week3

docx

School

University of South Australia *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

5102

Subject

Information Systems

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by AyonD

3. WEEK 3 - ASSESSING VULNERABILITY As we have alluded to before, it is not inevitable that an incident will lead to an emergency or a disaster. In the first three weeks, we have essentially considered how the progression of an incident is affected by policy. However, it is also affected by the characteristics of the community or context in which it takes place. These characteristics are essential to the assessment of vulnerability, and to thinking of disasters in the context of a system (discussed next week). 3. WEEK 3 - ASSESSING VULNERABILITY 3.1. OVERVIEW OF FACTORS AND IMPACTS Like many terms, vulnerability is used in different ways in different contexts, but in disaster management, it can best be thought of as the factors which affect a community's susceptibility to loss and damage in a disaster situation. It is often considered to be distinct from the probability of exposure to a hazard: while two groups may have the same chance of exposure to a hazard because of its physical presence in their environment, they can have different levels of vulnerability because of biomedical, social, economic, political, or psychological factors innate to them. One of the most significant factors connected to vulnerability is socioeconomic status (SES). SES is a determinant with wide-ranging and often long-lasting impacts on people’s physical and mental health, well-being, lifestyle, and living environments. These impacts affect the range of exposures that populations may face, but they also affect the likely outcomes that would result from those exposures. Poverty (low SES) is strongly associated with higher disaster risk. Populations with low SES are more likely to be exposed to hazards, but also have fewer material and social resources available to them with which to avoid or mitigate the impacts of a disaster. Poverty can also be a consequence of any disasters that cause significant disruption to infrastructure and economic activity, leading to higher impacts and worse outcomes and decreased resilience and ability to withstand future disasters. Beyond this, there are a range of factors which can be studied to assess a community’s vulnerability to disaster; essentially, a factor which affects the entire population in a location of interest and which differs between different locations may have an impact on its vulnerability. One obvious example relates to the physical characteristics of the environment. As we have seen before, the nature of the environment may determine the types of hazards and exposures that a population is subject to. In addition, the nature of the built environment and land use has a direct implication for the degree of disruption to critical infrastructure, transport networks, and communications that are likely to occur in a disaster situation. For example, low- lying roads or bridges constructed without consideration of storm damage resistance are more likely to be destroyed in a flood or hurricane, with a cascade of effects on the local population in the time after the disaster. Note that this is connected to, but distinct from, the exposure to the incident in question: the incident is likely to occur regardless of how and where things are built, but whether or not it destroys roads

and bridges, and causes the other negative impacts, depends on where and how the roads and bridges are constructed. Social determinants, although arguably less tangible than physical factors, can nonetheless affect the vulnerability of individuals and groups. In addition to its material impacts, poverty can be a cause of social exclusion or discrimination, whether overt (eg. a sub-population not being considered in disaster management planning) or more subtle (eg. a sub-population finding it difficult to engage with the authorities’ information and risk communication). Other subtle but possibly significant impacts come from social isolation, which is connected to factors like a lack of people to turn to for help or advice in an emergency, and even to lacking a feeling of confidence and agency in dealing with an emergency situation. While an individual or group’s SES has obvious implications like the amount of money and other resources to which they have access, these are not necessarily the only economic factors that are connected to vulnerability. The types of work and industries most common in a region have implications for its recovery prospects. For example, a population highly dependent on the informal sector, or on a single industry or class of industry, may face long-term disruption and unemployment if a disaster leads to significant changes to public life and work. If a population is highly dependent on exports for its livelihood, or on imports of essential goods and services, a disaster that disrupts transport networks and supply chains will have a disproportionate impact. Environmental factors in the context of vulnerability focus less on the natural physical characteristics of the living environment, and more on characteristics affected by human activity and interventions. This includes factors like environmental management policy, or the consumption and distribution of natural resources. While some of these issues can affect the likelihood of an incident or disaster occurring (eg. deforestation contributing to increased erosion and flooding), they can also impact on the general health status of individuals and populations. The most common examples are air and water pollution, which are connected to specific chronic conditions as well as general poor health outcomes, which in turn increase the likelihood of illness or death in emergency situations. There is no one universally-accepted method for assessing a population’s vulnerability. For convenience, methods and tools are usually divided between those which consider physical vulnerabilities and those which consider socioeconomic vulnerabilities. Some researchers have also attempted to quantify vulnerability, using analysis tools such as numerical indices which weight various factors and indicators to provide an at-a-glance measurement which can be compared across communities (see Flanagan et al, 2008; for practical examples, derivative and similar works such as Ahsan and Warner, 2014 and Alem et al, 2021). Ideally, this practice will combine the empirical measurement of characteristics of a community into an indicator that is easy to interpret and has a clear meaning. Despite its usefulness for analysis and planning, such an indicator may not give a complete picture of the situation. Too much focus on a single number and on the quantitative measurement of indicators which influence that number risks overlooking the complexity and interrelationships which underlie the real-world phenomena involved. It is important to avoid falling into a situation of comparing numbers between locations without due consideration of

different local contexts. More complex analysis may incorporate “causal web” elements which model the interactions between contributing indicators, or combine qualitative and quantitative indicators to incorporate more of the unique elements of a location or community. PREVIOUS NEXT WEEK 3 - ASSESSING VULNERABILITY 3.2. TREES: THE CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE LOW-INCOME NEIGHBOURHOODS LACK Week 3 Reading Activity: Trees: The Critical Infrastructure Low-Income Neighborhoods Lack. Read “Trees: The Critical Infrastructure Low-Income Neighborhoods Lack”, at https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and- analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/07/06/tree-the-critical-infrastructure-low-income- neighborhoods-lack . Then answer the following questions. 1. What social factors make people more vulnerable to heatwaves in the context of the cities studied? 2. What economic factors make people more vulnerable to heatwaves in the context of the cities studied? 3. What policy and planning factors make people more vulnerable to heatwaves in the context of the cities studied? 4. What historical concepts or idea-based factors make people more vulnerable to heatwaves in the context of the cities studied? Click here to provide your response. WEEK 3 - ASSESSING VULNERABILITY 3.3. WEEK 3 REVIEW QUESTIONS Week 3 Review Questions

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

1. How do we usually understand the term “vulnerability” in the context of emergency and disaster management? 2. Why is socioeconomic status a significant determinant of vulnerability to disasters? 3. Why is it important to understand social determinants in the context of vulnerability, even when factors with direct impacts are environmental or physical? 4. What is the value of using a numerical index or other quantitative measure of vulnerability? What is the downside of using these? Click here to provide your response. WEEK 3 - ASSESSING VULNERABILITY 3.4. REFERENCES Ahsan, M.N. and Warner, J., 2014. The socioeconomic vulnerability index: A pragmatic approach for assessing climate change led risks–A case study in the south-western coastal Bangladesh. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 8, pp.32-49. Alem, D., Bonilla-Londono, H.F., Barbosa-Povoa, A.P., Relvas, S., Ferreira, D. and Moreno, A., 2021. Building disaster preparedness and response capacity in humanitarian supply chains using the Social Vulnerability Index. European Journal of Operational Research, 292(1), pp.250-275. Flanagan, B.E., Gregory, E.W., Hallisey, E.J., Heitgerd, J.L. and Lewis, B., 2011. A social vulnerability index for disaster management. Journal of homeland security and emergency management, 8(1).

week3

Related Documents