Martin Voss

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.

Einleitung: Perspektiven sozialwissenschaftlicher Klimawandelforschung

Als der schwedische Chemiker und Physiker Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) im April des Jahres 1896 seine Uberlegungen zum Einfluss von Kohlenstoffdioxid (CO2) auf die Temperatur auf der Erdoberflache veroffentlichte, war die Welt alles andere als erschrocken. Die uberschaubare Zahl akademischer Kollegen, die seine Schrift zur Kenntnis nahmen, fand darin nichts Spektakulares. Hinweise etwa auf menschengemachte Veranderungen des Weltklimas, die schon der Generation seiner Ur-Ur-Enkel zur ernsthaften Bedrohung werden konnten, entnahm der Leser dem Text keinesfalls.

Resilienz aus katastrophensoziologischer Perspektive

Der Artikel nahert sich dem Konzept der Resilienz aus einer gesellschaftstheoretisch informierten Perspektive. Die Diskurse um Resilienz werden in einerseits einen mechanischen und andererseits einen systemischen Resilienzansatz aufgeteilt. Wahrend mechanische Zugange zu Resilienz eher funktionale, rational definierte, eindimensionale, berechenbare kausalistische Zusammenhange beschreiben, bedeutet ein systemischer Zugang die Anerkennung der Relationalitat, Zeitlichkeit und Raumlichkeit sowie kulturspezifischen Auspragung von Bezugseinheiten. Erst die Integration beider Verstandnisse von Resilienz, so das Argument, ermoglicht eine angemessene Analyse und Bewertung der Katastrophenanfalligkeit von Gesellschaften.

Researching Milieu-Specific Perceptions of Risk, (in)Security, and Vulnerability—A Conceptual Approach for Understanding the Inequality and Segregation Nexus in Urban Spaces

European cities are characterized by a growing social inequality, residential segregation as well as socio-cultural differentiation. Consequently, the capability of urban residents to protect themselves or to resume normality after a large-scale disaster is unequally distributed. In this chapter, we develop and exemplify a conceptual approach to assess milieu-specific perceptions of risk, (in)security, and vulnerability and further this research within the conceptual framework of sociological disaster research. We argue that approaches to communicate risk prevention, to implement sustainable adaptation strategies, or to reduce unequally distributed vulnerabilities cannot be successful without the engagement of the inhabitant’s subjective perception patterns. A milieu-oriented research approach allows for the linking of the subjective dimension of risk, vulnerability, and (in)security with the social and spatial distribution of resources and capital (Bourdieu in Die feinen Unterschiede. Kritik der gesellschaftlichen Urteilskraft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1987), which both form and reproduce social and spatial segregation (Scheffer and Voss in Erfolg durch Schlusselqualifikationen? „Heimliche Lehrplane“ und Basiskompetenzen im Zeichen der Globalisierung. Pabst Science Publishers, Berlin, Bremen, Miami et al., pp 102–115, 2008). Using a case study in a mid-sized German city as a basis, we will sketch the theoretical approach first, then exemplify it with empirical results, and close by drawing some conclusions on milieu-specific perceptions of risks, (in)security, and vulnerability in urban spaces.

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.