Artículo aparecido en: GeoJournal 30 (2): 127-140 (1993)

DISASTER VULNERABILITY:
SCALE, POWER, AND DAILY LIFE

Ben Wisner
Henry R. Luce Professor of Food,
Resources and International Policy
Hampshire College
Amherst, MA 01002, U.S.A.

The terms "vulnerable" and "vulnerability" have been turning up more and more

frequently beginning in the 1980s in writing about disasters. Liverman (1989) identifies literally

dozens of authors using the term and related ones such as resilience, marginality, susceptibility,

adaptability, fragility, and risk. This development is to be welcomed. It shows that an

increasing number of people recognize the importance of distinguishing physical hazards from

the disasters that sometimes follow. As Maskrey puts it (1989: 1):

Natural disasters are generally considered as a coincidence between natural hazards (such as
flood, cyclone, earthquake and drought) and conditions of vulnerability. There is a high risk of
disaster when one or more natural hazards occur in a vulnerable situation.

The difficulty comes when one tries to apply the concept of vulnerability to concrete

situations. Planners, community activists, and others need to be able to specify as precisely as

possible the characteristics of groups of people, households, and individuals that make them

vulnerable to disasters. Much current writing on vulnerability is too general to help in this

regard.

For instance, vulnerability is sometimes simply identified with poverty (Cuny, 1983; Arya

& Srivastava, 1988; Anderson & Woodrow, 1989). While there is a strong correlation between

income and access to resources with the ability of people to protect themselves and, especially,

to recover after disasters, the straight forward identification of "the poor" as vulnerable does not

help planners and activists formulate short and medium term plans and demands. First of all, all

persons at the same level of income do not suffer equally in disaster situations nor do they

encounter the same handicaps during the period of recovery. For instance, in the Sahel famine

nomads who may actually have been less poor than sedentary farmers actually suffered more,
 2

as measured by death and dislocation (McIntire, 1987). Furthermore, the elimination of poverty

is a long range goal requiring social justice and equity, income and resource redistribution,

possibly the creation of a social or family wage, and economic democracy. Disaster mitigation

need not wait for the achievement of such goals.

Over-generalization in using the concept of vulnerability takes other forms. Some

attribute vulnerability to certain kinds of production systems (Klee, 1980; Parry & Carter, 1987),

urban forms or types of housing (Davis, 1984 & 1987; Hardoy & Satterthwaite, 1989: 203).

Certainly it is true that rain-fed farming in the semi-arid tropics or cities of a certain age in

earthquake zones are vulnerable. But such statements do not help set the agendas of planners

and activists. Quite often it is not the system of production or habitation per se that is

vulnerable to environmental hazards, but persons or households within those systems who lack

the resources to mobilize the defenses such systems already have against hazards.

This is best documented in the case of farming and herding. There exist many

traditional forms of coping with hazards such as drought, hail, frost, insect pests (Wisner et al.,

1977; Watts, 1983a; Richards, 1985; Wilkens, 1988). Studies of vernacular architecture reveal

a range design and construction features that can serve as the basis of low cost measures to

increase the safety of housing (Cuny, 1983; Davis, 1984; Maskrey, 1989). Those

concerned with mitigation of disaster at the grassroots need to be able to understand why

certain members of the community are unable to avail themselves of this knowledge and

practice. In other words, they need to be concerned with the vulnerability of people, not of

systems.

Even more general use identifies "social vulnerability" or "socio-systemic vulnerability"

with certain types of social organization (Lewis, 1987; Timmerman, 1981; Pelanda, 1981),

leading some to prescribe modernization of administration, planning and communication (on the

model of industrial countries) as the cure (Burton et al, 1978); while others claim that
 3

bureaucratic rationalization, complexity, and the high social status of technology is the problem

that leads to vulnerability in the first place (Hewitt, 1983; Perrow, 1984; Emel & Peet, 1989).

Another problem is created by spatial scale. The concept of vulnerability is sometimes

used to characterize cities or metropolitan regions (Sin & Davies, 1991), whole nations, even

regions of the world (Mafeje, 1987). This may be useful in the context of the political struggle

for resources; for instance, in arguing in a parliamentary context that such and such a city is

more vulnerable than another and requires more of the national budget. It is also possibly

useful in the bureaucratic allocation of resources to nations or groups of nations by multilateral

or bilateral donors. However, there is a dangerous fallacy lurking. It is tempting to assume that

reducing vulnerability at, say, the national level automatically achieves reduces vulnerability

among social groups, households and individuals in that nation. That is certainly not the case.

Identification of "national" (D'Souza, 1988: 12-15; Curtis et al., 1988: 11-27) or "societal"

(Wilhite & Easterling, 1987) vulnerability can simply mean revealing that certain countries import

a large share of their food or are geographically situated in zones of seismic activity, in the path

of tropical storms, or in regions of high rainfall variability. One can imagine steps being taken to

reduce national vulnerability in such situations that have a variety of outcomes. Adoption of a

"production first" strategy using high yielding seeds might be proposed as a way of "drought-

proofing" a nation. However Drèze and Sen (1989) have shown that food availability alone

does not ensure adequate consumption by all persons. In fact, such a strategy could actually

leave some groups such as small farmers worse off, that is, leave households more vulnerable

if it caused a shift in government credit away from the small farm in favor of the large-scale

producer (Wisner, 1988: 167-188).

Depending on the nature of the government concerned and the basis of its political

power, it is imaginable that increasing the size of the police force in order to put down riots
 4

would be sufficient to reduce the vulnerability of the national government to overthrow by people

dissatisfied with the management of a disaster. 1 Such governments or elements within them

are capable of denying the existence of a disaster even when large numbers of people are

suffering (Article 19, 1990). It is also possible to imagine a national government with its power

base in a few cities that may try to reduce national vulnerability by spending a good deal on

improved housing in those cities, while such allocation of resources actually increases the

vulnerability of the rural dwellers. Thus locational decisions redistribute vulnerability in society

(Drabek, 1986: 374-377).

Survival and continuity of the nation state is assumed to be the goal in such analyses of

national vulnerability. Writing within the interdisciplinary perspective of peace studies, Kothari

(1988: 94) notes:

The fragility and vulnerability of every nation in the world have propelled the new 'sciences'
towards more and more sophisticated games of outdoing the enemy.

These "new sciences" actually include "risk assessment" in a world where food has often been

used as a weapon (SIPRI, 1980: 14-29; Minear, 1991; Bread for the World, 1991) and where

international disaster relief can be used as a lever to increase the donor country's geopolitical

influence (Harrell-Bond, 1986). This notion of vulnerability also appears in the analysis of a

1
The fall of governments over the last 25 years in Ethiopia, Niger, Mauritania, Chad, Jamaica, and
Nicaragua are all associated with allegations of mismanagement of famine, in the first four cases, and with
mismanagement of relief and reconstruction following hurricane and earthquake, respectively, in the last
two cases.
 5

nation's energy and mineral resources and imports in geopolitical and strategic military terms

(Clark & Page, 1981).

Identification of vulnerability reduction with "national interest" is problematic. It all

depends on the who is defining "national interest". Analysis at this scale may or may not reveal

issues important for securing the lives and livelihoods of ordinary people. It is not scale as

such, but the choice of context that determines the usefulness of the concept "vulnerability" for

social actors concerned with mitigation at the grassroots.

Vulnerability Analysis and Daily Life

The daily life of many people alive today is a "permanent emergency" (Maskrey, 1989).

Disasters can interpreted as "the extreme situation which is implicit in the everyday condition of

the population" (Baird et al., 1975; Jeffrey, 1980). Disasters "bring to the surface the poverty

which characterizes the lives of so many inhabitants" (Hardoy & Satterthwaite, 1989: 203).

The challenge is to create ways of analyzing the vulnerability implicit in daily life.

Planners and activists require clear and distinct ways of articulating the vulnerability of the

urban and rural masses, thereby putting their situation on the political agenda and keeping it

there. When one maps the physical hazard of landslide or flood, one measures very specific

parameters: length and angle of slope, soil type, rainfall intensity, the flow of rivers, size of flood

plain, etc. We take such measurement for granted, forgetting that the specific measurements

are dictated by working models of how land slides and flood occur (Stocking, 1987). These

models are backed up by a large body of knowledge about the physical world. Hydraulics is

ultimately dependent on physics as is slope dynamics. We tend to take this all for granted

because our culture generally accepts the hegemony of Western empirical science, if for no

other reason than because of its practical achievements in applied technology over the last few

centuries.
 6

However things are not so simple. The physical measurements that make up hazard

mapping depend on models that we acknowledge change from time to time (Macmillan, 1989:

3-60 & 117-146). Models, in turn, are dependent on global theories of how the physical world

works. Contrary to popular assumption, there is not just one such theory. Classical mechanics

is not compatible with quantum mechanics although we pretend it is. Chaos theory and Gaian

or planetary science both compete with well established evolutionary and geological theories.

Despite such intellectual ferment, we continue to measure slopes and gage river flow and

continue to try to predict earthquakes and track cyclones. Such mapping is better than none

and seems to work.

If one is to "map" vulnerability to disaster, then, one must also choose measurements in

a pragmatic way. Yet indicators of vulnerability cannot be chosen at random from daily life.

They must be chosen by reference to assumptions made about social causality and the

linkages that actually exist among whatever "parts" we believe constitute society. What we

believe are important characteristics of "vulnerable" households at the "micro" level must

coherently relate to beliefs we hold about society as a whole (the "macro" level) and whatever

mediating entities we believe link "macro" and "micro" (Palm, 1990: 70-72). This social

data (at the grassroots or "micro" level) will stand in a similar relationship of give-and-take with a

variety of models of disaster occurrence. Models in turn will refer back to social theories. Here,

of course there is a major difference. While most people are unaware of the fact that scientific

theory is not unitary and unquestioned, even at the fundamental level of physics, most are

abundantly aware that social theory is a matter of controversy.

Most work in hazards research, disaster response and risk assessment assumes the

validity of conservative or liberal social theories in which society is believed to be made up of

individuals who optimize their perceived interests more or less rationally in the context of

institutions such as governments and markets that are more or less successful in harmonizing
 7

the interests of large numbers of individuals (Hewitt, 1983; Watts, 1983b; Emel & Peet, 1989:

62-66; Kirby, 1990a). There are alternative understandings of social existence that are relevant

to vulnerability analysis.

For instance, it is equally possible to believe that society is made up of groups whose

interests cannot necessarily be made harmonious but are in conflict. Over long periods of time

the daily acting out of these conflictual relations gives rise to institutions, and these institutions --

in turn-- influence the way groups identify themselves and their interests (cf. "structuration

theory" in Giddens, 1984). Over the last few hundred years the dominant groups have been

white male owners of capital and technology (Sen & Grown, 1987). They have influenced

powerfully the way others in society define themselves, their place in the world, and --of

particular relevance to disaster research-- just what words like "progress", "development", and

"risk" mean (Kirby, 1990a). In this view of society, power takes the form of ownership of

resources and monopoly of lethal force, but also the ability to define agendas (Lukes, 1974,

following Gramsci, 1971). The powerful in society discipline the bodies (Foucault, 1977), but

also the minds and imaginations of the majority of people (Marglin & Marglin, 1990).

Thus individual action or agency --in particular, individual hazard perception and choice

of behavior in the face of hazards-- is constrained not just by imperfect information (the type of

constraint recognized by rational choice theory), but by the whole complex give-and-take

relationship between agency and structure.

Such agency/ structure dialectic takes place on a world stage. While physical hazards

arise locally, the constraints on humans that create their vulnerability to these hazards can

originate in the influence of structures located on another continent. Such factors are "spatially

and temporally remote from the contemporary interface between persons and hazardous

environments" (Mitchell, 1990: 156). Thus international agri-business investments may deprive

local farmers and pastoralists of land vital to their ability to cope with climatic risk (Bondestam,
 8

1974; Garcia, 1981). The labor market for skilled craftsmen in the oil fields of the Middle East

may draw away artisans from the mountains in Pakistan, reducing the ability of local people to

build houses reinforced against the impact of earthquakes (D'Souza, 1984). Equally important

may be the influence of the ideology of scientific progress spread throughout the world by

agents a diverse as "health educators" (Barth-Eide, 1978; Kent, 1988), "agricultural extension

agents" (Shiva, 1989), and "real estate brokers" (Palm, 1990). Such new beliefs may undercut

popular confidence in time-tested local methods of coping with hazards.

One of the simplest and most useful models of disaster occurrence grounded in the

social theory just described is the process of marginalization (Figure 1).

UNDERDEVELOPING
POPULATION
INCREASING
DISASTER
MARGINALIZATION
OCCURRENCE
DETERIORATING
RELIEF
PHYSICAL
AID
ENVIRONMENT

REINFORCEMENT
OF STATUS QUO
CONTINUED
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT OF
CAPITAL TRANSFERS
UNDERDEVELOPMENT
INCREASING
MARGINALIZATION

Figure 1: Process of Marginalization

[Source: Susman, O'Keefe and Wisner, 1983: 279]

This model states that under certain circumstances the conflict of interests in society

creates groups of people pushed to the limits of subsistence in rural or urban space. These

groups interact with the environment in ways that increase their vulnerability to hazards while
 9

often causing physical degradation to the environment that actually increases the risk of

physical hazards or the severity of their impacts. For instance, the marginal urban poor may

move into waste land in flood plains or steep slopes where they can afford to live near to jobs or

other resources (Allen, 1991). Apart from the risk of living on steep slopes in climates where

there are intense rain showers, the activity of house building and disposal of waste water may

actually add further risk by decreasing the stability of the slope (Wisner, 1985). The rural

dwellers who are poor in land resources, by contrast, may push their holdings hard in an effort

to make ends meet. They may overgraze common pasture, plant too often without letting the

land rest, cut trees to sell as charcoal (Blaikie & Brookfield, 1987; Little & Horowitz, 1987). They

may settle on the islands of silt formed in the Bay of Bengal, becoming vulnerable to cyclones,

as witness the tragedies in Bangladesh in 1970 and 1991. They may cut coastal mangroves for

building material or for sale, thus removing a physical buffer against the high winds and salt

spray accompanying cyclones (Maltby, 1986).

In the model of marginality, a physical hazard meets a vulnerable population. Disaster

occurs. Relief aid and the "normal" process of development assistance reinforce the status quo

ante. Elite interests in society capture a large part of the benefits of both financial aid for

recovery (Cuny, 1983; Kent, 1987; Minear, 1991; Singer et al., 1987) and the continuation of

"normal" development (Lappé et al., 1980; Hayter & Watson, 1985; Hellinger & O'Reagan, 1988;

Garst & Barry, 1990). Marginal people remain marginal. In fact, disasters produce more

marginal people -- people who have survived but are unable to recover their livelihoods, who

are destitute and forced to live in even more vulnerable situations (Walker, 1989).

For instance, Tuareg nomads made destitute during the 1967-73 Sahel famine remain

as the poorest working class members of peri-urban settlements around regional towns (Franke,

1983). They were never able to recover. Ethnicity, spatial isolation, and their economic

relations to the national market before the disaster made them marginal. This marginality was
 10

socio-political, economic and ecological (Blaikie & Brookfield, 1987: 22; Wisner, 1980: 104-106).

Similarly the poorest households (note: "poorest", not just all "poor", households) in Andra

Pradesh were not able to rebuild after the 1977 cyclone (Winchester, 1986).

This is one model of disaster occurrence. It is grounded in the social theory described

above. That theory balances structure and agency, determination and freedom. It avoids the

mistakes of behavioralism while also avoiding the economic determinism of earlier Marxist

critique (Palm, 1990: 68-70) without excluding questions of economic power. Quite the

contrary, the concept of power remains central, but is broadened to include cultural power to

determine agendas. A step has been made in the direction of what Kirby calls a "New Risk

Analysis" (Kirby, 1990b: 293):

By moving away from crude behaviorism and confronting the complexity of human and social
actions, we immediately get an impression of what a new risk analysis would look like. It would be
historically sensitive, and contextually based. It would take as its starting point some of the
building blocks that are commonplace elsewhere within the sciences and social sciences: an
understanding of our relations with nature, the links between society and the state, the contested
development of technology. And most important, it would recognize that risk is a problematic
concept, that must be addressed as such and not simplified.

This social theory presents a picture of human action constrained, but not determined,

by structures that are not alien impositions but which have grown out of centuries of practice. It

is a situational theory (Kruks, 1990) within which it is argued that some situations are so heavily

constrained by economic power as well as authority (Palm, 1990: 83) as to create marginality.

Marginality is defined in terms of economic characteristics including access to resources and

poverty (Blaikie & Brookfield, 1987) as well as physical, spatial, social, and political criteria

viewed together as "clusters of disadvantage" (Chambers, 1983: 108-139). Marginal

households are often physically weak because of disease and malnutrition; they are often

spatially isolated; they have relatively little power in national political decision making.

What possible measurements of vulnerability are implied by such a model? Who is

marginal in society? Of course the definition of marginality will differ from society to society and,
 11

possibility more important, changes over time, sometimes quite rapidly. For instance, marriage

and divorce patterns in the United States created a new category of poor, the divorced female

single parent over a few decades (Sidel, 1986). Even more quickly the effect of the World

Bank's structural adjustment policies have lowered the living standards of the working class in

African countries like Ghana, Zambia and Tanzania (Lawrence, 1986; Cornia et al., 1988;

Onimode, 1989). However, as a first approximation socio-economic class, gender, age, and

ethnicity seem important.

Toward Applied Vulnerability Analysis

I will take up these four sets of variables each in turn; however it is important to bear in

mind that in most cases marginality is determined by the coincidence of a number of these. As

noted above, marginality is situational. For instance, women may not be particularly vulnerable

qua women (except in extreme situations such as Muslim Hausa households during a drought

(Schroeder, 1987)), but more commonly poor women (e.g. class + gender), old, poor, women

(age + class + gender), or old, poor, minority women (age + class + ethnicity + gender).

A related caveat is that the terms used, "gender", "age", etc. are not meant simply or

even primarily as descriptive, nominal categories. They are used in this way, for instance, in

epidemiology. "Age", "sex", "race", "socio-economic class" are commonly used in statistical

studies of the prevalence and frequency of disease (MacMahon & Pugh, 1970; Doyal, 1981;

Turshen, 1989). Such studies do, of course, reveal interesting correlations and can be the

basic of significant public health initiatives such as screening for breast cancer in women over a

certain age, special care for low-birth-weight babies, or growth monitoring in Third World

children (Morley, 1973; Wisner, 1980: 100-104). However, these studies only reveal statistical

correlations; they do not analyze causation.

Disaster mitigation requires a focus on causation, on process, rather than simple or even
 12

complex correlation. Thus for purposes of assessing disaster vulnerability one is interested not

in women per se, even low income, minority women, but what is happening to them, that is:

what they are doing. Are women taking more and more of the burden of economic crisis,

working longer hours, sleeping and eating less? (Wisner, 1988: 234-245) Are they trying to

raise children on their own? Are they losing their traditional rights to land, trees, other

resources? Are they travelling more, seeking out employment?

Another look at figure 1 reveals that most of the critical elements are designated

"processes" not "events." Marginali-zation, and hence vulnerability, are on-going processes

often with long histories.

Class

History and on-going process is easily revealed in the distribution of access to

resources. The gap in wealth between the top ten percent and bottom third of society is

increasing rapidly in almost all parts of the world. It is this change in socio-economic status that

creates marginality and the vulnerability that accompanies it. The poorest third is losing access

to land, trees, pasture, wildlife, fresh water, marine fisheries (Richards, 1983; Blaikie &

Brookfield, 1987; Little & Horowitz, 1987; Christodoulou, 1990).

Loss of access to resources affects vulnerability in two ways. When these resources are

central to the households "normal" livelihood system, they may be forced to push other

elements of the system harder in order to satisfy their needs. For instance, loss of common

pasture may force farmers to overgraze remaining grass and fodder resources (Jodha, 1991).

They may be forced to move to a new and possibly more hazardous area. A family member

may have to migrate to a town, plantation or mine, from where income can be sent home but at

the cost of putting that person in the path of a new set of hazards. Also the loss of that person's

skill and labor may put further pressure on the remaining family members to maintain their
 13

livelihood system.

When the lost resources belong to those that are not normally used but are important

during times of stress, the household's ability to cope with disasters is decreased. This is true

where people lose access to river flood plains or swamps that may provide dry season pasture

or land for growing food during droughts. Loss of access to forests may cut people off from

famine foods or sources of building materials they might need if a storm or flood requires them

to rebuild their houses.

At a minimum, therefore, vulnerability analysis requires narrative and quantitative data

on the manner and rate at which the poorest third in society is losing (or in the occasional case,

gaining) access to livelihood resources. Trends in the sources of income and its purchasing

power will also be import along side data on access to natural resources, energy, labor,

technology and information.

Gender

Trends in access to the wide range of resources just discussed need to be specified

further by gender. Women generally have less access to resources (Dandelman & Davidson,

1988) and less representation in decision making at all levels (Pietilä & Vickers, 1990).

Economic crisis may be worsening the situation of women in many parts of the world (Cornia et

al., 1988); while legal reforms may be providing them with greater access. Such trends need to

be specified in detail at the local level during an analysis of disaster vulnerability.

There is evidence that women suffer more in a variety of disaster situations (Drèze &

Sen, 1989: 55-59; Rivers, 1987), and, paradoxically, may have unique roles in coping and

recovery (Ali, 1984; Jiggins, 1986; Schroeder, 1987). Even more troubling, however, are

reports that women are being forced by economic necessity to turn to high risk activities like

prostitution in ever greater numbers, at a time with the AIDS pandemic in inexorably spreading.
 14

Women on their own are even more at a disadvantage during the period of recovery

from disaster. Even during "normal" times female heads of households often find it difficult to

get loans or may even be prohibited from doing so by the legal system. Widows and young

female sole survivors of a disaster may be doubly disadvantaged in seeking to rebuild and

reestablish a viable livelihood.

Age

Already above reference was made to age. "Widows" and "young female sole survivors"

were just mentioned. It is clearly hard to separate the influence of age, gender, and class.

Feierman (1985) describes the existence of socially "invisible" young women with severely

malnourished children living as virtual outcasts in their paternal households in northern

Tanzania, having returned in disgrace after a divorce. Here age in relation to normal

expectations of a women's life cycle is involved in an extreme form of marginality for these

young people. By contrast, the U.S. heat wave of 1979 killed several thousand elderly people

(O'Riordan, 1986: 281). They were, however, not just old, but poor. They could not afford air

conditioning and could not escape the heat wave by vacationing somewhere cooler. Possibly

the best case where age plays a distinctive role in vulnerability is famine, where abundant

evidence shows the very young and very old die more frequently (Seaman et al., 1984).

Vulnerability analysis will therefore have to narrate trends in the situation of the young

and the old in society. As with class-based access to resources and gender, age-graded

impacts of economic crisis and social change are taking place very rapidly. Unemployment

among young people has accelerated in the 1980s. The purchasing power of pensions and

other fixed incomes of the elderly have decreased. The number of abandoned children living on

the streets in the world's mega-cities has increased dramatically (Ennew & Milne, 1989). These

trends may put such groups at greater risk as part of the process of marginalization.
 15

Ethnicity

Minority racial or cultural groups are often marginalized in ways that increase their

vulnerability. As in the three previous cases, however, this component is hard to separate from

others, especially the component referred to as "class" (Wilmsen, 1988). Minority groups often

have lower average incomes and poorer access to a variety of natural and social resources

(education, legal representation, credit, insurance, etc.). Minority youth unemployment is much

higher in Britain and the United States than it is for whites. Half of all African American children

aged under six in the U.S. live below the official poverty level, more than half of these at below

one-half the poverty line. This is true of forty percent of Hispanic children in the same age

group living in the U.S. (Bread for the World, 1990: 91). In 1969, following Hurricane Camille

that devastated coastal Mississippi, the U.S. Senate investigated charges that relief and

recovery activities discriminated against African Americans (Popkin, 1990: 124). Twenty years

later, following hurricane Hugo, procedures had changed, but it was still low income minority

households who had no private insurance on their houses and who were slowest to recover.

Famine in Africa often hits pastoral ethnic minority populations harder than others

(McIntire, 1987). There has been a long-term historical trend towards the spatial

marginalization of such groups in West Africa, where they have been displaced by sedentary

peanut and cotton cultivation (Franke & Chasin, 1980) as well as in East and southern Africa,

where cultivation and tourism continue to push pastoralists into drier zones. Commercial

ranching has displaced other traditional pastoralists (Moorsom & Cliffe, 1979; Parkipuny, 1979).

Tribal populations in the Philippines have been forced further and further into the hills by the

encroachment of sedentary farming settlers. As a result they have become more vulnerable to

landslides associated with torrential rains brought by frequent tropical storms (Lopez, 1987).

Vulnerability analysis should track such trends among minority groups in each society.
 16

Next Possible Steps:

Action During the UN Decade of Disaster Reduction

The foregoing discussion gives rise to some quite straight forward guidelines for

generating concrete profiles of vulnerability and monitoring changes in vulnerability. It remains

to integrate these simple procedures into the work of NGOs, government departments, and

multi-lateral agencies on a trial basis as part of the International Decade for Natural Disaster

Reduction (IDNDR).

Guidelines

The information needed is summarized in Table 1. One is inquiring about the situation

(past and present) of five or more groups most likely affected by marginalization. These are:

1. the poorest third of all households

2. women
3. children and youth
4. the elderly
5. some number of minority populations.

In each case one needs to know about access to resources. "Natural resources" refers to land

and other productive resources. "Physiological and social resources" refer to nutritional status

and health, education, access to technology and information. "Financial resources" refers to

income, market access, banking and other credit facilities. The locational column organizes

information about the geographical location of home and livelihood activities.

Table 1
Types of Information Required
for Vulnerability Analysis
[+0- indicates direction of trend]

Potentially Physiological
marginal Natural & social Financial Location
group resources resources resources of home/ of work

Poorest 33% +0- +0- +0- +0- +0-

Women +0- +0- +0- +0- +0-

Children/
 17

youth +0- +0- +0- +0- +0-

Elderly +0- +0- +0- +0- +0-

Minority
group A +0- +0- +0- +0- +0-

Minority
group B +0- +0- +0- +0- +0-
.
.
Minority
group n +0- +0- +0- +0- +0-

Trends are established by inquiring about each of these items, by row and column, in

regard to the situation two generations ago, ten years ago, and at present.

Most countries have sufficient data to allow one to define and to identify such groups

sufficiently to allow statistically significant sampling. The World Bank and the UN Institute for

Research in Social Development have produced a massive literature on how to define and to

measure poverty (e.g. McGranahan et al., 1985; Lipton, 1988).

Having established society-specific definitions and a sampling framework, the data could

be collected in a number of ways including conventional surveys or participatory action research

(Kalyalya et al., 1988; Wisner et al., 1991) where NGOs have broad-based programs.

Some field work has already been carried out along these lines. There have been some

experiments with decentralized early warning systems for famine in Africa, carried out by

International NGOs such as Save the Chilren and the Red Crescent Society, some of them

involving ordinary citizens (Cutter, 1984; York, 1985). A similar, though retrospective, study of

socio-economic vulnerability was carried out by UNICEF in Mozambique (D'Souza, 1988).

In this case quite specific characteristics marking vulnerability were revealed: old age,

lack of access to low-laying land or traditional water lifting devices (cegonha), few family

members working abroad in South Africa or insufficient money sent home from those who did,
 18

isolation from nearest health center, long distance to farms, women too busy to take children to

the health center (D'Souza, 1988: 32). It is striking how well these characteristics fit into Table

1. Access to resources and technology are represented, as are income, age, gender, and

geographical location in relation to services and elements of the total livelihood system (farms,

long distance employment in South Africa).

Role of Vulnerability Analysis

in the IDNDR

Mitchell (1990: 145-147) believes that the IDNDR presently neglects human dimensions

of hazards. The emphasis is on the physical hazards, not human vulnerability. To the extent

that vulnerability is addressed, the focus of attention is the physical resilience of structures, for

instance schools, in earthquake zones. There is still time, however, to expand the notion of

vulnerability to include the effects of marginalization within the context of the decade just

underway. This emphasis would not exclude, but rather complement the present concern with

the safely of structures, security of infrastructural lifelines, planning and communications. For

one thing even low cost improvements in houses that might make them more stable in high

winds or earthquakes may be too expensive or otherwise unattainable by a highly marginalized

population. Vulnerability analysis will give planners and activists prompt and clear information

about such constraints and allow them to work through ways to improve access to the

necessary resources. For another, the problems confronting marginal groups during the period

of recovery and reconstruction are not well addressed by work underway under the aegis of the

IDNDR. Vulnerability analysis can help to point out where bottlenecks in access to credit,

information, technology exist.

The IDNDR provides a great opportunity for social scientists, natural scientists,

engineers, and management specialists to work together with ordinary people --even, or
 19

especially, the most marginal-- to mitigate the human cost of disasters.

REFERENCES

Ali, M., "Women in Famine." In: Currey, B. & Hugo, G., eds., Famine as a Geographical
Phenomena, pp. 113-134. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1987).

Allen, E., "Political Responses to Flood Disaster: The Case of Rio de Janeiro, 1988." In: Varley,
A., ed., Proceedings: Conference on 'Disasters: Vulnerability and Response. London, May
1991, forthcoming.

Anderson, M. and Woodrow, P., Rising from the Ashes: Development Strategies in Times of
Disaster. Westview and UNESCO, Boulder (1989).

Article 19, Starving in Silence. Article 19, London (1990).

Arya, A. and Srivastava, L., "Application of Research Findings in Earthquake Disaster

Preparedness Planning and Management." Regional Development Dialogue 9(1) 13-35 (1988).

Barth-Eide, W., "Rethinking Food and Nutrition Education Under Changing Socio-Economic
Conditions." Food and Nutrition Bulletin 2 (2) 23-28 (1978).

Blaikie, P. and Brookfield, H., Land Degradation and Society. Methuen, London (1987).

Bondestam, L., "People and Capitalism in the North Eastern Lowlands of Ethiopia." Journal of
Modern African Studies 12 (3) 423-439 (1974).

Bread for the World, Hunger 1990: A Report on the State of World Hunger. Bread for the World,
Washington, D.C. (1990).

Bread for the World, Food as a Weapon. Bread for the World, Washington, D.C. (1991).

Chambers, R., Rural Development: Putting the Last First. Longman, London (1983).

Christodoulou, D., The Unpromised Land: Agrarian Reform and Conflict Worldwide. Zed Press,
London (1990).

Clark, W. and Page, J., Energy, Vulnerability, and War: Alternatives for America. Norton, New
York (1981).

Cornia, A., Jolly, R., and Stewart, F., eds., Adjustment with a Human Face: Ten Case Studies.
Clarendon Press & Unicef, Oxford (1988).

Cuny, F., Disasters and Development. Oxford Univ. Press & Oxfam America, New York (1983).

Curtis, D., Hubbard, M., and Shepherd, A., Preventing Famine: Policies and Prospects for
Africa. Routledge, London (1988).
 20

Cutler, P., "Famine Forecasting: Prices and Peasant Behaviour in Northern Ethiopia." Disasters
8 (1) (1984).

Dankelman, I. and Davidson, J., Women and Environment in the Third World. Earthscan,
London (1988).

Davis, I., "The Vulnerability and Reduction of Damage Risk in Small Houses Subject to Natural
Hazards." In: Miller, K., ed., International Karakoram Project. Vol. 1, pp. 290-310. Cambridge
Univ. Press, Cambridge (1984).

Davis, I., ed., Open House International, 12 (3), Special Issue: Homelessness and Disaster
Response (1987).

Doyal, L., The Political Economy of Health. Pluto Press, London (1981).

Drabek, T., Human System Responses to Disaster: An Inventory of Sociological Findings.

Springer-Verlag, New York (1986)

Drèze, J. and Sen, A., Hunger and Public Policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1989).

D'Souza, F., "The Socio-Economic Cost of Planning for Hazards: An Analysis of Barkulti Village,
Yasin, Northern Pakistan." In: Miller, K., ed., International Karakoram Project. Vol. 2, pp. 289-
306. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1984).

D'Souza, F., "Famine: Social Security and an Analysis of Vulnerability." In: Harrison, G., ed.
Famine, pp. 1-56. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1988).

Feierman, S., "Struggles for Control: The Social Roots of Health and Healing in Modern Africa."
African Studies Review 28 (2/3) 73-147 (1985).

Ennew, J. and Milne, B., The Next Generation: Lives of Third World Children. Zed Press,
London (1989).

Foucault, M., Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Penguin, Hammondsworth (1977).

Franke, R., "Tuareg of West Africa." In: Stea, D. & Wisner, B., eds., The Fourth World: The
Geography of Indigenous Struggles. Thematic issue of Antipode 16 (2) 45-53 (1984).

Franke, R. and Chasin, B., Seeds of Famine. Allenheld Osman, Monclair (1980).

Garcia, R., Nature Pleads Not Guilty. Pergamon, New York (1981).

Garst, R. and Barry, T., Feeding the Crisis: U.S. Food and Agricultural Aid to Central America.
Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln (1990).

Giddens, A., The Constitution of Society. Polity Press, Cambridge (1984).

Gramsci, A., Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Lawrence & Wishart, London, 1971.
 21

Hardoy, J. and Satterthwaite, D., Squatter Citizen: Life in the Urban Third World. Earthscan,
London (1989).

Harrell-Bond, B., Imposing Aid: Emergency Assistance to Refugees. Oxford University Press,
Oxford (1986).

Hayter, T. and Watson, C., Aid: Rhetoric and Reality. Pluto Press, London (1985).

Hellinger, S. and O'Reagan, F., Aid for Just Development. Lynne Rienner, Boulder (1988).

Hewitt, K., "The Idea of Calamity in a Technocratic Age." In: Hewitt, K., ed., Interpretations of
Calamity, pp. 3-32. Allen & Unwin, Boston (1983).

Jiggins, J., "Women and Seasonality: Coping with Crisis and Calamity." IDS Bulletin 17 (3) 9-18
(1986).

Jodha, N., "Rural Common Property Resources: A Growing Crisis." Gatekeeper Series No. 24.
International Institute for Environment and Development, London (1991).

Kalyalya, D., Mhlanga, K., Semboja, J., and Seidman, A., Aid and Development in Southern
Africa: A Participatory Learning Process. Africa World Press and Oxfam America, Trenton
(1988).

Kent, G., "Nutrition Education as an Instrument of Empowerment." Journal of Nutrition

Education 20 (4) 193-195 (1988).

Kent, R., Anatomy of Disaster Relief. Pinter, London (1987).

Kirby, A., "On Social Representations of Risk." In: Kirby, A., ed., Nothing to Fear: Risks and
Hazards in American Society. Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson (1990a).

Kirby, A., "Toward a New Risk Analysis." In: Kirby, A., ed., Nothing to Fear, pp. 281-298. Univ.
of Arizona Press, Tucson (1990b).

Kruks, S., Situation and Human Existence. Unwin Hyman, London (1990).

Lappé, F., Collins, J., and Kinley, D., Aid As Obstacle. Institute for Food and Development
Policy (Food First), San Francisco (1980).

Lawrence, P., ed., World Recession and the Food Crisis in Africa. John Currey, London (1986).

Lipton, M., "The Poor and the Poorest: Some Interim Findings." World Bank Discussion Paper
No. 25. World Bank, Washington, D.C. (1988).

Liverman, D., "Vulnerability to Global Environmental Change." Workshop on Understanding

Global Environmental Change, Clark University, Worcester (1989).

Little, P. and Horowitz, M., ed., Lands At Risk: Local-Level Perspectives. Westview, Boulder
(1987).
 22

Lewis, J., "Vulnerability and Development -- and the Development of Vulnerability: A Case for
Management." Development Studies Association, Annual Conference, University of
Manchester, 16-18 September (1987).

Lopez, M., "The Politics of Lands at Risk in a Philippine Frontier." In: Little, P. & Horowitz, M.,
eds., Lands at Risk, pp. 230-248).

Lukes, S., Power: A Radical View. Macmillan, London (1974).

Maltby, E., Waterlogged Wealth. Earthscan, London (1986).

McGranahan, D., Pizarro, E., Richard, C., Measurement and Analysis of Socio-Economic
Development. UNRISD, Geneva (1985).

McIntire, J., "Would Better Information From an Early Warning System Improve African Food
Security?" In: Wilhite, D. & Easterling, W., eds., Planning for Drought, pp. 283-293. Westview,
Boulder (1987).

MacMahon, B. and Pugh, T., Epidemiology: Principles and Methods. Little & Brown, Boston
(1970).

Macmillan, B., Remodelling Geography. Basil Blackwell, Oxford (1989).

Mafeje, A., "Food for Security and Peace in the SADCC Region." In: Hansen, E., ed., Africa:
Perspectives on Peace and Development, pp. 183-212. Zed, London (1987).

Marglin, F. and Marglin, S., ed., Dominating Knowledge: Development, Culture, and Resistance.
Clarendon Press, Oxford (1990).

Maskrey, A., Disaster Mitigation: A Community Based Approach. Development Guidelines No.
3. Oxfam, Oxford (1989).

Minear, L., Humanitarianism Under Siege. Red Sea Press, Trenton (1991).

Mitchell, K., "Human Dimensions of Environmental Hazards." In: Kirby, A., ed., Nothing to Fear,
pp. 131-175. Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson (1990).

Moorsom, R. and Cliffe, L., "Rural Class Formation and Ecological Collapse in Botswana."
Review of African Political Economy 15/16 35-52 (1979).

Morley, D., Pediatric Priorities. Butterworths, London (1973).

Onimode, B., ed., The IMF, The World Bank, and the African Debt: the Social and Political
Impact. Zed Press, London (1989).

O'Riordon, T., "Coping with Environmental Hazards." In: Kates, R. & Burton, I., eds.,
Geography, Resources, and Environment, pp. 272-309. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago
(1986).
 23

Parkipuny, M., "Some Crucial Aspects of the Maasai Predicament." In: Coulson, A., ed., African
Socialism in Practice, pp. 136-157. Spokesman, London (1979).

Pelanda, C., "Disaster and Socio-systemic Vulnerability." Third International Conference on the
Social and Economic Aspects of Earthquakes and Planning to Mitigate their Impacts. Bled,
Yugoslavia (1981).

Perrow, C., Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. Basic Books, New York
(1984).

Pietilä, H. and Vickers, J., Making Women Matter. Zed Press, London (1990).

Popkin, R., "The History and Politics of Disaster Management in the United States." In: Kirby,
A., ed., Nothing to Fear, pp. 101-130. Univ. of Arizona Press, Tuscon (1990).

Richards, P., "Ecological Change and the Politics of African Land Use." African Studies Review
26 1-72 (1983).

Richards, P., Indigenous Agricultural Revolution. Hutchinson, London (1985).

Rivers, J., "Women and Children Last: An Essay on Sex Discrimination." Disasters 6 (4) 256-
267 (1987).

Schroeder, R., Gender Vulnerability to Drought: A Case Study of the Hausa Social Environment.
Natural Hazards Research Working Paper No. 58. University of Colorado, Boulder (1987).

Seaman, J., Leivesley, S., and Hogg, C., Epidemiology of Natural Disasters. Karger, Basle
(1984).

Sen, G. and Grown, C., Development, Crisis, and Alternative Visions. Monthly Review &
Earthscan, New York & London (1987).

Sidel, R., Women and Children Last. Harper & Row, New York (1986).

Sin, M. and Davies, J., "The Khartoum Region's Vulnerability to Hazards and Disasters." In:
Varley, A., ed., Proceedings: Conference on 'Disasters: Vulnerability and Response', May 1991,
forthcoming.

Singer, H., Wood, J., and Jennings, T., Food Aid: The Challenge and the Opportunity.
Clarendon, Oxford (1987).

SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), Warfare in a Fragile World: Military
Impact on the Human Environment. Taylor & Francis, London (1980).

Shiva, V., Staying Alive: Women, Development and Ecology. Zed, London (1989).

Stewart, F., Planning to Meet Basic Needs. Macmillan, London (1985).

Stocking, M., "Measuring Land Degradation." In: Blaikie, P. & Brookfield, H., eds., Land
 24

Degradation and Society, pp. 49-63. Methuen, London (1987).

Susman, P., O'Keefe, P., and Wisner, B., "Global Disasters, a Radical Interpretation." In: Hewitt,
K., ed., Interpretations of Calamity, pp. 263-283. Allen & Unwin, London (1983).

Timmerman, P., "Vulnerability, Resilience and the Collapse of Society." Environmental

Monograph No. 1, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto (1981).

Turshen, M., The Politics of Public Health. Rutgers Univ. Press, New Brunswick (1989).

Walker, P., Famine Early Warning Systems: Victims and Destitution. Earthscan, London (1989).

Watts, M., Silence Violence: Food, Famine and Peasantry in Northern Nigeria. Univ. of
California Press, Berkeley (1983a).

Watts, M., "On the Poverty of Theory: Natural Hazards Research in Context." In: Hewitt, K., ed.,
Interpretations of Calamity, pp. 231-262. Allen & Unwin, London (1983b).
Wilhite, D. and Easterling, W., eds., Planning for Drought: Toward a Reduction of Societal
Vulnerability. Westview, Boulder (1987).

Wilkens, G., Good Farmers. Westview, Boulder (1988).

Wilmsen, E., Land Filled with Flies: A Political Economy of the Kalahari. Univ. of Chicago Press,
Chicago (1989).

Winchester, P., Cyclone Vulnerability and Housing Policy in the Krishna Delta, South India,
1977-1983. Unpublished Ph.d. thesis. University of East Anglia, Norwich (1986).

Wisner, B., "Nutritional Consequences of the Articulation of Capitalist and Non-capitalist Modes
of Production in Eastern Kenya." Rural Africana 8-9 (Fall-Winter) 99-132 (1980).

Wisner, B., "Mudslide in Mameyes, Puerto Rico: A 'Natural' Disaster?" Puerto Rico Libre (Fall)
16-17 (1985).

Wisner, B., Power and Need in Africa: Basic Human Needs and Development Policy.
Earthscan, London (1988).

Wisner, B., O'Keefe, P., and Westgate, K., "Global Systems and Local Disasters: The Untapped
Potential of People's Science." Disasters 1 (1) 47-57 (1977).

Wisner, B., Stea, D., and Kruks, S., "Participatory and Action Research Methods." In: Zube, E. &
Moore, G., eds., Environment, Behavior, and Design. Vol. 3, pp. 272-295. Plenum, New York
(1991).

York, S., "Report on a Pilot Project to Set Up a Drought Information Network in Conjunction with
the Red Crescent Society in Darfur." Disasters 9 (3) 173-179 (1985).