many social vulnerability indicators. The influence of social vulnerability drivers varied considerably by disaster stage and national setting, highlighting the importance of context in understanding social vulnerability precursors, processes, and outcomes. To help tailor quantitative indicators of social vulnerability to flood contexts, the article concludes with recommendations concerning temporal context, measurability, and indicator interrelationships

Human exposure to floods continues to increase, driven by changes in hydrology and land use. Adverse impacts amplify for socially vulnerable populations, who disproportionately inhabit flood-prone areas. This study explores the geography of flood exposure and social vulnerability in the conterminous United States based on spatial analysis of fluvial and pluvial flood extent, land cover, and social vulnerability. Using bivariate Local Indicators of Spatial Association, we map hotspots where high flood exposure and high social vulnerability converge and identify dominant indicators of social vulnerability within these places. The hotspots, home to approximately 19 million people, occur predominantly in rural areas and across the US South. Mobile homes and racial minorities are most overrepresented in hotspots compared to elsewhere. The results identify priority locations where interventions can mitigate both physical and social aspects of flood vulnerability. The variables that most distinguish the clusters are used to develop an indicator set of social vulnerability to flood exposure. Understanding who is most exposed to floods and where, can be used to tailor mitigation strategies to target those most in need.

Part I of this two-part paper provided an overview of the HAZUS-MH Flood Model and a discussion of its capabilities for characterizing riverine and coastal flooding. Included was a discussion of the Flood Information Tool, which permits rapid analysis of a wide variety of stream discharge data and topographic mapping to determine flood-frequencies over entire floodplains. This paper reports on the damage and loss estimation capability of the Flood Model, which includes a library of more than 900 damage curves for use in estimating damage to various types of buildings and infrastructure. Based on estimated property damage, the model estimates shelter needs and direct and indirect economic losses arising from floods. Analyses for the effects of flood warning, the benefits of levees, structural elevation, and flood mapping restudies are also facilitated with the Flood Model.

As a concept, social vulnerability describes combinations of social, cultural, economic, political, and institutional processes that shape socioeconomic differentials in the experience of and recovery from hazards. Quantitative measures of social vulnerability are widely used in research and practice. In this paper, we establish criteria for the evaluation of social vulnerability indicators and apply those criteria to the most widely used measure of social vulnerability, the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI). SoVI is a single quantitative indicator that purports to measure a place’s social vulnerability. We show that SoVI has some critical shortcomings regarding theoretical and internal consistency. Specifically, multiple SoVI-based measurements of the vulnerability of the same place, using the same data, can yield strikingly different results. We also show that the SoVI is often misaligned with theory; increases in variables that contribute to vulnerability, like the unemployment rate, often decrease vulnerability as measured by the SoVI. We caution against the use of the index in policy making or other risk-reduction efforts, and we suggest ways to more reliably assess social vulnerability in practice.