Rethinking the interplay between affluence and vulnerability to aid climate change adaptive capacity

Abstract

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.

Bridging Gaps in Minimum Humanitarian Standards and Shelter Planning by Critical Infrastructures

“…Moreover, the more infrastructure services are taken for granted, the greater will be the impact once they fail. Affluence and material wealth can have mitigative but also generative influence on facets of vulnerability [104]. Maybe it is time to rethink the perpetuated gap between highly industrialised and developing countries.…”

Social Vulnerability across the Great Lakes Basin: A County-Level Comparative and Spatial Analysis

“…Social vulnerability is also shaped by a social group or individual's ability to access and utilize resources to cope with an event or risk [19,20]. Resources consist of both material, psychosocial, and institutional support, but these can vary significantly place-toplace and by the type of event.…”

“…Identifying areas that are more socially vulnerable than others is difficult, as the context of local places can shape the degree to which any indicator impacts vulnerability [16,27]. Rather than long-term approaches to reduce social vulnerability, most community efforts focus on short-term strategies on improving access to emergency response services which are less effective in addressing the root causes of social vulnerability [20,28]. This has led to a growing recognition that economic indicators of community capacity and resilience may be masking inequalities within places [20].…”

“…Rather than long-term approaches to reduce social vulnerability, most community efforts focus on short-term strategies on improving access to emergency response services which are less effective in addressing the root causes of social vulnerability [20,28]. This has led to a growing recognition that economic indicators of community capacity and resilience may be masking inequalities within places [20]. This idea suggests that what determines the usefulness of social vulnerability indicators is the local context that shapes how these indicators affect the lived experience, behaviors, and responses of social groups when disaster strikes.…”

Untangling insurance, rebuilding, and wellbeing in bushfire recovery

“…All too often in disaster discourses, numerical expressions are used to convey disaster impacts and recovery progress, including numbers of lives lost, insured and uninsured economic costs, and families returning to rebuilt houses (de Vet et al, 2019; Stephenson, Handmer, & Betts, 2013; Whittle Walker, Medd, & Mort, 2012). Qualitative expressions reveal increasingly comprehensive understandings and measures of sustainable social, economic, structural, and environmental recovery (Eriksen et al, 2020; UNDRR, 2019). A better understanding of the role of insurance in recovery is crucial for a number of reasons.…”