Đang chuẩn bị nút TẢI XUỐNG, xin hãy chờ
Tải xuống
The paper reviews three major schools of thought concerning (i) vulnerability and resilience are two sides of the same coin, (ii) resilience is a part of vulnerability, and (iii) they are two separated concepts with some overlaps. Limitations of the schools of thought were assessed based on four main criteria: (i) vulnerability and resilience must reflect all social, economic and environmental aspects, (ii) they exist regardless of hazards, (iii) they are processes than outcomes, and (iv) they entail multiple objectives. | Vietnam Journal of Science and Technology 55 (5) (2017) 620-636 DOI: 10.15625/2525-2518/55/5/9195 A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO THE DILEMMA BETWEEN FLOOD VULNERABILITY AND RESILIENCE - REVIEW AND CONCEPTS Hoang Cong Tri1, *, Luc Hens2, Pham Minh Thien Phuoc3, Nguyen Thanh Hung1, Tran Ha Phuong4 1 Representative office VAST, 01 Mac Dinh Chi street, District 1, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 2 Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Boeretang 200, 2400 Mol, Belgium 3 Department of East Asian Economics, Ruhr Bochum Universität, Universitätsstraße 150, 44801 Bochum, Germany 4 Ho Chi Minh City Institute of Resources Geography, VAST, 01 Mac Dinh Chi Street, District 1, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam * Email: cong.hoang@uqconnect.edu.au Received: 03 February 2017; Accepted for publication: 28 June 2017 ABSTRACT The nature of "vulnerability" is that it not only exists when elements at risk are exposed to flood, but also hides in interactions between environmental, social and economic factors before the flood incident. While ecological resilience reflects the dynamic characteristics of resources, ecological vulnerability systematically describing aspects of stress was less researched. This paper develops a concept, modeling dynamic interactions between stress and resources taking into account of context, space, time, and stakeholder involvements, to provide direct causes and solutions for flood risk management. The paper reviews three major schools of thought concerning (i) vulnerability and resilience are two sides of the same coin, (ii) resilience is a part of vulnerability, and (iii) they are two separated concepts with some overlaps. Limitations of the schools of thought were assessed based on four main criteria: (i) vulnerability and resilience must reflect all social, economic and environmental aspects, (ii) they exist regardless of hazards, (iii) they are processes than outcomes, and (iv) they entail multiple objectives. Inspired by the flipping coin and .
