Disability and Vulnerability: Interpretations of Risk in Everyday Life

Abstract

Definitions and assessments of social vulnerability are commonly based on systemic relations and processes on a macrolevel. There is a danger of ascribing vulnerability to someone, regardless of their individual circumstances; thus, microlevel information regarding everyday life is also needed. Experiences of risk and attitudes towards vulnerability were explored in five group interviews. Related to instrumental aids, bodily endurance and external causes, vulnerability was found to be a ubiquitous primer in everyday decision‐making. The disabled individual's interpretative framework for risk and vulnerability is shaped by objectifying his/her own body, and by being accustomed to everything taking a long time. The interpretative framework helps in decision‐making and in managing any ‘contextual inertia’ involved in stressful situations.

Approaches to ‘vulnerability’ in eight European disaster management systems

“…The ‘vulnerable groups’ narrative is broadly employed in research and practice. Here vulnerability is frequently cast as a characteristic attribute of certain societal groups due to their specific conditions (Sparf, 2016; Tierney, 2019). According to this view, groups such as disabled persons or those living in poverty are considered to be vulnerable and tend to be seen as such not only during specific events but in general; vulnerability becomes static.…”

“…That said, the social structures in which individuals are embedded are of the utmost importance for disaster management (Sparf, 2016, p. 2). Furthermore, as disasters not only produce vulnerabilities, but also worsen those that already exist in everyday life (IFRC, 2007; Kelman and Stough, 2015), the reduction of vulnerability is not just a task for disaster management authorities and organisations, but also, inter alia, for non‐disaster management actors, such as care and social services and disabled persons’ institutions.…”

“…This, however, results in the deprivation of their agency, thus in an objectification. On the other hand, differentiation means distinguishing between systemic relations and processes on a macro level (such as the definition of vulnerable groups) and the intersectionality of individual living conditions (Sparf, 2016). In this way, whichever approach is used influences if vulnerability is addressed as an individual condition or a societal one.…”

Stories of the storm: the interconnection between risk management strategies and everyday experiences of rurality

“…In other words: our understandings of risk are expressions of who we are. This fact has been elaborated further in various ways by sociological risk researchers, for example by acknowledging that understandings of risk correlate with factors such as age and gender (Bergman and Wall 2017;Wall 2014;Wall and Olofsson 2008), disability (Sparf and € Ohman 2014;Sparf 2016), ethnicity and place of origin (Lid en and Olofsson 2020), sexual orientation (Giritli Nygren, € Ohman, and Olofsson 2017) and parenthood (Ekholm and Olofsson 2017). However, of special relevance for this article are the studies that have enlightened how both understandings of risks and the management of an actual crisis are influenced by everyday experiences of rurality fGuldåker 2009; Heidenstrom and Kvarnl€ of 2018; Wall and Kvarnl€ of 2019).…”

How does living with a disability affect resident worry about environmental contamination? A study of a long-term pervasive hazard

“…The long-term effects of contamination on physical and mental health have also been increasingly acknowledged within environmental contamination health policy (Australia Environmental Health, 2012), and in remediation engagement guidelines (Heath, Pollard, Hurdey, & Smith, 2010). There have been efforts to improve health and risk communication practices (Litt & Burke, 2002); however, it is unknown if information provided is meeting the needs of people living with disabilities (Turner 2016, in Sparf, 2016Wolbring, 2009).…”