The Evolution of Approaches to Vulnerability

As discussed earlier, various perspectives have emerged in the literature and have been configured in many ways by various authors in order to further the understanding of disaster causation. Initially there had been a tendency to view disasters as “natural” and to blame natural events such as drought, floods, earthquakes, etc. as primary causes of disasters. For instance, famine disaster was often attributed to drought or other natural events. This approach related a natural hazard directly to an actual disaster, which can not necessary be the case. It also focused on characteristics, patterns of infrastructures, and people’s location and their irrational response or maladaptation in order to explain effects of hazards. Such approach was labeled as “dominant approach” (Maskrey, 1989:2).

However, it has been gradually recognized that a mere occurrence of a hazard could not always lead to a disaster. As the work on ‘vulnerability’ began in the 1970s and progressed in the 1980s, the ‘naturalness’ of ‘natural disaster’ has been questioned (O’Keef et al., 1976 cited in Blaikie et al., 2004:19). And an alternative approach -‘political economy approach’- has emerged as critique of the ‘dominant approach’ (Maskrey, 1989:2). When vulnerability began to be viewed as effects of social and economic processes, the limitations of the dominant approach have been revealed. In other words the dominant approach is unable to explain how individual decisions are influenced by social and economic constraints.

Alternatively the political economy approach tries to address social processes, organization and change (Maskrey, 1989:2). And yet concerning the political economy approach, Maskrey also warned against the danger of losing sight on the local specificity of vulnerability in areas which suffer different hazards. Hence, Maskrey and other authors maintained that “the analysis of specific risks to a given hazard and the analysis of socio-economic processes are not mutually incompatible; …both are necessary to explain people’s vulnerability and their actions in the context of that vulnerability” (Maskrey, 1989:3; Wisner, 1993:13). Therefore,

53 Since the Access model is more quantitative and economistic that requires a great deal of quantitative data, the researcher has preferred to use PAR in combination with SLF. Moreover SLF is nearly similar to the Access model with regard to variables (e.g. the five capitals).

since the 1980s a significant advance has been made in thinking and research perspective concerning disaster causation. The primacy of natural hazards in explaining the causes of famine have been challenged. Hence, it has been stated that “the explanation of disasters should rest more fully on a social analysis of the processes which create the conditions under which ‘exceptional’ natural events can act as the ‘trigger’ for a disaster” (Hewitt, 1983 cited in Blaikie et al., 2004:129).

In this case the human geography and human ecology have, in particular, theorized vulnerability to environmental changes (Adger, 2006:269). In fact a number of traditions and disciplines, from economics and anthropology to psychology and engineering use the term vulnerability (Adger, 2006:269; Wisner, 2004:183). These disciplines have made contributions to the present understanding of ‘socio-ecological systems’, while the related insights into ‘entitlements’ grounded vulnerability analysis in theories of social change and decision making (Adger, 2006). Accordingly Adger identifies two relevant theories that relate to human use of environmental resources and to environmental risks: (i) the vulnerability and related resilience research on socio-ecological system and, (ii) the separate literature on vulnerability of livelihoods to poverty. Adger stated that “these two research traditions in vulnerability acted as seedbeds for ideas that eventually translated into current research on vulnerability of social and physical systems in integrated manner”(Adger, 2006:270). This is further elabourated in the following paragraphs.

i. PRA and Access Models: Bridging the Gap between Hazard Study Approach and Human/Political Ecology Approach: In the mid-1990’s Blaikie et al. (1994) came up with two complementary models or frameworks (PAR and Access Models) to show how vulnerability to specific hazard or stress can be created in space and time. The basis for the development of the models has been an effort to incorporate the natural and social causes (factors) of disasters in one organizing framework. In this case Adger stated that the PAR model bridges the traditions in hazard studies and human/political ecology approach, and the model spans the space between hazards and political economy approaches (Adger, 2006:270).

The two complementary models are improved frameworks that can guide empirical researches, and help analyze and interpret results. Thus the models seem fine at least theoretically in terms of a social vulnerability approach. However, the practical problem is that the cross-disciplinary nature of the candidate factors or concepts that are used in developing the models. And if so, how can it be possible to achieve interdisciplinary cooperation to apply a model in one specific area concerning a specific hazard, say a drought or a flood. Moreover each discipline has its own orientation or preoccupation, concepts, methodology, ideology, etc. For instance, if we take each box in Access model, each can be a subject area of one or more disciplines.

And yet the models are more comprehensive than ever presented in organizing previous research traditions. Among the efforts made in the 1990s to address these gaps of the approaches, PAR model has synthesized social and physical vulnerability and has, for instance, successfully bridged, the two traditions of hazard research - vulnerability to hazards studies and political ecology approaches which currently leads to “vulnerability of social and ecological systems” perspective (Adger 2006:271-2).

ii. Vulnerability of social and ecological systems perspective: The traditions in vulnerability study have shown a conceptual advance in analysis. The two research traditions - “analysis of vulnerability as lack of entitlement” and “analysis of vulnerability to natural hazards” are the seedbeds for ideals that translated into the current research on vulnerability of social and physical systems (Adger, 2006:272). According to Adger the hazard tradition is delineated into three overlapping areas - human ecology (or political ecology), natural hazards, and pressure and release model. The other current frontier of research is “sustainable livelihoods and vulnerability to poverty” perspective that is the successor of “vulnerability as absence of entitlements” approach (Adger, 2006:270-271). Adger describes how traditions on vulnerability research have developed over time in the following manner:

…. Entitlement approach to analyzing vulnerability to famine underplayed ecological or physical risk, while it highlighted social differentiation in cause and outcome of vulnerability…. In contrasts the hazard tradition …. attempted to incorporate the physical science, engineering, social sciences to explain the linkages between system elements. ….. the human ecology/political ecology attempted to incorporate the political and structural causes of vulnerability and [….] to explain why the poor and marginalized have been most at risk…. The ‘pressure and release’

model bridged the two hazard traditions (i.e. human ecology and natural hazard) and

… the analysis captured the essence of vulnerability from physical hazards traditions while identifying the proximate and underlying causes of vulnerability within a human ecology framework. …. PAR model also prescribed actions and principles for recovery and mitigation of disasters that focused explicitly on vulnerability reduction. Operationalising PAR necessarily involves typologies of causes and categorical data on hazard types, limiting the analysis in terms of quantifiable or predictive relationships. …. the successor of hazard research traditions is ‘research on vulnerability of social and physical systems’ (i.e. vulnerability, adaptation and resilience of social-ecological systems). …. the successor of ‘vulnerability as entitlement failure’ is ‘sustainable livelihoods and vulnerability to poverty’ which, within the development economics, tends not to consider integrative social-ecological systems; … but it complements the hazards-based approaches through conceptualization and measurement of the links between risk and well-being at the individual level (Adger, 2006:271-272).

The above quotation implies two frontiers of research perspectives on vulnerability. These are livelihood vulnerability and vulnerability of coupled social-ecological systems. In relation to this Adger suggested that cross-fertilization of development economics with vulnerability, adaptation and resilience research would yield better insight on social-ecological systems’

vulnerability, adaptation and resilience (i.e. vulnerability of coupled systems). The application of these concepts in vulnerability analysis, and the conceptualization of human-environment systems exposed to hazards, requires vulnerability analysis to be comprehensive to address the coupled systems. In this case Turner et al., (2003:4) also suggest that the usefulness of vulnerability analysis increases, when it:

i. directs attention to vulnerability anchored in the condition of the coupled human-environment systems;

ii. identifies some of complexity, interconnectedness, and iterative nature of components giving rise to and comprising vulnerability;

iii. illuminates the nested scales of the vulnerability problem but provides an understanding of the vulnerability of a particular place;

iv. draws attention to the potential dynamics within the coupled system that give rise to new hazards,

v. facilitates the identification of critical interactions in the human-environment system that suggest response opportunities for decision makers;

vi. is open to the use of both quantitative and qualitative data and novel methods to derive and analyze information; and

vii. assists in the development of metrics, measures, and models for implementation.

Turner’s suggestion is to portray vulnerability as property of social-ecological system, and to analyze the elements of vulnerability (exposure, sensitivity and resilience) of a bounded system at a particular spatial scale rather than focusing on multiple outcomes from a single physical stress (cited in Adger, 2006:272). The above discussion has shown how “traditions on hazard researches” and “political ecology approaches” have been conceptualized, advanced and developed into “vulnerability of socio-ecological systems perspective”.

iii. Sustainable livelihoods and vulnerability to poverty: As stated earlier “sustainable livelihoods and vulnerability to poverty” perspective is the successor of “vulnerability as absence of entitlements” approach (Adger, 2006:270-271). As discussed in the theoretical review of famine causation and chronic poverty, we have seen that there is no single theory powerful in explaining famine or hunger or poverty. Rather nowadays, there seems to be a theoretical agreement to examine the relationship of poverty, hunger and famine instead of looking at causal factors. This is an agreement on the locally and historically specific configuration of poverty, hunger and famine. This is within the premise that understanding the social, political, economic and structural-historical processes that may lead to poverty, hunger or famine. This is what Watts and Bohle (1993: 117-118) call a “social map or space of vulnerability”.

Poverty-hunger equation is addressed by works of Dreze and Sen (cited by Watts and Bohle, 1993:117) and famine and hunger are defined by “entitlement collapse” and the “socially circumscribed distribution of entitlements over basic necessities”. Watts and Bohle (1993) argued that though Dreze and Sen’s entitlement approach is relatively broader and includes not only food intake but also access to health care and education, the “capacity and the totality of rights”, which secure basic needs, are not addressed. Therefore, Watts and Bohle suggested that entitlements have to be broadened not only in social or class sense but also politically and structurally. Accordingly they point out three elements that famine analysis must account for.

These include: (i) the particular distribution and redistribution of entitlements in specific circumstances, (ii) the larger canvas of rights by which entitlements are defined, fought, contested, and owned or lost (i.e. empowerment) and, (iii) the properties of political economy which precipitate entitlement crisis (Watts and Bohle 1993:117-118). Then Watts and Bohle concluded that the totality of these processes define the “space of vulnerability”.

Moreover, poverty is not equated to vulnerability. Though it is mainly poor who suffer from hunger and malnutrition, not all poor are equally vulnerable to hunger. In addition to income, there are many factors which codetermine whether individuals go hungry. Indeed poor people are usually among the most vulnerable by definition, but understanding of vulnerability should rest on a carefully disaggregation of the structure of poverty itself (Watts and Bohle, 1993:117). Though vulnerability as concept doesn’t rest on a well developed theory, and lacks

widely accepted indicators and methods to measure it as indicated above, elabourated discussions, definition and models/approaches on vulnerability are provided by many authors in the literature (Chambers, 1989:1; Wisner et al., 2004; Blaikie et al., 2004). For instance Chambers (1989:1) defines vulnerability as “the exposure to contingencies and stress, and difficulty in coping with them. Vulnerability has thus two sides: an external side of risks, shocks and stress to which an individual or household is subject; and an internal side which is defencelessness, meaning a lack of means to cope without damaging loss.”

Therefore, according to the above definition, the concept of vulnerability embraces three conditions of a system or area or individual or a group: - risk of exposure to shocks or stresses, inadequate capacity to cope with stress and severe consequences which limit recovery. This suggests that a system or individual or group with such characteristics can be the most vulnerable to perturbation (Watts and Bohle, 1993:118) This disaggregation of vulnerability further suggests what a response should embrace is to reduce vulnerability (i.e.

reducing exposure, enhancing coping, strengthening recovery potential and bolster damage control). All these approaches and descriptions of vulnerability might be said theoretically.

But the task of identifying conditions and factors which govern vulnerability, and define specific coordinates of exposure, capacity and potentiality is a complex one that falls across various fields. In fact the elabourated definition and discussion of vulnerability provided by Chambers (1989), Watts and Bohle (1993) have highlighted the complexity of the application of the concept for empirical examination of vulnerability. It is a layered and multi-dimensional social space determined by political, economic, social and institutional capabilities of people in specific places at specific times (Watts and Bohle, 1993:118).

In general the evolution of approaches to vulnerability has confirmed that the concept has found space in both theoretical and practical terms in a wide range of disaster risk reduction discourses and in some interventions. Since the 1980s where many people began to distinguish disasters from hazards, the concept of vulnerability has gradually become an important tool for understanding disaster causation and risk reduction (i.e. disaster discourse).

In relation to this Alexander (1997 cited in Bankoff et al., 2004:194) noted that “the emergence of the notion of vulnerability is one of the most salient achievements in the field during the last decades”. The following section further elabourates the conceptual advancement of ‘social vulnerability’ and its current application in disaster discourse and risk reduction interventions.