the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 21 Jan 2025
Community-driven natural hazard and physical vulnerability assessment in a disaster-prone urban neighborhood
Abstract. Effectively reducing the risk of disasters in urban neighbourhoods is a key policy priority, which is becoming more pressing due to climate change. However, disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation efforts are often hampered by data gaps regarding the physical vulnerability and local impacts of hazards at the neighbourhood level. These gaps are particularly pronounced for informal settlements and marginalized communities of cities in the Global South, which are frequently invisible in official hazard and risk maps. Community-generated data and participatory methods are promising approaches to address these gaps, but there is a lack of guidelines and empirical examples of effective integration of communities into vulnerability assessment. This study presents the co-production of a physical vulnerability assessment framework, between academia, practitioners, and community researchers, using an iterative and easily replicable methodology. Working with community researchers from the self-constructed community El Pacífico in Medellín (Colombia), we developed a hazard perception exercise based on vulnerability indicators and produced hazard perception and physical vulnerability usable maps. We show how this work was able to refine the spatial scale of the hazard maps available for the neighbourhood, going beyond the city planning tools and enabling a building-scale vulnerability assessment that is valuable not only to support community decision-making and planning but also to advocate for public interventions towards reducing disaster risks.
- Preprint
(36332 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2024-221', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Jul 2025
Thank you for the comment. The paper presents an important gap linking academia, practitioners, and local people. However, numerous physical vulnerabilities via observation surveys are already present. However, verification and validation from the community are often lacking. This an important study which would be valuable. Here are my comments.
1. Please add research questions somewhere before the objectives.
2. "In this paper, we provide a brief context about the study location (Section 2), outline the methodology that we co-created60
with the community to integrate perceptions of risk into hazard and vulnerability assessments alongside the final physical
vulnerability maps created for each hazard (Section 3), as well as present a discussion of contributions (Section 4), followed by
a short conclusion (Section 5)." This may be deleted.3. The paper fails to acknowledge similar studies that have used similar methods to measure physical vulnerability. Notably, FEMA154 (see 10.1007/s42452-019-1681-z) or similar methods (10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105206) or more advanced methods. The paper should at least mention some papers.
4. I see some methods in L105. Can be moved to the Intro/LR section.
5. Figure 4. Hazard/risk perception literature is almost missing. There are studies that have linked physical vulnerability with perception (10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101317). Or how hazard maps are correlated with perceived extent (10.1007/s40808-022-01442-2)
6. 3.1.2 Literature review & Derive vulnerability factors for assessment. This belonged to the LR section.
7. Overall, the maps constructed are good. But to m,e the Methods section is too long (which is ok). I would suggest remodeling the paper with a focus on the methods proposition rather than studying with a very good methodological section. This will give validity to the long method section. (10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.07.002) A good paper which focus on methods first and then its application.
8. MOre details on data analysis on qualitative assesssment from community is needed. "e present the positive outcomes from the application of our methodological approach, this evidence was drawn from informal conversations with the community leaders and researchers and, is presented in quotes". How was this evidence analyzed? Thematic analysis, etc?
9. Some paras are too small. Merge them.
10. Some references are incomplete. Recheck.
Overall, a well-written and excellent paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-221-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2024-221', Hubert Mazurek, 17 Jul 2025
- Does the paper address relevant scientific and/or technical questions within the scope of NHESS?
- Does the paper present new data and/or novel concepts, ideas, tools, methods or results?
This approach is not new, but it is rarely used in public policy. Contrary to what the authors claim, there are numerous empirical examples of community risk management, but they are rarely published, and especially not very systematic. The presentation of this methodology is an important contribution, although the authors' advice now would be to generalize this type of experience through comparative studies. The paragraph "Disseminating and upscaling risk reduction practices" points in this direction; it is important to compare experiences and generalize them to regional or national policy levels.
Furthermore, it is always worth pointing out to the authors that vulnerability is not necessarily greater in countries in the Global South, which have "precarious infrastructures." It is primarily the lack of information systems and governance that is the problem, in both developed and developing countries. Recent events in Germany, Valencia, Spain, and Texas demonstrate this.
Line 30: The lack of a detailed map is not a data problem; it's a governance problem. Therefore, the question is whether researchers should fill the data gap, or whether they should participate in improving governance at all levels!
- Are these up to international standards?
Not concern
- Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and outlined clearly?
The method is clear and relevant. The hypotheses are based on participatory approaches, which simultaneously address information gaps, prepare populations for adaptation measures, and, above all, enable a learning process and the construction of a memory among the population.
Participatory mapping is not new, and there is a vast amount of literature on the subject. The interest of the article therefore lies not in the mapping methodology, but in the results obtained and their interpretation and appropriation by community members.
- Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and the conclusions?
The results are numerous and well explained.
- Does the author reach substantial conclusions?
The discussion section is overly detailed. It would have been interesting to divide it into two sections: a genuine discussion section and a section explaining the consequences of the approach and the application of the methodology to adaptation measures. For example, the article mentions houses that have been demolished; this is an interesting consequence, but how many? And where? More details on the concrete results of the work and the consequences for adaptation actions would be welcome.
Similarly, how can this methodology be integrated into general policies or urban or territorial planning methodologies?
- Is the description of the data used, the methods used, the experiments and calculations made, and the results obtained sufficiently complete and accurate to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists (traceability of results)?
This experiment is well described, although there are some uncertainties about the parameters used and the populations involved:
- The indicators are based on physical measurements of the buildings. Wouldn't it be beneficial to also include more social characteristics? For example, education levels, economic status, perception indicators, etc.
- The article mentions "community leaders," "community researchers," "association," "16 senior members," residents, etc. There is some imprecision at this level. Would it be possible to specify who participated, at what level, and what the characteristics of these participants were? There is some doubt about the validity of the maps, as indicated in Chapter 4.0.1, Limitations.
- In the maps in Figure 8, it would be important to locate the living space of the 16 senior members. Their living space can indeed influence their perceptions, as we see clear differences between the groups. - Similarly, in 3.3.3, it would be important to specify who was present during the presentation. The article mentions a presentation to the community, how many participants there were, in relation to the number of residents?
- The research effort is also not specified. How many researchers? How long did it take to complete the entire process? What was the budget? Given this data, is the experiment truly reproducible?
- Does the title clearly and unambiguously reflect the contents of the paper?
No problem.
- Does the abstract provide a concise, complete and unambiguous summary of the work done and the results obtained?
Very good summary.
- Are the title and the abstract pertinent, and easy to understand to a wide and diversified audience?
No problem.
- Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations and units correctly defined and used? If the formulae, symbols or abbreviations are numerous, are there tables or appendixes listing them?
Little formula, but very understandable.
- Is the size, quality and readability of each figure adequate to the type and quantity of data presented?
Good
- Does the author give proper credit to previous and/or related work, and does he/she indicate clearly his/her own contribution?
Multiple authors and multiple institutions. The article discusses transdisciplinarity. It would be important to clarify the role of each institution or discipline in the work carried out.
- Are the number and quality of the references appropriate?
No problem
- Are the references accessible by fellow scientists?
No problem
- Is the overall presentation well structured, clear and easy to understand by a wide and general audience?
The overall structure of the article is very good and easy to understand.
- Is the length of the paper adequate, too long or too short?
Good
- Is there any part of the paper (title, abstract, main text, formulae, symbols, figures and their captions, tables, list of references, appendixes) that needs to be clarified, reduced, added, combined, or eliminated?
All elements are well described
- Is the technical language precise and understandable by fellow scientists?
There is little technical language and it is quite accessible
- Is the English language of good quality, fluent, simple and easy to read and understand by a wide and diversified audience?
Very good
- Is the amount and quality of supplementary material (if any) appropriate?
Not concerned
Conclusion:
This article is worth publishing because it contributes to the need to work on risk management at the local level. The methodology is very clear and predicts good results.
Minor corrections may be requested, particularly regarding the role of each institution o discipline in transdisciplinarity, the nature and number of participants, and the possible or implemented adaptation measures.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-221-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 337 | 58 | 14 | 409 | 12 | 21 |
- HTML: 337
- PDF: 58
- XML: 14
- Total: 409
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1