Daniel F. Lorenz

Blind Spots on Achilles’ Heel: The Limitations of Vulnerability and Resilience Mapping in Research

The mapping of vulnerability and resilience has become an important tool for vulnerability and resilience research. By definition, maps are selective representations. However, the predominant methods of mapping also have constraints. When addressing vulnerability and resilience, these limitations, barriers, and blind spots have to be taken into account. Some aspects cannot be easily mapped, such as specific forms of knowledge and interpretation, the processuality of vulnerability and resilience, the dynamics of social processes, the context of origin, the establishment of contingent interpretations, and so on. These limitations are not only theoretically important, but also are practically significant, since maps themselves become dispositifs. They are regarded as representations of reality, shape particular interpretations of vulnerability and resilience, and are used as a basis for decision-making. If the unmapped preconditions of mapping remain unconsidered, this can lead to problematic side effects.

Resilience in Catastrophes, Disasters and Emergencies

Resilience is a widely discussed topic in various fields of application. Within the context of socio-scientific disaster research and psychological research on traumatic events, the concept has been used since the late 1970s. Since then, some important and quite remarkable transformations have occurred which have changed the concept, its application, and its scope.

The 2013 Flood in the community of Elbe-Havel-Land in the eyes of the population

During the 2013 European floods, the municipalities of the Elbe-Havel-Land in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, were flooded after the water masses of the Elbe River caused a dike to break; houses, streets and plots of land were destroyed. This report, based on the results of a quantitative survey carried out three years after the event, shines light on the effects of the 2013 Flood, and how well, according to the perception of residents, the disaster has been dealt with. Based on personally experienced material and immaterial impacts and on the state of psychological recuperation, we highlight the need for further support needed, identify what kinds of aid have been missing, and illustrate the relative importance of different actors throughout the disaster. The results indicate that the need for assistance varies especially with regard to time, that after-effects continued to linger at the time of questioning, and that accordingly there is a continued need for support.

Reflections on Ethics in Mapping as an Instrument and Result of Disaster Research

Mapping has become an important tool in disaster research. How physical and social conditions are described by geographical methods decides the way risks, vulnerability, and resilience are evaluated and influences the efforts that are made for disaster control—as well as their fair distribution. However, the predominant methods of mapping have certain constraints concerning cultural and social factors and particularities. Addressing a comprehensive ethical consideration, these limitations and blind spots have to be taken into account. Certain aspects cannot be mapped to the full extent, such as specific forms of knowledge, risk perception, and preparedness measures. If the unmapped preconditions of mapping remain unconsidered, this can lead to problematic effects with respect to an appropriate understanding of maps on the one hand and a fair and context-related distribution of official measures to control risk and to care for resilience processes on the other hand. Map makers and map users should be aware of the problems connected to maps in order to avoid pitfalls and misinterpretations.