Search

Affluence and vulnerability are often seen as opposite sides of a coin-with affluence generally understood as reducing forms of vulnerability through increased resilience and adaptive capacity. However, in the context of climate change and an increase in associated hazards and disasters, we suggest the need to re-examine this dynamic relationship-a complex association we define here as the Affluence-Vulnerability Interface (AVI). We review research in different national contexts to show how a more nuanced understanding of the AVI can (a) problematize the notion that increasing material affluence necessarily has a mitigating influence on social vulnerability, (b) extend our analysis of social vulnerability beyond low-income regions to include affluent contexts and (c) improve our understanding of how psychosocial characteristics influence people's vulnerability. Finally, we briefly outline three methodological approaches that we believe will assist future engagement with the AVI., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

BackgroundIn this paper we examine the role of collective action in assisting rural communities to cope with and adapt to environmental risks in Nepalgunj, Nepal and Krabi Province, Thailand. Drawing upon two case studies, we explore the role of collective action in building adaptive capacity, paying particular attention to the role of social networks.MethodsData for this paper was gathered using a range of different methods across the two different studies. In Nepal semi-structured interviews were conducted with a range of stakeholders in addition to participant observation and secondary data collection. In Thailand the researchers utilised a vulnerability assessment, participatory multi-stakeholder assessment, a detailed case study and an online dialogue. FindingsWe make three key observations: firstly, collective action plays a significant role in enhancing adaptive capacity and hence should be more strongly considered in the development of climate change adaptation strategies; secondly, social networks are a particularly important component of collective action for the building of adaptive capacity; and thirdly, the mandate, capacity, and structure of local government agencies can influence the effectiveness of collective action, both positively and negatively.Conclusions We argue that there is an urgent need for further consideration of the different forms of collective action within community-based disaster risk management and climate change adaptation.

Over the past few decades, four distinct and largely independent research and policy communities--disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation, environmental management and poverty reduction--have been actively engaged in reducing socio-economic vulnerability to natural hazards. However, despite the significant efforts of these communities, the vulnerability of many individuals and communities to natural hazards continues to increase considerably. In particular, it is hydro-meteorological hazards that affect an increasing number of people and cause increasingly large economic losses. Arising from the realisation that these four communities have been largely working in isolation and enjoyed only limited success in reducing vulnerability, there is an emerging perceived need to strengthen significantly collaboration and to facilitate learning and information exchange between them. This article examines key communalities and differences between the climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction communities, and proposes three exercises that would help to structure a multi-community dialogue and learning process.

Imagine that a cyclone is coming, but that those living in the affected areas do nothing or too little to protect themselves. This is precisely what happened in the coastal state of Orissa, India. Individuals and communities living in regions where natural hazards are a part of daily life develop strategies to cope with and adapt to the impacts of extreme events. In October 1999, a cyclone killed 10,000 people according to government statistics, however, the unofficial death toll is much higher. This article examines why such a large loss of life occurred and looks at measures taken since then to initiate comprehensive disaster-preparedness programmes and to construct more cyclone shelters. The role of both governmental organisations and NGOs in this is critically analysed. The good news is that, based on an assessment of disaster preparedness during a small cyclone in November 2002, it can be seen that at community-level awareness was high and that many of the lessons learnt in 1999 were put into practice. Less positive, however, is the finding that at the state level collaboration continues to be problematic.