Contreras et al. Spatial Vulnerability Indicators: ”Measuring” Recovery Processes after Earthquakes Spatial Vulnerability Indicators: “Measuring” Recovery Processes after Earthquakes Diana Contreras Centre for Geoinformatics Z_GIS dianamaria.contreras-mojica@sbg.ac.at Thomas Blaschke University of Salzburg thomas.blaschke@sbg.ac.at Stefan Kienberger Centre for Geoinformatics Z_GIS University of Salzburg stefan.kienberger@sbg.ac.at Peter Zeil Centre for Geoinformatics Z_GIS University of Salzburg peter.zeil@sbg.ac.at ABSTRACT In order to analyze and evaluate any post-disaster phases it is necessary to address the pre-existent vulnerability conditions. The methodology consists of four steps: the first step comprises of a review of vulnerability and recovery indicators; the second step is to identify indicators based on spatial variables; the third step is to find the common variables among the subsets of spatial variables from vulnerability and recovery indicators; and the fourth step more pragmatic, is an investigation of the availability of data. The initial results are the set of vulnerability and recovery indicators. Reducing the set of indicators to the indicators represented in a spatial context and the indicators with common features of vulnerability and recovery indices bears the risk to ignore some important single indicators; nevertheless, the added value of the on-going research is to show the advantages of using indicators based on spatial variables. Keywords Vulnerability, recovery, spatial, indicators, earthquakes. INTRODUCTION Vulnerability assessment is a key contribution to formulate recovery and development policies in the risk management process. In the frame of the European Union financed MOVE project, vulnerability has been defined as “the degree of susceptibility or fragility of elements, systems or communities including their capacity to cope under hazardous condition” (MOVE, 2009). Likewise, a clear definition of recovery is essential. Chang (2009) puts forward three possible definitions for recovery: a) reaching the conditions existent before the event; b) reaching the state what would have been attained “without” the disaster, or c) reaching a new stable state. All these definitions are valid and all of them reflect different cases and recovery processes, taking into account the preexistent vulnerability conditions. The assessment of the recovery process should be based on indicators, in order to be objective and to be able to compare (Shohei, 2007). Indicators are qualitative or quantitative measures resulting from systematically observed facts (OECD, 2008) which describe characteristics of certain phenomena and which allow their assessment (Dopheide and Martinez, 2007). According to Chang (2009) the comparability among indicators in regard to disasters depends on three criteria: a) universal significant across space, time and cultures; b) available Reviewing Statement: This short paper has been fully double-blind peer reviewed for clarity, relevance and significance. Proceedings of the 8 th International ISCRAM Conference – Lisbon, Portugal, May 2011 1