Risk and Vulnerability as the Outcome of Lack of Capacity

This thesis shares the view with many scholars that the causal structure of R&V is to be searched in the mechanisms that pose barriers to capacity formation und utilization, creating unsafe conditions such as exposure and susceptibility (Bohle 2001; Moss et al. 2001; Yodmani 2001; Downing, Patwandhan 2004; Brooks et al. 2005; Barry Smit, Johanna Wandel 2006;

Gaillard 2010). The examples of vulnerability definitions in Table 2 show how the term capacity is put into relation with the term vulnerability. Implicitly, all of them refer to vulnerability as the result of a “lack of capacity”, implying that the degree of vulnerability is a function of the degree of capacity, i.e. that “[….] high vulnerability means low capacity” (Cardona et al. 2012) or vice versa, that high capacity refers to “positive circumstances to offset vulnerability”

(ANDERSON, WOODROW 1998).

Table 2 Vulnerability definitions referring to unsafe conditions and capacity as a driver of vulnerability Vulnerability definitions explicitly referring to capacity as a major driver

“Vulnerability is defined as the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected. Such predisposition constitutes an internal characteristic of the affected element. In the field of disaster risk, this includes the characteristics of a person or group and their situation that influences their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the adverse effects of physical events.”

(Wisner et al. 2004)

‘‘Is the characteristic of a person or a group in terms of their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the impact of a natural disaster’’.

(Blaikie 1995)

“Vulnerability is not the same as poverty. It means not lack or want, but defencelessness, insecurity, and exposure to risk, shocks and stress {. . .}.

Vulnerability here refers to exposure to contingencies and stress, and difficulty in coping with them.’’

(Chambers 1989)

‘‘The characteristics of a person or group in terms of their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a natural or man-made hazard.’’

(IFRC 1999)

Accordingly, capacity is the depending variable that decides upon whether risky conditions are generated, prevail or are successfully reduced (Cf. Figure 7). The configuration of capacity outcomes for a specific system of interest is determined by the mutual influence of capacity specific criteria embedded in overall economic, social, institutional, and environmental processes and trends. Hence, the degree of capacity varies for different variables and types of

Figure 7: Capacity as the dependent variable of the emergence of vulnerability (own conceptualization)

This means that the commonly described determinants of vulnerability, notably capacity, exposure, susceptibility, are not independent from each other, as often assumed when looking at various attempts to measure vulnerability. The notion that the degree of capacity is the depending variable that decides upon whether risky and vulnerable conditions are generated and prevail or are successfully reduced can be strengthened by inconsistencies observed within the scientific debate on the relationship between vulnerability and capacity. In this sense, the concept of vulnerability cannot be defined as the opposite of capacity, and whether vulnerability and capacity coexist depends on whether parameters of concern have mutual influence within a predefined reference system of analysis. In Box 1 a selection of narratives with regard to the relationship of the two is commented that clearly shows a lack of a consistent and logic relationship between them. Resolving this is an important cornerstone of the dissertation as it lays the foundation for the development of the new Framework for Applied Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Research (FARVAR) that builds upon the notion that R&V result from lack of capacity.

 The narrative that vulnerability and risk are the opposite of capacity (Cardona et al. 2012). Such a perspective inherits a dialectic mistake. Capacity rather refers to a resource or an asset, and vulnerability to a condition in which people are likely to face adverse impacts from hazardous events. Thus, capacity might act as a surrogate of the degree of latent vulnerability, but not the opposite. Hence, capacity relates to an observable phenomenon causing possible harm in the future, such as conditions and processes of capacity obstruction (Cf. II.4). The opposite of vulnerability is rather resilience (Miller et al. 2010) and capacity is the mediator between the two ends.

 The narrative that high vulnerability and high capacity can coexist (Davis et al. 2004; Carreño et al. 2007;

Gaillard 2010). This message is only partially correct, high vulnerability and high capacity can only coexist for different unconnected variables or different reference frames of interest (e.g. R&VR –Strategies, -Tasks and -Measures) but not for interrelated variables within a specific reference frame (Figure 7, “x, y, z”).

o Example for interrelated variables within a specific reference system: Although an individual or household has sufficient financial resources to resettle, factors such as chronic sickness and lack of labour limits the opportunity to utilize them and decreases the overall capacity thus leaving the household exposed and vulnerable (not able to resettle). The example shows that capacity (sufficient financial resources) and the lack of other resources (health problems) can coexist, but since they are mutually influential, only one outcome in relation to a defined system of interest is possible.

o Example for unconnected variables or different reference frames: Whereas communities or social groups have good established structures to evacuate (low capacity to respond reveals high vulnerability), at the same time they have limited resources to recover from disaster impacts (high capacity to recover reveals low vulnerability), showing that vulnerability and capacity can coexist.

 The narrative that people’s abilities are not recognized in the concept of vulnerability (Davis et al. 2004). To the contrary, capacity is a core concept of vulnerability, in which theories and frameworks explore why certain capacities required to reduce R&V cannot be sufficiently developed leading to loss and damage in the course and the aftermath of a hazardous event. Moreover, the focus on capacity as the mediating variable between vulnerability and attained vulnerability reduction allows for a better linkage between the two communities, namely the R&V science and the R&V-R community in practice.

 The observation that in many R&V-As the relationship between capacity and the other “components” of vulnerability, notably “exposure” and “susceptibility” is not consistently described (Welle et al. 2012;

Birkmann 2006a; Bogardi, Birkmann 2004; Turner et al. 2003). Many vulnerability frameworks provide explanations of the differences amongst the components but tell little about their causal relationship.

Often, they are only connected through linking the terms by putting them in a temporal or sequential

order. For example, Davis defines capacity to cope / recover as a response capacity to existing exposure and susceptible conditions (Davis et al. 2004), neglecting ex-ante capacities to prevent the emergence of exposure or susceptibility. The limited acknowledgement of the causal relationship between vulnerability and capacity becomes very obvious when vulnerability is attempted to be assessed through the creation of indices for each of the components that are assumed to be independent (e.g. exposure, susceptibility, coping, adaptive capacity). Indicators for R&V-A are selected representing each of the components, without recognizing the logical interference between them. Hence, paradoxically, these indicators representing each component appear to be significantly independent from each other when tested through statistical analysis, but from a logical point of view (R&V as a result of lack of capacity) they strongly inter-relate: For example, in the WorldRiskIndex (Welle et al. 2012) the indicator “informal housing” is attributed to the category of “susceptibility” but can be also seen as a result of “lack of capacity”.

The notion that R&V are the result of lack of capacity (Cf. IV.2) allows to redirect the focus of vulnerability research from the phenomena of vulnerability to its causal structure; namely the processes of capacity formation and obstruction. Conceptual approaches towards understanding the causal structure of societal capacity formation and obstruction is well advanced (Cf. II.3). Different vulnerability frameworks demonstrate that the causal structure of societal or individual and collective capacity formation and obstruction is the result of interacting processes between actions of societal actors, institutions and structural framework conditions termed structuration. The complexity of capacity formation and obstruction is best acknowledged by Bohle’s concept of the “double structure of vulnerability” (Bohle 2001), by admitting that there is no single theory or concept that provides sufficient explanatory power for understanding capacity formation and obstruction. Instead, Bohle’s concept seeks to integrate various theoretical approaches and perspectives; e.g. by linking political economy approaches with human ecology approaches as well as action and entitlement theories (Giddens 1986; Tröger 2003). Others could be added.