the syllabus says
- Explain why people live in vulnerable areas.
- Discuss vulnerability as a function of demographic and socio-economic factors, and of a community’s preparedness and ability to deal with a hazard event when it occurs.
- Explain the reasons for some sectors of a population being more vulnerable than others.
what is vulnerability?
Vulnerability, in a geography context, refers to the potential harm that people and property might receive due to a hazard event. The IBDP Geography Subject Guide defines vulnerability as: "The susceptibility of a community to a hazard or to the impacts of a hazard event".
Therefore, the vulnerability of people depends on both the hazard event itself and the features of the local population. For example, an older population is more vulnerable than a youthful population; a very young (child) population is more vulnerable than an adult population.
This is different to 'risk' which is: "the probability of a hazard event event causing harmful consequences (death, injury, loss of property, damage to environment, etc.)".
The ability of a population to cope with a disaster is called its capability or its capacity. The coping capacity is the 'means why which people use the available resources and their abilities to face hazardous events'. Therefore, disasters occur when the full use of available resources still does not meet the needs of the people to face the disaster without outside help.
Therefore, the vulnerability of people depends on both the hazard event itself and the features of the local population. For example, an older population is more vulnerable than a youthful population; a very young (child) population is more vulnerable than an adult population.
This is different to 'risk' which is: "the probability of a hazard event event causing harmful consequences (death, injury, loss of property, damage to environment, etc.)".
The ability of a population to cope with a disaster is called its capability or its capacity. The coping capacity is the 'means why which people use the available resources and their abilities to face hazardous events'. Therefore, disasters occur when the full use of available resources still does not meet the needs of the people to face the disaster without outside help.
The map below shows seismic activity. However, it's obvious that some parts of the world are likely to be worse affected than others. This is due to their vulnerability. This page explains in general terms why vulnerability varies.
Source: http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/files/images/IRIS%20Seismic%20Monitor14x.jpg
Explain why people live in hazardous areas
There are several established reasons why people live in vulnerable areas.
More about perception of risk
Perception of risk can be seen in three different ways:
- Lack of alternatives - people in poverty may not move, or the entire country may experience the hazard e.g. Japan
- Risk changes over time - a coastal settlement may previously have been 'safe' but due to sea level changes, it now finds itself vulnerable to coastal erosion
- Unpredictability - most hazards are hard to predict and often only affect a limited geographical area, so people choose to take the risk
- Cost-benefit analysis - hazardous areas often have highly beneficial features (e.g. good soil, access to coastlines) which outweigh the potential disadvantages
- Perception of risk - people accept that hazard events occur and choose to view it is a fact of life
More about perception of risk
Perception of risk can be seen in three different ways:
- Acceptance: people accept that the hazard event occurs, and view it as an act of god or a random event. The potential losses are simply accepted asa feature of life. Therefore, we continue to live in these areas because we can't do anything about it
- Domination: people aim to change the hazard through understanding the hazard and the event in a scientific way. Therefore, we continue to live in these areas because we believe we can control the hazard event
- Adaptation: the 'middle way'. People aim to study the hazard but accept that human responses must also be addressed. Therefore, we continue to live in these areas because we believe that we can minimise the impacts of a hazard event
These are the outcomes of a decision making process which depends on both the hazard event itself, and the human reaction to these hazards. Kates (1992) model summarises these, below:
Source: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/staff/gyaccp/hazards/chap4.htm
vulnerability: demographic, socio-economic, community preparedness and ability to deal with a hazard event when it occurs.
Vulnerability can be seen as the result of a process in which various different things cause a population to be more vulnerable. These can be split into demographic and socio-economic. They can also be discussed through the level of community preparedness and the ability of a community to manage the after effects of a hazard event.
Demographic factors
Population density - the more dense the population the more efficient a response can be.
Age of population - very old and very young populations are less mobile and able to respond to hazard events well.
Distribution of population - Regardless of density, populations may be distributed differently within the hazard area e.g. elderly people on lower floors of apartment buildings, or concentrations of highly vulnerable people in poorer areas of a city.
Socio-economic factors
Wealth - low income populations are less likely to be well prepared.
Education - education programmes such as California's earthquake day can instruct populations on how to deal with hazard events.
Nature of society - in highly centralised government structures, efficient response may be the result. However, it can also lead to bureacracy and a lack of autonomous decision making, which slows down relief efforts.
Understanding of the area - recent migrants are likely to struggle to cope compared to established populations.
Community preparedness
Building codes - Japan's rigorous (and applied!) building codes protect most buildings from collapse during earthquakes. In the 1995 Kobe earthquake, most of the deaths occurred in older parts of the city.
Scientific monitoring and early warning systems - established monitoring can prepare people e.g. the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami had no early warning system; a similar event in the Pacific would have been monitored and action taken to evacuate coastal areas.
Communication networks - Countries with good quality and widespread networks allow messages to be quickly shared. This links closely with the 'information flows' of Global Interactions Part 3 (see case study of Haiti).
Emergency planning - where monitoring and communication is in place, the emergency planning is likely to prepare for such events and take action based on data, rather than prediction. Many countries undertaken emergency practice days for many events, e.g. the Bank Station terrorism exercise in London in 2003
Dealing with the after-effects
Insurance cover - individuals purchase insurance to mitigate the loss, thus preparing them better for similar future events
Emergency personnel - this is the after effect of training undertaken as part of community preparedness. The availability of such personnel will vary depending on the time of day and location of the hazard event.
Aid requests - outside help is necessary during a disaster. However, this is sometimes slow to be requested resulting in further deaths and loss of property.
Population density - the more dense the population the more efficient a response can be.
Age of population - very old and very young populations are less mobile and able to respond to hazard events well.
Distribution of population - Regardless of density, populations may be distributed differently within the hazard area e.g. elderly people on lower floors of apartment buildings, or concentrations of highly vulnerable people in poorer areas of a city.
Socio-economic factors
Wealth - low income populations are less likely to be well prepared.
Education - education programmes such as California's earthquake day can instruct populations on how to deal with hazard events.
Nature of society - in highly centralised government structures, efficient response may be the result. However, it can also lead to bureacracy and a lack of autonomous decision making, which slows down relief efforts.
Understanding of the area - recent migrants are likely to struggle to cope compared to established populations.
Community preparedness
Building codes - Japan's rigorous (and applied!) building codes protect most buildings from collapse during earthquakes. In the 1995 Kobe earthquake, most of the deaths occurred in older parts of the city.
Scientific monitoring and early warning systems - established monitoring can prepare people e.g. the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami had no early warning system; a similar event in the Pacific would have been monitored and action taken to evacuate coastal areas.
Communication networks - Countries with good quality and widespread networks allow messages to be quickly shared. This links closely with the 'information flows' of Global Interactions Part 3 (see case study of Haiti).
Emergency planning - where monitoring and communication is in place, the emergency planning is likely to prepare for such events and take action based on data, rather than prediction. Many countries undertaken emergency practice days for many events, e.g. the Bank Station terrorism exercise in London in 2003
Dealing with the after-effects
Insurance cover - individuals purchase insurance to mitigate the loss, thus preparing them better for similar future events
Emergency personnel - this is the after effect of training undertaken as part of community preparedness. The availability of such personnel will vary depending on the time of day and location of the hazard event.
Aid requests - outside help is necessary during a disaster. However, this is sometimes slow to be requested resulting in further deaths and loss of property.
Explain the reasons for some sectors of a population being more vulnerable than others.
Sectors of a population can refer to many factors:
Essentially all groups become more vulnerable if they have a lower coping capacity within their sector of the population. Therefore, groups that have lower levels of income (to pay for monitoring, early warning systems like radios and TV, etc.), education, or interaction with government (e.g. persecuted groups or refugees) are likely to have higher levels of vulnerability.
- Age
- Gender
- Disabilities
- New migrants
- Socio-economic status (e.g. level of education, profession)
- Income
- ...and more!
Essentially all groups become more vulnerable if they have a lower coping capacity within their sector of the population. Therefore, groups that have lower levels of income (to pay for monitoring, early warning systems like radios and TV, etc.), education, or interaction with government (e.g. persecuted groups or refugees) are likely to have higher levels of vulnerability.
Going further?
Greenfield Geography has a good section on this part of the course. Although it comes from a slightly different viewpoint, it is a useful comparison to the information above.