{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011855670103092783, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.982014388489208, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Quantification of vulnerability to natural hazards

Risk is recognised in both the social sciences and natural sciences as some combination of hazard and vulnerability, and often includes exposure and coping capacity. How these four components are defined, measured and evaluated differs greatly between the two disciplines, especially in the case of vulnerability and coping capacity: in natural sciences methods are generally quantitative, but consideration of vulnerability is limited and consideration of coping capacity is non-existent; in social sciences vulnerability and coping capacity are considered in broader detail, but because of the resulting complexity qualitative methods are favoured. Risk analysis in the physical sciences can benefit from introduction of simplified and more quantitative adaptations of approaches in the social sciences. Realisation of these benefits, however, requires clear and consistent understanding of vulnerability and coping capacity. The required understanding is provided here through explicit definition of critical terms related to the conceptualisation of risk and through integration of these into a detailed conceptual risk model. Aspects related to vulnerability and coping capacity not typically addressed in the natural sciences are emphasised and discussed with consideration of developments in the social sciences. The context provided by the risk model and by the highlighted aspects forms the basis for a semi-quantitative conceptual framework that holistically represents vulnerability and coping capacity. Differentiation of components by theme and unit of quantification facilitates more realistic quantification of individual components. Functionality of the framework is demonstrated through its application to a real world scenario. Finally, based on the logical organisation of the framework, research priorities relating to vulnerability and coping capacity are identified.