The Prevalent Vulnerability Index (PVI) - IDB

The Prevalent Vulnerability Index (PVI)

This index depicts predominant vulnerability actions. The indicators were identified based on

conditions by measuring exposure in prone ar- figures, indices, existing rates or proportions

eas, socioeconomic fragility and lack of social derived from reliable databases available

resilience. These items provide a measure of worldwide or in each country (see methodol-

direct as well as indirect and intangible im- ogy: Cardona et al., 2004a, 2004b, and 2005).

pacts of hazard events. The index is a compos-
ite indicator that provides a comparative meas- Indicators of Exposure and Susceptibility

ure of a country’s pattern or situation. Inher- The best indicators of exposure and/or physical
ent6 vulnerability conditions underscore the re-
lationship between risk and development susceptibility (PVIES) are the susceptible popu-
(UNDP, 2004). Vulnerability, and therefore lation, assets, investment, production, liveli-
risk, are the result of inadequate economic
growth, on the one hand, and deficiencies that hoods, historic monuments, and human activi-
may be corrected by means of adequate devel-
opment processes. Although the indicators ties (Masure, 2003; Lavell, 2003b). Other indi-
proposed are recognized as useful for measur-
ing development (Holzmann and Jorgensen, cators include population growth and density
2000; Holzmann, 2001) their use here is in-
tended to capture favorable conditions for di- rates, as well as agricultural and urban growth
rect physical impacts (exposure and suscepti-
bility), as well as indirect and, at times, intan- rates. The indicators used are listed below.
gible impacts (socioeconomic fragility and
lack of resilience) of potential physical events ƒ ES1. Population growth, average annual rate.
(Masure, 2003; Davis, 2003). The PVI is an ƒ ES2. Urban growth, avg. annual rate (%).
average of these three types of composite indi- ƒ ES3. Population density (people/5 Km2).
cators: ƒ ES4. Poverty, population living on less than

PVI = ( PVI Exposure + PVI Fragility + PVI ¬ Resilience ) / 3 US$1 per day PPP.
ƒ ES5. Capital stock in millions US dollar per

thousand square kilometers.
ƒ ES6. Imports and exports of goods and ser-

vices as a percent of GDP
ƒ ES7. Gross domestic fixed investment as a

percent of GDP.
ƒ ES8. Arable land and permanent crops as a

percent of land area.

The indicators used for describing exposure, These variables reflect the nation’s suscepti-
prevalent socioeconomic conditions and lack of bility to dangerous events, whatever their na-
resilience have been estimated in a consistent ture or severity. Exposure and susceptibility
fashion (directly or in inverse fashion, accord- are necessary conditions for the existence of
ingly), recognizing that their influence explains risk. Although, in any strict sense it would be
why adverse economic, social and environ- necessary to establish if exposure is relevant
mental impacts take place following a danger- for each potential type of event, we may nev-
ous event. Each one is made up of a set of indi- ertheless assert that certain variables reflect
cators that express situations, causes, suscepti- comparatively adverse situations where natural
bilities, weaknesses or relative absences affect- hazards can be deemed to be permanent exter-
ing the country, region or locality under study, nal factors without needing to establish their
and which would benefit from risk reduction exact nature. Figure 8 shows the PVIES by
country and period, weighted using the Ana-
6 That is to say, the predominant socioeconomic condi- lytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).
tions that favor or facilitate negative effects as a result
of adverse physical phenomena (Briguglio, 2003b).

12

Indicators of Socioeconomic Fragility of the exact characteristics of those hazards.
Figure 9 shows the PVISF weighted using the
Socioeconomic fragility (PVISF), may be repre- AHP.
sented by indicators such as poverty, lack of
personal safety, dependency, illiteracy, income Indicators of (Lack of) Resilience
inequality, unemployment, inflation, debt and
environmental deterioration. These indicators Lack of resilience (PVILR), seen as a vulner-
reflect relative weaknesses that increase the di- ability factor, may be represented by means of
rect effects of dangerous phenomena (Cannon, the inverse8 relationship of a number of vari-
2003; Davis, 2003; Wisner, 2003). Even though ables that measure human development, human
these effects are not necessarily cumulative capital, economic redistribution, governance,
(and in some cases may be superfluous or cor- financial protection, community awareness, the
related), their influence is especially important degree of preparedness to face crisis situations,
at the social and economic levels (Benson, and environmental protection. These indicators
2003b). The indicators are listed below. are useful to identify and guide actions to im-
prove personal safety (Cannon, 2003; Davis,
ƒ SF1. Human Poverty Index, HPI-1. 2003; Lavell, 2003a; Lavell, 2003b; Wisner,
ƒ SF2. Dependents as a proportion of the 2003).

working age population. ƒ LR1. Human Development Index, HDI [Inv]
ƒ SF3. Inequality as measured by the Gini ƒ LR2. Gender-related Development Index,

coefficient. GDI [Inv]
ƒ SF4. Unemployment as percent of the total ƒ LR3. Social expenditures on pensions, health

labor force. and education as a percent of GDP [Inv]
ƒ SF5. Annual increase in food prices (%). ƒ LR4. Governance Index (Kaufmann) [Inv]
ƒ SF6. Share of agriculture in total GDP ƒ LR5. Infrastructure and housing insurance as

growth (annual %). a percent of GDP [Inv]
ƒ SF7. Debt service burden as a percent of ƒ LR6. Television sets per 1000 people [Inv]
ƒ LR7. Hospital beds per 1000 people [Inv]
GDP. ƒ LR8. Environmental Sustainability Index,
ƒ SF8. Soil degradation resulting from human
ESI [Inv]
activities (GLASOD).7
These indicators capture the capacity to re-
These indicators show that there exists an in- cover from or absorb the impact of dangerous
trinsic predisposition for adverse social im- phenomena, whatever their nature and severity
pacts in the face of a dangerous phenomena (Briguglio, 2003b). Not being able to ade-
regardless of their nature or intensity (Lavell, quately face disasters is a vulnerability condi-
2003b; Wisner, 2003). The propensity to suf- tion, although in a strict sense it is necessary to
fer negative impacts establishes a vulnerability establish this with reference to all potential
condition of the population, although it would types of hazard. Nevertheless, as with expo-
be necessary to establish the relevance of this sure and socioeconomic fragility, we can posit
propensity in the face of all types of hazard. that some economic and social variables (Ben-
Nevertheless, as with exposure, it is possible son, 2003b) reflect a comparatively unfavor-
to suggest that certain values of specific vari- able position if natural hazards exist. Figure 10
ables reflect a relatively unfavorable situation shows the PVILR weighted using the AHP.
in the eventuality of natural hazard, regardless

7 Global Assessment of Human-induced Soil Degrada- 8 The symbol [Inv] is used here to indicate an inverse
tion variable (¬R = 1- R).

13

Figure 8. PVI for Exposure and Susceptibility

PVIES

70

60

50

40 1985

1990

30 1995

2000

20

10

0

CHL COL PER GTM MEX BOL ECU ARG CRI DOM TTO SLV NIC JAM

Figure 9. PVI for Socioeconomic Fragility

PVISF

70

60

50

40 1985
1990
30 1995
2000
20

10

0

CHL PER CRI ECU TTO MEX DOM ARG BOL COL JAM SLV GTM NIC

Figure 10. PVI Due to Lack of Resilience

PVILR

90

80

70

60

50

1985

40

1990

30 1995

20 2000

10

0

CRI CHL ARG COL TTO ECU DOM MEX SLV BOL JAM PER NIC GTM

14

Figures 8 through 10 show that small countries, The situation between 1995 and 2000 changed
such as Jamaica (JAM), Nicaragua (NIC), El significantly. Most countries show a declining
Salvador, Trinidad and Tobago, the Dominican trend in vulnerability from 1995 to 2000. The
Republic and Costa Rica, consistently have exceptions are Costa Rica, the Dominican Re-
greater PVIES. In addition, there has been a public, El Salvador, and Ecuador where vulner-
relative increase in exposure and susceptibility ability increased slightly, and Argentina, which
in Argentina (ARG), Bolivia, Costa Rica, El posted a significant increase in vulnerability.
Salvador, Mexico and Trinidad and Tobago, The case of Argentina is particularly notewor-
during the last few years. Ecuador and Guate- thy because, in 1985 and 1990, it had the lowest
mala posted significant declines in the index, PVI of any of the countries studied. However,
while Chile and Colombia show only a slight vulnerability had increased markedly by 1995
decrease in exposure and susceptibility. The and posted another increase in 2000. The coun-
Prevalent Vulnerability Index measuring socio- tries with the lowest relative PVI are Chile,
economic fragility (PVISF) for Colombia, El Costa Rica and Colombia.
Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica and Nicaragua is
relatively high. However, in most other coun- Figure 12 shows the aggregated Prevalent Vul-
tries socioeconomic fragility has decreased over nerability Index for all the countries in 2000.
time (with exception of Colombia and Chile in The values in this graph are obtained by adding
the most recent period studied). The values of the three components: exposure and suscepti-
PVISF are generally very high; however, a de- bility, social fragility and lack of resilience.
clining trend is apparent during the past few This aggregate value takes into account the
years. The exceptions are Guatemala, Nicara- physical exposure of infrastructure and persons
gua and Peru where the index remains high, (direct impact), as well as social and economic
and Jamaica, Ecuador and Argentina where no fragility (indirect and intangible impact). In ad-
recent declines are evident. The countries with dition, it reflects a country’s inability to deal
the greatest apparent resilience are Costa Rica with the consequences of a disaster, responding
and Chile. efficiently to it, and recovering from it. In order
to reduce these factors of vulnerability, coun-
Figure 11 shows the Prevalent Vulnerability tries need to embark in a sustainable develop-
Index for each country studied for the period ment process and enact explicit policies to re-
1985 through 2000. The Prevalent Vulnerabil- duce risk.
ity Index increased between 1985 and 2000 for
every country except Peru and Guatemala The Prevalent Vulnerability Index should form
(where it declined), and Jamaica (where it re- part of a system of indicators that allows the
mained unchanged). The countries with the implementation of effective prevention, mitiga-
highest PVI are Jamaica, El Salvador and Gua- tion, preparedness and risk transfer measures to
temala; however, each paints a different picture reduce risk. The information provided by an in-
of vulnerability. The PVI for Nicaragua is not dex such as the PVI should prove useful to
only one of the highest, it also increased stead- ministries of housing and urban development,
ily during the period studied. The index for environment, agriculture, health and social wel-
Guatemala, Bolivia, Ecuador and Jamaica have fare, economy and planning. Although the rela-
been higher than that of any of the other coun- tionship between risk and development should be
tries, however they posted a significant decline emphasized, it must be noted that activities to
since 1985. Finally, while Jamaica has the promote development do not, in and of them-
highest Prevalent Vulnerability Index, it has selves, automatically reduce vulnerability.
remained relatively unchanged since 1985.

15

Figure 11. PVI for Countries Studied

PVI

70

60

50

40 1985
1990
30 1995
2000
20

10

0

CHL CRI COL PER MEX ARG ECU BOL TTO DOM GTM SLV JAM NIC

Figure 12. Aggregate PVI

PVI (Aggregation of subindicators) 2000

NIC 54 45 77
JAM
SLV 56 33 65
GTM 63
DOM 48 34
TTO
BOL 27 35 78
ECU
ARG 42 27 61
MEX
PER 46 23 56
COL
CRI 34 26 60 ES
CHL
35 23 60 SFSF
LFRR
38 28 49

29 24 62

22 16 70

18 31 55

39 19 44

15 15 45

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

16