Social vulnerability and resilience in hurricane disasters

Running head: VULNERABILITY AND RESILIENCE 1 VULNERABILITY AND RESILIENCE 4

Vulnerability and Resilience With the increased frequency of disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and, more recently, Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma, the topic of disaster vulnerability and resilience is gaining more scholarly and policy attention. One of the areas attention has been paid to is how different communities and groups experience disasters. Research shows that social inequality dimensions such as poverty, race, ethnicity, age, and gender influence vulnerability to hazards, preparedness for disasters, response to disasters, as well as disaster recovery outcomes (Tierney, 2006). Accordingly, assessing vulnerability to disaster and mitigating disasters must be done in consideration of social factors. This paper describes the core elements of assessing social vulnerability to disaster and discuses how vulnerability relates to resilience. With examples from Hurricane Katrina and other U.S. disasters, Tierney (2006) outlines three core elements that ought to be considered when assessing social vulnerability to disaster: social class, race and ethnicity, and gender. Together with other factors such as geographical location, these factors interact to shape disaster vulnerability and resilience. Social class basically denotes socioeconomic conditions such as income and education. These conditions influence, among other aspects, the ability to undertake self-protective efforts, access to disaster risk information, housing affordability. For instance, due to financial constraints, households or communities with low incomes are unlikely to undertake measures to minimise disaster-related losses such as routine home repairs and the purchase of hazard insurance. Equally, poor communities tend to have limited access to scientific information on disaster risks and preventive measures. When disaster strikes, these communities are the most affected due to their limited ability to cope with or recover from the disaster. For example, they lack their own means of transportation to use for evacuation. They also lack stockpiled food and supplies to use during disasters. These groups cannot even afford to miss work when disaster occurs due to the fear of losing their jobs. Closely related to the element of social class is the element of race and ethnicity. Indeed, according to Tierney (2006), the two elements are closely correlated. Individuals and communities of higher socioeconomic status tend to come from certain racial and ethnic backgrounds. The same is true for individuals and communities of lower socioeconomic status. Race and ethnicity affects disaster vulnerability and resilience not only through income dimensions, but also influencing hazard-related behaviour. For instance, it has been shown that ethnic minorities differ from the majority in terms of attitudes towards disaster risk. This means that some ethnic minorities are less likely to act on disaster risk warnings issued by the government than others. Also, there are differences in how racial and ethnic groups perceive government information. For example, African Americans generally do not trust official information sources. Racial and ethical background also affects aspects such as living patterns and English proficiency, which may in turn influence evacuation, comprehension of disaster information, and other facets of disaster vulnerability and resilience. Disaster vulnerability and resilience may also be affected by gender (Tierney, 2006). It is, however, important to note that the link between disaster vulnerability and gender is not as strong as the link between disaster vulnerability and the other two elements (social class and race and ethnicity). Gender is strongly associated with privilege, power, social roles, and behavioural expectations (Tierney, 2006). These aspects may influence behaviour and experiences throughout the hazard cycle. For instance, women in the U.S. tend to be less economically well off compared to men. This is especially true for single women with children or dependants. For such women, coping with disaster can be difficult due to financial constraints. Additionally, women are generally more averse to risk than men. Accordingly, women are more likely to heed to disaster warnings compared to their male counterparts. Gender also influences disaster vulnerability and influence by affecting the risk of death and injury in the wake of disaster. Tierney’s (2006) core argument is that disaster vulnerability and resilience is substantially shaped by social factors, especially social class, race and ethnicity, and gender. This means that disaster response and mitigation efforts may not be effective without putting these factors into consideration. Rumbach & Kudva (2011) share somewhat similar sentiments. Focusing on climate change adaptation, they argue that managing climate change risk is likely to be more effective if people and communities are the centre of disaster planning, management, and prevention. Rumbach & Kudva (2011) specifically advocate for a vulnerability approach to climate change adaptation. A vulnerability approach means that the most vulnerable people and communities are given priority. Most of the natural disasters the world faces today have largely been linked to climate change. When these disasters occur, they affect people and communities differently. Some are affected more than others. Also, some recover faster than others. Therefore, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, it is imperative to be to context-specific. Decision makers must understand how different communities are variously vulnerable to disaster. They must also understand how the capability to cope with disaster differs from one group or community to another. Such an approach is likely to be more effective than one that treats all communities as the same. Nonetheless, this does not necessarily mean that there are no standardised aspects as far as disaster planning and management elements are concerned.