Contemporary frameworks

‘Vulnerability’ research has in recent decades witnessed the emergence of theoretical frameworks that give a comprehensive and broader perspective of vulnerability to hazards (Adger, 2006). Their origins can be traced to the mid 90’s (Cutter et al., 2009).

In his review of vulnerability, Adger (2006) makes the following observations about these contemporary frameworks: they are characterized by the recognition of the coupled human and environment system in the analysis of vulnerability; they analyse elements of a bounded system; analysis is scale-linked; there is explicit linkage to other factors and processes beyond the scale of analysis; and they do not only treat exposure and sensitivity, they are also cognisant of responses of the communities (coping, adaptation, resilience). A further characteristic of contemporary frameworks is a shift from qualitative to quantitative assessments. Consequently, there is emphasis on linking

‘vulnerability’ analysis to decision making in practice (Adger, 2006; Cutter et al., 2009;

Gall, 2007).

Contemporary conceptualization of ‘vulnerability’ is, to varied extents, exemplified in a number of models. The hazard-of-place framework (HOP) (Cutter, 1996; Cutter et al., 2000) shown in Figure 2.3 is an archetype of these frameworks. The HOP is integrative of both the social framework and the biophysical framework but with emphasis on a specific geographic domain.

Figure 2.3: A hazard of place framework Source: (Cutter et al., 2003)

The framework views the hazard potential as an outcome of risk (the likelihood of a hazard) and mitigation measures (measures to reduce risk or its impacts). The hazard potential is then filtered through the geographic context (site and situation, proximity) to produce biophysical vulnerability. The hazard potential is also filtered through the social fabric (socioeconomic conditions, risk perception, ability to respond). This generates social vulnerability. The overall ‘vulnerability’ for a place is the intersection of biophysical and social vulnerability. This further provides feedback loop to both risk and mitigation which may enhance or ameliorate the hazard potential. The HOP framework has mainly been used in the USA (Chakraborty et al., 2005; Cutter and Finch, 2008; Wu et al., 2002) but is applicable anywhere.

More recent integrative frameworks include the BBC (Bogardi and Birkmann, 2004;

Cardona, 1999; Cardona, 2001) framework (Figure 2.4), the ISDR (2004) framework (Figure 2.5), and Turner II et al.’s (2003) model (Figure 2.6).

The BBC framework (Figure 2.4) underscores a risk analysis that goes beyond the estimation of deficiencies and disaster impacts; it rather stresses a dynamic process that simultaneously and continuously focuses on vulnerabilities and interventions to reduce vulnerability whilst accounting for the hazards and potential events that

Figure 2.4: The BBC model

Source: (Birkmann, 2006)

the society is vulnerable to, the interaction with which leads to risk (Birkmann, 2006).

The framework conceptualises vulnerability as a function of exposure, susceptibility and coping capacities. Besides, it underscores sustainable development elements. In this regard, it analyses vulnerability from a social, economic and environmental perspective.

The incorporation of interventions to reduce vulnerability, both ext-ante and ex-post, and those to reduce hazard magnitudes and frequency makes the framework risk reduction-oriented (Birkmann, 2006).

Like the BBC framework, the ISDR (2004) framework (Figure 2.5) conceptualises vulnerability as independent of the hazard and therefore recognises risk as arising from vulnerability and the hazard. Its conceptualisation of vulnerability as having four dimensions: social, economic, environmental and physical. The framework is emphatic on disaster risk reduction processes i.e. hazard and vulnerability analysis, risk assessment and response (awareness, knowledge development, public commitment, application of risk reduction measures, early warning and preparedness).

Turner II et al.’s (2003) model (Figure 2.6), like the HOP, is a place-based model that emphasizes coupled human-environmental systems. Unlike in the BBC and ISDR frameworks where vulnerability is retained for the social system, ‘vulnerability’ in Turner II et al.’s (2003) model, as with the HOP, is inclusive of the biophysical component. Vulnerability is defined in terms of exposure, susceptibility and responses (coping responses, impact responses and adaptation responses). Specifically, a system’s vulnerability to hazards in this framework consists of (i) linkages to the broader human and biophysical (environmental) conditions and processes operating on the coupled system in question; (ii) perturbations and stressors/stresses that emerge from this conditions and processes; and (iii) the coupled human – environment system of concern in which vulnerability resides, including exposure and responses (i.e. coping, impacts, adjustments, and adaptation) (Turner II et al., 2003). Unlike the HOP therefore, Turner et al’s model links place vulnerability to in-place, beyond place and cross scale factors.

Figure 2.5: ISDR framework for disaster risk reduction ((ISDR, 2004)

Figure 2.6: Vulnerability framework based on Turner et al.’s (2003) model

Despite being conceptually appealing, these contemporary frameworks are not without shortfalls. For instance, the HOP model (Figure 2.3) does not provide a causal explanation of the vulnerability; rather variables are adopted as is. Because it focuses on place-based interactions between biophysical and social systems, it also excludes the larger contexts within which such vulnerability exists (Cutter et al., 2009).

In the case of Turner II et al.’s model, Gall (2007) argues it is theoretical and lacks specificity. She specifically questions what in the model constitutes human and environmental conditions that construct vulnerability and the mechanisms that cause variability and change in both systems.

Similarly, the ISDR (2004)’s conceptualisation of vulnerability does not link vulnerability and preparedness response system and therefore is not explicit on how vulnerability and risk can be reduced (Birkmann, 2006).

Ultimately, the most important limitation of contemporary frameworks is the methodological difficulty of translation of some concepts into practice. For example, positing social and environmental processes within nested scales is one such difficulty in Turner‘s model (Eakin and Luers, 2006; Gall, 2007). In this regard, Gall (2007) argues against the generalizability of the cross-scale aspect observing that cross-scale integration would be more appropriate for global climate change studies.

Indeed, cross-scale integration has been exemplified in global climate change studies e.g. O’Brien et al. (2004a). O’Brien et al. (2004a) assessed the vulnerability of agriculture in India not only in the context of climate change taking place in India but also due to global market forces. However, the cross interaction is not elaborate. Eakin and Luers (2006) argues that in O’Brien et al. (2004a), the nature of the cross scale interaction between the two stressors, the relative importance of each at any given time, and the possible nonlinear responses of a system to multiple stressors study are elusive.

As is the difficulty of integration of spatial scale, the incorporation of different links that exist between factors is also a difficulty that has also been elusive in most studies (Chakraborty et al., 2005; Cutter and Finch, 2008; Cutter et al., 2003).

Besides these challenges, Eakin and Luers (2006) also observe that capturing the full dynamics of vulnerability in these contemporary models, would entail larger interdisciplinary teams and huge amount of financial resources which is a challenge in resource scarce areas.