The clustering of a large number of items (variety of descriptions) into smaller groups by virtue of shared characteristics. Examples for typologies are: Hazard typology: Clustering of hazards that are somehow interrelated to each other. Spatial typology: The result of a clustering process that is based on relevant spatial data. Typology of risk / risk typologisation: Clustering risks into groups by the characteristics of probability (and certainty of assessment), extent of damage (and certainty of assessment), ubiquity, persistency, irreversibility, delay effect and mobilisation potential. Uncertainty exists where there is a lack of knowledge concerning outcomes. Uncertainty may result e.g. from imprecise knowledge of risk, from model uncertainty which my be related to vague process knowledge, or imprecise data measures, etc. Uncertainty may affect both in a risk approach, the probability and the consequences. To understand the different definitions of vulnerability (as a potential for loss), it is important to distinguish between the origins of vulnerability, which is discussed below in accordance with Cutter 1996, p. 530. Further definitions discussed by Cutter 1996 are given in Annex 1. Other interesting approaches to categorize different concepts of vulnerability are discussed, for example, by Downing & Watts (1994), Füssel & Klein(2006), Klein (2002) and Turner et al. (2003). Origins of vulnerability are: Individual potential for/sensitivity to losses: spatial and non-spatial domains; term: individual vulnerability. Susceptibility of social groups or society at large to potential structural and non-structural losses from hazardous events and disasters: distinct spatial outcomes and variation over time; term: social vulnerability. Potential for loss derived from the interaction of society with biophysical conditions – these affect the resilience of the environment to respond to the hazard or disaster as well as influencing the adaptation of society to such changing conditions: also explicit spatial outcomes; term: biophysical vulnerability. Social and biophysical vulnerability have explicit spatial relevance and therefore are in the focus of spatial oriented risk management. The last bullet above highlights also the ambiguity described by Timmerman (1981, p). The hazard “out there” and the systems internal conditions together form vulnerability. The hazard we are vulnerable to is at the same time part of the vulnerability. Villa and McLeod (2002) try to clarify the picture by introducing intrinsic and extrinsic factors. While the expressed intrinsic factor is “related to conservation status and criticality of dynamics” the expressed extrinsic factor depends on the “present exposure”. However, since the exposure to a hazard may well contribute to the “criticality of dynamics” of a system, the ambiguity is not solved entirely. Klein (2002) set up his frame for vulnerability as “a prior condition, bound up with the social and economic situation of household and communities, and although external physical factors … play a role raising vulnerability, they are not preconditions or sole causes”. In this blur of hazard exposure and system response (or response possibilities) Cutter (1996, pp. 530) tries to delineate three conceptual differences that can be found in vulnerability studies (Cutter 1996, pp. 530): (1) Vulnerability as risk/hazard exposure: Examines the source (or potential exposure to risk) of biophysical or technological hazards. Focus on distribution of hazardous conditions, human occupancy of hazardous zones in combination with the occurrence of an hazardous event (e.g. Hewitt & Burton 1971). (2) Vulnerability as social response: Focus on coping responses including societal resistance and resilience to hazards. The nature of the hazardous event is usually taken as a given – or at the very minimum viewed as a social construct – but not a biophysical condition. Here, the social construction of vulnerability is highlighted, rooted in historical, cultural, social and economic processes (e.g. Chambers 1989; Bohle et al. 1994; Blaikie et al. 1994). (3) Vulnerability of places: Focus on the combination of the elements of the first two directions but it is more geographically centred. “In this perspective, vulnerability is conceived as both a biophysical risk as well as a social response, but within a specific areal or geographic domain” (Cutter 1996, p. 533). The vulnerability of places approach is most likely the definition of vulnerability that shall be used in the ARMONIA context because on the one hand it is not possible to deny the physical existence of hazards – because without hazard there is no risk. On the other hand, many examples have shown that risks depend very much on societal aspects like perception of risks, cultural or economic aspects