社会脆弱性概念、分析框架与评价方法

doi:10.11820/dlkxjz.2014.10.008

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

社会脆弱性作为脆弱性的维度之一,是脆弱性与可持续性科学研究领域的新兴热点问题。在分析对国内外社会脆弱性研究文献的基础上,从概念内涵、分析框架与评价方法3方面对社会脆弱性研究进行了评述。目前学者们对社会脆弱性概念有不同的理解,尚未形成统一的概念体系与内涵特征;系统性的社会脆弱性分析框架尚未形成,现有成果多是在脆弱性框架基础上的延伸和拓展,主要从政治经济学视角、社会—生态视角和综合视角开展研究;多元化的评价方法在社会脆弱性的应用研究中仍较少见,已有研究的评价指标体系尚不完善。未来,应进一步拓展社会脆弱性研究内容,促进多学科交叉融合;逐步统一社会脆弱性概念和分析框架,深化社会脆弱性的理论研究;加强社会脆弱性评价方法与指标体系的完善,促进多元化评价方法的应用;加强社会脆弱性减缓与调控对策研究,整合社会脆弱性与适应性框架,为提高社会适应能力与可持续发展提供科学依据。

关键词: 社会脆弱性, 概念, 分析框架, 评价方法

Abstract:

Vulnerability is a concept that evolved out of the social sciences and was introduced as a response to the purely hazard-oriented perception of disaster risk in the 1970s. Recently, the study about social vulnerability of human system and coupled human-environmental system has become increasingly more popular in the field of vulnerability research and sustainability science. The concept of social vulnerability aims at identifying and understanding which groups of people may be more sensitive and susceptible to the impacts of natural disasters and why. In this article, we discuss the progress of social vulnerability research and review the concept, characteristics, analytical frameworks, and assessment methods of social vulnerability. This article first reviews definitions of social vulnerability from different types of stresses including risk and hazard, climate change, demographic characteristics and inequality, resource exploitation, land use change, and environmental pollution. Social vulnerability is one dimension of vulnerability. Social vulnerability refers to negative impacts of social system exposed to natural or human factors due to its own sensitivity characteristics and lack of ability to cope with adverse disturbance. Second, this article introduces several analytical frameworks of social vulnerability from political economy, social-ecological system, and comprehensive perspectives. These frameworks include the Pressure and Release Model, Sustainable Livelihood Framework, Hazards-of-Place Model, Coupled Human-Environmental System Framework, BBC Conceptual Framework, and MOVE Framework. Strictly speaking, these frameworks are not specialized social vulnerability framework, and most of them were derived from vulnerability frameworks. Some researchers improved and applied them to explain elements, process, and mechanism of social vulnerability. The article compares critical rationale of different frameworks and reviews their merits and defects from three perspectives. At last, the article summarizes assessment methods, computational formulas, and evaluation index systems of social vulnerability. The methods include comprehensive index, function model, back propagation artificial neural network, decision tree, object-oriented analysis, spatial multi criteria evaluation, and GIS methods. Every method has different features and advantages and disadvantages. The choice of method should be based on research purposes. There are also many kinds of evaluation index systems and social vulnerability indexes such as the SoVI, CVI, CCSVI, SV, and so on. Most studies use population and relevant social and economic indicators to establish evaluation index systems. However, there are many questions about the validity and reliability of index systems. Generally, current studies on social vulnerability have the following problems: a unified conceptual and analytical framework has not been formed; assessment methods of social vulnerability are too simplistic; a comprehensive evaluation index system is absent; studies on mitigation and countermeasures are insufficient. In the future, social vulnerability study needs to establish a unified concept and analytical framework, expand the research contents, improve theoretical system, and promote multi-disciplinary integration. At the same time, it is necessary to improve evaluation index system and method of social vulnerability, strengthen research on social vulnerability mitigation and countermeasures, and integrate social vulnerability and social adaptation. We hope social vulnerability research can provide the scientific basis for social adaptability and sustainable development.

Key words: social vulnerability, concept, analytical framework, assessment method

中图分类号:

TU981

黄晓军, 黄馨, 崔彩兰, 杨新军. 社会脆弱性概念、分析框架与评价方法[J]. 地理科学进展, 2014, 33(11): 1512-1525.

Xiaojun HUANG, Xin HUANG, Cailan CUI, Xinjun YANG. The concept, analytical framework and assessment method of social vulnerability[J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2014, 33(11): 1512-1525.

图/表 11

表1

社会脆弱性的概念"

研究视角	典型定义	文献来源
自然灾害的社会脆弱性	用于定义灾害事件中潜在的损失、应对灾害的抵抗和恢复过程中社会群体易受危害的术语;	Blaikie et al, 1994;
	某一特定地区关于灾害,暴露、备灾、预防的情况及其响应特征,它是对能够承受某些自然灾害的一系列要素能力的测度;	Weichselgartner, 2001;
	个人或群体以及影响他们参与、处理、抵抗和从灾害的影响中恢复的特征,涉及许多因素,这些因素影响人们的生活、生计、财产和其他资本。	Wisner et al, 2004
气候变化的社会脆弱性	暴露于气候变化和气候极端事件下的群体或个人受其压力影响的结果,这些压力包括群体和个人生计的破坏,以及对物质环境的被迫适应;	Adger et al, 2004;
气候变化的社会脆弱性	社会脆弱性是暴露度、敏感性和适应能力的函数。	Wongbusarakum et al, 2011
地方/区域的社会脆弱性	社会群体易受自然灾害影响或损害的状态,以及从灾害中恢复的能力;是一个人口特征的函数和社会不平等的产物;	Cutter, 2006;
地方/区域的社会脆弱性	社会条件与环境的相互作用导致的区域易受灾害的可能性,主要通过社会经济条件和人口特征来反映。	Yi et al, 2014
矿业城市的社会脆弱性	由于社会系统对内外各种扰动的敏感性和缺乏应对不利扰动的能力而使该系统容易向不可持续方向发展的一种状态,是系统的内在本质属性,在系统遭受扰动时这种属性才表现出来;	苏飞等, 2008;
矿业城市的社会脆弱性	矿业城市在社会发展过程中受到内、外部扰动的敏感性以及缺乏应对能力而使系统内部发生变化的一种属性。	刘继生等, 2010
土地利用变化的社会脆弱性	环境（土地利用）变化对社会系统产生的负面影响,与系统的敏感性成正比,与适应能力成反比。	Huang et al, 2012
环境污染的社会脆弱性	由于人们对外部或内部压力缺乏足够的应对和响应能力而受到干扰的状态,这些压力来自于环境或社会经济因素。	Bich, 2014

表1

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

图6

表2

表3

社会脆弱性评价方法"

评价方法	基本原理	优点和不足
综合指数法	对选取的指标数据进行标准化处理,并利用主成分分析、综合加权求和、熵权系数、层次分析等方法确定指标权重,进而综合评价社会脆弱性程度。	计算过程相对简单,且容易操作;但在指标选取与权重确定过程中存在一定的主观性,且忽视了社会脆弱性构成要素之间的关系。
函数模型法	根据对社会脆弱性的不同理解,构建相应的社会脆弱性函数模型,一般多由暴露度、敏感性、应对或适应能力、恢复力等所构成。	较好地明确了社会脆弱性的组成要素及其相互作用关系;由于对社会脆弱性构成要素的理解不同,导致该模型表现形式差异较大。
BP人工神经网络模型法	划分指标数据区间和评价标准,构建BP神经网络输入输出层和网络拓扑结构,将数据导入训练好的网络模型,得出社会脆弱性评价结果。	具有较强的非线性映射功能,能够很好地反映社会脆弱性特征、程度及其影响因素;网络结构的选择尚无统一的理论指导,大多靠经验选定。
决策树分析法	根据数据资料生成决策树分类器,通过参数调整与运算,确定理想的决策树,并利用决策树分类器对社会脆弱性进行评价分类。	有利于明确社会脆弱性评价指标之间的关系;各单元的社会脆弱性评价结果被划分为高、中、低几个类别,不够精确。
面向对象分析法	利用高分辨率遥感影像和GIS数据从物质空间中提取能够反映社会脆弱性的替代性变量,进而实现社会脆弱性评价。	提供了一组新的社会脆弱性评价的数据源,有利于完善社会脆弱性评价指标体系;代理变量的界定尚未完全实现,仍需结合统计和社会调查数据。
空间多准则评估法	将GIS和多准则评估相结合,通过输入空间和非空间条件,并经过问题树分析、标准化、确定权重和地图化等过程,最后形成输出结果。	空间条件的输入有利于识别脆弱性区域,提供有效的空间管理对策;但输入标准的选择主要取决于研究者的认知和偏好,存在一定的主观性。
图层叠置法	根据社会脆弱性的构成要素分别制图,并将其进行空间叠置,典型的如区域生物物理脆弱性和社会脆弱性的图层叠置,形成地方整体脆弱性。	实现了社会脆弱性评价结果的地图可视化和直观表达;但评价结果难以反映不同要素对整体社会脆弱性的影响程度。

表3

表4

表5

社会脆弱性评价指标体系"

名称	文献来源	一级指标			二级指标
名称	文献来源	个数		名称	个数	名称
地震危险的社会脆弱性指标	Birkmann et al, 2013	4	危险		1	影响城市的2000次以上随机地震情景的光谱位移。
			暴露度		2	暴露的建筑物、暴露的人口数量。
			敏感性		6	预计人口的损失(死亡、受伤、无家可归、失业)、低收入社区面积、死亡率、犯罪率、社会不平等、人口密度。
			恢复力		6	医院床位、医疗人力资源、公共空间、救援人力资源、发展水平、应急规划。
气候变化的生计脆弱性指标	Hahn et al, 2009	3	暴露度		4	自然灾难和气候变量(过去6年洪水、干旱和飓风事件发生的次数,未收到灾害警告家庭比重,灾害中受伤或死亡家庭比重,月内日平均最高温、最低温以及降水量的标准差)。
			敏感性		14	健康(医疗设施可达性,有慢性疾病患者家庭比重,因疾病而无法工作或学习成员的家庭比重,疟疾暴露和预防指数)。食品(接受地方政府援助家庭比重、依靠自家土地获取食物家庭比重、谷物多样性指数、每个月需寻找食物的家庭数量、缺少存粮家庭比重、缺少种子家庭比重); 水(报告水冲突家庭比重、利用自然水资源家庭比重、缺少持续供水家庭比重、平均每户家庭存水量)。
			适应能力		10	社会—人口特征(儿童和老年人口比重、女性主导家庭比重、孤儿家庭比重、文盲家庭比重); 生计策略(工作在不同社区家庭比重、农业为收入来源家庭比重、农业生计多样性指数); 社会网络(平均收支比、平均借贷比、未寻求地方政府援助家庭比重)。
矿业城市的社会就业脆弱性指标	李鹤等, 2009	2	敏感性		8	负债总额、开发周期、采掘和制造业就业比重、国有和集体在岗职工比重、失业人口比重、二产产值比重、三次产业产值比重变化的绝对值之和、总从业人员与劳动适龄人口之比。
矿业城市的社会就业脆弱性指标	李鹤等, 2009	2	应对能力		8	就业人口增长率与GDP 增长率之比、经济增长速率、三产就业比重、个体和私营从业人员数、对外交通客运量、GDP总量与总人口比重、初中以上学历职工比重、教育支出占地方财政支出比重。
城市社会系统脆弱性指标	刘继生等, 2010	2	敏感性	7	矿区人口比重、农业人口数、百万吨煤死亡率、城乡二元结构指数、城镇失业人数、人口自然增长率、市区人口密度。
城市社会系统脆弱性指标	刘继生等, 2010	2	恢复力	15	城镇居民人均收入、城镇居民恩格尔系数、农民纯收入、非农业人口比重、客运量、货运量、邮电业务总量、人均用电量、人均日用水量、人均道路面积、医院床位数、人均居住面积、财政教育支出、社会保障支出、公共图书册数。
环境危险的社会脆弱性指标	Cutter, 2003			8	个人财富、年龄、职业、建筑密度、单一部门经济依赖性、住房和租赁、种族(美国黑人种族、西班牙裔、美国本地人、亚裔)、基础设施。
自然灾害的社会脆弱性指标	Siagian et al, 2014			7	年龄、性别、收入、教育、家庭结构、基础设施、人口增长。

表5

参考文献 56

[1]	葛怡, 史培军, 刘婧. 2006. 中国水灾社会脆弱性评估方法的改进与应用: 以长沙地区为例. 自然灾害学报, 14(6): 54-58.
	Ge Y, Shi P J, Liu J.2005. Improvement and application of vulnerability assessment methodology for flood hazards in China: using Changsha Prefecture as a case study. Journal of Natural Disaster, 14(6): 54-58.
[2]	李鹤, 张平宇. 2009. 东北地区矿业城市社会就业脆弱性分析. 地理研究, 28(3): 751-760.
	Li H, Zhang P Y.2009. Vulnerability of urban employment of mining cities in Northeast China. Geographical Research, 28(3): 751-760.
[3]	李鹤, 张平宇. 2011. 全球变化背景下脆弱性研究进展与应用展望. 地理科学进展, 30(7): 920-929.
	Li H, Zhang P Y.2011. Research progress and prospective applications of vulnerability approach under global change. Progress in Geography, 30(7): 920-929.
[4]	刘继生, 那伟, 房艳刚. 2010. 辽源市社会系统的脆弱性及其规避措施. 经济地理, 30(6): 944-948.
	Liu J S, Na W, Fang Y G.2010. Research on vulnerability and countermeasure of social system of Liaoyuan City. Economic Geography, 30(6): 944-948.
[5]	刘燕华, 李秀彬. 2001. 脆弱性生态环境与可持续发展. 北京: 商务印书馆.
	Liu Y H, Li X B.2001. Cuiruoxing shengtai huanjing yu kechixu fazhan. Beijing, China: The Commercial Press.
[6]	史培军, 王静爱, 陈婧, 等. 2006. 当代地理学之人地相互作用研究的趋向: 全球变化人类行为计划(IHDP)第六届开放会议透视. 地理学报, 61(2): 115-126.
	Shi P J, Wang J A, Chen J, et al.2006. The future of human-environment interaction research in geography: lessons from the 6th open meeting of IHD. Acta Geograhica Sinica, 61(2): 115-126.
[7]	苏飞, 张平宇. 2008. 阜新市社会系统脆弱性评价. 资源与产业, 10(4): 1-5.
	Su F, Zhang P Y.2008. Frangibility assessment of Fuxin social system. Resources & Industries, 10(4): 1-5.
[8]	王岩, 方创琳, 张蔷. 2013. 城市脆弱性研究评述与展望. 地理科学进展, 32(5): 755-768.
	Wang Y, Fang C L, Zhang Q.2013. Progress and prospect of urban vulnerability. Progress in Geography, 32(5): 755-768.
[9]	张平宇, 李鹤, 佟连军, 等. 2011. 矿业城市人地系统脆弱性: 理论—方法—实证. 北京: 科学出版社.
	Zhang P Y, Li H, Tong L J, et al.2011. Kuangye chengshi rendi xitong cuiruoxing:lilun, fangfa, shizheng. Beijing, China: Science Press.
[10]	Adger W N.2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3): 268-281.
[11]	Adger W N, Brooks N, Bentham G.et al.2004. New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity//Eriksen S. Technical report 7, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia.
[12]	Adrianto L, Matsuda Y.2002. Developing economic vulnerability indices of environmental disasters in small island regions. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(4): 393-414.
[13]	Bich Ngoc P.2014. Mechanism of social vulnerability to industrial pollution in peri-urban Danang City, Vietnam. International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, 5(1): 37-44.
[14]	Birkmann J, Cardona O D, Carreno M L.2013. Framing vulnerability, risk and societal responses: the MOVE framework. Natural Hazards, 67(2): 193-211.
[15]	Bjarnadottir S, Li Y, Stewart M G.2011. Social vulnerability index for coastal communities at risk to hurricane hazard and a changing climate. Natural Hazards, 59(2): 1055-1075.
[16]	Blaikie P M, Cannon D, Davis I, et al.1994. At risk: natural hazards, people's vulnerability, and disasters. London, UK: Routledge.
[17]	Bogardi J, Birkmann J.2004. Vulnerability assessment: the first step towards sustainable risk reduction//Malzahn D, Plapp T. Disaster and society-from hazard assessment to risk reduction. Berlin, Germany: Logos Verlag Berlin: 75-82.
[18]	Chambers R, Conway G R.1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. //IDS. IDS discussion Paper: 296. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies.
[19]	Cutter S L.1996. Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography, 20(4): 529-539.
[20]	Cutter S L.2003. The vulnerability of science and the science of vulnerability. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(1): 1-12.
[21]	Cutter S L.2006. Hazards vulnerability and environmental justice. London, UK: Routledge.
[22]	Cutter S L, Finch C.2008. Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards. PNAS, 105(7): 2301-2306.
[23]	Department for International Development. 1999. Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets[EB/OL]. 2008-06-15[2014-11-06].
[24]	Depietri Y, Welle T, Renaud F G.2013. Social vulnerability assessment of the Cologne urban area to heat waves: links to ecosystem services. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 6: 98-117.
[25]	Dwyer A, Zoppou C, Nielsen O, et al.2004. Quantifying social vulnerability: a methodology for identifying those at risk to natural hazards. Canberra, Australia: Geoscience Australia.
[26]	Eakin H, Luers A L.2006. Assessing the vulnerability of social-environmental systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31: 365-394.
[27]	Ebert A, Kerle N, Stein A.2009. Urban social vulnerability assessment with physical proxies and spatial metrics derived from air- and space borne imagery and GIS data. Natural Hazards, 48(2): 275-294.
[28]	Fekete A.2010. Assessment of social vulnerability for river-floods in Germany[D] .Bonn, Germany: University of Bonn.
[29]	Füssel H M, Klein R J T.2006. Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Climatic Change, 75(3): 301-329.
[30]	Gaillard J C, Liamzon C C, Villanueva J D.2007. Natural disaster: a retrospect into the causes of the late-2004 typhoon disaster in Eastern Luzon, Philippines. Environmental Hazards, 7(4): 257-270.
[31]	Galea S, Ahern J, Karpati A.2005. A model of underlying socioeconomic vulnerability in human populations: evidence from variability in population health and implications for public health. Social Science & Medicine, 60(11): 2417-2430.
[32]	Gall M.2007. Indices of social vulnerability to natural hazards: a comparative evaluation[D] . Columbia, SC: University of Southern Carolina.
[33]	Hahn M B, Riederer A M, Foster S O.2009. The livelihood vulnerability index: a pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate variability and change: a case study in Mozambique. Global Environmental Change, 19(1): 74-88.
[34]	Hizbaron D R, Baiquni M, Sartohadi J, et al.2011. Assessing social vulnerability to seismic hazard through spatial multi criteria evaluation in Bantul District, Indonesia. Conference of development on the margin. Bonn, Germany: October 5-7.
[35]	Hol I S, Lujala P, Rød K J.2011. Social vulnerability assessment for Norway: a quantitative approach. Norwegian Journal of Geography, 65(1): 1-17.
[36]	Huang Y F, Li F Y, Bai X M, et al.2012. Comparing vulnerability of coastal communities to land use change: analytical framework and a case study in China. Environmental Science & Policy, 23: 133-143.
[37]	IPCC. 2001. Climate change: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[38]	Lamichhane K.2010. Sustainabel livelihood approach in assessment of vulnerability to the impacts of climate change: a study of Chhekampar VDC, Gorkha district of Nepal[D]. Kathmandu, Nepal: Kathmandu University.
[39]	Morrow B H.1999. Identifying and mapping community vulnerability. Disasters, 23(1): 1-18.
[40]	Mustafa D.1998. Structural causes of vulnerability to flood hazard in Pakistan. Economic Geography, 74(3): 289-305.
[41]	Newell B, Crumley C L, Hassan N, et al.2005. A conceptual template for integrative human environment research. Global Environmental Change, 15(4): 299-307.
[42]	Rajiv P, ShashidharKumar J.2012. Climate vulnerability index-measure of climate change vulnerability to communities: a case of rural Lower Himalaya, India. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 17(5): 487-506.
[43]	Shah K U, Dulal H B, Johnson C, et al.2013. Understanding livelihood vulnerability to climate change: applying the livelihood vulnerability index in Trinidad and Tobago. Geoforum, 47: 125-137.
[44]	Siagian T H, Purhadi P, Suhartono S, et al.2014. Social vulnerability to natural hazards in Indonesia: driving factors and policy implications. Natural Hazards, 70(2): 1603-1617.
[45]	Steinführer A, Kuhlicke C, De Marchi B, et al.2009. Local communities at risk from flooding: social vulnerability, resilience and recommendations for flood risk management in Europe. Leipzig, Germany: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ: 88.
[46]	Tate E.2013. Uncertainty analysis for a social vulnerability index. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(3): 526-543.
[47]	Tierney K J, Lindell M K, Perry R W.2001. Facing the unexpected:disaster preparedness and response in the United States. Washington, WA: Joseph Henry Press.
[48]	Turner II B L, Kasperson R E, Matson P A, et al.2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. PNAS, 100(14): 8074-8079.
[49]	Turner II B L, Matsond P A, McCarthye J J, et al.2003. Illustrating the coupled human-environment system for vulnerability analysis: three case studies. PNAS, 100(14): 8080-8085.
[50]	Uitto J I.1998. The geography of disaster vulnerability in megacities: a theoretical framework. Applied Geography, 18(1): 7-16.
[51]	UN/ISDR.2004. Living with risk: a global review of disaster reduction initiatives. Geneva, Switzerland: UN Publications.
[52]	Weichselgartner J.2001. Disaster mitigation: the concept of vulnerability revisited. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 10(2): 85-94.
[53]	Wickham J D, O'Neill R V, Bruce Jones K, et al.2000. A geography of ecosystem vulnerability. Landscape Ecology, 15(6): 495-504.
[54]	Wisner B, Blaikie P M, Cannon T, et al.2004. At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
[55]	Wongbusarakum S, Loper C. 2011. Indicators to assess community-level climate change vulnerability. 2011-04-20[2014-11-06]
[56]	Yi L X, Zhang X, Ge L L, et al.2014. Analysis of social vulnerability to hazards in China. Environmental Earth Sciences, 71(7): 3109-3117.

研究视角	典型框架	核心思想	优点	不足
政治经济学视角	PAR模型、可持续生计框架	将脆弱性的发生条件、风险分布、持续过程与政治、经济关系和社会变化联系在一起,试图采用政治经济学方法解释政治、经济、文化、制度等结构和过程对脆弱性的影响。	引导关注政治经济关系中的组织、制度和文化环境,有利于塑造社会系统应对脆弱性的能力。	过于强调脆弱性的社会过程,忽视了外部扰动、压力和风险的作用。
社会—生态视角	HOP模型、人—环境耦合系统分析框架	强调从环境与社会耦合的角度进行脆弱性分析,将涉及自然环境的暴露度和社会系统的敏感性、应对与恢复力整合到不同尺度上,注重社会脆弱性的尺度变化特征。	明确了脆弱性过程中自然环境与社会条件的相互作用关系,较好地解释了脆弱性发生的内因机制。	在特定尺度的分析中,难以有效区分环境脆弱性和社会脆弱性对整体脆弱性影响程度的差异。
综合视角	BBC框架、MOVE框架	社会脆弱性是脆弱性的维度之一,强调对脆弱性的发生对象、核心要素、发生过程以及降低脆弱性的措施等进行综合分析;认为社会脆弱性是动态的,核心是反馈—回路系统。	突出了社会的反馈与适应,所强调的预防、风险管理与干预工具有利于降低脆弱性,提高社会适应能力。	对脆弱性各维度之间的关系及社会脆弱性的发生机理解释不够充分。

指数名称	扰动类型	公式说明	文献来源
沿海社区社会脆弱性指数	自然灾害（飓风）	CCSVI(t)为t年时刻的沿海社区脆弱性指数,H(t)为t年的风险因子,SF_j(t)为t年的主要社会因子,Q_j为社会因子权重;Xj_k(t)为无量纲的社会因子,w_jk为社会因子权重,n为社会因子数量,m为每个因子指标数量。	Bjarnadottir et al, 2011
社会脆弱性指数	自然灾害（洪水）	I_SOV为灾害时刻的家庭脆弱性指数; 为被调查家庭承受的灾情;H为致灾因子作用力,I_BOV为灾害时刻的自然脆弱性指数。	葛怡等, 2006
城市社会脆弱性	气候变化（极端高温）	V为脆弱性,E为暴露度,S敏感性,LoR为恢复力缺失。E可通过两种方法计算,E₁中I为城市人口,T为地表温度的标准化均值;E₂中L_n为不同土地利用类型,C_n为系数。El为65岁以上人口比重;U为未就业人口比重;Cf为城市森林覆盖率。	Depietri et al, 2013
社区脆弱性	气候变化（综合压力）	CVI为社区脆弱性,Exp、Sen、分别为通过加权平均值方法计算得出的暴露度指数、敏感性指数和适应能力指数;N₁、N₂分别为暴露度和适应能力指数的主成分数量。	Rajiv et al, 2012
社会系统脆弱性	资源衰退	SoVI_i为地区i的社会脆弱性指数,S表示系统对扰动的敏感程度,R表示社会系统的应对能力。	苏飞等, 2008
社区脆弱性	土地利用变化	VI为脆弱性指数,SI为敏感性指数,AI为适应能力指数;EI为暴露度指数,i为土地利用类型的排序,C_i为排在第i位的土地利用类型的面积比重;x_ij为第i研究区域敏感性指标j的标准化值,y_ij为第i研究区域适应能力指标j的标准化值。	Huang et al, 2012