teori geografi

Development Policy Review, 2007, 25 (2): 243-264

The Author 2007. Journal compilation 2007 Overseas Development Institute. Published by Blackwell Publishing, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Vulnerability Assessment of Developing Countries: The Case of Small-island Developing States

Rosario Turvey

This article puts forward a spatial perspective in framing the methodology for vulnerability assessment (VA) of developing countries, with special reference to small-island developing states (SIDS). Geographic vulnerability from a developing-world perspective is defined by the countrys susceptibility to physical and human pressures, risks and hazards in temporal and spatial contexts. In constructing the composite vulnerability index (CVI), four core indicators are selected as sub-indices. The study confirms the vulnerability of SIDS based on four dimensions, namely, coastal index (G1), peripherality index (G2), urbanisation indicator (G3) and vulnerability to natural disasters (G4), and advocates consideration of place vulnerability and temporal distinctions when assessing the vulnerability of SIDS in particular.

1 Introduction

Over the last few decades, vulnerability assessment has emerged as an alternative approach to evaluating the situation of developing countries, especially the small-island developing states (SIDS). The recurring theme of the latters characteristics and distinct geography is re-examined from the standpoint of their viability, given their vulnerabilities and uncertainties for survival and sustainability.1

Since the 1990s, there has been a renewed interest in the old problems faced by SIDS with the emergence of new concerns about vulnerability and sustainable development. The conventional analysis of small-island characteristics (for example, remoteness and insularity) as constraint criteria has been supplanted by the emergence of vulnerability criteria in contemporary research on SIDS. Vulnerability is a multi-dimensional term that implies a potential for loss from exposure to causal factors such as biophysical, socio-economic, political and environmental risks and hazards (Cutter,

Assistant Professor in Geography, Department of Geography and Geology, Faculty of Arts and Science, Nipissing University, 100 College Drive, PO Box 5002, North Bay, ON, Canada P1B 8L7 ([email protected]). She wishes to thank the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) for funding the field research programme in Trinidad and Tobago, Fiji, Samoa and Kiribati and the United Nations University for the PhD Fellowship with the UN/Institute of Advanced Studies to complete this research.

1. By underlying geology, structure and altitude, small islands include atolls (living reefs), high islands (elevated, volcanic, or coral forms), and low-lying islands with a ground surface only a few meters above the mean sea level (Nunn, 1994). By arbitrary population and area thresholds, small islands have 500,000 or fewer resident population and approximately 10,000 square kilometres or less (Hess, 1990).

244 Rosario Turvey

The Author 2007. Journal compilation 2007 Overseas Development Institute. Development Policy Review 25 (2)

1996; Turner et al., 1996). Broadly, it is implicated in discussions of food security and hunger, risks and hazards, trade regimes, political economy and global environmental change (Hewitt and Burton, 1971; Dow, 1992; Downing et al., 1996; Hewitt, 1997; ECOSOC, 1999).

The purpose of this inquiry stems from the lack of a systematic empirical study that links geographic theory with vulnerability assessment (VA) of developing countries, particularly in probing the case of SIDS. The general objective is to explore the concept of place vulnerability and to develop the VA methodology for measuring the geographic vulnerability of developing countries. Setting out the VA methodology involved an empirical research of 100 developing countries, 24 of which are SIDS and 31 Least Developed Countries (LDCs). An approach to VA in geographic terms would create a better understanding of the geography, environment and development needs of small-island developing states and other developing countries (UN, 1994).

2 Review of past studies

In assessing current theory, the literature infers the existence of two theories on small-island development that deserve careful investigation. One is island development orthodoxy which refers to the phenomenon of small-island characteristics, such as remoteness and a narrow resource base as persistent constraints to development. Over the last two decades, small islands around the world have earned the dubious distinction of being a special case in view of the tremendous difficulties that beset them in tackling their environment and development issues (McClean, 1980; Brookfield, 1990; Hess, 1990; UN, 1994). The other theory is small-island vulnerability, as seen in more recent research. The prevailing conjecture is that small islands are highly vulnerable to various forces and factors in terms of their precarious geography, fragile economies and vulnerable environments (UN, 1994; ECOSOC, 1999). Specific factors that give rise to this vulnerability could be viewed from their vulnerability to environmental problems due to global warming and sea-level rise and special challenges to planning and implementing sustainable development.

Despite a burgeoning literature, it is not known whether these two theories are interrelated in evaluating the situation of developing countries, especially the SIDS; hence the need for research. Previous empirical research on the vulnerability of SIDS has been development-based in approach and implemented on an exploratory basis. A development-based approach to vulnerability aims to reduce the impacts of poverty, population pressure and the economic forces of globalisation and environmental degradation. Defined by the UN Committee for Development Policy (1999: 13) as a risk of being negatively affected by unforeseen events, vulnerability is a relevant criterion for identifying countries as least developed countries (LDCs).

In this article, developing countries are broadly defined to include SIDS, some of which are also classified by the UN as LDCs. LDCs are regarded as peripheral countries and traditional societies in the international political economy, from the standpoint of their level of development, economic structure and cultural characteristics. This category of countries was officially instituted in 1971 and is now internationally recognised as countries accorded special support measures (UNCTAD, 2004). In the past, LDCs were defined as small, low-income countries that suffer from long-term

Vulnerability Assessment of Small-island Developing States 245


handicaps to growth low levels of human resource development and weakness in economic structure (UN, 1997: 2). Under current UN guidelines, enrolment in the list of LDCs is not automatic, given a threshold of evaluation criteria of having low-income (under $750 per capita), weak human assets and economic vulnerability based on instability of agricultural production and economic smallness, among others (UNCTAD, 2003). Of the current 50 LDCs, 10 are island developing states that fall under the category of SIDS.

A review of current research on the vulnerability of SIDS found some conceptual and methodological issues that need to be addressed urgently. First, there is neither a universally agreed definition nor a clear conception of small-island vulnerability. Assessing the vulnerability of small-island environments in their geographic characteristics and island environments could be useful in evaluating their long-term viability and sustainability. In a survey of current studies, the focus of empirically based research is on developing a vulnerability index in response to the call by the United Nations as stipulated in the declaration from the Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of SIDS (UN, 1994: 51). Secondly, more recent vulnerability studies on SIDS lack a robust theoretical grounding to inform research in developing a methodology for vulnerability assessment. This should be addressed if VA is to be used as an evaluation tool for international development policy and planning on developing countries.

Since 1995, quantitatively based studies have been carried out to measure the vulnerability of SIDS. Two thematic areas that dominate the empirically based research to develop the vulnerability index for small islands are economic and environmental vulnerability. Economic vulnerability in prevailing scales of analysis is addressed from the perspective of globalisation and environmental change (Briguglio, 1995; ECOSOC, 1999). Briguglio (1995) provides a perceptive empirical study of the economic vulnerability of small islands in his analysis of the case of SIDS from the standpoint of their special disadvantages in developing the vulnerability index. The three indicators used in the study of 114 countries are export dependence (exposure to foreign economic conditions), remoteness and insularity and proneness to natural disasters. Though the results of the study found that SIDS are more vulnerable than any other group of countries, the index construction has been limited to indicators of economic vulnerability. As a substantive study, such investigation requires theoretical grounding in measuring economic vulnerability.

SOPAC (1999) carried out an environmental vulnerability study to construct the preliminary EVI study for three countries, Australia, Fiji and Tuvalu. There are three aspects of this type of vulnerability: risks to the environment (natural and anthropogenic), innate ability of the environment to cope with risks (resilience) and ecosystem integrity (health or condition of the environment). The index is calculated as a weighted average of scores in the range of 0 to 7 derived from a total of 57 indicators that demand a complex process of data generation. Although the study supports the view that small islands are vulnerable in environmental terms, the results are still preliminary.

There is potential for re-examining the number and types of variables to be included in both studies in order to establish clearly which of the causal factors are considered economic, geographic or ecological determinants of small-island

246 Rosario Turvey


vulnerability, as there appears to be some confusion in classifying them. A robust statement of the theoretical underpinning would increase the effectiveness of research results according to selected sub-indices. The rigorous process of selecting variables in constructing the vulnerability index (VI) has been demonstrated but remains problematic because of insufficient data for certain indicators to be used as sub-indices, as pointed out in current vulnerability research on developing areas (Briguglio, 1995; Commonwealth Secretariat, 1997; SOPAC, 1999; ECOSOC, 1999). For this reason, a more contentious issue in index construction and VA development is the selection of indicators or sub-indices, because it is contingent on data availability. To date, no quantitatively based vulnerability assessment on SIDS with a robust theoretical basis has been undertaken. By broadening the meaning of the term to include geophysical components, the study asserts that the concepts of place and vulnerability of a place are bases for understanding small-island vulnerability. Such research should investigate the links between island development orthodoxy (the special-case argument) and small-island vulnerability. This should be explored in developing a methodology for the vulnerability assessment of SIDS in geographic terms. By selecting the sub-indices of geographic vulnerability that reliably differentiate the most vulnerable countries, the research could be used as a tool for evaluating the development situation and assistance needs of developing countries. The findings could be valuable to both the developing world and the international community in terms of development policy and planning of countries for inclusion in the list of LDCs.

3 Vulnerability of place

The methodology for vulnerability assessment is premised upon the concepts of place, vulnerability of a place and place identity. First, there is a need to situate the concept of place in vulnerability studies, since it is mostly taken as given. The overarching objective is to understand why place x is more vulnerable than place y, which is less vulnerable compared with place z. The term place has basic and mutually constitutive geographical dimensions like location, size of area and physical environment where human beings co-exist, based on biophysical, economic and political systems of interactions. Some authors view it with sensitivity to temporal (time-specific configurations annual, monthly and seasonal) and geographical variability (local, national, regional, global) (Watts and Bohle, 1993: 46; Downing et al., 1996). This can be divided into three geographic elements, namely, (i) social element, meaning those vulnerable groups or communities living in places at risk or people at risk; (ii) spatial element, meaning vulnerable places; and (iii) temporal element, specifying time-specific configurations of the geography of vulnerability.

Secondly, vulnerability of a place is argued as a basic concept in developing the methodology for VA of developing countries. As listed in Table 1, place vulnerability is a multiple function of different factors and determinants (economic, geographic and socio-political) in a given areal or geographical domain (local, state, national and regional) (Cutter, 1996; Hewitt, 1997). As an evolving concept in geography and development, it has spatial and temporal aspects and does not operate in a vacuum.



Table 1: Causal factors of place vulnerability

Economic factors Vulnerability to external economic shocks Fragility due to intrinsic factors Susceptibility of domestic economy to extreme events Vulnerability to routine risks in everyday life Geographic factors Vulnerability to natural disasters Vulnerability from locational disadvantages peripheries, ghettos, slums Endangered zones and impaired habitats typhoon and hurricane belts, polluted areas Vulnerability to structural weakness dependence, food insecurity, powerlessness, poverty

and lack of response capabilities Fragility of ecosystems and physical environment Rural, urban, sectoral and communal space of vulnerability Socio-political factors Enforced vulnerability of population forced labour, forced resettlement and uprooting,

economic sanctions, ethnic cleansing and regions of misrule Vulnerability to interpersonal forces population factors, economic, cultural and

environmental conflicts Sources: Wisner (1993); Watts and Bohle (1993); Briguglio (1995); Hewitt (1997).

Thirdly, there is the need to view the notion of vulnerability in development geography in the sense of place identity for country classification of developing areas in the international political economy and the environment. The sense of place identity in vulnerability is contextual and bound by the ways vulnerability conditions are produced. SIDS and other developing areas are framed by linking vulnerability into the classification and structural position of countries in global development. This may mean a perception of the vulnerability of developing countries as defined by the overall workings of the political economy in a global system. World countries are often classified by: (a) level of development (developed and developing, industrialising economies, least developed); (b) levels of income and extent of indebtedness; and (c) position in the global economy (North/South axis) (Hewitt, 1997; World Bank, 1999). Developing countries are invariably categorised by their level of development in international relations and politics. The question lies not in the number or type of country classifications, but in terms of why and in what ways distinctions are made. The distinct category of LDCs is based on the criteria adopted to qualify for special measures in support of their development needs and to increase their competitive advantage in the global economy (UNCTAD, 2004). Overall, developing countries are not homogeneous and have no special treatment, and their country classifications vary by the nature and purpose of the analysis.

Place identity as it pertains to global environment change is relevant to the case of SIDS since it is broadly concerned with climate change and global warming issues, and ecological and technological hazards. This may mean places at risk, the hazards of a place, or global risk for example, vulnerability to climate change (Cutter, 1996; Hewitt, 1997). Of greater concern to SIDS (especially the LDCs) is the increasing use of the so-called graduation approach in the donor process for international

248 Rosario Turvey


development co-operation. The idea of graduation means that country x may no longer be classified as an LDC based on certain criteria established by the UN, and/or a developing area may no longer be in the donors priority list of developing-country partners. Graduation from the list of LDCs is perceived to imply change in the countrys access to markets, aid resources and trading regimes.

4 The VA methodology

In developing the VA methodology, the study explored geographic vulnerability (GV) in order to expand the current scope of vulnerability analysis. Past research has systematically ignored this inherent spatial dimension. GV from a developing-world perspective is defined by a countrys susceptibility to physical and human pressures, and risk and hazards in temporal and spatial contexts. Conditions of vulnerability reflect the complex interaction between the physical and societal systems in a geographic space and the scale of analysis (i.e., local, regional, global). The inclusion of GV to produce a Composite Vulnerability Index (CVI) will give a broader view of the issue of vulnerability by incorporating the geographic environment (i.e., the spatial dimension). Most crucial to VA development is the investigation of an operationally feasible and easy-to-use evaluation methodology for those countries facing graduation from LDC status and those small islands that are economically and environmentally at risk.2 It should have the capacity to be replicated in similar geographic environments and other regions of the world for evaluation and country comparisons.

Overall, the criteria adopted in developing the methodology are: (i) simplicity and ease of application, (ii) capacity for international comparisons, (iii) relevance, (iv) capability to capture the causal structure of vulnerability, and (v) suitability for systematic assessment.

The working hypotheses and relationships to be investigated are as follows:

Hypothesis 1: The geographical factors and causal structure are likely to indicate the vulnerability of a place. Hypothesis 2: Small islands are likely to be more vulnerable than large developing countries.

An index of vulnerability is proposed as the measurement of geographic vulnerability. As such, it is not envisaged as an alternative measure of either growth or development. Increased concerns about geographical, social, economic and environmental vulnerability are due to intrinsic factors and external forces, as explored by past studies. The GV model is an operational framework that is based on place vulnerability or the sensitivity of an areal or geographic domain in responding to risks,

2. As of the 2003 review, the UN Committee on Development Policy has revised the LDC criteria for inclusion: Low income, based on a three-year average estimate of the gross national income per capita (under $750 for inclusion in the LDC list and $900 for cases of graduation); weak human assets based on a composite Human Assets Index using the indicators of nutrition, health, school enrolment and adult literacy; and economic vulnerability based on instability of agricultural production, instability of exports of goods and services, diversification from traditional economic activities and merchandise export concentration, and economic smallness.



pressures and/or extreme events within a specific timeframe. The GV measurement areas are: areal factors (geographically localised areas affected by extreme events); index of exposure to risk; and index of resilience indicating the capacity of the island or place to cope with risk and recover after the occurrence of natural and anthropogenic disturbances.

4.1 Index construction

The construction of the index sets out the structure and method of classifying the sample of developing countries by a GV rank-order system. There are five key steps in the construction and analysis of the composite vulnerability index (CVI). The process involves (i) preliminary work; (ii) setting the spatial framework or scope of study; (iii) construction of the CVI; (iv) conducting vulnerability assessment and analysis; and (v) reporting and presentation. The first two steps of the preliminary work relate to a review of the literature, situational analysis and delineation of the study area. The next three steps specify the actual process of CVI construction, analysis and reporting.

To construct the index, maximum (or minimum) values were taken for each of the variables. In index calculations and analysis, the question is whether to assign each sub-index an equal weight or to give different weights. In practice, equal weighting is the norm, unless there is a compelling reason for differential weighting of sub-indices. In this study, the component variables (sub-indices) were equally weighted and a simple average was then taken to compute the geographic index of vulnerability. Since each of the variables represents different factors, equal weighting means that the variables were considered to be equally important. Equal weighting was chosen, in part, based on the assumption that the four variables represent the slightly different aspects of place vulnerability. This logic of equal weighting implies that the composite measure (CVI) represents one dimension of vulnerability (i.e. place vulnerability) as it pertains to developing areas, with special focus on SIDS.

4.2 Spatial framework

In constructing the CVI, the sample is limited to 100 developing countries (DCs) representing 59% of total DCs by World Atlas definition. Of this sample, 66 are large developing countries (or large states) and 34 are small developing countries (or small states), 24 of which are SIDS. There are 8 SIDS classified as Least Developed Countries out of the 31 LDCs covered by the study (Tables 2 and 3). Using the Commonwealth Secretariat (1997) definition, large states have a population of more than 1.5 million, and small states (including SIDS) 1.5 million or less. The exclusion of a number of SIDS and other LDCs from the sample was due to insufficiency of data in all the component indicators.

250 Rosario Turvey


Table 2: SIDS for GV analysis (N=24)

Ocean/developing countries Atlantic Ocean, n=2 Cape Verde, So Tom and Principe Caribbean, n= 9 Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Dominica, Grenada, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago Pacific, n=7 Fiji, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Samoa, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea Indian Ocean, n=4 Maldives, Mauritius, Comoros, Seychelles Mediterranean, n= 2 Cyprus, Malta

Table 3: LDCs for GV analysis (N=31)

LDCs (SIDS and non-SIDS) SIDS, n=8 Kiribati, Vanuatu, Cape Verde, So Tom and Principe, Solomon Islands, Comoros, Samoa, Maldives Non-SIDS, n=23 Mauritania, Zambia, Niger, Bangladesh, Equatorial Guinea, Mozambique, Benin, Haiti, Uganda, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Togo, Sudan, Tanzania, Sierra Leone, Nepal, Rwanda, Burundi, Madagascar, Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Myanmar, Gambia

4.3 Organisation of indicators and criteria on CVI

Index and indicators are used in the assessment methodology to capture the underlying elements of vulnerability.3 In building the set of candidate indicators, a survey was made of the widely used indicators and a set of criteria was applied to determine the composite indicators (or sub-indices) of CVI. The organisation of potential indicators was approached from two directions. First, it placed the indicator selection process within the concept of place vulnerability, along with other GV concepts as used in the study to develop the VA methodology. Second, it selected component indicators or sub-indices from a short list of twelve candidate indicators. All possible relationships among several indicators and items differing in variance or duplicating one another were examined to determine the relative strengths of relationships of each candidate indicator. The criteria applied to select the candidate indicators were validity, feasibility, plausibility, sensitivity, measurability, clarity and acceptability.

3. ESCAP (1995: 88) defines an indicator as a parameter or a value derived from parameters with a significance extending beyond that directly associated with it, while an index means a set of aggregated or weighted parameters or indicators.



4)( 4321 GGGGCVI +++=

The selection of sub-indices is usually done for different purposes. They may be used to describe and examine a particular situation in a given place, they may be used to define the relationship between and among component variables, and they may be used to measure the extent and nature of geographic vulnerability. Other factors are: (i) the limitation to quantify characteristics that are attributed as causal factors of vulnerability, and (ii) the availability of data for the sample countries, as reported in standard surveys and statistical reports on developing countries. In index construction, the final CVI structure is based on (a) quantity and quality of data, and (b) analytical soundness. The CVI is a simple average of the four variables G1, G2, G3 and G4, as follows:

(1)

An indicator that does not contribute to the indexs power is excluded. Data processed and universally compiled in the field and maintained by a number of data centres were used as basic data in the index construction, such as UNCTAD trade statistics and other official reports or a compendium of key indicators. From twelve candidate indicators, four component variables for the index were chosen to measure geographic vulnerability. The empirical work in the CVI examined and constructed a large number of variables to reflect the integral dimensions of geographic vulnerability. The rank ordering of countries according to a scale of 0-1 indicates those that are most vulnerable (scale: 0) and those that are least vulnerable (scale: 1). The four sub-indices or component indicators for CVI are enumerated as follows:

Coastal Index as a proxy for inundation risk (G1). This was calculated by dividing the length of the coastline (in kilometres) by the total land area of a given country (Dahl, 1991).4

Peripherality Index (G2): proxy to measure remoteness and insularity, based on Insurance and Freight Debits as a percentage of Imports of Merchandise in the period covered: 1990-4, (averaged data).5

Urbanisation Indicator (UR) (G3): URxi/X, expressed as the proportion of

population living in urban areas as expressed in percentages, where URxi is the number

of people living in urban areas and X is the countrys total population.6 Vulnerability to Natural Disasters (G4): Percentage of population affected by

natural disasters during 1970-96; the total number of natural disasters expressed relative to the total land area against the (natural) logarithm of population (Commonwealth Secretariat, 1997), period covered: 1970-96.7

4. The empirical work on the CVI examined and constructed a large number of variables to reflect the integral dimensions of geographic vulnerability.

5. Data from Briguglio (1995) and UNCTAD (1994). 6. Data from Watson et al., 1998; World Bank and World Resources Institute Country at a Glance tables

(1999); United Nations (1995); and Wilkinson and Buddmeier (1994). 7. Database from EM-DAT, Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), Catholic

University of Louvain, Brussels; UNCTAD (1995) and Commonwealth Secretariat (1997).

252 Rosario Turvey


4.4 Scales and standardisation of vulnerability sub-indices

As done in similar studies, scales and indexes are used as typical ordinal measures and both involve ranking of variables or units of analysis. As a composite measure, the CVI is a simple accumulation of scores of each component variable that represents specific attributes. The scale from 0 to 1 was applied to show the pattern or intensity of attributes in each of the component indicators.

G1 vulnerability to inundation risk: the most vulnerable to inundation risk in terms of coastal index (as proxy of inundation risk and elevation factor) receives a value of 0, the least vulnerable to inundation risk receives a value of 1.

Both the UNEP and the UN documents on vulnerability cited the coastal index as a measure of insularity. In the context of physical vulnerability, it was used here as a proxy for the vulnerability of coastal areas to inundation risk, given the inadequate data such as elevation, i.e., share of land area within 1 metre of mean sea level (UNEP, 1994). As no country-level data sets were available on the mean elevation variable, the coastal index was used to measure the sensitivity to inundation. Much of the socio-economic activities in small islands are located along the coastline (Pernetta, 1992). Data on coastline in kilometres are readily available from the World Resources Institute and the World Bank database. The GV model used a dummy variable that takes the value of 1 if the country is landlocked. No island or coastal community is immune to the potential impacts of climate change, based on projected rates of sea-level rise and global warming (UNEP, 1994).

More studies are needed on the vulnerability of coastal environments, not only in relation to climate change issues including sea-level rise, but also to seasonal and inter-annual climate variability. These represent serious threats to coastal populations and resources as they tend to experience increased coastal erosion and land loss. In small islands such as the Bahamas, Kiribati and the Maldives, much of the land area ranges from only 3 to 5 metres above the present mean sea level (Nurse et al., 1998). Already, pressures are escalating in coastal areas as rising population, urbanisation in coastal cities and zones, tourism development and land-based pollution contribute to the cumulative vulnerability of island environments.

G2 peripherality: the most remote in terms of transport costs (insurance and freight as percentage of imports) receives a value of 0 and least remote a value of 1.

Remoteness is defined by distance from markets, and physical location is a permanent characteristic of some small islands and was treated here as a causal factor of vulnerability. Briguglio (1995) has pointed out that it is remoteness that often creates economic difficulties and uncertainties. Distance and isolation have produced relatively high transport costs for a large number of island countries (UN, 1994). Some islands are constantly bogged down by problems associated with the quality and frequency of international shipping and air services, and these problems cause undue uncertainties, delays and higher costs in terms of foreign trade (UN, 1994; Briguglio, 1995). The most isolated islands face transhipment costs and cessation of transport services (UNCSD,



1998). Most island countries that are LDCs invariably face problems of inadequate internal transportation, shipping and air transport and other physical infrastructure to enable them to expand trade activities and increase market access. Devising strategies to improve transport and communications to remove such development constraints has posed a major challenge to national governments and the donor community.

G3 vulnerability to urbanisation pressures: the most urbanised in terms of percentage of urban population receives a value of 0 and the least urbanised a value of 1.

This indicator is based on the proportion of the population living in urban areas. Over the past four decades, urbanisation has become one of the most important geographical phenomena in todays world (Knox et al., 2004: 426). World estimates indicate that, by 2020, the bulk of the worlds urban population will come from developing countries. Cities as we know them are magnets to migrant populations in search of diverse opportunities and places for human settlement. They serve as multiple settings for human activities, sites for economic interactions and the transformation of society. By the end of the twenty-first century, more than half of the global population will live and work in cities or urban environments (Velasquez et al., 1999: 162; UN, 1995). Mega-cities with at least 10 million people have mushroomed in several Asian developing countries and elsewhere, so it is not surprising to note the twenty-first century as a century of migration and urbanisation (Knox et al., 2004).

The notion of vulnerability in urban areas suggests the probability of exposure to pressures and population impacts on urban systems, resources and infrastructure. As a locus of vulnerability, cities are susceptible to urbanisation pressures from demographic increases and/or a surge in human activity. According to UNEP (1999), urbanisation is a pressure indicator of resources and environment, and this is expressed as a proportion of the population living in urban areas (Earthwatch, 1999). As such, rapid urbanisation is always associated with tremendous population pressures and locational challenges ranging from urban congestion to the rise of urban squatter settlements, slums and public-health risks (Hewitt, 1997; Velasquez et al., 1999). The urban question with regard to vulnerability also pertains to the capacity of cities to respond to vulnerability risks and issues due to urban overcrowding, adverse impacts from disasters, threats from terrorism and other disturbances in everyday urban living.

With regard to SIDS, island populations tend to live in a few urban centres that include coastal areas where most of the infrastructure and services are located. Past research reported that damage to critical infrastructure, due to extreme events in urban settlements with large coastal populations, would be disruptive to some economic, social and cultural activities (Pernetta, 1992; Nurse et al., 1998). Social and economic dislocations are more severe in communities with high population densities, particularly in urban areas (Wilkinson and Buddmeier, 1994). Some island countries have registered high urban population densities, for example: Euripe, Federated States of Micronesia (950 per km2); Majuro, Marshall Islands (2,188 per km2). In general, settlements on atolls and small islands are in highly populated coastal zones and cities in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, particularly the atoll countries of Kiribati, Tuvalu and Maldives (Nurse et al., 1998). Since the twentieth century, the rates of urbanised coastal

254 Rosario Turvey


)()(ii

iijij MinXMaxX

MaxXXV

= .100....3,2,1;3,2,1 == ji

populations have increased relative to the demand for economic and environmental opportunities. By early in the twenty-first century, it is expected that two-thirds of the population of developing countries will be living along the coast and 70% of the global human population will live within 60 kilometres of the shoreline (Pernetta and Elder, 1992).

G4 vulnerability to natural disasters: the most vulnerable to natural disasters receives a value of 0 and the least vulnerable a value of 1.

Since the UN declared 1990-99 as the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (UN Resolution 42/169, 1987), efforts towards disaster mitigation and prevention have paralleled efforts to address vulnerability reduction. Poor countries are hit 500 times more seriously than developed countries, and economic losses are enormous. Island environments are deemed more vulnerable to tropical storms, cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons) and drought than the larger masses of land (McClean, 1980; Brookfield, 1990). Studies by Kay and Hay (1993) indicate that the southwest Pacific region warmed at a rate of 0.2 C in the 1990s. The perception is that small islands are vulnerable to natural and environmental disasters because of their limited capacity to respond and recover from such disasters.

After quantifying each of the component variables, the data sets were then standardised, since the variables are expressed or measured in different units. Modified according to Robson (1993) and Briguglio (1995), the formula for standardisation is as follows:

(2)

where Vij refers to the degree of vulnerability from the ith variable for country j and Xij refers to the value of ith variable for country j; MaxXi and MinXi refer to the maximum and minimum value of the ith variable for all countries in the study. Countries are generically denoted by j.

5 Purpose of vulnerability assessment

In essence, the purpose of constructing the GVI and vulnerability assessment is three-pronged, namely, for policy evaluation, for spatial analysis in a development context and for mitigating vulnerability. Each of these purposes is discussed in turn. VA has potential application in the field and the practice of policy and development evaluation, in the sense that countries are assessed in terms of their likely vulnerability threats and risks and their potential to achieve viability in sustaining their national economies.

5.1 Policy evaluation and VA

Broadly, vulnerability studies have become the focus of scientific and international efforts to address issues about the environment and the sustainability development goals



of developing countries (UN, 1994; 1999). Vulnerability assessment in a policy setting is a useful tool for country classification and in framing development policies. VA findings could be used for development evaluation if the task is to set priorities for, and allocation of, external aid for developing countries. It could also help determine which country falls in the special or distinct classification or identity, for example, in identifying countries in the LDC list to be accorded special status in world trade and frameworks for international co-operation. In the international policy arena, the UN Committee on Development Policy (1999) has already recognised vulnerability as an important issue for the developing world, particularly for some SIDS with LDC status. GVI construction at the national level is meant to operationalise the notion of vulnerability by taking into account indicators that capture the intrinsic characteristics whether physical or inherently spatial in nature, namely, aspects of remoteness and/or environmental susceptibility to natural disasters and hazards. In policy terms, the GVI is viewed as filling an operational gap in vulnerability studies of interest to the development policy community as they deal with the question of broadening the assessment criteria in evaluating the situation of developing countries.

The purpose of constructing a composite vulnerability index is pragmatic, since it offers an alternative benchmark or reference point for evaluating frameworks for development policy while building international partnerships and co-operation. In the practice of evaluation, the conventional approach to measuring development is commonly based on the economic indicators using Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and per capita income (PCY) in international dollars by country. Though the economic criterion is widely used to measure development and classify world countries by income categories, it does not fully explain a countrys development issues and constraints, particularly those that persist as intrinsic characteristics of developing countries.

The purpose of VA and index construction has been to explore how GVI and other statistical measures could be employed as quantitative indicators of the fragility of SIDS given special reference in this study. If the geographic dimension is considered as an integral part of vulnerability assessment, it is deemed useful for building the country vulnerability profile purportedly for policy analysis and planning for development (UN, 1999). Such country profiles are construed to capture, in a holistic fashion, the economic, environmental, social and physical dimensions of vulnerability from country to country. Although the resultant GVI is not itself an index that measures a countrys growth and development performance, it could broaden our current understanding of the nature and extent of a countrys vulnerability. What is being posited is that, from a policy viewpoint, the results from vulnerability assessments could shed light on the question of vulnerability as it affects the developing world, including SIDS.

5.2 Spatial analysis

VA is straightforward in its application but is deemed a valuable tool for spatial analysis aimed at stimulating development thinking on the need for global co-operation so that risks to vulnerability are minimised. When countries are identified and ranked as vulnerable places, the level of attention is raised concerning their fragile situation or existing state-of-development in vulnerability terms. In the case of the most vulnerable countries, there is evidence to suggest that, through the use of VA, the special-case

256 Rosario Turvey


argument of a number of SIDS can be seen as appropriate and relevant. In the study, the results from the paired comparisons of GVI indicate that countries vary in their degree of vulnerability, due to their geographical position and other such factors that are structural in nature. Here the structural factors of isolation are spatial and relatively impervious to policy. The results also suggest that, in establishing their position in the international development scene, the most vulnerable SIDS, for instance, have to deal with their vulnerability as a whole, not on a piecemeal basis, in other words, to look at all dimensions of vulnerability.

5.3 Mitigating vulnerability

Together with the interest in vulnerability index construction as an evaluation tool, the other equally important task of GVI is to mitigate the risk of vulnerability. Since the question of vulnerability is not insuperable, the logical step after an assessment is to determine the level of societal and institutional response system, so that the respective countries can set out firm decisions and action programmes for reducing the vulnerability risk. This means careful consideration of the managerial and institutional capacities of countries in response to vulnerability, and these are often tied to substantive and procedural processes for adjustment (coping), resistance and recovery (resilience). This kind of analysis could build on the GVI results through a scenario-building exercise that generates the probable conditions of vulnerability and the likely response pattern or strategies to deal with potential risks, threats and hazards based on vulnerability assessment.

Whether the assessment results are preliminary or conclusive, a response-management system is essential. Broadly, societal and institutional responses refer to decisions, strategies and actions taken by groups of people, organisations and agencies involved in mitigating the risk of vulnerability. An organised response-management process could include agenda-building and policy and programme development. Other pertinent actions to reduce the risk of vulnerability are information and knowledge-building about vulnerable places, installation and management of community communication systems for public awareness, early warning signals and alerting, planning for mitigation, adaptation and emergency preparedness as well as development of rehabilitation and recovery programmes.

6 GV results

The results of the CVI construction to measure the index of geographic vulnerability were categorised into three arbitrary thresholds, constructed to grasp the extent of vulnerability (from high to low) (see Table 4). Countries in the high GV category are those that lie between 0 and 0.599 and these refer to countries that are most vulnerable. Countries in the medium GV category are those between 0.600 and 0.799, while the countries between 0.800 and 1.000 are the ones that are least vulnerable, based on the scale of 0-1. Of the 100 developing countries for which the CVI was constructed using the simple average, 9 are in the high geographic vulnerability (GV) category (0-0.599),



72 in the medium GV category (0.600-0.799) and 19 in the low GV category (0.800-1.000).

Table 4: CVI results by region and GV thresholds

Country size/region

High GV (0-0.599)

Medium GV (0.600-0.799)

Low GV (0.800-1.000)

Large states n=66 n=1 n= 51 n= 14 Africa

Democratic Republic of Congo

Mauritania, Kenya, Algeria, Ethiopia, Cameroon, Zambia, Niger, Sudan, Togo, Tanzania, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, Benin, Cte dIvoire, Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, Morocco, Burkina Faso, Ghana, South Africa, Egypt, Senegal, Mozambique, Equatorial Guinea, Congo Democratic Republic

Tunisia, Namibia, Burundi, Madagascar

South/Central America

Paraguay, Bolivia, Haiti, El Salvador, Venezuela, Peru, Argentina, Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Mexico, Ecuador, Colombia, Honduras

Guatemala, Panama

Asia/Pacific/ Others

Oman, India, Jordan, Bangladesh, Philippines, Iran, Turkey, Syrian Arab Republic

China, Nepal, Indonesia, Pakistan, Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia, Sri Lanka

Small states n=34 n= 8 n= 21 n= 5 Africa

So Tom and Principe

Gambia, Botswana, Comoros, Gabon Cape Verde, Swaziland, Lesotho

Caribbean

Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica

Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada, St Vincent , St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, Barbados, Belize, Jamaica, Guyana

Suriname

Pacific

Tonga, Kiribati, Vanuatu

Fiji, Solomon Islands, Samoa Papua New Guinea

Indian/ Mediterranean/ Other Asia

Seychelles Cyprus, Mauritius, Malta, Maldives, Bahrain

258 Rosario Turvey


Based on the ranking of 100 countries by CVI, the small islands of Tonga, Bahamas, Kiribati and Vanuatu are the most vulnerable with CVI values of less than 0.599, the threshold for high GV category. Of the 9 countries in the high GV category, 8 are small-island countries, 3 of which are LDCs Kiribati, Vanuatu and So Tom and Principe. Following the Commonwealth definition, there are 34 small states, of which 24 are SIDS. The island countries found most vulnerable are based on the rank order system, either with significant peripherality index, urbanisation pressures or vulnerability to natural disasters.

The result of high GV in one large country (Democratic Republic of Congo) was also derived in part from values on peripherality and urbanisation pressures. Kiribati and Seychelles are two SIDS with coastal indices that fall within the values of 0-0.497 in the high GV category. At the other end of the scale, 19 countries are in the low GV category, 6 of them LDCs with CVI values from 0.812 to 0.920. These countries are Burundi, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Lesotho, Nepal and Myanmar (Table 4). Apart from Cape Verde, the terrains of the countries in the low GV category are mostly highland and mountain environments, if not landlocked. If there is any significant change in one or more of the sub-indices of CVI, those countries in the medium GV category that include SIDs and LDCs face the risk of sliding past the threshold of the most vulnerable, i.e. into the high GV category.

By index of peripherality, some LDCs in the low GV category (Burundi, Madagascar) have sub-index values from 0.264 to 0.564, while other LDCs in the same category, namely, Myanmar, Nepal, Lesotho, and Cape Verde, have peripherality sub-index values from 0.736 to 1.000. There are 22 LDCs in the medium GV category, such as Maldives (0.615), Mauritania (0.617), Gambia (0.637), Bangladesh (0.0.653), Solomon Islands (0.690) and Mozambique (0. 695). Mozambique is an example of a large developing country that has experienced a higher frequency of natural disasters like India and the Philippines, also in the medium GV category.

Of the most vulnerable SIDS by region, 8 countries are in the Pacific, the Caribbean and Africa. By country size, 51 large countries have CVI values from 0.600 to 0.799 in the medium GV category, 26 of them developing countries in Africa, 17 in South/Central America and 8 in Asia/Pacific/Others. Of the 14 large states found to be least vulnerable, 8 are in Asia/Pacific/Others, 2 are in South and Central America and 4 in Africa. CVI measures the degree or extent of vulnerability and is neither a measure of economic development nor a measure of poverty. The CVI results confirmed the hypothesis that small islands and small states including those with high per capita incomes are more vulnerable than low-income, large countries such as Madagascar. An issue arising from these results is how to establish the capacity of the most vulnerable countries by level of resistance and resilience in coping with the degree of vulnerability. Table 5 shows the vulnerability by country grouping of large states, SIDS and LDCs.

A sensitivity analysis was also conducted to compare the differences between the results from a simple average and a weighted average of sub-indices. In assigning weights, G1 and G4 were given a maximum score of 2 each, assuming that these variables essentially reflect similar aspects of GV, for example susceptibility to natural disasters, and are considered to be structural factors less affected by the influences and pressures of policy-making. G2 and G3 are assigned a maximum score of 3 each because the variables are viewed as more responsive to policy and are therefore treated



as reflecting the different aspects of vulnerability. Based on the weighted averages of the sub-indices, the results indicated a direct relationship between the sub-indices with higher weights and the extent of vulnerability. Factors with higher weights (G2 and G3) contributed most to the increase in a countrys vulnerability and/or CVI ranking.

Table 5: CVI: vulnerability by country grouping

Country grouping G1 G2 G3 G4 CVI

Large states, n= 66 0.991 0.600 0.534 0.887 0.758 Small states, n=34 0.862 0.507 0.541 0.783 0.672 SIDS, n= 24 0.773 0.428 0.612 0.726 0.607 LDCs, n= 31 0.923 0.421 0.740 0.805 0.721 Notes: G1, Coastal Index, G2, Peripherality Index, G3, Urbanisation, G4, Vulnerability to Natural Disasters, CVI, Composite Vulnerability Index.

Table 6: Countries of high GV (weighted average)

Developing country CVI weighted average

Country ranking

CVI simple average

Country ranking

Tonga (SIDS) 0.434 1 0.443 1 Kiribati (SIDS) 0.460 2 0.496 3 Bahamas (SIDS) 0.472 3 0.494 2 Vanuatu (SIDS) 0.506 4 0.499 4 So Tom and Principe (SIDS) 0.511 5 0.557 5 Democratic Republic of Congo 0.516 6 0.597 9 Seychelles (SIDS) 0.528 7 0.566 6 Dominica (SIDS) 0.540 8 0.579 8 Malta (SIDS) 0.548 9 0.606 10 Paraguay 0.549 10 0.622 14 Bahrain 0.558 11 0.622 13 Antigua and Barbuda (SIDS) 0.574 12 0.575 7 Venezuela 0.592 13 0.718 22 Comoros (SIDS) 0.596 14 0.653 21

Based on the assigned differential weights, countries with high vulnerability to urbanisation pressures and/or peripherality registered increases and changes in the CVI scores. Two geographical factors of vulnerability (G2 and G3) are assumed to be more important and are expected to change within a certain period of time. The number of countries in the high GV category (0-0.599) increased from 9 to 14 based on the weighted average of sub-indices, and included 10 SIDS, 2 small states and 2 large states. By country ranking, the position of 10 countries (for example, Dominica (8), Equatorial Guinea (29), Kenya (60), Lesotho (98) and Myanmar (100) are unchanged. Countries such as Burkina Faso, Comoros, and St Lucia showed sharp increases in

260 Rosario Turvey


vulnerability due to the effect of one or two sub-indices with assigned weights (Table 6).

7 Discussion of research findings

The research findings contribute to a growing body of evidence about the vulnerability of small islands and LDCs. CVI as a measure of geographic vulnerability is a measure of four sub-indices, namely, coastal index (G1), peripherality index (G2), urbanisation index (G3) and vulnerability to natural disasters (G4). The CVI results from 100 developing countries indicate how the causal factors expressed as sub-indices produced geographic vulnerability or defined place vulnerability. The differences in GV thresholds imply that, although eight of the small islands are in the high GV category, some large developing countries are also vulnerable as categorised in the high and medium GV categories. Some large-island countries in the medium GV category are likewise vulnerable to natural hazards and urbanisation pressures (Table 7).

Table 7: Composite vulnerability index, high GV category (simple average)

Country G1 G2 G3 G4 CVI/rank Tonga 0.728 0.192 0.584 0.268 0.443 (1) Bahamas 0.881 0.724 0.046 0.324 0.494 (2) Kiribati 0.343 0.008 0.633 0.998 0.496 (3) Vanuatu 0.920 0.228 0.847 0.000 0.499 (4) So Tom and Principe 0.903 0.100 0.562 0.682 0.557 (5) Seychelles 0.497 0.344 0.421 1.000 0.566 (6) Antigua and Barbuda 0.745 0.508 0.640 0.407 0.575 (7) Dominica 0.908 0.516 0.253 0.639 0.579 (8) Democratic Republic of Congo 1.000 0.016 0.378 0.992 0.597 (9)

The study confirmed the hypothesis that small islands are more vulnerable compared with large-island countries, based on the four dimensions of geographic vulnerability as measured by the four sub-indices. In the context of international development, the inclusion of geographic aspects of vulnerability offers scope for evaluating the position and situation of SIDS and LDCs. The results from the sensitivity analysis with differential weights on sub-indices paralleled the CVI scores on simple averages in terms of the extent of vulnerability. If one country has a high vulnerability relative to G2 (peripherality) and G3 (urbanisation), vulnerability rises and vice versa. The results showed that vulnerability increases (or decreases) relative to the sub-indices. Although the SIDS remained highly vulnerable, the CVI scores showed that large countries are also highly vulnerable, assuming that peripherality and vulnerability to urbanisation pressures are more important than vulnerability to inundation risk and natural disasters. The sensitivity analysis on differential weights found that sub-indices with higher values have an effect on the overall CVI scores.



8 Final notes

Overall, the findings from CVI support the need for alternative assessment criteria other than the limited, conventional economic criteria of per capita income and GDP by country. With a geographic dimension in vulnerability assessment, building the country vulnerability profile may prove useful for framing development policy and evaluating developing countries. While the CVI on GV is not an index of growth and development, it is useful for understanding the problems of developing countries with respect to structural constraints and root causes that perpetuate underdevelopment. Eventually, it could help ascertain why some developing countries need international measures to remove their persistent constraints on development. More contentious is the possibility that the most vulnerable LDCs could be among the candidates for graduation from the LDC list and that they would argue for special treatment, possibly on grounds of vulnerability. Future work should include the generation of data sets for all sub-indices to test the validity of baseline and current vulnerability of SIDS. The need for time-specific configurations of geographic variables is to correlate indicators with the extent or magnitude of risks, pressures and extreme events in order to maintain the viability of places. To distinguish between baseline and current vulnerability is to determine when a given situation in a developing area is critical or when a particular place is geographically vulnerable.8 Baseline vulnerability considers the physical characteristics and intrinsic properties of a place, the internal and/or external forces, and the inherent and recurrent factors that may affect, alter or change the condition and situation of a place. Current vulnerability reflects change in any or all of the component variables of the baseline vulnerability as a pre-existing parameter. Change may be indicated by the occurrence of damaging events that create either emergency or non-emergency situations. Furthermore, change may produce critical, short-term conditions with either temporary or permanent losses, if not irreversible impacts in a place or developing area.

There are three reasons that support the idea of differentiating baseline from current vulnerability. First, it measures the temporal and spatial vulnerability dimensions in order to understand better the causal structure and sources of what and why a place is geographically vulnerable. Time-specific configurations of geographic variables are meant to correlate indicators with the extent or magnitude of risks, pressures and extreme events to sustain the viability of places. Secondly, differentiation between baseline and current vulnerability is practical, as it separates the temporal aspects of vulnerability from an emphasis on its chronic, inherent and defining characteristics (WFP, 1996). The term chronic is used here to mean a recurrent condition. It is easier to institute response mechanisms if both the baseline and the current vulnerability are compared. Thirdly, in the context of developing areas, it may promote regular assessment of their position in order to respond to any significant change, fluctuation or variation due to pressure(s) from domestic or externally induced shocks and events. What is urgently needed is a comparative system of vulnerability assessment regionally and internationally one that differentiates the baseline from the

8. The CVI values are presented as current vulnerability to differentiate the position of each country from the baseline figures.

262 Rosario Turvey


current vulnerability in efforts to programme the assistance needs of developing areas according to time and space configurations. CVI as a reference point could help assess the eligibility of developing areas for appropriate international assistance, in other words, from emergency assistance to programmable foreign aid (for example, the tsunami disaster in South Asia, in December 2004). Although the GV model on place vulnerability is straightforward and easy to use, a comparative analysis of baseline and current vulnerability will be contingent upon the availability of data sets for international and between-country comparisons.

first submitted September 2005 final revision accepted July 2006

References

Briguglio, L. (1995) Small-island Developing States and their Economic Vulnerabilities, World Development 23 (9): 1615-32.

Brookfield, H. C. (1990) Introduction to the Conduct and Findings of the Inter-Disciplinary Fiji Project, in UNESCO, Population-Environment Relations in Tropical Islands: The Case of Eastern Fiji. MAB Technical Notes 13. Paris: UNESCO.

Commonwealth Secretariat (1997) A Future for Small States: Overcoming Vulnerability. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

Cutter, S. L. (1996) Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards, Progress in Human Geography 20: 529-39.

Dahl, A. (1991) Island Directory. Nairobi: UNEP Earthwatch, http://unep.ch/ earthwatch/islands (accessed 29 October 1999).

Dow, K. (1992) Exploring Differences in our Common Future(s): The Meaning of Vulnerability to Global Environment Change, Geoforum 23 (3): 417-36.

Downing, T., Watts, B. and Bohle, H. (1996) Climate Change and Food Security: Toward A Geography of Vulnerability, in T. Downing (ed.), Climate Change and World Food Security Vol. 1. NATO ASI Series 37. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

Earthwatch (1999) Island Directory. http://unep.ch/earthwatch, accessed 5 August 1999.

Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) (1999) Report for Development Policy. New York: ECOSOC.

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) (1995) State of the Environment Report: Asia-Pacific Region. Bangkok: ESCAP.

Hess, A. (1990) Overview of Sustainable Development and Environmental Management of Small Islands, in W. Beller, P. D. dAyala and P. Hein (eds), Sustainable Development and Environmental Management of Small Islands. Paris: UNESCO.

Hewitt, K. (1997) Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters. Harlow: Longman.

Hewitt, K. and Burton, I. (1971) The Hazardousness of a Place: A Regional Ecology of Damaging Events. Research Publication No. 6. Toronto: University of Toronto, Department of Geography.



Kay, R. and Hay, J. (1993) A Decision Support Approach to Coastal Vulnerability and Resilience Assessment: A Tool for Integrated Coastal Zone Management, in R. McClean and N. Mimura (eds), Vulnerability Assessment to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Zone Management. Proceedings of IPCC Eastern Hemisphere Workshop. Geneva: IPCC.

Knox, P., Marston, S. and Nash, A. (2004) Human Geography: Places and Regions in Global Context. 2nd edn. Toronto: Pearson Prentice Hall.

McClean, R. C. (1980) Spatial and Temporal Variability of External Physical Controls on Small Island Ecosystems, in UNESCO, Population-Environment Relations in Tropical Islands: The Case of Eastern Fiji. MAB Technical Notes 13. Paris: UNESCO.

Nunn, P. (1994) Oceanic Islands. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Nurse, L. A., McClean, R. F. and Suarez, A. G. (1998) Small Island States, in

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), WMO and UNEP, in The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pernetta, J. C. (1992) Impacts of Climate Change and Rise on Small Island States, Global Environmental Change 2 (1): 19-31.

Pernetta, J. C. and Elder, D. L. (1992) Climate, Sea and the Coastal Zone: Management and Planning, Ocean and Coastal Management 18 (1): 113-60.

Robson, C. (1993) Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.

South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) (1999) Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI). SOPAC Technical Report 275. Report by U. Kaly; L. Briguglio; H. MacLeod; S. Schmall; C. Platt and R. Pal. Suva: SOPAC.

Turner, R. K., Subak, S. and Adger, W. N. (1996) Pressures, Trends, and Impacts in Coastal Zones: Interactions Between Socio-economic and Natural Systems, Environmental Management 20 (2): 159-73.

United Nations (1999) Indicators for Sustainable Development (ISD): Progress from Theory to Practice. New York: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, www.uncsd.org (accessed 15 October 1999).

United Nations (1997) ESCAP Report: Towards Indicators of Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific. New York: United Nations.

United Nations (1995) Statistics on Population. New York: UN Population Division. United Nations (1994) Report of the Global Conference on the Sustainable

Development of Small Island Developing States. New York: United Nations. United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development (UNCSD) (1998) Report of

the Secretary-General on the Development of a Vulnerability Index for Small-Island Developing States. (Unedited version of the Commission for Sustainable Development, Sixth Session, 20 April-1 May 1998, and report to the Committee for Development Policy, 32nd Session, 4-8 May, 1998.) New York: UNCSD.

UN ECOSOC Committee on Development Policy (1999) Report on the First Session, 26-30 April. ECOSOC Supplement No. 13/E. New York: United Nations.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2004) Is a Special Treatment of Small Island Developing States Possible? New York and Geneva: UNCTAD.

264 Rosario Turvey


UNCTAD (2003) Trade and Environment Review. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ ditchted20034a5_en/pdf, accessed 30 August 2005.

UNCTAD (1999) Handbook of International Trade and Development Statistics 1996-1997. Geneva: UNCTAD.

UNCTAD (1998) The Least Developed Countries 1998 Report. Geneva: UNCTAD. UNCTAD (1995) Handbook of International Trade and Development Statistics.

Geneva: UNCTAD. UNCTAD (1994) Handbook of International Trade and Development Statistics 1994.

New York: UNCTAD. United Nations Environmental Programme (1999) Problems in the Small Island

Environment: Small Island Environmental Management. New York: UNEP, www.unep.ch/islands (accessed January 2000).

UNEP (1994) Earthwatch: Island Directory. http://unep.ch/earthwatch/islands (accessed 29 October 1999).

Velasquez, G. T.; Uitto, J. I.; Wisner, B. and Takashashi, T. (1999) A New Approach to Disaster Mitigation and Planning in Mega-cities: The Pivotal Role of Social Vulnerability in Disaster Management, in T. Inoguchi, E. Newman and G. Paoletto (eds), Cities and the Environment: New Approaches for Eco-societies. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

Watson, R. T., Zinyowera, M. C. and Moss, R. (1998) The Regional Impacts of Climate Change, An Assessment of Vulnerability: Report of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Watts, M. and Bohle, H. (1993) The Space of Vulnerability: the Causal Structure of Hunger and Famine, Progress in Human Geography 17: 43-67.

Wilkinson, C. R. and Buddmeier, R. W. (1994) Global Climate Change and Coral Reefs: Implications for People and Reefs. Report of the IOC-ASPEI-IUCN Global Task Team on the Implications of Climate Change on Coral Reefs, International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Gland: IUCN.

Wisner, B. (1993) Disaster Vulnerability, Geographical Scale and Existential Reality, in H. G. Bohle (ed.), Worlds of Pain and Hunger: Geographical Perspectives on Disaster Vulnerability and Food Security. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Freiburg Studies in Development Geography.

World Bank (1999) World Development Report 1999/2000. New York: Oxford University Press for the World Bank, http://www1.worldbank.org (accessed 12 November 2000).

World Food Programme (1996) WFP Vulnerability Mapping Guidelines. www.wfp.it/vam (accessed 15 October 1999).

World Resources Institute (1995) Environmental Indicators: A Systematic Approach to Measuring and Reporting on Environmental Policy Performance in the Context of Sustainable Development. Washington, DC: WRI.

/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown

/Description >>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice

Date post:	21-Nov-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ajin-aya
View:	25 times
Download:	0 times

teori geografi

Documents