A framework for vulnerability and resilience analysis in volcanic

features of the places and societies where they occur”

Kenneth Hewitt (1983b) In 1994, the hazard analyst Piers Blaikie and his colleagues proposed an integrated model for hazard assessment known as vulnerability analysis. Whereas hazard assessment focuses on the physical processes that produce extreme and potentially damaging occurrences,

vulnerability analysis concerns the ways in which these – often in combination with pre- existing social and economic circumstances – produce unsafe conditions for a population (Blaikie et al., 1994, pp. 225). In short, vulnerability analysis aims to:

“reintroduce the ‘human factor’ into disaster studies with greater precision, yet avoiding the dangers of an equally deterministic approach rooted in political economy alone”

(Blaikie et al., 1994, pp. 12) It has been argued that vulnerability analysis is somewhat restricted in its application to volcanic hazards. Blaikie et al. (1994, pp. 184) argued that “volcanic eruptions endanger any

person living within the high risk zone, whether poor or rich, landowner or land-less farm labour, man or women, old or young, member of ethnic minority or majority”. This overly deterministic perspective however, does not take into consideration behavioural and psychological features of individuals, communities and societies.

The terms vulnerability and resilience are often used in: natural hazard research, disaster

research and risk analysis literature (Hewitt, 1983b), however there is not a universal definition for either term. Table 3.4 presents a summary of some of these different definitions. In this thesis vulnerability, or susceptibility to damage, is defined as “the

characteristics of a person or group ... that influences their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a natural hazard ... It involves a combination of factors that determine the degree to which some one’s life, livelihood, property and other assets are put at risk” (Wisner et al., 2004, pp. 11). In short it is the interaction between an extreme event and a vulnerable human population. In this thesis resilience, is defined as the capacity of an individual, community, and society to adapt and recover from a natural event.

In her seminar paper on historical disaster research, Virginia García-Acosta (2002, pp. 65 – see also Sangster et al., 2013, Appendix 3) makes the important point that “disasters serve as

social laboratories” revealing the ways in which people develop survival mechanisms through boosting resilience to extreme natural events, and providing insights into the structure of societies living in vulnerable locations. Developing vulnerability analysis for volcanic regions, involves combining conventional hazard analysis with the study of those aspects of the wider physical environment, culture and society, which either increase or decrease its susceptibility to losses and the potential for recovery.

Over the last two decades several scholars have devised typologies, whereby the characteristics that produce human vulnerability in societies may be classified (e.g. Cannon, 1994; Alexander, 1997; Zaman, 1999; Degg and Homan, 2005). Zaman identified five types of vulnerability, which include:-

1. Physical vulnerability. 2. Economic vulnerability. 3. Social vulnerability.

4. Educational and informational vulnerability. 5. Environmental vulnerability.

Table 3.4: Examples of past and current definitions used for the concepts of vulnerability and

resilience.

Definition Reference

The concept of vulnerability

“the degree to which a system acts adversely to the occurrence of a hazardous event. The degree and quality of the adverse reaction are conditioned by a system’s resilience (a measure of the system’s capacity to absorb and recover from the event)”

Timmerman (1981)

“the potential for loss” Mitchell (1989)

“the differential capacity of groups and individuals to deal with hazards, based on their positions within physical and social worlds”

Dow (1992)

“a function of the costs and benefits of inhabiting areas at risk from natural disasters”

Alexander (1993) “the likelihood that an individual group will be exposed to

and adversely affected by a hazard. It is the interaction of the hazards of place (risk and mitigation) with the social profile of communities”

Cutter (1993)

“stresses the condition of a society which makes it possible for a hazard to become a disaster”

Cannon (1994) “the conditions determined by physical, social, economic,

and environmental factors or processes, which increase the susceptibility of a community to the impact of hazards”

United Nations (2005)

The concept of resilience

“the ‘flip’ – positive – side of vulnerability or the capacity to resist from damage and change in the event of the occurrence of a natural hazard”

Folke et al. (2002)

“a component of vulnerability or the ability of an actor to cope with or adapt to hazard. It is a product of the degree of planned preparation undertaken in the light of a potential hazard, and of spontaneous or premeditated adjustments made in response to felt hazard, including relief and rescue”

Pelling (2003)

“the capacity of a system, community or society potentially exposed to hazards to adapt by resisting or changing in order to reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and structure. This is determined by the degree to which the social system is capable of organising itself to increase this capacity for learning from past disasters for better future protection and to improve risk reduction measures”

United Nations (2005)

“the rate of recovery from a stressful experience, reflecting the social capacity to absorb and recover from a hazardous event”

The five vulnerability types identified byZaman (1999), to study hazards in Bangladesh and also used by Degg and Homan (2005) to study earthquakes responses in Egypt, are inter- connected as more than one of the five types may be present within a single typology. The

vulnerability and resilience method used in this thesis adopts a scheme which develops this approach to study hazard impacts in the Azores, in particularly on São Miguel and Faial Islands (Chapter 6).

Table 3.5: A typology of vulnerability.(From Zaman, 1999, pp. 195).

3.5.2.1 Interviews

In the case of the Azores and as part of the vulnerability and resilience methodology discussed in section 3.5.2, the collection of data relevant to present day threats and Civil Defence planning was required. Interviews were carried out on the island of São Miguel. The format of the interviews was semi-structured (Somekh and Lewin, 2005) providing a framework for the discussion and an opportunity for the respondent to talk freely beyond the interview questions about their experiences in general.