Vulnerability approaches

Birkmann (2006b) compiled different conceptual frameworks and definitions of vulnerability. In his analysis, Birkmann highlighted the need for a paradigm change, from the quantitative analysis of hazards to a combined qualitative/quantitative identification, ranking and assessment of vulnerabilities. One influential call for this paradigm change came from Susan Cutter (1993; 1996; Cutter et al., 2003). Cutter interrogated vulnerability in relation to environmental factors. The first distinction Cutter (1996, p.530) makes is that there is an inherent “individual vulnerability” as the potential for, or sensitivity to, losses or harm. “Social vulnerability”, on the contrary, refers to the susceptibility of social groups to potential losses from extreme natural events. Cutter (1993) also asserted that another vulnerability emerges in the interaction of human-beings with environmental conditions which in turn “affects the resilience of the environment to respond to hazards” and alters the adaptation of communities to such changing conditions (Cutter, 1996, p.530). Cutter called this ‘biophysical vulnerability’. In an attempt to integrate both approaches, Cutter (1996) developed the Hazards of Place Model of Vulnerability (see Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1. The Hazards of Place Model of Vulnerability

Biophysical vulnerability Social vulnerability Hazard potential

Social

fabric

Risk

In the Figure 3.1, Cutter emphasised vulnerability as the interaction of biophysical hazards and social responses within a specific geographical space. Cutter’s model described that vulnerability always takes place in a specific spatial area or that it always has a specific geographical domain. In her own words:

“The various elements that constitute vulnerability interact to produce the vulnerability of specific places and the people who live there. This vulnerability can change over time based on changes in the risks, mitigation and contexts within which environmental hazards occur”.

(Cutter, 1996, p.533) Although the ‘place vulnerability’ model may be advantageous to interrogate the way in which physical and social factors of vulnerability interact to create an ‘overall’ vulnerability, this model does not focus on its ‘underlying causes’ or root causes: neither is suitable for the organisation of the production of vulnerability within a multi-scalar perspective. Cutter et al. (2000) recognised the significance of the economic, political, and cultural factors in society that shape disaster vulnerability, however she relied on the use of quantitative demographic indicators at local levels such as ‘No. of non-white residents’ and others to represent ‘differential access to resources’ or ‘susceptibility to hazards due to physical weakness’. This approach may be beneficial for advancing the understanding on the complex interrelated physical and social factors at local levels, and perhaps to produce policy recommendations using quantitative data, but not necessarily useful for investigating the ‘progression’ of vulnerability from its origins to its materialisation in the form of unsafe conditions, and from a multi-scalar perspective as is intended in the case of Chaitén.

Alongside the debate on vulnerability to natural hazards initiated in the 1980s and the recognition that vulnerability plays a determinant role in the causation of disasters, vulnerability has also been approached in other ways. Beyond the social and environmental vulnerability discussed above, another set of studies have approached the concept of vulnerability within boundaries of physical or ‘natural’ sciences, and economics. For instance, during the 1980s and 1990s, researchers and

institutions such as Heyman et al. (1991) Gabor and Palenda (1982), and UNDRO (1979) focused on exposure and ‘physical vulnerability’ by studying the rapid outset of extreme events, their frequency, magnitude, impact, and duration. This group of studies also focused on the analysis of specific hazardous events —e.g. floods, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, and so forth—, their spatial distribution in relation to the population, and their potential for losses. In economics, institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank have promoted the study of ‘financial and economic vulnerability’ (GFDRR, 2012; Ghesquiere and Mahul, 2014; IMF, 2008; OECD et al., 2012; The World Bank, 2014) at different analysis units — states and urban levels—, thereby connecting them to poverty, climate change, and disaster risk (Laframboise and Loko, 2012). More recently, the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC) has referred to ‘cultural vulnerability’ to assess the exposure subjected to cultural values and norms, and the potential loss of cultural assets such as monuments and temples (ADPC, 2014).

This brief outline of different trajectories of enquiry in vulnerability studies may reflect the intricate process of conceptualising vulnerability. However, what emerges among these attempts is the ultimate recognition that vulnerability is a complex dynamic process focused on the social, ‘multi-dimensional and differential’ —as it varies across space and among and within social groups—, and ‘scale dependent’ — as it depends on time, space and units of analysis such as individual, household, region or city (Vogel and O'Brien, 2004)— aspects. Hence, its assessment should not be reduced to merely ‘physical’ factors, but also to structural social, economic, political, and cultural ones (IFRC, 2014).

This perspective was captured by the well-known definition given by Wisner and his colleagues (2004), and perhaps one of the most widespread definitions of vulnerability in recent years. The book by Wisner et al. (2004) At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters, in which vulnerability becomes a central concern, is commonly referenced in reports such as the IPCC’s SREX (Field et al.,

2012) and UNISDR’s Global Assessments Reports (GARs) (2009b; 2011; 2013; 2015a). This is also the definition adopted for the thesis:

“The characteristics of a person or group and their situation that influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a natural hazard (an extreme natural event or process). It involves a combination of factors that determine the degree to which someone’s life, livelihood, property and other assets are put at risk by a discrete and identifiable event (or series or ‘cascade’ of such events) in nature and in society”.

(Wisner et al., 2004, p.11; own emphasis) This perspective offered by Wisner and his colleagues (2004) talks about ‘internal’ (characteristics) as well as ‘external’ factors (situations). But beyond this definition they explored, with much more intensity, the structural factors in economy and politics rather than the society-nature relation. Although this can be a matter of critique (Turner, Kasperson et al., 2003), Wisner et al. (2004) made great effort in dissecting disaster vulnerability from a social constructionist and political economy perspective. The next section further discusses it by stressing the social relations that produce vulnerability.