Written Assignment #1 – Week 2 Course EDMG 320
Research and investigation beyond those materials indicated in the course-ware will be required.
· Your assignment must be properly formatted and cited using APA (per the most recent edition of the APA manual).
· Your assignment must be a
minimum of 800 words,
not counting cover page and reference page material
. Your writing can be longer, but it cannot be under the minimum indicated word-count for credit.
· Do not simply list questions and respond – your work is intended to be a complete, integrative narrative that embodies an introduction a body within which you respond to the targeted questions and a summary and conclusion.
Having read the material for weeks one and two as indicated in the Course Syllabus, along with the respective Weekly Course Lessons and the Weekly Course Announcement,
write a clear and descriptive narrative that:
Defines the ‘concept of vulnerability’.
Elaborate upon the multi-disciplinary theories that support both the technical and the social origins of the concept of vulnerability; and
Identify the paradigms for qualitative and quantitative assessments of vulnerability.
Answer Below but Do Not Copy Word for Word and Find other Answers on Internet: 400 words for this part.
Negative consequences of natural hazards are the result of both the frequency and intensity of the hazard and the vulnerability of the society or element at risk exposed. Therefore, vulnerability assessment is an essential step to reduce these consequences and consequently natural hazard risk. The assessment of vulnerability requires an ability to both identify and understand the susceptibility of elements at risk and—in a broader sense—of the society to these hazards.
The concept of vulnerability is used today by various disciplines, and hence, it is embedded in multiple disciplinary theories underpinning either a technical or a social origin of the concept and resulting in a range of paradigms for either a qualitative or quantitative assessment of vulnerability. However, efforts to reduce the exposure to hazards and to create disaster-resilient communities require intersections among these theories, since human activity cannot be seen independently from the environmental settings and vice versa. Acknowledging different roots of disciplinary paradigms, methods determining structural, economic, institutional or social vulnerability should be inter-woven in order to enhance our understanding of vulnerability and to adopt to ongoing global change processes.
Current approaches in vulnerability research are driven by a divide between social scientists and natural scientists, even if recently some attempts have been made within to bridge this gap (e.g. Fuchs (2009) with respect to natural sciences and Renn (2008) focusing on social sciences). Whereas social scientists tend to view vulnerability as representing the set of socio-economic factors that determine people’s ability to cope with stress or changes , natural scientists often view vulnerability in terms of the likelihood of occurrence of specific process scenarios and associated impacts on the built environment . Representatives from each discipline define vulnerability in a way that fits to their individual disciplinary purposes.
This variety and diversity of definitions is also becoming apparent when reading through the individual chapters of this multidisciplinary special issue. This special issue on vulnerability is the result of a corresponding session entitled ‘Vulnerability assessments in natural hazard and risk analysis’, which was held at the General Assembly 2011 of the European Geosciences Union in Vienna, Austria. Out of this session, eight papers resulted, which are included in this issue.
The overarching thematic umbrella for the individual contributions of this special issue centres on the question of current approaches in vulnerability assessment, and future challenges that should be addressed in order to meet the requirements of sustainable development and adaptation to global change processes . The issue contains different perspectives on vulnerability that are applicable on different scales and provides a forum for exchange—disciplinary foci are not necessarily poor if they are useful within specialised applications , as long as a mutual understanding for the approaches is acknowledged.
It has recently been stated that the challenge of vulnerability research is to integrate three different aspects (1) the components of vulnerability such as exposure, sensitivity or adaptive capacity, (2) the different methods used within different disciplines, and (3) the target dimension of vulnerability assessment . We therefore explicitly asked the authors (a) to discuss and outline their understanding of vulnerability in order to present a variety of current approaches in vulnerability assessment and (b) to formulate and deal with future challenges that may be addressed in order to get an in-depth knowledge on vulnerability taking a broader viewpoint and opening up perspectives beyond the ordinary.
identify and discuss
that local government takes when a disaster occurs;
Answer is in this manual and explain in
three State government actions
in response to a disaster that may lead to a Federal disaster declaration.
Answer in this manual and explain in