vulnerabilityanalysisanddisasters.docVIP

Vulnerability Analysis and Disasters Terry Cannon Chapter in: D J Parker (ed.) Floods Routledge, 2000 INTRODUCTION In recent years there has been a welcome growth in the literature on disasters that recognises the significance of peoples vulnerability to hazards, rather than retaining a narrow focus on the hazards themselves (Mitchell (ed.), 1998; Hewitt, 1997; Blaikie et al, 1994; Varley (ed.), 1994; Twigg Bhatt, 1998).[1] If we accept the equation that Disaster = Hazard + Vulnerable people, then we clearly need to know as much about vulnerability as we do about hazards. More than that, we need to know a great deal more about the interaction of hazards and people’s vulnerability. Historically there has been a split in disasters work which sees these two - hazards and vulnerability - as separate arenas, each with their own specialists. Inherent in this is the danger that those who specialise in dealing with hazards tend not to deal with vulnerability (let alone the interaction). Many hazard specialists also tend to deal in one type of hazard, and to be rooted in a physical science where knowledge of (or even interest in) the social sciences is minimal. (This chapter does not contain many flood-specific references precisely because vulnerability is only partially related to particular types of hazard.) At the same time, with the emergence of a wider awareness of vulnerability issues, there is also the danger that it is being used crudely or simplistically, and incorporated into disaster work in depoliticised and inadequate ways. This is particularly significant as the word itself implies people being potential victims, in need of assistance and incapacitated. For instance, the British Red Cross use the word to mean people in need and crisis (Graz, 1997), which is little different from the term ‘victim’ and has no sense of prediction. It is therefore crucial to recognise that vulnerability is balanced by peoples capabilities and resilience, and that if they ar