Reproducing Social Vulnerability Models

Over the past few weeks we have read about and discussed the use and validity of several vulnerability indices. These models range in what exactly they are attempting to measure or predict from climate vulnerability to social vulnerability. However, their common goal is to provide some metric that tells decision-makers what places or regions are particularly at risk to some hazard. We want to be able to reproduce these studies in order to verify that they are producing correct results and that money and resources that go towards hazard mitigation are being alloted in the right places. There are often massive amounts of government funding that are given to places identified as “at risk,” so therefore it is important to check the methodology of studies that create vulnerability models. Additionally, if we can replicate models in new locations or contexts we can expand our knowledge of vulnerability across space. However, if we are unable to do reproduction or replication none of this progress can be made. If little effort is made by the researchers to explain their methodologies in sufficient detail such that their model can be replicated, we are essentially relying on hoping their methodology was strong in order to make decisions that impact people’s lives.
I am interested in applying the idea of a multi-criteria model to wildfire mapping. Current researchers are attempting to build models that measure what communities are at most risk of fire based on a multitude of factors from average wind speeds, topology, community infrastructure, evacuation routes and more. I believe a model of this kind would be quite similar to what we have been reproducing and working with. Our readings have made it clear to me that it would be key to not only document but also explain why certain indicators are chosen or weighted in certain ways.

References:
Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402002
«««< HEAD
Rufat, S., Tate, E., Emrich, C. T., & Antolini, F. (2019). How Valid Are Social Vulnerability Models? Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 109(4), 1131–1153. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2018.1535887