Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Nov 30;7(1):201.
doi: 10.4102/jamba.v7i1.201. eCollection 2015.

Vulnerability assessments, identity and spatial scale challenges in disaster-risk reduction

Edward R Carr  1   2 , Daniel Abrahams  3 , Arielle T de la Poterie  4 , Pablo Suarez  5 , Bettina Koelle  5
Affiliations
Review

Vulnerability assessments, identity and spatial scale challenges in disaster-risk reduction

Edward R Carr et al. Jamba. .

Abstract

Current approaches to vulnerability assessment for disaster-risk reduction (DRR) commonly apply generalised, a priori determinants of vulnerability to particular hazards in particular places. Although they may allow for policy-level legibility at high levels of spatial scale, these approaches suffer from attribution problems that become more acute as the level of analysis is localised and the population under investigation experiences greater vulnerability. In this article, we locate the source of this problem in a spatial scale mismatch between the essentialist framings of identity behind these generalised determinants of vulnerability and the intersectional, situational character of identity in the places where DRR interventions are designed and implemented. Using the Livelihoods as Intimate Government (LIG) approach to identify and understand different vulnerabilities to flooding in a community in southern Zambia, we empirically demonstrate how essentialist framings of identity produce this mismatch. Further, we illustrate a means of operationalising intersectional, situational framings of identity to achieve greater and more productive understandings of hazard vulnerability than available through the application of general determinants of vulnerability to specific places and cases.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships which may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Conceptual map of the Livelihoods as Intimate Government approach.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Locator map of Kasaya, in the Kazungula District of Zambia’s Southern Province.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Livelihoods activities in Kasaya.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
The overall vulnerability context of Kasaya, as reported by residents of the community.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Types of desired early warning in Kasaya. Percentages sum to more than 100% because several residents expressed interest in more than one type of early warning.
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Livelihoods activities by gender in Kasaya.
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 7
Types of desired early warning in Kasaya.
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 8
Livelihoods activities by age in Kasaya.
FIGURE 9
FIGURE 9
Types of desired early warning in Kasaya by age.
FIGURE 10
FIGURE 10
The different assemblages of vulnerability for the three groups in Kasaya.
FIGURE 11
FIGURE 11
The different patterns of livelihoods activity for the three groups in Kasaya.
FIGURE 12
FIGURE 12
The different patterns of animal ownership for the three groups in Kasaya.
FIGURE 13
FIGURE 13
Answers of those who were asked what kinds of early warning would be useful, displayed by group.
FIGURE 14
FIGURE 14
Livelihoods activities by gender in Group S.
FIGURE 15
FIGURE 15
The gendered vulnerability context of Group S.
FIGURE 16
FIGURE 16
Answers of those in Group S who were asked what kinds of early warning would be useful, broken up by gender.
FIGURE 17
FIGURE 17
Livelihoods activities by gender in Group C.
FIGURE 18
FIGURE 18
The gendered vulnerability context of Group C.
FIGURE 19
FIGURE 19
Answers of those in Group C who were asked what kinds of early warning would be useful, broken up by gender.
FIGURE 20
FIGURE 20
Livelihoods activities by gender in Group W.
FIGURE 21
FIGURE 21
The gendered vulnerability context of Group W.
FIGURE 22
FIGURE 22
Answers of those in Group W who were asked what kinds of early warning would be useful, broken up by gender.
FIGURE 23
FIGURE 23
Graphical representation of who benefits from different timescales of early warning and the degree to which they benefit.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Adger W.N., 2006, ‘Vulnerability’, Global Environmental Change 16(3), 268–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006 - DOI
    1. Arora-Jonsson S., 2011, ‘Virtue and vulnerability: Discourses on women, gender and climate change’, Global Environmental Change 21(2), 744–751. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.005 - DOI
    1. Babugura A., Mtshali N. & Mtshali M., 2010, Gender and climate change: South Africa case study, Cape Town, viewed 07 February 2013, from https://www.donorplatform.org/resources/63/file/2010_Heinrich-Boll-Stift...
    1. Beetham G. & Demetriades J., 2007, ‘Feminist research methodologies and development: Overview and practical application’, Gender & Development 15(2), 199–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13552070701391086 - DOI
    1. Birkmann J., 2007, ‘Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: Applicability, usefulness and policy implications’, Environmental Hazards 7(1), 20–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.04.002 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources