Media
reports and images are full of vulnerable people being struck by disasters.
Film of families being rescued by inflatable boat in Pakistan has been common
staple on recent news reports. When Hurricane Katrina smashed into New Orelans,
it appeared the most vulnerable people in a developed country were being
targeted by the disaster. It seems so clear but what do we actually mean by
vulnerable? Leading on from this question is another important one. If we can
define does this help us take steps to ensure these people are not affected by
such hazards and disasters?
If you
want a simple definition then vulnerability can be defined as the potential for
loss of life or property in the face of environmental hazards or environmental
disasters (or indeed any hazard or disaster). Loss susceptibility is another
term often used in relation to vulnerability. Other definitions include
vulnerability as a threat to which people are exposed; vulnerability as the
degree to which a system acts adversely to a hazard (whatever adverse might
mean?!); differential risk for different social classes; interaction between
risk and preparedness; inability to take effective measures; capacity of group
to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from impact of natural disaster.
There are others and any one interested in the range of definitions used should
have a look at Susan Cutter’s book, Hazards, vulnerability and environmental
justice (2006, Earthscan). A key point to bear in mind is both the physical
and human environments can be vulnerable. Physical systems can be fragile and
susceptible to impacts as much as human systems. Outlining how these can be
studied together will be the subject of a future blog. This blog will focus on social
vulnerability, the vulnerability of the human part of the equation, rather than
physical vulnerability.
Some
other terms borrowed from ecology also tend to be used when researching
vulnerability. Adaptation refers to the ability of the actants in the socio-ecological
system to find strategies to adapt to the hazard or disaster. Resistance is the
ability of the actants to resist the impact of the hazard or disaster.
Resilience is the ability of the system to absorb, self-organise, learn and
adapt to the hazard or disaster. A useful resource for vulnerability can be
found at the web pages of Neil Adger (http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/people/adgerwn/adger.htm)
and at the Resilience Alliance website (http://www.resalliance.org/1.php)
a site looking at research into resilience of socio-ecological systems and
sustainability. As with most things borrowed, once you change the context the
meaning changes as well, so the application and use of these terms does not
necessarily match their original, potentially more limited definitions in
ecological research.
An
important aspect of vulnerability is that it evolves; it changes as the nature
of the disaster or hazard unfolds and as the people who are vulnerable response
and react to their situations. This also highlights the importance of scale for
defining vulnerability. What scale is appropriate? The individual can be viewed
as an important unit, but the individual usually operates within the context of
a family or household, so is this a more appropriate unit for analysing
vulnerability and resilience? What about larger entities such as communities
and governments? As you change the unit of analysis would you expect the
different units to have the same type of vulnerability, the same ability to
resist or the same characteristics of resilience? Once these different spatial
entities interact, such as the provision of aid by the government to
individuals, does this cross scalar interaction affect vulnerability and
resilience? In other words, what seems like a simple thing is very complex to
unravel in detail.
At heart
vulnerability is about the differential ability or power to access resources by
individuals and groups in society. To escape a flood you need the power or
ability to get out of the area. You need a car, you need early warning, you
need a friendly policeman to wave you through and protect you from the other
people trying to escape on foot. These material things require resources and
access to them at the appropriate time. There are static and dynamic aspects to
this access to resources. The static aspects of vulnerability, might be capable
of identification before a disaster strikes. At the simplest level, mapping
socio-economic groups gives an indication to the availability of funds to gain
access to resources. Likewise, mapping similar census data such as lone parent
numbers or age (elderly and young are less able to escape floods for example)
could also indicate the vulnerability of a place. A useful site that discusses
such mapping and has developed a specific means of measuring it, the index of
social vulnerability, can be found at the University of South Carolina at the
Hazards and Vulnerability Institute (http://webra.cas.sc.edu/hvri/) of which Susan
Cutter is the Director.
There is
also a dynamic aspect to vulnerability; the manner in which relationships are
organised and the manner in which they change through normal times and then
during and after a disaster. Such flows could include the transport
infrastructure; a key aspect that appears to have failed during this disaster
and which has dramatically affected the ability of the institution of government
to maintain an effective relationship with vulnerable groups. At a local level,
however, if the transport infrastructure that remains intact sufficient for the
local population to move to safety and then initiate community based activities
that represent resilience at that level? Importantly this dynamic aspect is
concerned with pathways and relations, both physical between locations and
places and social and emotion between peoples and between individuals and
organizations. From the above it is clear that trying to understand
vulnerability also means trying to understand its geography; how it varies in
space and time and how people succumb to, adapt or try to overcome this
geography.
No comments:
Post a Comment