International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 48 (2020) 101592

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

An interdisciplinary approach to identify zones vulnerable to earthquakes

Luis Izquierdo-Horna, Ramzy Kahhat *
Department of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Cat�
olica del Perú, Peru

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Earthquakes in Peru are responsible for enormous material and human losses. One of the reasons for the latter is
Risk and disaster management that risk and disaster management policies do not consider individuals as a significant factor for planning post-
Social vulnerability disaster activities. An understanding of all-important aspects that influence post-disaster efforts would reduce the
Physical vulnerability
number of dead, injured and affected people as well as the required money and time to invest. This research
Social vulnerability index
Peru
develops an interdisciplinary approach, based on seismic vulnerability, to identify those zones that need im­
mediate attention after an earthquake. We consider vulnerability to be a result of two dimensions: social and
physical. The first describes society by its anthropogenic characteristics through social indicators (age, daily
income, education, etc.). The second describes the built environment and the main features of infrastructure. The
results show that the physical and social dimensions intersect and interact with fairly consistent regularity. Thus,
we are then able to more accurately identify the areas that require higher prioritization in an emergency sce­
nario. Having this data available for regions predisposed to earthquakes will allow for substantial improvements
to current risk mitigation action plans as well as the promotion of a more comprehensive prevention effort.

1. Introduction emergency response activities will be more effective throughout a ter­

Earthquakes are widely known for their significant effects on the
social, economic and environmental dimensions of society and their
relevance to risk and disaster management tasks [1–6]. Material losses,
such as to civil infrastructure, household items and furniture, are only a
part of the problem since society is highly affected, not only because of
the former elements, but also because of human loss as a consequence,
directly or indirectly, of the event. In that sense, Cutter et al. [7] state
that these consequences are associated with the level of people’s
vulnerability to disasters. Wisner et al. [8] claim that the
human-centered approach is essential to track the interaction between
vulnerability and disasters. Therefore, given the importance of inte­
grating risk factors related to an exposed community and its built
environment, Shapira et al. [9] mention that in order to reduce the
amount of loss, structural and human-related factors must be taken into
account while fostering a culture of resilience. Mili et al. [10] worked on
an equivalent vulnerability index (EVI) based on physical aspects (e.g.,
buildings and utility lifelines) and social aspects (e.g., casualties due to
building damage and population density). The understanding of
vulnerability as a dynamic process related not only to the hazard but
also to social aspects is an important advance in the determination of the
vulnerability level in a specific area [11–13]. With this, post-disaster
ritory since the relationship between human factors and the built envi­
ronment can increase or reduce the consequences of earthquakes [14].
In recent years, the need to mitigate the impacts of earthquakes has
led to new trends to address this problem, one of which is based on
mapping seismic vulnerability. Vulnerability assessment, also consid­
ered a tool for decision-making, is helpful for decisions related to the
allocation of resources as it allows the observation of the real vulnera­
bility situation of a determined area [15]. For instance, Frigerio and De
Amicis [16] consider this approach as a new tool to highlight local needs
in order to implement strategies to mitigate risk through a social
vulnerability index (SVI). However, their model does not consider
infrastructure and has a level of uncertainty associated with prioritizing
vulnerable sectors. In the same way, Jaramillo et al. [17] propose a
model that considers vulnerability as a mixture of social fragility and
lack of resilience. The social aspect is included as an aggravating factor
to the existing physical risk. In addition, some studies use social
vulnerability as a fundamental factor in risk mitigation strategies
[18–21]. In this sense, this project aims to contribute to the process of
improving risk and disaster management plans through an interdisci­
plinary, inclusive and people-centered vision in which not only the built
environment matters but also the people themselves.
According to Carren ~ o et al. [22], seismic risk requires an

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ramzy.kahhat@pucp.edu.pe (R. Kahhat).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101592
Received 12 December 2019; Received in revised form 24 March 2020; Accepted 26 March 2020
Available online 29 March 2020
2212-4209/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Izquierdo-Horna and R. Kahhat International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 48 (2020) 101592

Fig. 1. Methodological framework.

interdisciplinary response that considers not only the physical damage, 2.1. Assessing social vulnerability
but also the social problems related to the development of vulnerable
zones. Therefore, since vulnerability is an important seismic risk factor, Social vulnerability is often described using social indicators and the
it must be considered to be the result not only of the identified physical immediate human and natural environment [11] that can be observed in
aspects, but also of the social aspects present in the community (e.g., a given time and place [16]. According to Bakkensen et al. [5], people
level of education, daily income, age profile, special needs). exposed to the same hazard may experience different consequences due
Consequently, this research paper incorporates the assessment of to their internal levels of social vulnerability. Based on a thorough
social and physical vulnerability into an interdisciplinary approach, literature review [6,17,19,20,25–28] and subsequent selection of arti­
including not only infrastructure but also the resident community of a cles, a preliminary list of 48 social indicators were chosen. It is impor­
specific area, considering their vulnerability as important factors in the tant to analyze the validity and relevance of each one of these indicators,
evaluation. With the implementation of this type of framework, the since a more comprehensive individual analysis can lead to a more ac­
decision-maker can identify potential vulnerable areas and, in this way, curate result as opposed to a broader, more generalized viewpoint
allocate resources efficiently because the model considers aspects within the given cultural context [11]. For Cutter et al. [19], the social
related to government conditions, socioeconomic conditions, de­ indicators with most influence in the social vulnerability assessment are
mographic conditions and comprehension of the threat which together the lack of access to resources and political power, social beliefs and
form a layer of social vulnerability. On the other hand, the quantifica­ customs, age, socioeconomic status, needs of the population, among
tion of the debris generated after an earthquake is considered as a proxy others. In addition, Flanagan et al. [28], state that it is possible to
to evaluate the physical aspects [23,24]. develop a social vulnerability index based on census variables. Their
The rest of this article is divided into four sections. The next provides research divided 15 variables into four categories such as socioeconomic
a description of the main aspects of the proposed interdisciplinary status, household composition/disability, minority status/language and
approach, in which the social and physical aspects of vulnerability have
been evaluated. Section 3 describes the main findings related to a
simulated run of this methodology. Next, the results are discussed; the Table 1
conclusions of this project are presented in section 5. Vulnerability level (VL) categories identified.
Categories Social indicators
2. Materials and methods Government Conditions (VLGC) Perception of corruption
Existence of risk management plans
The methodological strategy selected for this research is shown in Socioeconomic Conditions (VLSC) Dependent population
Personal daily income
Fig. 1 and is explained in the following paragraphs. In summary, it de­
Level of education
tails the way in which we evaluate social aspects, from the selection of Age profile
social indicators through the grouping of them into four categories and Permanent disability
forming the layers of vulnerability information for each category. Demographic Conditions (VLDC) Access to basic medical services
Physical aspects are evaluated through the generation of debris after an Anthropogenic activity
Family structure
earthquake [24]. Finally, these two dimensions are combined and an
Comprehension of the Threat (VLCT) Perception of the individual
articulated analysis of vulnerability to seismic events is provided. Historical knowledge
Perception of environmental pollution
Community response

2
L. Izquierdo-Horna and R. Kahhat
housing/transportation.
Then, taking into account the previous information, the list of vari­
ables that the National Institute of Statistics and Informatics of Peru
(INEI) collects frequently, and secondary information, such as photos,
reports, expert judgments, etc., were used to identify 14 representative
social indicators for the case study. Table 1 presents these indicators and
Table A, in the supporting information, presents the 48 preselected so­
cial indicators. This study groups the selected social indicators into
levels of vulnerability, taking into account the available literature, na­
tional survey structures and the researchers’ judgment. The categories
identified for the levels of vulnerability were based on government
conditions, socioeconomic conditions, demographic conditions and
comprehension of the threat. Table 1 shows the result of this
classification.
The analysis was performed while taking into account the dynamism
and the appropriate application of the process (i.e., vulnerability
assessment) within a specific, given period of time. Considering that the
collection of information about social indicators requires many re­
sources (e.g., application of surveys) [29], in this study a Monte Carlo
simulation was used to create the database. The supporting information
shown in Table B provides the input data that was used to create the
database. The next step is to reduce the number of social indicators in a
data set with fewer “dimensions”. In this regard, Vyas et al. propose the
use of principal component analysis (PCA) as a reference technique [29].
However, this has been criticized. On the one hand, use of this multi­
variate method of analysis has been considered arbitrary, given that its
empirical basis rests on whether or not its main component can predict
the SVI. On the other hand, results may reflect a relationship between
variables rather than their influences on vulnerability [30]. According to
Cortinovis et al. [31], other multivariate techniques do not have this
problem, including correspondence analysis, multivariate regression
and factor analysis. Sahn et al. [32], used factor analysis to analyze
social indicators related to daily income. Therefore, in this research,
factor analysis [33] was used to calculate the scores for each vulnera­
bility category thus forming the SVI.
For a better understanding of the results, the authors chose to asso­
ciate each level of vulnerability with a corresponding color on a scale
that measures vulnerability; green being the lowest on the scale and red
being the highest. Once the statistical analysis is completed, the authors
judged how to classify the seismic vulnerability level based on scores on
the scale. Table 2 shows the color scale for each level of vulnerability. In
addition, classification was performed using a form of variance-
minimization classification known as natural breaks. This classifica­
tion model best groups similar values and maximizes differences be­
tween classes. Class boundaries are established where there are
considerable differences between the data values [34].
2.2. Assessing physical vulnerability
The approach proposed by García-Torres et al. [24] to indirectly
assess physical vulnerability was selected for this research. This method
is based on identifying the most vulnerable zones taking into account the
amount of debris generated after an earthquake. That is, one sector is
more vulnerable than another if it presents a greater generation of
Table 2
Classification by color for each level of
vulnerability identified (L: Level).
3
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 48 (2020) 101592
debris. Similarly, the results obtained were associated to the evaluation
scale shown in Table 2. It is important to note that physical vulnerability
can change over time based on external conditions such as alterations in
risk and changes to building regulations [6].
In that sense, García-Torres et al. [24] note that in order to quantify
the debris produced in an earthquake the initial step is classification of
the infrastructure in the case study (e.g., masonry, wood, adobe, con­
crete shear walls, and straw) and quantification of embedded materials
(e.g., brick, steel, concrete, wood, adobe, and straw). For this, computer
tools and available information were used (e.g., Google Street View,
census data) accompanied by assessment of on-site infrastructure. Then,
the physical damage of the infrastructure is estimated using fragility
functions through the CAPRA-GIS tool. At this stage, each type of
housing is assigned its corresponding vulnerability function. To calcu­
late the physical damage percentages per damage state (e.g. light,
moderate, extensive and collapse) and the amount of debris generated
after an earthquake, information provided by HAZUS was used [35].
With the information developed by HAZUS, the percentage of
physical damage is obtained for each structural element according to the
type of housing. To calculate the percentage of physical damage asso­
ciated with the damage level of the total infrastructure, the percentage
of structural element damage per each item multiplied by its percentage
of the total weight of the materials contained in the infrastructure are
added together. Finally, the percentage of debris per material type for
each dwelling is obtained through interpolations or relationships
established between the values obtained in CAPRA-GIS and HAZUS. In
the same way, the amount of debris generated is obtained through the
multiplication of this percentage of debris generated per material with
the existing material stock.
Mesta et al. [23] improved the approach proposed by García-Torres
et al. [24]. These improvements include greater detail in the analysis of
the structure and in the materials composing the infrastructure. Conse­
quently, in this research, work done by Mesta et al. [23] has been used to
provide data about the generation of debris for a seismic event corre­
sponding to 7.4 Mw.
2.3. Integrated perspective of vulnerability
Given this situation, three vulnerability assessment alternatives,
explained below, are proposed and evaluated in this study to provide
unique vulnerability evaluation maps that permit easy interpretation of
those sectors that need immediate help after an earthquake. For each
alternative, social vulnerability categories were treated equally in order
to form a social layer; in other words, we considered that each had the
same relative contributory importance.
On the other hand, because both social and physical vulnerability
have a peculiar focus, the same metric cannot be used to measure both
types of vulnerability. Therefore, we consider the creation of a scale
from zero to one for the identified levels of vulnerability. By doing this,
we obtained similar units for each vulnerability dimension and it was
possible to develop the following three alternatives.
2.3.1. Balance between physical and social dimensions
This approach considers the individual as equally relevant as his or
her surrounding environment. Therefore, 50% of the importance is
allocated to each of the social and physical aspects. Based on the hy­
pothesis that each analyzed category increases the vulnerability of the
studied area, the most general way of expressing the total vulnerability
score is given by the following relationship:
Social ​ V:¼25% ​ ðVS:C1Þþ25% ​ ðVS:C2Þþ25% ​ ðVS:C3Þ þ ​ 25% ​ ðVS:C4Þ
(1)
Physical V: ¼ VF (2)
Total ​ Vulnerability ¼ ​ 50% ​ ðSocial ​ V:Þ þ 50% ​ ðPhysical ​ V:Þ (3)
L. Izquierdo-Horna and R. Kahhat International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 48 (2020) 101592

Each partial measure of vulnerability (i.e., physical and social) is selection are: high level of seismic risk, size and data availability. The
scaled from zero to one, therefore, total vulnerability is on the same location and spatial characteristics of the district are shown in Fig. 2.
scale. The results may not directly reflect the accurate situation since the input
data for the social dimension is a direct result of statistical inference
2.3.2. The social dimension seen as an externality obtained from a Monte Carlo simulation, however, it is necessary to
This approach is based on the concept of externalities and assumes describe and interpret these results for methodological purposes because
social vulnerability to be an externality. Its precedent is the assessment of their ability to be implemented and applied to various levels of
carried out by Alexander et al. [22,37,38]. By assuming the physical territory.
aspect as 100% of the vulnerability, the social dimension is an added
value to this percentage that represents conditions that aggravate the 3. Results
current situation. According to this approach, because all human beings
are vulnerable—in terms of infrastructure—in one way or another, the This section develops the hypothetical implementation of the
percentage of physical vulnerability will not be reduced in any scenario. methodological framework presented in the previous section, applied to
Equation (4) presents the formula used by this approach. the case study. First, the results on the layers of social vulnerability in
their different categories are presented. Secondly, the result related to
Total Vulnerability ¼ Physical V: � ð1 þ Social V:Þ (4)
the layer of physical vulnerability characterized by the generation of
debris is shown. Finally, the findings of the three approaches studied are
2.3.3. Vector theory applied to vulnerability
described to provide an articulated understanding of vulnerability.
This approach has its origin in the theory of vectors [39]. If we
consider each component studied as a vector with a certain magnitude,
3.1. Social vulnerability
then we can calculate the resultant of these two dimensions. As an
additional assumption, because the two concepts show a different
Results for the layer of “Government Conditions”, the layer that
perspective, they are orthogonal and have a common starting point that
analyzes the current political situation, especially corruption, shows
coincides with the ideal level of vulnerability, for this case zero. The
that in the city center of Chiclayo there are highly vulnerable blocks that
equation pertaining to this approach is shown below.
interact with less vulnerable sectors. This means that people display a
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Total Vulnerability ¼ Physical V:2 þ Social V:2 (5) high level of disagreement about the mayor’s management of the con­
sequences of earthquakes. Also, we can see a good portion of blocks that
have moderate or low vulnerability and very few sectors that present an
2.4. Description of the case study intermediate level of vulnerability.
On the other hand, the layer related to “Socioeconomic Conditions”
The Chiclayo district (with a population of more than 290,000 in­ shows a variety of socioeconomic conditions, such as daily income,
habitants), located in the central area of the city of Chiclayo, Peru, was education, age, special needs, which oscillate between low and extreme
selected for the case study [40]. Some of the important reasons for its vulnerability. Areas of extreme vulnerability are scattered throughout

Fig. 2. Case study: Chiclayo District.

4
L. Izquierdo-Horna and R. Kahhat
the district. This diversity of socioeconomic strata shows that, although
there are blocks with extreme vulnerability in an area, there may also be
nearby blocks that have a low level of vulnerability.
Subsequently, the “Demographic Conditions” layer shows that the
most vulnerable blocks (i.e., blocks with high percentage of elders and
infants) are grouped in the central and eastern zone of the district of
Chiclayo. On the other hand, population density, indirectly assessed
through family structure, is very asymmetric in its distribution in Chi­
clayo, which means that the number of members of a family varies.
Finally, the layer related to the “Comprehension of the Threat” shows
how prepared and aware the person is in the face of the possible con­
sequences of an earthquake. Concepts linked to resilience (measured by
the following social indicators: historical knowledge, community
response and perception by the individual) and environmental pollution
(measured by the following social indicator: perception of environ­
mental pollution) are also quantified in this layer of vulnerability. Many
blocks are identified as extremely vulnerable, which means that people
lack this historical knowledge and therefore are inexperienced in terms
of preventive measures.
Based on the results of the four layers, as shown in Fig. 3, each block
has a degree of vulnerability of its own for each category.
Fig. 3. Social vulnerability analysis.
5
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 48 (2020) 101592
3.2. Physical vulnerability
The physical aspect provides an appreciation of the built environ­
ment valid for the existing infrastructure typology without taking into
account future construction. Fig. 4 shows that the sectors that need more
attention are concentrated in the eastern part of Chiclayo, while the
central and western areas show a predominance of low and moderate
vulnerability. This means that the eastern sector generates more debris
than the others; in other words, after an earthquake of 7.4 Mw it is more
probable that efforts in post-disaster activities will be concentrated in
the eastern part of the district.
The analysis of both dimensions, physical and social, makes evident
the need for an integral analysis with the sole objective of improving the
response of institutions in charge of safeguarding the lives of residents.
An improvement in response would not only mean greater speed in the
post-disaster period but also an efficient use of resources prioritizing
vulnerable sectors from an articulated perspective.
3.3. Multi-perspective approach to vulnerability
The results obtained in the three approaches to comprehensive
vulnerability analysis show that if we consider the physical dimension of
vulnerability as a baseline, the levels of vulnerability undergo a
L. Izquierdo-Horna and R. Kahhat International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 48 (2020) 101592

redistribution as can be seen in Table 3. The first approach shows an Table 3

increase of five percentage points in extreme vulnerability and a per­ Percentage distribution of vulnerability levels for each integration approach.
centage decrease in low or moderate levels of vulnerability. The distri­ Vulnerability Physical Approach Approach Approach
bution obtained follows the guidelines of the integration pattern; that is Level Vulnerability 01 02 03
if a sector is vulnerable in physical terms when considering the social Extreme 3% 8% 6% 8%
dimension, its level of vulnerability increases. In this sense, of the three High 8% 22% 8% 15%
approaches presented, this one stands out for predicting or estimating a Considerable 20% 26% 17% 25%
higher vulnerability index. On the other hand, the second approach Moderate 36% 29% 36% 30%
Low 33% 15% 33% 23%
shows a distribution of vulnerability very similar to the physical
dimension at low or moderate levels of vulnerability. In addition, given
that the integration criterion considers social vulnerability as external­ to earthquakes. For example, people living in poverty are much more
ities, the levels of considerable, high and extreme vulnerability showed a vulnerable to the impacts of disasters than are wealthy people [7]. On
slight increase. In general terms, this perspective generates a lower the other hand, under the premise that lower socioeconomic sectors are
vulnerability index. Finally, the third approach presents an intermediate more vulnerable, Herrera [48] and V� asquez [49] argue that a solution to
view of the levels of vulnerability previously identified by keeping the inequality is to promote policies that encourage the growth of produc­
same eight percentage points at the extreme level of vulnerability as the tive activities oriented to the internal market, in order to reduce poverty
first approach. These results can be seen in Figs. 5–7. gaps. However, economic growth cannot always be achieved with the
Fig. 8 shows, in a methodological way, the comparison of the same same intensity in a given sector [50]. In this sense, García [51] concludes
sector for the three approaches presented. It shows the effect of the in­ that economic inequalities in Peru are not the exclusive result of the
clusion of social vulnerability according to integration technique. The economic model or public policies applied, but are also due to the social
performance of the three approaches is acceptable considering the and sociological bases of the country’s economic structure. In other
components analyzed. matters, the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) argues
that promoting knowledge about the risk of earthquakes contributes to
4. Discussion disaster reduction and societal progress [52]. Therefore, education
significantly influences the reduction of vulnerability, since those with a
The analysis carried out, based on the results obtained from a hy­ high educational level will have a better capacity for adaptation and
pothetical application of the methodological approaches to the case capacity for decision [53].
study, is based on the behavioral generalizations of the population At this point, it is important to note that the age profile plays a
studied; however, it is necessary to take into account that there are fundamental role in vulnerability assessment. According to researchers
scenarios that are outside common thinking; that is, there are exceptions [7,54,55], humans in their early stages and elderly people are the most
to the “rule”. These generalized concepts are based on perception, social vulnerable groups, and both are likely to experience a slower recovery in
norms, human functions and the description of the practices that make the face of disasters. In addition, people with physical disabilities, social
up our social fabric [41,42]. On the other hand, considering that social dependence and citizens without autonomy are less likely to respond
vulnerability is a pre-existing condition [7,43], it is important to explain appropriately to disasters and require extra assistance in recovery tasks
its implications with regard to disasters and the interaction produced [7,56,57].
between society and the nearby environment [7]. With respect to the distribution of the population, the number of
Regarding the first point of social vulnerability, it is important to occupants of a dwelling varies from one building to another. In a study
emphasize that trust is integrated into human nature; when it is not conducted in Florida, USA [58], it was concluded that smaller families
reciprocal, there is an opportunity for corruption [44]. For Morris and are relatively less vulnerable because they have more resources to
Klesner [45], trust is both cause and consequence of corruption in po­ overcome challenges after an earthquake. In the Peruvian national
litical behavior and institutional practices. In the same way, for Mishra context, about 40% of households are made up of three or four people
[46] and Rudolf [44] people most frequently associate corruption with and around 25% by five or more members [59]. In the same way, the
the public sector and this often has to do with education and income. distribution of services is not equal among all citizens. According to the
According to Novoa [47], corruption negatively affects vulnerable and INEI [40], 20% of the Peruvian population has at least one basic need (e.
oppressed groups. g., sanitation) unmet, which means that there is inequality in the pos­
The vulnerability associated with socioeconomic conditions is sibilities of recovery after an earthquake.
fundamentally based on income and level of education. With respect to On the other hand, human action is difficult to predict. For Stallings
the former, socioeconomic status influences the degree of vulnerability

Fig. 4. Category: Amount of debris. Adapted from Mesta et al. [23].

6
L. Izquierdo-Horna and R. Kahhat International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 48 (2020) 101592

[60], collective behavior is the cultural representation of a given pop­
ulation. For example, in the 2010 earthquake in Chile, the country
experienced a disarticulation of the social and political system that had a
great impact on citizens [61]. On the other hand, countries such as New
Zealand and Japan show a better response to the effects of an earthquake
due to differences in social resilience among countries [14]. As a result,
we are able to recognize that the response patterns of the population in
these countries during a seismic event are far superior and this could be
explained by the fact that they are more aware and educated about the
dangers they may face and, hence, are more prepared to face them. In
summary, the notion of disaster is rationalized according to the norms
and concerns of a certain culture; that is, interpretations are dominated
by new forms of social constructs formed by social media and other
communications [62–64].
In terms of physical vulnerability, it is easier to prioritize sectors
through groups that involve affected areas and are potentially suscep­
tible to damage. However, it is important to understand that the effects
produced in this dimension are more visible and are triggers of panic,

Fig. 5. Integrated Vulnerability Assessment. Approach 01: Balance between physical and social dimensions.

Fig. 6. Integrated Vulnerability Assessment. Approach 02: The social dimension seen as an externality.

Fig. 7. Integrated Vulnerability Assessment. Approach 03: Vector theory applied to vulnerability.

7
L. Izquierdo-Horna and R. Kahhat
Fig. 8. Comparison of the three approaches for a given sector.
which increase the associated social vulnerability. For Shen et al. [65],
when people perceive an imminent danger in a closed space, they tend to
fall into a state of panic that further aggravates their condition. Although
this research does not intend to prioritize one dimension of vulnerability
over another, it is necessary to understand that they are related and that,
probably, the social situation aggravates physical vulnerability, and
vice-versa.
Due to the complexity of analyzing seismic vulnerability separately
and the idea that it is not enough to identify the vulnerable factors, it is
necessary to understand their implications in a particular place [7].
Consequently, there is a need to integrate the aspects or circumstances
that predispose a particular system to suffer losses. On the other hand,
according to Cutter et al. [6] it is possible to have scenarios in which the
most vulnerable area in physical terms does not match with the most
vulnerable population sector. In the three alternatives presented in this
study, the effect of social contribution maximizes the level of global
vulnerability in each sector of the case study. The correlation among the
various layers of vulnerability makes the task of providing an appro­
priate emergency response far more complex because of the vital role
proper emergency management plays in the reduction of risk and impact
[66].
On the other hand, taking into account the vulnerability of the sec­
tors, the second and third approaches are also presented as viable al­
ternatives for the efficient management of risk and disaster management
plans because we are able to see that the performance shown in these
two evaluations are very similar. Therefore, the importance of this
methodological tool is paramount in assisting both governmental and
private-sector institutions, improve their risk and disaster mitigation
plans by ensuring that the human being is included as a fundamental
factor to be considered when performing any analysis. Finally, this
project is a starting point for more in-depth studies on the dynamics of
people’s behavior in situations of potential risk, as well as studying how
other components of seismic risk directly or indirectly affect
vulnerability.
It is important to mention that because the theoretical-practical
development of the concept of vulnerability has been developing over
the last decade, much more research is needed. In this article, we have
8
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 48 (2020) 101592
tried to cover the most relevant studies related to the concept of
vulnerability associated with earthquakes. On the other hand, regarding
the limitations of the study, it was found that the proposed methodology
presents some limitations related to data collection, since some data may
not be available or may be outdated. Birkmann et al. [7,67,68] argue
that because social vulnerability is based on social indicators, these so­
cial indicators are often so complex that it is not known how best to
quantify them. To solve this problem, it is necessary to implement data
collection strategies; however, this is beyond the scope of this study.
Despite the fact that Peru conducts national censuses [40], the in­
formation collected does not cover all social indicators identified in this
study. For this purpose, it is proposed to carry out independent surveys
that would address each category of vulnerability identified. Another
limitation of the information obtained through censuses is their long
updating intervals, usually every 7 or 10 years, as social characteristics
change more rapidly. Therefore, it is important to determine the validity
of the analysis taking into account the origin of the information, its
coverage and representation.
5. Conclusions
We divide social vulnerability into four categories that involve: the
perception of the person with regard to corruption/trust in their political
leaders; the asymmetric distribution of the economy in the analyzed
territory; the behavior associated with large families and the intrinsic
behavior of the person. On the other hand, physical vulnerability eval­
uates structural safety by amount of debris generated after an earth­
quake. These components are imperative for creation of a robust tool to
identify vulnerable sectors.
The possibility of knowing in a precise and simple way where to
prioritize and assign human and economic resources in post-earthquake
actions would lead to improvements in risk prevention plans, mitigation
of impacts and integral development of risk and disaster management
plans. The approach we present contributes to the development of these
activities, since it consists of the identification of areas that would be
seriously affected by the occurrence of an earthquake based on the level
of vulnerability associated with the area (i.e., low, moderate,
L. Izquierdo-Horna and R. Kahhat
considerable, large and extreme). Vulnerability has been evaluated
through a social and physical dimension. Therefore, this instrument
aims to encourage governmental and non-governmental institutions to
include in the analysis the human being, as a fundamental part of the
problem.
In addition, these results help shed light on the importance of car­
rying out such physical and social evaluations for the purpose of
achieving a more sustainable solution for Peru. With regard to the
physical aspect, the use of the quantification of debris generation after a
seismic event is an important indicator when examining which areas
would be most affected and, as a consequence, the most vulnerable.
Multiple interactions among vulnerability maps are also shown, which
shows that an articulated analysis is the best option to address this type
of problem.
In this sense, the three approaches used to integrate the duality of
vulnerability show acceptable performances because they are adapted to
the protection of human beings and their livelihoods. We recommend a
comprehensive analysis based on the approaches presented, because
each of them gives equal importance to both dimensions through an
interdisciplinary approach. The global vulnerability maps obtained are
indications that an articulated and co-managed perspective allows a
better identification of the problems manifested in society, thus
achieving an improvement in the treatment of them and in the identi­
fication of physically and socially vulnerable groups. Incorporating so­
cial and physical vulnerability into a multi-perspective approach would
allow for improved vulnerability analysis.
Finally, this research can be used as a strategic tool to improve the
efficacy of organizations. For instance, in the public sphere, government
agencies can make use of this methodological approach to identify
which areas of a city are the most vulnerable. In this way, resources can
be allocated, efficiently, to safeguard the integrity of the most vulner­
able people as a result of an earthquake.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
This project was funded by CONCYTEC within the framework of the
232–2015-FONDECYT Agreement. Finally, the authors would like to
thank anonymous reviewers, Carlos Veliz and Joshua Wolfe for their
valuable comments on previous versions of this manuscript.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101592.
References
[1] Indeci, Compendio Estadístico Del Indeci 2017 Gesti� on Reactiva, 2017. Lima.
[2] N. Morales-Soto, C. Zavala, Terremotos en el litoral central del Perú: ¿ Podría ser
Lima el Escenario de un futuro desastre? Rev. Peru. Med. Exp. Salud Pública 25
(2008) 217–224.
[3] Cenepred, Plan nacional de gesti� on del riesgo de desastres - PLANAGERD 2014 -
2021, 2014.
[4] D. Paton, D.M. Johnston, S. Johal, Human impacts of hazards, in: P.T. Bobrowsky
(Ed.), Encycl. Nat. Hazards, 2013, pp. 474–478, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4020-4399-4_172.
[5] L.A. Bakkensen, C. Fox-Lent, L.K. Read, I. Linkov, Validating resilience and
vulnerability indices in the context of natural disasters, Risk Anal. 37 (2017)
982–1004, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12677.
[6] S. Cutter, J. Mitchell, M. Scott, Revealing the vulnerability of people and places: a
case study of georgetown county, South Carolina, Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 90
(2000) 713–737, https://doi.org/10.1111/0004-5608.00219.
[7] S. Cutter, C. Emrich, J. Webb, D. Morath, Social Vulnerability to Climate
Variability Hazards, 2009.
[8] B. Wisner, P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, I. Davis, At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s
Vulnerability and Disasters, 2004.
9
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 48 (2020) 101592
[9] S. Shapira, L. Novack, Y. Bar-Dayan, L. Aharonson-Daniel, An integrated and
interdisciplinary model for predicting the risk of injury and death in future
earthquakes, PloS One 11 (2016) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0151111.
[10] R.R. Mili, K.A. Hosseini, Y.O. Izadkhah, Developing a holistic model for earthquake
risk assessment and disaster management interventions in urban fabrics, Int. J.
Disaster Risk Reduct. 27 (2018) 355–365, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijdrr.2017.10.022.
[11] J. Birkmann, Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient societies:
conceptual frameworks and definitions, Meas. Vul .Nat. Hazards; Towar. Disaster
Resilient Soc. 1 (2006) 9–54, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6975.2010.01389.x.
[12] J. Birkmann, Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales:. Applicability,
usefulness and policy implications, Environ. Hazards 7 (2007) 20–31, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.04.002.
[13] E. Mavhura, Analysing drivers of vulnerability to flooding: a systems approach,
S. Afr. Geogr. J. 101 (2019) 72–90, https://doi.org/10.1080/
03736245.2018.1541020.
[14] S. Shapira, L. Aharonson-Daniel, Y. Bar-Dayan, Anticipated behavioral response
patterns to an earthquake: the role of personal and household characteristics, risk
perception, previous experience and preparedness, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 31
(2018) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.04.001.
[15] N. Rahman, M.A. Ansary, I. Islam, GIS based mapping of vulnerability to
earthquake and fire hazard in Dhaka city, Bangladesh, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.
13 (2015) 291–300, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.07.003.
[16] I. Frigerio, M. De Amicis, Mapping social vulnerability to natural hazards in Italy: a
suitable tool for risk mitigation strategies, Environ. Sci. Pol. 63 (2016) 187–196,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.001.
[17] N. Jaramillo, M.L. Carre~ no, N. Lantada, Evaluation of social context integrated into
the study of seismic risk for urban areas, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 17 (2016)
185–198, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.05.002.
[18] S. Cutter, Societal responses to environmental hazards, Int. Soc. Sci. J. 48 (1996)
525–536, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00053.
[19] S. Cutter, B. Boruff, L. Shirley, Social vulnerability to environmental hazards, Soc.
Sci. Q. 84 (2003) 242–261, https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402002.
[20] S. Cutter, C. Finch, Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural
hazards, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 105 (2008) 2301–2306, https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.0710375105.
[21] M.C. Schmidtlein, R.C. Deutsch, W.W. Piegorsch, S.L. Cutter, A sensitivity analysis
of the social vulnerability index, Risk Anal. 28 (2008) 1099–1114, https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01072.x.
[22] M.L. Carre~ no, O.D. Cardona, A.H. Barbat, Urban seismic risk evaluation: a holistic
approach, Nat. Hazards 40 (2007) 137–172, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006-
0008-8.
[23] C. Mesta, R. Kahhat, S. Santa-Cruz, Quantification of lost material stock of
buildings after an earthquake, in: 16th World Conf. Earthq., Santiago Chile, 2017.
[24] S. García-Torres, R. Kahhat, S. Santa-Cruz, Methodology to characterize and
quantify debris generation in residential buildings after seismic events, Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 117 (2017) 151–159, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2016.11.006.
[25] I. Armaş, A. Gavriş, Census-based social vulnerability assessment for Bucharest,
Procedia Environ. Sci. 32 (2016) 138–146, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
proenv.2016.03.018.
[26] J.E.T. Boh� orquez, Evaluaci�on de la vulnerabilidad social ante amenazas naturales
en Manzanillo (Colima). Un aporte de m�etodo, Invest. Geogr� aficas 81 (2013)
79–93, https://doi.org/10.14350/rig.36333.
[27] A.-C. Chardon, Un enfoque geogr� afico de la vulnerabilidad global de un h�abitat
urbano de ladera expuesto a amenazas naturales. El caso andino de Manizales,
2000, pp. 1–10. Colombia.
[28] B.E. Flanagan, E.W. Gregory, E.J. Hallisey, J.L. Heitgerd, B. Lewis, A social
vulnerability index for disaster management, J. Homel. Secur. Emerg. Manag. 8
(2011), https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1792.
[29] S. Vyas, L. Kumaranayake, Constructing socio-economic status indices: how to use
principal components analysis, Health Pol. Plann. 21 (2006) 459–468, https://doi.
org/10.1093/heapol/czl029.
[30] I.S. Holand, P. Lujala, Replicating and adapting an index of social vulnerability to a
new context: a comparison study for Norway, Prof. Geogr. 65 (2013) 312–328,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2012.681509.
[31] I. Cortinovis, V. Vella, J. Ndiku, Construction of a socio-economic index to
facilitate analysis of health data in developing countries, Soc. Sci. Med. 36 (1993)
1087–1097, https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(93)90127-P.
[32] D.E. Sahn, D. Stifel, Exploring alternative measures of welfare in the absence of
expenditure data, Rev. Income Wealth 49 (2003) 463–489, https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.0034-6586.2003.00100.x.
[33] S. Tuffry, Data Mining and Statistics for Decision Making, first ed., Wiley
Publishing, 2011.
[34] M. Smith, M. Goodchild, P. Longley, Geospatial Analysis - A Comprehensive Guide
to Principles Techniques and Software Tools, 2007.
[35] Federal Emergency Management Agency, Multi-hazard loss estimation
methodology: earthquake model, Hazus-MH MR5 User Manual, 2010. http://www.
fema.gov/library/file;jsessionid¼4156BF4EDB207CC63474E69343E8E067.Wor
kerLibrary?type¼publishedFile&file¼hazusmr5_eq_tm.pdf&fileid¼25fe7420-07
db-11e0-a865-001cc4568fb6.
[37] D. Alexander, M. Angignard, A. Barbat, J. Birkmann, O. Cardona, M.L. Carre~ no,
S. Carvalho, D. Contreras, Y. Depietri, N. Desramaut, U. Eidswig, M. Garcin,
T. Glade, S. Greiving, C. Iasio, M. Keiler, S. Kienberger, M. Papathoma-K€ ohle, M.
C. Marulanda, R. Miniati, L. Pedoth, M. Pelling, F. Renaud, J. Rohmer,
L. Izquierdo-Horna and R. Kahhat
S. Schneiderbauer, R. Totschnig, F. Tedim, T. Ulbrich, C. Vinchon, T. Welle,
Z. Zaidi, P. Zeil, Assessment of vulnerability to natural hazards, Assess. Vul. Nat.
Hazards (2014) 223, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-410528-7.00007-2.
[38] M.L. Carre~ no, A.H. Barbat, O.D. Cardona, M.C. Marulanda, Holistic evaluation of
seismic risk in Barcelona, Assess. Vul. Nat. Hazards (2014) 21–52, https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-410528-7.00002-3.
[39] R. Hibbeler, Engineering Mechanics: Statics, Pearson, 2010.
[40] INEI, Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Inform� atica. https://www.inei.gob.pe/,
2018. (Accessed 18 February 2018).
[41] S. Brinkmann, Facts, values, and the naturalistic fallacy in psychology, New Ideas
Psychol. 27 (2009) 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.10.001.
[42] M.A. Finocchiaro, The fallacy of composition: guiding concepts, historical cases,
and research problems, J. Appl. Logic 13 (2015) 24–43, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jal.2015.01.003.
[43] E. Joakim, L. Mortsch, G. Oulahen, Using vulnerability and resilience concepts to
advance climate change adaptation, Environ. Hazards 14 (2015) 137–155, https://
doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2014.1003777.
[44] M. Rudolf, Perceptions of Trust, Corruption and Gender in Peru and the United
States, 2014.
[45] S.D. Morris, J.L. Klesner, Corruption and trust: theoretical considerations and
evidence from Mexico, Comp. Polit. Stud. 43 (2010) 1258–1285, https://doi.org/
10.1177/0010414010369072.
[46] A. Mishra, Corruption, in: K.a. Reinert, R.S. Rajan, A.J. Glass, L.S. Davis (Eds.),
Princet. Encycl. World Econ., 2009, pp. 232–236.
[47] Y. Novoa, ¿C� omo afecta la corrupci�on a grupos vulnerables? IDEHPUCP, 2009.
[48] J. Herrera, Pobreza y desigualdad econ� omica en el Perú durante el boom de
crecimiento: 2004-2014, Int. Dev. Policy (2017), https://doi.org/10.4000/
poldev.2518. Revue internationale de politique de d� eveloppement.
[49] E. V�asquez, Pobreza e Inversi�on Social en el Perú al 2021, in: Desigual. Y Pobr.,
2016, pp. 109–142.
[50] O. Del Alamo, Crecimiento con desigualdad en el perú: un escenario de conflictos,
2011, p. 7.
[51] J. García, XX Congreso Internacional del CLAD sobre la Reforma del Estado y de la
Administraci� on Pública, in: Crecim., Desigual. Y Asimetría En El Desarro. Territ.
Gesti�on Del Territ. En Context, Demanda Soc. y Cris. Legitimidad, 2015, pp. 10–13.
[52] UN/ISDR, UNESCO, La reducci� on de los desastres empieza en la escuela, EIRD,
2006. https://www.unisdr.org/2007/campaign/.../WDRC-2006-2007-Spanish
-fullversion.pdf%0A.
[53] R. Muttarak, W. Lutz, Is education a key to reducing vulnerability to natural
disasters and hence unavoidable climate change? Ecol. Soc. 19 (2014).
10
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 48 (2020) 101592
[54] N. Kar, Psychological impact of disasters on children: review of assessment and
interventions, World J. Pediatr. 5 (2009) 5–11, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12519-
009-0001-x.
[55] E.B. Ngo, When disasters and age collide: reviewing vulnerability of the elderly,
Nat. Hazards Rev. (2001) 80–89.
[56] L.C. Mcguire, E.S. Ford, C.A. Okoro, Natural disasters and older US adults with
disabilities: implications for evacuation, Disasters 31 (2007) 49–56, https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2007.00339.x.
[57] F Cabrera, A Cebollada, Citizens with limited autonomy: the forgotten of mobility
policies. Lima as an example. 4, Belgeo. Revue belge de g�eographie, 2019,
pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.4000/belgeo.36495.
[58] L.S. Hung, C. Wang, B. Yarnal, Vulnerability of families and households to natural
hazards: a case study of storm surge flooding in Sarasota County, Florida, Appl.
Geogr. 76 (2016) 184–197, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.09.021.
[59] INEI, Perú, Perfil Sociodemogr� afico. Informe Nacional. Censos Nacionales 2017,
2018. https://www.inei.gob.pe/media/MenuRecursivo/publicaciones_digita
les/Est/Lib1539/index.html.
[60] R. Stallings, Collective behavior theory and the study of mass hysteria, in: K.
J. Dynes, R. Russell, Tiemey (Eds.), Disasters, Collect. Behav, . Soc. Organ., 1994,
pp. 207–228.
[61] P. Grand� on, S. Acu~na, C. Briese, P. Chovar, A. Hern�andez, F. Orellana, Saqueos
y autodefensa, Impacto social en chile post terremoto, 12, 2014, pp. 187–206.
[62] D. Alexander, An interpretation of disaster in terms of changes in culture, society
and international relations, in: R. Perry, E. Quarantelli (Eds.), What Is a Disaster?
New Answers to Old Quest, 2005, pp. 25–38.
[63] A. Oliver-Smith, S.M. Hoffman, Introduction: Why Anthropologists Should Study
Disasters in Catastrophe and Culture: the Anthropology of Disaster, Sch. Am. Res.
Press St. Fe James Currey Oxford, 2002, pp. 3–22.
[64] S.K. Theja Bhavaraju, C. Beyney, C. Nicholson, Quantitative analysis of social
media sensitivity to natural disasters, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 39 (2019)
101251, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101251.
[65] J.Q. Shen, X.W. Wang, L.L. Jiang, The influence of panic on the efficiency of
escape, Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 491 (2018) 613–618, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.physa.2017.08.156.
[66] Y. Zhang, W.G. Weng, Z.L. Huang, A scenario-based model for earthquake
emergency management effectiveness evaluation, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
128 (2018) 197–207, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.001.
[67] J. Bogardi, J. Birkmann, Vulnerability assessment: the first step towards
sustainable risk reduction, Disaster Soc. Hazard Assess. Risk Reduct (2004) 75–82.
[68] W. Chen, S.L. Cutter, C.T. Emrich, P. Shi, Measuring social vulnerability to natural
hazards in the Yangtze River Delta region, China, Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 4 (2013)
169–181, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-013-0018-6.