Vulnerability Analysis: In understanding and analyzing vulnerability, much research and practice neglects the more comprehensive view, instead developing methods which assume that vulnerability is: (a) Quantitative: vulnerabilities can be calculated and summed. (b) Objective: vulnerability analysis is factual and indisputable. (c) Absolute: only the exact numbers, such as the size and density of the population affected, are used to understand vulnerability. (d) Non-contextual: calculation methods are transferable to other locations. (e) Useful for understanding the current state only because this snapshot provides the full story. To fully tackle the vulnerability challenges faced over the long-term, it is important to include in analysis methods that vulnerability is also: (1) Qualitative: emotions and intangibles (e.g. photographs and archeological sites) are important. (2) Subjective: characteristics termed vulnerable depend on the point of view adopted. For instance, Russia has been saved at least three times from invading armies by the winter being a significant factor in their enemy's defeat. Storms were a key factor in at least two English naval victories. In these cases, one side saw weather damage as vulnerability while the other side saw the weather damage as being helpful. The label depends on to whom the damage was being done and the point of view adopted. (3) Proportional: percentages of people or infrastructure affected matter in addition to absolute numbers. For example, islands often have small populations relative to megacities, so even if 100% of an island's population is affected by an event, it is unlikely to match the numbers which could be affected during a similar event in a megacity. Yet 100% of a small population affected can be much worse than 1% of a large population affected. Absolute and proportional metrics provide different characteristics of vulnerability. As well, here they are presented as being quantitative. Is there meaning in comparing qualitative absolute with qualitative proportional (4) Contextual: vulnerability depends on each specific situation. Some languages do not have a word for vulnerability and the concept is difficult to explain within that cultural context. Two examples are Nepali and Inuktitut (based on personal communication from colleagues who speak those languages and who have conducted disaster research in locations where these languages are spoken). Perhaps vulnerability and related terms are predominantly modern Western constructs so that useful ideas could be applied from cultures where vulnerability has less meaning. (5) A process with a past and future, which is not dictated by or interpretable through a single event or a specific disaster type. Incorporating these theoretical ideas into practice is an ongoing challenge, but a solid basis exists from which to start. GIS can represent proportions as easily as absolutes. PGIS (Participatory GIS) and P3DM (Participatory 3-Dimensional Modelling), while far from panaceas, can incorporate elements of qualitativeness and contextuality. Maps can be drawn to represent people's perceptions or to emphasize relative results, rather than always being accurate with regards to distances (e.g. http: //www.worldmapper.org). Textbooks exist on qualitative data collection and analysis to support this work. Skills in history and anthropology can link the past, present, and future. Participatory methods (e.g. Chambers, 2002) can ensure that subjectivity, qualitativeness, and contextuality are properly considered. Different styles and sizes for interviews and surveys can provide data for cross-checking to See: How contextual any quantitative results might be, rather than relying on a single method. The main lessons are (i) do not permit the tool to dictate the analysis method or the understanding of the situation; and (ii) do not rely on numbers to provide the complete story, especially since all vulnerability-related numbers have some level of subjectivity to them