sustainability
Article
Assessment of the Regional Vulnerability to Natural Disasters
in China Based on DEA Model
Lihui Wu 1,2 , Da Ma 1, * and Jinling Li 1
Citation: Wu, L.; Ma, D.; Li, J.
Assessment of the Regional
Vulnerability to Natural Disasters in
China Based on DEA Model.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10936.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
su151410936
Academic Editor: Hong Tang
Received: 10 May 2023
Revised: 26 June 2023
Accepted: 11 July 2023
Published: 12 July 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10936. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410936
1 School of Economics and Management, Hubei University of Education, Wuhan 430205, China;
wulihui@hue.edu.cn (L.W.); eb_2004and2005@126.com (J.L.)
2 Rural Revitalization Research Center, Hubei University of Education, Wuhan 430205, China
* Correspondence: hue2009@126.com
Abstract: China is a country highly vulnerable to natural disasters, resulting in significant losses in
terms of human casualties, injuries, property damage, economic losses, infrastructure destruction,
and so on each year. We propose a conceptual model based on the Data Envelopment Analysis model
to evaluate regional vulnerability in mainland China using the annual data of Chinese official statistics
from 2006 to 2021. The proposed model includes five input variables: regional total population, per
capita GDP, population density, GDP per square kilometer, and regional total fixed investment in
water conservancy, environment, and public facilities management. Additionally, it incorporates two
output variables: affected people and direct economic loss. The results indicate that the vulnerability
level generally decreases from West China through Central China to East China. Based on the new
classification method proposed in this study, the regions are divided into five areas. These findings
can serve as a reference for policymakers in enhancing disaster planning and improving the efficiency
of natural disaster prevention.
Keywords: natural disasters; regional vulnerability; vulnerability assessment; DEA model;
mainland China
1. Introduction
China is one of the countries most heavily affected by natural disasters primarily
caused by natural forces or processes, which are beyond human control. These forces
can include geological processes (such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or landslides),
meteorological phenomena (such as hurricanes, tornadoes, or floods), or climatic events
(such as droughts or wildfires). In fact, natural disasters have posed significant threats
to life and property safety and have a profound impact on China’s economic and social
development, as well as in other countries [1]. For instance, as shown in Figure 1, in 2008,
the direct economic loss amounted to CNY 1175.2 billion. In 2013, natural disasters resulted
in significant losses, including nearly 390 million people affected and a direct economic
loss of CNY 580.5 billion. Furthermore, in 2016, approximately 190 million people were
affected by natural disasters, and the direct economic loss exceeded CNY 500 billion.
The Chinese government has been making significant efforts to improve and strengthen
disaster prevention and mitigation measures. Disaster preparedness has become a priority
on the agenda. The Chinese central government has allocated substantial financial and
human resources to support affected individuals and regions. The timely collection of
information on natural disasters, such as the number of occurrences, injuries, casualties,
and economic losses, is carried out, and this information is promptly released to the pub-
lic. The impact of natural disasters on regions is a subject of widespread concern and
discussion [2–7]. However, there is limited discussion on the comparison between regional
vulnerability and prevention efficiency.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2023,15,
Sustainability2023, 15,10936
x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of
of 12
13

Figure1.1.The
Figure Themain
mainloss
loss caused
causedby
bynatural
naturaldisasters
disastersin
inmainland
mainlandChina.
China.(Data
(Datasource:
source:Retrieved
Retrievedfrom
from
China Statistical Yearbook from 2005 to 2022 [8]).
China Statistical Yearbook from 2005 to 2022 [8]).

Through aareview
Through reviewof ofthe
theexisting
existingvulnerability-assessment
vulnerability-assessment literature,
literature, ititisisobserved
observed
thatmany
that manyauthors
authorshave
haveproposed
proposedquantitative
quantitativeassessment
assessmentmethods
methods[9–16].
[9–16]. Nevertheless,
Nevertheless,
themajority
the majorityof ofthese
theseapproaches
approachesquantify
quantifyregional
regionalvulnerability
vulnerability through
through thethecreation
creationof of
composite indices
composite indices and
and the
thecalculation
calculation ofofsub-indices,
sub-indices, using
usingtechniques
techniques suchsuchas asartificial
artificial
neural networks
neural networks andand analytic
analytic hierarchy
hierarchy processes
processes [17–20].
[17–20]. Consequently,
Consequently, the the results
results ofof
vulnerabilityassessments
vulnerability assessmentsheavily
heavilydepend
dependon onindicator
indicatorselection
selectionand andthe
theweight
weightassigned
assigned
tothe
to thesub-indices,
sub-indices,which
whichmay mayundermine
underminetheir
theircredibility.
credibility.
Ourstudy
Our studyaims
aimsto toevaluate
evaluateregional
regionalvulnerability
vulnerability to tonatural
naturaldisasters
disasters using
using aaDataData
EnvelopmentAnalysis
Envelopment Analysis(DEA)-based
(DEA)-basedmodel model that
that avoids
avoids the the creation
creation of complex
of complex indicesindices
and
the
andcalculation of sub-indices.
the calculation The framework
of sub-indices. shownshown
The framework is Figure 2 includes
is Figure six main
2 includes sixsteps:
main
literature review,review,
steps: literature data collection and processing,
data collection input and
and processing, output
input and variables specification,
output variables speci-
DEA-BCC model setup,
fication, DEA-BCC modelefficiency calculation,
setup, efficiency and efficiency
calculation, analysis. analysis.
and efficiency On the basis of the
On the ba-
literature, we construct
sis of the literature, wean input–output
construct model, select
an input–output mainland
model, selectChina as a case
mainland China study,
as a and
case
employ dataemploy
study, and from annual governmental
data from statistics spanning
annual governmental statisticsfrom 2006 from
spanning to 20212006 to to
assess
2021
regional
to assessvulnerabilities. Finally, weFinally,
regional vulnerabilities. evaluateweand analyze
evaluate andregional
analyze vulnerabilities from both
regional vulnerabilities
temporal
from both and spatial perspectives.
temporal It is hoped that
and spatial perspectives. It isthis study
hoped will
that provide
this study valuable
will provide insights
val-
for comprehensive regional disaster management planning, thereby
uable insights for comprehensive regional disaster management planning, thereby en- enhancing regional
resilience to natural
hancing regional disasters.
resilience to natural disasters.

Figure 2. Flowchart of the research methodology.

Figure 2. Flowchart of the research methodology.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10936 3 of 12

2. Literature Review
The concept of vulnerability was first introduced by O’Keefe et al. (1976) [21]. The ter-
minology associated with vulnerability varies among disciplines and research areas [22–26].
The concept of vulnerability is frequently utilized in the context of risk, hazards, and disas-
ter literature [1,27,28]. Since the 1980s, the terms “vulnerable” and “vulnerability” have
been increasingly used in disaster-related literature [29]. The United Nations Office for
Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) defines vulnerability as the set of conditions determined
by physical, social, economic, and environmental factors or processes that increase the
susceptibility to the impacts of hazards [30]. In general, natural disasters are perceived as
the intersection of natural hazards and vulnerable conditions, and the risk of disaster is
high when one or more natural hazards occur in a vulnerable situation [31]. Vulnerability
serves as a measure of a region’s capacity to withstand disasters, taking into account the
unique economic characteristics of different regions [27]. Cutter and Finch (2008) [32]
examined social vulnerability to natural disasters by considering temporal and spatial
changes. In this study, vulnerability is employed to assess the capacity to withstand and
recover from disasters in regions characterized by distinct economies.
Conducting vulnerability analyses of different regions is crucial and valuable, as they
can offer guidance to governments in allocating relief funds and assist regional authorities
in enhancing their disaster response capabilities [33]. In recent years, vulnerability assess-
ment has received increasing attention in scientific literature, leading to the development
of various conceptual models and assessment methods for evaluating vulnerability [33–35].
Among these literatures, the analysis of regional vulnerability has been particularly empha-
sized. However, given the intricate nature of natural disasters, vulnerability analysis and
regional vulnerability assessment often involve subjectivity, such as expert judgment and
the weighting of various factors, as the outcomes of these assessments are dependent on
the chosen methodology [33].
Traditional methods for regional vulnerability assessment primarily involve the estab-
lishment of indicator systems, wherein key factors are selected to reflect the vulnerability
conditions of a region. The weights of each evaluation indicator are determined using
techniques such as artificial neural networks, analytic hierarchy process (AHP), or principal
component analysis (PCA), followed by the calculation of a vulnerability index [36,37]. For
instance, Ghahroudi et al. (2016) [36] employed AHP and fuzzy functions to analyze flood
vulnerability and created a vulnerability map of the northwestern areas of Tehran, Iran.
Kazakis et al. (2015) [18] introduced a multi-criteria index and utilized AHP to calculate
parameter weights, thus assessing flood hazard areas at a regional scale. Romero-Lankao
et al. (2016) [38] combined a fuzzy logic approach with AHP to examine the relative impor-
tance of the selection of indicators in assessing vulnerability to climate hazards in Mumbai,
India. However, the weight values obtained are sensitive to indicators for assessment and
the weighting methods utilized.
Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is a relatively recent “data-oriented” approach
used to assess the performance of a group of comparable entities known as Decision Making
Units (DMUs), which convert multiple inputs into multiple outputs [39]. In comparison
with other commonly used methods, DEA is a fractional programming model that can
accommodate multiple inputs and outputs without requiring the explicit specification of
functional relationships between them, eliminating the need for predefined weights [40].
Since its introduction in 1978 by Charnes et al. [39], the DEA model has gained significant
recognition as a robust methodology and has been extensively employed to evaluate
the efficiency of organizational units in various domains, including local government
departments, hospitals, schools, banks, retail stores, manufacturing, and similar settings
where a relatively homogeneous set of units exists [16].
Considering the complexity of the disaster system and the efficiency of DEA, we aim
to utilize the DEA model to investigate regional vulnerability to natural disasters. Previous
studies applying this approach in the field of disaster management are limited [9,33,41].
Huang et al. (2011) [9] developed an input–output DEA model to assess the regional vulner-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10936 4 of 12

ability of mainland China. They established a comprehensive evaluation indicator system

that considered regional hazard risks, exposure of the regional socioeconomic system, and
regional disaster losses. Principal component analysis was used to extract key factors for
assessing regional vulnerability. Zhou et al. (2014) [41] also employed this technique to
evaluate the social vulnerability of Chinese mainland provinces to natural hazards. They
divided vulnerability into socioeconomic and built-environmental vulnerability, identified
principal factors using factor analysis, and assessed provincial vulnerability values for 2000
and 2010. Wei et al. (2004) [33] argued that traditional methods were unreliable due to
their sensitivity to weight selection for the sub-indices used to calculate composite indices
for regional vulnerability. They employed the DEA model with two inputs (population
density and complexity of commercial infrastructure) and two outputs (number of people
affected by the disaster and total cost of damage) to evaluate regional vulnerability based
on official annual data. They proposed a novel method to classify regional vulnerability
to natural disasters. While there are numerous measurable indices, based on a literature
review, the frequently discussed factors for regional vulnerability include the number of
disasters, regional population, GDP, per capita GDP, population density, GDP per square
kilometer, fixed investment in construction, direct economic loss, and affected population.
However, previous studies have some limitations, such as subjective indicator selection and
determination, or the omission of key factors. In this article, we construct an input–output
DEA-based model to evaluate the regional vulnerabilities of mainland China and compare
them temporally and spatially.

3. Data and Methodology

3.1. Data
The investigated region in our study focuses on mainland China. Specifically, we exam-
ined the regional vulnerabilities of its 31 provincial regions, which consist of
22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, and 4 municipalities.
In order to evaluate regional vulnerabilities, we carefully considered the existing
literature review and data availability. As a result, we selected seven factors as input–
output variables for our analysis. These factors include the number of affected people,
direct economic loss, regional total population, per capita GDP, population density, GDP per
square kilometer, and regional total fixed investment in water conservancy, environment,
and public facilities management.
To ensure the accuracy and reliability of our findings, the data used in our study
were derived from annual official statistics of China, covering the period from 2006 to
2021. These statistics provide a comprehensive and representative source of information
for assessing the regional vulnerabilities of mainland China.

3.2. Methodology
DEA model is an effective method for evaluating the relative efficiencies of different
decision-making units (DMUs) that are homogeneous in nature. It is also flexible enough to
handle systems with multiple inputs and outputs. Therefore, we employed the DEA model
to assess regional vulnerabilities. Based on a review of the literature, the model incorporated
five inputs and two outputs. The inputs consisted of regional total population, per capita
GDP, population density, GDP per square kilometer, and regional total fixed investment
in water conservancy, environment, and public facilities management. The outputs were
affected people and direct economic loss. The relative efficiency derived from the DEA
model reflected the sensitivity of a region to natural disasters. In the context of vulnerability
to natural disasters, higher index values indicate greater vulnerability, meaning that the
region is more susceptible to natural disasters or experiences more damage at the same
level of natural disasters. Conversely, lower index values indicate lower vulnerability.
Following the CCR model proposed by Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes [39], various
DEA models have been introduced in the literature, including the BCC model [42] and the
multiplicative model [43]. Among these, the CCR and BCC models are the most widely
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10936 5 of 12

discussed and commonly used. The CCR model assumes constant returns to scale (CRS),
while the BCC model extends the CCR model by considering variable returns to scale
(VRS). The BCC model distinguishes between technical inefficiency and scale inefficiency,
allowing for an assessment of pure technical efficiency and identifying the presence of
increasing, decreasing, or constant returns to scale possibilities [42].
In this study, we employed the DEA-BCC model for data analysis using the DEAP
Version 2.1 software [44]. We assume that regional vulnerability is positively correlated
with the losses caused by natural disasters. The DEA-BCC model is used to evaluate
the vulnerability of each region in different years and to determine the comprehensive
vulnerabilities of each region from 2006 to 2021. We consider a set of n decision-making
units, denoted as DMUj (where j = 1, 2, . . . , n). Each decision-making unit is characterized
by m inputs and s outputs. The input-oriented BCC model, developed by Banker, Charnes,
and Cooper [42], can be described as follows:

min θ − εe T (s− + s+ )
  

n


∑ λ j ( j0 ) xij + s− = θxi0 , i = 1, 2, · · · , m




j =1



 n

∑ λ j yrj − s+ = yr0 , r = 1, 2, · · · , s (1)

 j =1
 n

∑ λj = 1





 j =1
ε, λ j ( j0 ), s− , s+ ≥ 0, j = 1, 2, · · · , n



In the DEA-BCC model, xij (i = 1, . . . , m) represents the i-th input of the j-th DMUj
(j = 1, 2, . . . , n), and yrj (r = 1, . . . , s) represents the r-th output. In this study, we considered
five inputs: x1i , x2i , x3i , x4i , and x5i , which correspond to the regional total population,
per capita GDP, population density, GDP per square kilometer, and regional total fixed
investment in water conservancy, environment, and public facilities management for
the i-th region, respectively. The two outputs, y1i and y2i , represent the number of af-
fected people and the direct economic loss caused by natural disasters in the i-th region
(i = 1, 2, . . . , n) or DMU.
The efficiency score, θ (0 < θ ≤ 1), in DEA terms reflects the regional vulnerability to
natural disasters. A smaller θ indicates a lesser impact on the i-th region, whereas a larger
θ indicates a higher vulnerability. λj (j = 1, 2, . . . , n) represents the weight value assigned
to the j-th region. ε is a non-Archimedean infinitesimal value smaller than any positive real
number. The S− and S+ variables are slack variables, and ∑nj=1 λ j represents the variable
returns to scale constraints.
In this study, we utilized the original data collected by the Chinese government to
calculate the annual vulnerability efficiency scores. Since the losses caused by natural
disasters exhibit significant variations across regions over the years, and the vulnerabilities
to natural disasters also show random variations in different years, we aim to gain a
comprehensive understanding of regional vulnerabilities from 2006 to 2021. Therefore, we
apply the DEA-BCC model to compute the overall regional vulnerabilities using the annual
data spanning from 2006 to 2021.

4. Empirical Analyses
The main objective of this study was to evaluate the regional vulnerabilities using the
results obtained from the DEA-BCC model. To achieve this, we employed five input vari-
ables and two output variables to calculate the efficiencies of the 31 decision-making units
(DMUs). Through data processing and analysis, we obtained annual and comprehensive
regional efficiencies for each region, as presented in Table 1.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10936 6 of 12

Table 1. Index of annual vulnerabilities to natural disasters for each region in mainland China from
2006 to 2021.

Province
DUM 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
(Municipality)
1 Beijing 0.218 0.211 0.220 0.228 0.233 0.247 0.267 0.275 0.290 0.300 0.295 0.590 0.394 0.334 0.440 0.553
2 Tianjin 0.303 0.288 0.248 0.246 0.239 0.241 0.523 0.265 0.278 0.296 0.301 0.411 0.383 0.503 0.489 0.478
3 Hebei 0.594 0.706 0.462 0.848 0.480 0.493 1.000 0.619 0.768 1.000 1.000 0.896 0.655 0.734 0.744 0.768
4 Shanxi 0.728 1.000 0.571 0.646 0.570 0.592 0.639 0.695 0.743 0.879 0.812 0.975 0.732 1.000 0.984 1.000
5 Inner Mongolia 1.000 1.000 0.779 1.000 0.956 1.000 1.000 0.803 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
6 Liaoning 0.460 1.000 0.386 0.714 0.366 0.361 0.833 0.399 0.461 0.592 0.668 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
7 Jilin 0.548 0.833 0.526 0.953 1.000 0.496 0.594 0.536 0.584 0.627 0.609 1.000 0.647 0.837 0.922 0.812
8 Heilongjiang 0.629 1.000 0.571 0.723 0.595 0.603 0.618 0.662 0.679 0.682 1.000 1.000 0.817 1.000 0.941 0.884
9 Shanghai 0.187 0.195 0.209 0.217 0.223 0.240 0.263 0.288 0.295 0.307 0.408 0.590 0.416 0.330 0.325 0.356
10 Jiangsu 0.352 0.378 0.291 0.291 0.276 0.283 0.412 0.325 0.318 0.315 0.312 0.433 0.287 0.285 0.298 0.300
11 Zhejiang 0.509 1.000 0.631 0.438 0.300 0.393 1.000 0.703 0.368 1.000 0.401 0.218 0.351 1.000 0.370 0.393
12 Anhui 0.602 1.000 0.741 1.000 0.619 0.664 0.852 0.876 0.765 0.782 1.000 0.365 0.656 0.712 1.000 0.585
13 Fujian 1.000 0.503 0.417 0.416 0.786 0.394 0.417 0.430 0.433 0.996 0.870 0.387 0.404 0.468 0.401 0.403
14 Jiangxi 0.862 0.964 0.833 0.743 0.653 0.654 0.736 0.763 0.743 0.711 0.709 0.636 0.660 1.000 1.000 0.680
15 Shandong 0.371 0.572 0.323 1.000 0.327 0.417 0.585 0.428 0.426 0.582 0.412 1.000 0.722 1.000 0.502 0.503
16 Henan 0.462 0.687 0.526 0.864 0.520 0.552 0.656 0.773 1.000 0.667 0.685 0.929 1.000 0.855 0.799 1.000
17 Hubei 0.601 0.791 0.910 0.658 0.497 0.537 0.646 0.688 0.553 0.694 1.000 0.838 0.743 0.709 1.000 0.558
18 Hunan 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.565 1.000 0.659 0.867 0.822 0.669 0.904 1.000 0.591 0.825 0.742 0.624
19 Guangdong 1.000 0.321 0.295 0.307 0.307 0.328 0.395 0.626 0.436 1.000 0.410 1.000 0.382 0.354 0.412 0.419
20 Guangxi 1.000 0.791 0.886 0.822 0.686 0.691 0.747 0.777 0.794 0.758 0.737 0.354 0.754 0.819 0.819 0.837
21 Hainan 0.796 1.000 1.000 0.769 0.709 1.000 0.713 0.771 1.000 0.883 1.000 0.864 0.794 0.811 0.879 0.843
22 Chongqing 1.000 1.000 0.612 0.593 1.000 0.501 0.611 0.589 0.584 0.548 0.535 0.857 0.550 0.529 0.676 0.538
23 Sichuan 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.774 0.700 0.680 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.824
24 Guizhou 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.880 0.907 0.510 0.760 0.739 0.781 0.809
25 Yunnan 0.951 1.000 0.962 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.844 1.000 1.000 1.000
26 Tibet 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
27 Shananxi 0.832 1.000 0.593 0.596 0.552 0.609 0.562 0.624 0.751 0.599 0.574 1.000 0.539 0.629 0.572 0.950
28 Gansu 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
29 Qinghai 1.000 1.000 0.772 0.957 0.916 1.000 1.000 0.771 1.000 1.000 0.943 1.000 0.937 1.000 1.000 1.000
30 Ningxia 0.903 1.000 0.774 0.794 0.633 0.662 0.771 0.665 0.821 0.790 0.813 1.000 0.785 0.866 0.999 1.000
31 Xinjiang 0.758 0.905 1.000 0.790 1.000 0.784 1.000 0.700 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.955 1.000 0.998 0.979

4.1. Regional Analysis of the Annual Vulnerabilities to Natural Disasters

Table 1 provides an overview of the annual regional vulnerabilities to natural disasters
from 2006 to 2021. Here, we take the year 2006 as an example to analyze the results.
The regions most severely affected by natural disasters in 2006 were Inner Mongolia
Autonomous Region, Fujian Province, Hunan Province, Guangdong Province, Guangxi
Province, Chongqing Province, Sichuan Province, Guizhou Province, Tibet Autonomous
Region, Gansu Province, and Qinghai Province, with vulnerability indices equal to 1.
The regions that were significantly impacted by natural disasters in 2006 were Jiangxi
Province (efficiency score of 0.826), Hainan Province (0.796), Yunnan Province (0.951),
Shananxi Province (0.832), Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region (0.903), and Xinjiang Uygur
Autonomous Region (0.758).
Shanghai municipality was the region least negatively impacted by natural disasters
in 2006, with an efficiency score of 0.187. Beijing Municipality, Tianjin Municipality, Jiangsu
Province, and Shandong Province were lightly affected by natural disasters in 2006, with
efficiency indices of 0.218, 0.303, 0.352, and 0.371, respectively.
It is worth noting that some regions consistently maintain lower vulnerability indices
over the years, such as Beijing, Tianjin, and Shanghai. This suggests that these regions have
higher capacities to withstand natural disasters.
Additionally, there are regions whose efficiency scores show significant variation across
different years, such as Hebei Province, Liaoning Province, Zhejiang Province, Anhui Province,
Fujian Province, Shandong Province, Guangdong Province, and Tibet Autonomous Region
(with θ ranging from 0.2 to 1). This indicates a fluctuation in their vulnerability levels over
time. Moreover, the efficiency scores also vary considerably across different geographic
regions, highlighting the spatial variation in vulnerability to natural disasters.
Overall, the results in Table 1 demonstrate the regional vulnerabilities to natural
disasters in different years and provide valuable insights for understanding the dynamics
and spatial patterns of vulnerability across China’s mainland.
Table 2 provides a list of regions with annual efficiency scores of 1 (θ = 1) from 2006 to
2021. By examining the results in Table 2, the following observations can be made:
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10936 7 of 12

Table 2. The most severely affected regions by natural disasters from 2006 to 2021.

Year The DUM

2006 Inner Mongolia, Fujian, Hunan, Guangdong, Guangxi, Chongqing, Sichuan, Guizhou, Tibet, Gansu, Qinghai
Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Heilongjiang, Zhejiang, Anhui, Hunan, Hainan, Chongqing, Sichuan, Guizhou,
2007
Yunnan, Tibet, Shananxi, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia
2008 Hunan, Hainan, Sichuan, Guizhou, Tibet, Gansu, Xinjiang
2009 Inner Mongolia, Anhui, Shandong, Hunan, Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan, Tibet, Gansu
2010 Jilin, Chongqing, Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan, Tibet, Gansu, Xinjiang
2011 Inner Mongolia, Hunan, Hainan, Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan, Tibet, Gansu, Qinghai
2012 Hebei, Inner Mongolia, Zhejiang, Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan, Tibet, Gansu, Qinghai, Xinjiang
2013 Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan, Tibet, Gansu
2014 Inner Mongolia, Henan, Hainan, Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan, Tibet, Gansu, Qinghai, Xinjiang
2015 Hebei, Inner Mongolia, Zhejiang, Guangdong, Yunnan, Tibet, Gansu, Qinghai, Xinjiang
2016 Hebei, Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Hubei, Hainan, Yunnan, Tibet, Gansu, Xinjiang
Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Jilin, Helongjiang, Shandong, Hunan, Guangdong, Yunnan, Tibet, Shananxi, Gansu, Qinghai,
2017
Ningxia, Xinjiang
2018 Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Henan, Sichuan, Tibet, Gansu
Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Heilongjiang, Zhejiang, Jiangxi, Shandong, Sichuan, Yunnan, Tibet, Gansu,
2019
Qinghai, Xinjiang
2020 Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Anhui, Jiangxi, Hubei, Sichuan, Yunnan, Tibet, Gansu, Qinghai
2021 Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Henan, Yunnan, Tibet, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia

There are 27 regions that have experienced at least 1 year with an efficiency score of 1
during the 16-year period. This indicates that natural disasters occur randomly and that
there is a need for these regions to improve their capacities to withstand such disasters.
The Tibet Autonomous Region and Gansu Province rank first in terms of the occurrence
frequency, with an efficiency score of 1 appearing sixteen times each. They are followed by
Yunnan Province and Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, which have an efficiency score
of 1 appearing thirteen times each. Qinghai Province appears ten times with an efficiency
score of 1. Sichuan Province and Guizhou Province both have an efficiency score of 1
appearing nine times each, while Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region appears eight times.
The most affected regions primarily lie in the western region of mainland China. Fewer
regions in the central and eastern regions of China appear in Table 2, suggesting that the
western regions are more prone to natural disasters or have higher vulnerability levels.
These findings highlight the regional disparities in terms of vulnerability to natural
disasters within China’s mainland, with the western regions being more frequently im-
pacted. It underscores the importance of enhancing disaster resilience and preparedness in
these regions to minimize the impacts of future natural disasters.

4.2. Regional Analysis of the Comprehensive Vulnerabilities

Table 3 and Figure 3 present the results of the comprehensive regional vulnerability
analysis based on the DEA-BCC model. The analysis utilizes panel data consisting of
434 data points, representing annual data for the 31 regions over a 16-year period.
The regional vulnerabilities are classified into five degrees based on the relative
efficiency scores (θ) obtained from the DEA-BCC model. These degrees are categorized as
slight (0 < θ ≤ 0.25), low (0.25 < θ ≤ 0.5), medium (0.5 < θ ≤ 0.75), severe (0.75 < θ ≤ 0.9),
and extreme (0.9 < θ ≤ 1).
Table 3 provides a comprehensive overview of the regional vulnerabilities for each
region and year, indicating the degree of vulnerability based on the corresponding θ
values. Figure 3 visualizes the regional vulnerabilities across the 31 DUMs, allowing for
a clearer understanding of the distribution and variations in vulnerability levels over the
16-year period.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10936 8 of 12

Table 3. Overall regional vulnerability efficiency to natural disasters in mainland China (2006–2021).

Province Efficiency Vulnerability Province Efficiency Vulnerability

DUM District DUM District
(Municipality) Score Rank (Municipality) Score Rank
1 Beijing East 0.218 Slight 17 Hubei Central 0.601 Medium
2 Tianjin East 0.303 Low 18 Hunan Central 1.000 Extreme
3 Hebei East 0.594 Medium 19 Guangdong East 1.000 Extreme
4 Shanxi Central 0.728 Medium 20 Guangxi West 1.000 Extreme
5 Inner Mongolia West 1.000 Extreme 21 Hainan East 0.796 Severe
6 Liaoning East 0.460 Low 22 Chongqing West 1.000 Extreme
7 Jilin Central 0.548 Medium 23 Sichuan West 1.000 Extreme
8 Heilongjiang Central 0.629 Medium 24 Guizhou West 1.000 Extreme
9 Shanghai East 0.187 Slight 25 Yunnan West 0.951 Extreme
10 Jiangsu East 0.352 Low 26 Tibet West 1.000 Extreme
11 Zhejiang East 0.509 Medium 27 Shananxi West 0.832 Severe
12 Anhui Central 0.602 Medium 28 Gansu West 1.000 Extreme
13 Fujian East 1.000 Extreme 29 Qinghai West 1.000 Extreme
14 Jiangxi Central 0.862 Severe 30 Ningxia West 0.903 Extreme
15 Shandong East 0.371 Low 31 Xinjiang West 0.758 Severe
16 Henan Central 0.462 Low

These results provide valuable insights into the overall vulnerability landscape in
China’s mainland, highlighting regions that consistently exhibit high vulnerability lev-
els and those that experience fluctuations in vulnerability over time. This information
can assist policymakers and stakeholders in prioritizing resources, implementing mit-
igation measures, and developing strategies to enhance resilience in regions prone to
natural disasters.

Figure 3. Regional vulnerability index based on data from 2006 to 2021.

Based on the information provided in Table 3, we can observe the following patterns
and trends in regional vulnerabilities to natural disasters in China’s mainland:
The regions with slight vulnerability are Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, and Hainan
Province, located in the eastern region of China, which consistently exhibit lower vul-
nerability levels compared with other regions. This suggests that these areas have relatively
higher capacities to withstand natural disasters.
The regions with low vulnerability are Tianjin, Liaoning Province, Jiangsu Province,
Shandong Province, and Henan Province, which are primarily located in East China or
Central China and demonstrate relatively low vulnerability levels. These regions have a
better overall performance in terms of vulnerability.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10936 9 of 12

The regions with severe vulnerability are Jiangxi Province, Hainan Province, Shaanxi
Province, and Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, representing the eastern, central,
and western regions of China, respectively, which exhibit higher vulnerability levels.
These regions require greater attention and targeted measures to mitigate the impacts of
natural disasters.
Table 3 indicates that the majority of regions classified under the extreme vulnerability
level are located in West China, accounting for 76.9% of the total. This highlights the higher
vulnerability levels in the western regions and the need for comprehensive strategies to
address and reduce their vulnerability.
These findings emphasize the regional disparities in vulnerability across China’s
mainland. The eastern regions generally display lower vulnerability, while the western
regions face greater challenges. This information can aid in the formulation of policies
and measures to enhance resilience and reduce vulnerabilities in the regions most prone to
natural disasters.
The regional analysis of annual and comprehensive vulnerabilities to natural disasters
reveals distinct patterns across different regions in China. The regions with slight and low
vulnerability are predominantly located in the eastern region, while regions with severe
and extreme vulnerability are concentrated in the central and western regions, with some
exceptions like Fujian province, Guangdong province, and Hainan province. West China
consistently shows high vulnerability levels with fluctuations, while East China generally
exhibits lower and more stable vulnerability levels. The vulnerability in Central China
experiences significant variations.
This information can serve as valuable references for government decision-making
in natural disaster management. It highlights the need to prioritize resources and allocate
investments in regions with higher vulnerability, particularly in the central and western
regions. These regions face challenges due to unfavorable natural factors and comparatively
lower levels of total fixed investment in water conservancy, environment, and public
facilities management. The disparities in relief funds distribution also contribute to the
overall higher vulnerability from East China to West China.
The approach used in this study differs from traditional methods that rely on complex
indicator systems and weights determined through techniques such as artificial neural
networks. Instead, the study utilizes original data from official statistical organizations to
evaluate relative vulnerability. The proposed classification criteria for regional vulnerability
in China provide a new framework for understanding and categorizing vulnerabilities. By
considering the specific characteristics of each region, policymakers can devise targeted
strategies and allocate resources effectively to reduce vulnerabilities and enhance resilience
to natural disasters.

5. Discussion
In this study, we have presented a vulnerability analysis model to evaluate regional
vulnerabilities in mainland China. The model utilizes an input–output DEA approach and
relative vulnerability indices based on Chinese official statistical data from 2006 to 2021.
Unlike previous quantitative methods that employ complex indicator systems and various
techniques to handle indicators [7,36,37], our approach is simpler and relies on original
Chinese official statistical data, which enhances the credibility of the results.
We have classified regional vulnerabilities into different levels, providing a new
classification method for regional vulnerability assessment. This classification allows
for a better understanding of the variations in vulnerability across different regions in
mainland China.
The findings of our study reveal distinct patterns in regional vulnerabilities. The
eastern region generally exhibits lower vulnerability levels, while the central and western
regions face higher vulnerability, with some exceptions. This information is valuable for
decision-making in disaster management planning, as it highlights the need for targeted
strategies and resource allocation to address the specific vulnerabilities of each region.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10936 10 of 12

The analysis conducted in this study using the DEA model reveals significant regional
disparities in vulnerability within mainland China. There is a clear negative correlation
between regional economic development and vulnerability levels, with the western region
exhibiting the highest vulnerability, followed by the central region and the eastern region.
The analysis over the 16-year period from 2006 to 2021 also highlights the relatively stable
vulnerability in East China and West China, while the regions in Central China experience
more significant fluctuations in vulnerability levels over time.
It is worth noting that vulnerability is not only inversely related to regional economic
development but also negatively correlated with the level of total fixed investment and
disaster preparedness. More developed regions tend to have lower vulnerability levels
due to their greater capacity to withstand natural disasters. However, it is important
to acknowledge the exceptions of Fujian Province, Guangdong Province, and Hainan
Province. Despite being located on the south coast of China and experiencing rapid
economic development, these provinces are densely populated and are frequently affected
by land-falling tropical cyclones, which contributes to their higher vulnerability levels.
The findings of this study emphasize the importance of considering both economic
development and specific geographical factors when assessing regional vulnerability. Pol-
icymakers and stakeholders can use these insights to prioritize disaster management
efforts and allocate resources effectively, taking into account the unique vulnerabilities
of different regions. By addressing these vulnerabilities, especially in high-risk areas, the
resilience and preparedness of these regions can be strengthened to mitigate the impacts of
natural disasters.
Future studies can further explore how regions can enhance preparedness and improve
resilience in the face of natural disasters. Examining preparedness measures in regions
with low vulnerability can reveal effective strategies for reducing disaster risks. Identifying
factors contributing to vulnerability in high-risk regions can guide targeted interventions.
Additionally, we have future plans to explore the vulnerability and resilience specific to
certain types of natural disasters, with a particular focus on earthquakes. Building upon
our previous work on ambient seismic noise for urban disaster management [45], this
investigation aims to uncover unique vulnerabilities associated with seismic events and
contribute to the development of tailored strategies.
Overall, these research efforts contribute to a better understanding of vulnerability,
enhancing disaster preparedness, and promoting resilience.

6. Conclusions
In conclusion, this vulnerability analysis model, based on input–output DEA and
relative vulnerability indices, provides a robust and convincing approach to assessing
regional vulnerabilities in mainland China. The proposed classification method offers a
new perspective on regional vulnerability assessment. The results of our study can assist
policymakers in developing effective disaster management plans and allocating resources
to reducing vulnerabilities and enhancing resilience in different regions.
The findings of this study contribute to a comprehensive understanding of regional
vulnerability in mainland China. The input–output DEA model, coupled with the use of
original official statistics, enables the generation of detailed and reliable regional vulnerabil-
ity assessments. The proposed classification method provides policymakers with valuable
references for promoting disaster planning and implementing effective prevention measures.
It is important to acknowledge that while natural disasters are beyond human control,
human actions can play a significant role in disaster prevention and mitigation efforts.
By exploring areas such as preparedness measures, factors contributing to vulnerability,
and the effectiveness of disaster management practices (e.g., [46,47]) in future studies,
policymakers and stakeholders can gain a deeper understanding of how to enhance regional
preparedness, improve disaster response, and build resilient communities to minimize the
adverse impacts of natural disasters.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10936 11 of 12

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.W. and D.M.; methodology, L.W. and D.M.; software,
L.W.; validation, L.W., D.M. and J.L.; formal analysis, L.W.; investigation, L.W.; resources, J.L.;
data curation, L.W.; writing—original draft preparation, L.W.; writing—review and editing, J.L.;
visualization, L.W.; supervision, D.M.; funding acquisition, L.W. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Scientific Research Foundation of the Education Depart-
ment of Hubei Province, China, grant number Q20203004 and the Philosophy and Social Science
Research Project of the Education Department of Hubei Province, China, grant number 22Q212.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data were obtained from National Bureau of Statistics, China (China
Statistical Yearbook, https://data.stats.gov.cn/publish.htm?sort=1 (accessed on 18 April 2023).
Acknowledgments: We sincerely thank Bao Sarina from Kyoto University for her valuable sugges-
tions during the revision process. We also express our gratitude to Wenkai Chen from Lanzhou
Institute of Seismology, China Earthquake Administration for his assistance in revising Figure 3.
Additionally, we appreciate the comments and suggestions from the editor and anonymous reviewers,
which greatly contributed to the improvement of our manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Chen, W.K.; Rao, G.; Kang, D.; Wan, Z.; Wang, D. Early report of the source characteristics, ground motions, and casualty
estimates of the 2023 M w 7.8 and 7.5 Turkey earthquakes. J. Earth Sci. 2023, 34, 297–303. [CrossRef]
2. Wu, L.; Hayashi, H. The impact of disasters on Japan’s inbound tourism demand. J. Disaster Res. 2014, 9, 699–708. [CrossRef]
3. Cao, F.; Wang, H.; Zhang, C.; Kong, W. Social Vulnerability Evaluation of Natural Disasters and Its Spatiotemporal Evolution in
Zhejiang Province, China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6400. [CrossRef]
4. Farahani, S.; Tahershamsi, A.; Behnam, B. Earthquake and post-earthquake vulnerability assessment of urban gas pipelines
network. Nat. Hazards 2020, 101, 327–347. [CrossRef]
5. Aksha, S.K.; Juran, L.; Resler, L.M.; Zhang, Y. An analysis of social vulnerability to natural hazards in Nepal using a modified
social vulnerability index. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2019, 10, 103–116. [CrossRef]
6. Farahani, S.; Behnam, B.; Tahershamsi, A. Macrozonation of seismic transient and permanent ground deformation of Iran. Nat.
Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2020, 20, 2889–2903. [CrossRef]
7. Frischen, J.; Meza, I.; Rupp, D.; Wietler, K.; Hagenlocher, M. Drought risk to agricultural systems in Zimbabwe: A spatial analysis
of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 752. [CrossRef]
8. National Breau of Satatistics. National Breau of Satatistics China—Statistical Yearbook; National Breau of Satatistics: Beijing,
China, 2022.
9. Huang, J.; Liu, Y.; Ma, L. Assessment of regional vulnerability to natural hazards in China using a DEA model. Int. J. Disaster Risk
Sci. 2011, 2, 41–48. [CrossRef]
10. Qie, Z.; Rong, L. An integrated relative risk assessment model for urban disaster loss in view of disaster system theory. Nat.
Hazards 2017, 88, 165–190. [CrossRef]
11. Yao, L.; Shuai, Y.; Chen, X. Regional water system vulnerability evaluation: A bi-level DEA with multi-followers approach. J.
Hydrol. 2020, 589, 125160. [CrossRef]
12. Sarker, M.N.I.; Wu, M.; Alam, G.M.; Shouse, R.C. Livelihood vulnerability of riverine-island dwellers in the face of natural
disasters in Bangladesh. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1623. [CrossRef]
13. Uitto, J.I. The geography of disaster vulnerability in megacities: A theoretical framework. Appl. Geogr. 1998, 18, 7–16. [CrossRef]
14. Gao, Y.; Yu, X.; Xi, M.; Zhao, Q. Assessment of Vulnerability Caused by Earthquake Disasters Based on DEA: A Case Study of
County-Level Units in Chinese Mainland. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7545. [CrossRef]
15. Xiong, J.; Li, J.; Cheng, W.; Wang, N.; Guo, L. A GIS-based support vector machine model for flash flood vulnerability assessment
and mapping in China. Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 297. [CrossRef]
16. Hou, J.; Lv, J.; Chen, X.; Yu, S. China’s regional social vulnerability to geological disasters: Evaluation and spatial characteristics
analysis. Nat. Hazards 2016, 84, 97–111. [CrossRef]
17. Manijeh, G.T.; Jamileh, T.; Anita, M.H. Flood vulnerability assessment in northwestern areas of Tehran. J. Disaster Res. 2016,
11, 699–706.
18. Kazakis, N.; Kougias, I.; Patsialis, T. Assessment of flood hazard areas at a regional scale using an index-based approach and
Analytical Hierarchy Process: Application in Rhodope–Evros region, Greece. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 538, 555–563. [CrossRef]
19. Alizadeh, M.; Ngah, I.; Hashim, M.; Pradhan, B.; Pour, A.B. A hybrid analytic network process and artificial neural network
(ANP-ANN) model for urban earthquake vulnerability assessment. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 975. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10936 12 of 12

20. Das, S. Flood susceptibility mapping of the Western Ghat coastal belt using multi-source geospatial data and analytical hierarchy
process (AHP). Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2020, 20, 100379. [CrossRef]
21. Phil, O.K.; Ken, W.; Ben, W. Taking the naturalness out of natural disasters. Nature 1976, 260, 566–567.
22. Cutter, S.L. Living With Risk; Edward Arnold: London, UK, 1993.
23. Wisner, B. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2004.
24. Chang, S.E.; Yip, J.Z.; Conger, T.; Oulahen, G.; Marteleira, M. Community vulnerability to coastal hazards: Developing a typology
for disaster risk reduction. Appl. Geogr. 2018, 91, 81–88. [CrossRef]
25. Füssel, H.-M. Vulnerability: A generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research. Glob. Environ. Chang.
2007, 17, 155–167. [CrossRef]
26. Wan, Z.; Wang, D.; Zhang, J.; Li, Q.; Zhao, L.; Cheng, Y.; Mori, J.; Chen, F.; Peng, Y. Two-Staged Rupture of the 19 October 2020 M
w 7.6 Strike-Slip Earthquake Illuminated the Boundary of Coupling Variation in the Shumagin Islands, Alaska. Seismol. Soc. Am.
2023, 94, 52–65. [CrossRef]
27. Cutter, S.L. Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 1996, 20, 529–539. [CrossRef]
28. Chen, W.; Wang, D.; Zhang, C.; Yao, Q.; Si, H. Estimating Seismic Intensity Maps of the 2021 M w 7.3 Madoi, Qinghai and M w 6.1
Yangbi, Yunnan, China Earthquakes. J. Earth Sci. 2022, 33, 839–846. [CrossRef]
29. Wisner, B.; Luce, H.R. Disaster vulnerability: Scale, power and daily life. GeoJournal 1993, 30, 127–140. [CrossRef]
30. Sendai Framework Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Available online: https://www.undrr.org/terminology (accessed
on 27 June 2023).
31. Maskrey, A. Disaster Mitigation: A Community Based Approach; Oxfam International: Oxford, UK, 1989.
32. Cutter, S.L.; Finch, C. Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008,
105, 2301–2306. [CrossRef]
33. Wei, Y.-M.; Fan, Y.; Lu, C.; Tsai, H.-T. The assessment of vulnerability to natural disasters in China by using the DEA method.
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2004, 24, 427–439. [CrossRef]
34. Zarafshani, K.; Sharafi, L.; Azadi, H.; Van Passel, S. Vulnerability assessment models to drought: Toward a conceptual framework.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 588. [CrossRef]
35. Polsky, C.; Neff, R.; Yarnal, B. Building comparable global change vulnerability assessments: The vulnerability scoping diagram.
Glob. Environ. Chang. 2007, 17, 472–485. [CrossRef]
36. Ghahroudi Tali, M.; Majidi Heravi, A.; Abdoli, E. Vulnerability of urban flooding case study: Tehran, Darake to Kan. J. Geogr.
Environ. Hazards 2016, 5, 21–36.
37. Agrawal, N.; Gupta, L.; Dixit, J. Assessment of the socioeconomic vulnerability to seismic hazards in the national capital region of
India using factor analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9652. [CrossRef]
38. Romero-Lankao, P.; Gnatz, D.M.; Sperling, J.B. Examining urban inequality and vulnerability to enhance resilience: Insights from
Mumbai, India. Clim. Chang. 2016, 139, 351–365. [CrossRef]
39. Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W.; Rhodes, E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1978, 2, 429–444.
[CrossRef]
40. Boussofiane, A.; Dyson, R.G.; Thanassoulis, E. Applied data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1991, 52, 1–15. [CrossRef]
41. Zhou, Y.; Li, N.; Wu, W.; Wu, J. Assessment of provincial social vulnerability to natural disasters in China. Nat. Hazards 2014,
71, 2165–2186. [CrossRef]
42. Banker, R.D.; Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment
analysis. Manag. Sci. 1984, 30, 1078–1092. [CrossRef]
43. Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W.; Seiford, L.; Stutz, J. A multiplicative model for efficiency analysis. Socio Econ. Plan. Sci. 1982,
16, 223–224. [CrossRef]
44. Coelli, T. A Guide to DEAP Version 2.1: A Data Envelopment Analysis (Computer) Program; Centre for Efficiency Productivity Analysis,
University of New England: Biddeford, Australia, 1996; pp. 1–49.
45. Wu, L.; Wang, D.; Lei, Z.; Fu, J.; Min, S.; Xu, X.; Bao, S. Campus Vibration in Nanwangshan Campus, China University of
Geosciences at Wuhan Monitored by Short-Period Seismometers. J. Earth Sci. 2020, 31, 950–956. [CrossRef]
46. Luo, X.; Zhang, C.; Song, J.; Qiu, Z.; Li, W.; Wang, W. Do Livelihood Strategies Affect the Livelihood Resilience of Farm
Households in Flooded Areas? Evidence From Hubei Province, China. In Climate Change Agricultural System Response; Xu, D., Li,
Q., Liu, S., Peng, L., Eds.; Frontiers: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 10.
47. Zhang, C.; Luo, X.; Song, J.; Fu, Z.; Huang, Z.; Wang, W. Can Environmental Risk Management Improve the Adaptability
of Farmer Households’ Livelihood Strategies?—Evidence From Hubei Province, China. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 908913.
[CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.