Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Last revision Both sides next revision
development_of_indicators_of_social_vulnerability [2016/11/08 15:26]
Miguel Toquica [Integrated Risk Index]
development_of_indicators_of_social_vulnerability [2016/11/10 15:26]
Miguel Toquica
Line 21: Line 21:
 \\ \\
 Table 1 Table 1
- +^Country^Sub-national division^Subdivision count^Indicators collected^ ​                                                                    ​ 
-^ Country ​   ^ Sub-national division ​         ^ Subdivision count  ^ Indicators collected ​ ^ Data Source ​                                                                      +|Argentina|Departamento,​ Partido, Comuna|527|57|Argentina Instituto Nacional de Estadisticas y Censo  (INDEC) ​ - Censo 2010| 
-| Argentina ​ | Departamento,​ Partido, Comuna ​ | 527                | 57                    | Argentina Instituto Nacional de Estadisticas y Censo  (INDEC) ​ - Censo 2010       ​+|Bolivia|Municipio|341|68|Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (INE)  de Bolivia - Censo 2012| 
-| Bolivia ​   | Municipio ​                     | 341                | 68                    | Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (INE)  de Bolivia - Censo 2012                  +|Chile|Comuna|342|68|Instituto Nacional de Estadistica de Chile (INE) - Censo 2002| 
-| Chile      | Comuna ​                        ​| 342                | 68                    | Instituto Nacional de Estadistica de Chile (INE) - Censo 2002                     ​+|Colombia|Municipio|1114|60|Colombia Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadistica (DANE) - Censo 2005| 
-| Colombia ​  ​| Municipio ​                     | 1114               ​| 60                    | Colombia Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadistica (DANE) - Censo 2005  +|Ecuador|Parroquia|1024|56|Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC) - Censo 2010| 
-| Ecuador ​   | Parroquia ​                     | 1024               ​| 56                    | Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC) - Censo 2010                    +|Peru|Distritos|1833|65|Instituto Nacional de Estadistica e Informatica (INEI) - Censo 2007| 
-| Peru       ​| Distritos ​                     | 1833               ​| 65                    | Instituto Nacional de Estadistica e Informatica (INEI) - Censo 2007               ​+|Venezuela|Parroquia|1130|47|Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE), Censo 2011|
-| Venezuela ​ | Parroquia ​                     | 1130               ​| 47                    | Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE), Censo 2011                               ​|+
  
 Since it is difficult to measure the social vulnerability of populations relatively, variables were collected as proxy measures to represent the concept. Here, a step was taken to ensure the relevance of the data within the domain of social and economic vulnerability research. A literature review exceeding 400 articles was conducted ​ to ensure the relevance of all data that was collected and compiled into databases. It is within this context that we collected variables within the population, economy, infrastructure,​ health, and education dimensions by adhering to the taxonomic classification developed in Risk and resiliency indicators, EMI topical report (Khazai et al. 2011) for the selection of socio-economic indicators typically used in social vulnerability assessments. A hierarchical approach (see Figure 2) was utilized in which variables were collected within components, yet classified into their corresponding sub-components (e.g. Population variables were collected and subclassified into corresponding population structure and vulnerable populations sub-components).\\ Since it is difficult to measure the social vulnerability of populations relatively, variables were collected as proxy measures to represent the concept. Here, a step was taken to ensure the relevance of the data within the domain of social and economic vulnerability research. A literature review exceeding 400 articles was conducted ​ to ensure the relevance of all data that was collected and compiled into databases. It is within this context that we collected variables within the population, economy, infrastructure,​ health, and education dimensions by adhering to the taxonomic classification developed in Risk and resiliency indicators, EMI topical report (Khazai et al. 2011) for the selection of socio-economic indicators typically used in social vulnerability assessments. A hierarchical approach (see Figure 2) was utilized in which variables were collected within components, yet classified into their corresponding sub-components (e.g. Population variables were collected and subclassified into corresponding population structure and vulnerable populations sub-components).\\
  • development_of_indicators_of_social_vulnerability.txt
  • Last modified: 2016/11/10 15:31
  • by Miguel Toquica