Shabana Khan

Vulnerability assessments and their planning implications: a case study of the Hutt Valley, New Zealand

An understanding of vulnerability is not only crucial for the survival of the exposed communities to extreme events, but also for their adaptation to climate change. Vulnerability affects community participation in hazard mitigation, influences emergency response and governs adaptive capacity for the changing environmental and hazards characteristics. However, despite increased awareness, assessments and understanding of the processes that produce vulnerability, disaster risks prevail. This raises questions on the effectiveness of vulnerability assessments and their applications for hazard mitigation and adaptation. The literature includes a range of vulnerability assessment methods, wherein frequently the selection of any particular method is governed by the research objectives. On the other hand, hazard mitigation plans and policies even though mention vulnerability, their implementation pays less attention to the variations in its nature and underlying causes. This paper explores possible reasons for such gaps by exploring a case study of the Hutt Valley, New Zealand. It brings out the limitations of different vulnerability assessment methods in representing the local vulnerability and challenges they bring in planning for the vulnerability reduction. It argues that vulnerability assessment based on any particular method, such as deprivation index, principle component analysis, composite vulnerability index with or without weight, may not reveal the actual vulnerability of a place, and therefore, a comprehensive vulnerability assessment is needed.

Progressive climate change and disasters: Island perspectives

Nearly ten per cent of the world’s population live on islands (Baldacchino 2006). Islands have been a significant place for international research and innovation. They are home to rare biodiversity and act as political security flashpoints. The significance of islands and their dynamics has been acknowledged in many such forms offering lessons, knowledge, and wisdom frequently transferable across oceans and continents (e.g. Baldacchino 2007a; Lewis 1999; McCall 1996). This short communication examines island perspectives for disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA). It evaluates trends and observations, extending an invitation for further exploration. From the perspective of progressive climate change and related disasters, islands have often been viewed from two disparate positions. First, that islands stand as relatively isolated, fragile, and vulnerable communities needing help and, second, that islands actively contribute and participate in global efforts for DRR and CCA, with the literature acknowledging both these positions and their interlinkages (Connell 2013; IPCC 2007; Lewis 1990). The literature accepts that these island characteristics do not exist in isolation (Connell 2013; Lewis 1999; Méheux et al. 2007; Mercer et al. 2007), indicating a need to draw lessons from both while joining them in order to avoid getting caught up in only one viewpoint. Some of the key island lessons from research, policy, and practice relate to governance, islandness, interconnections, migration, alliances, and knowledge forms.

Influences of place characteristics on hazards, perception and response: a case study of the hazardscape of the Wellington Region, New Zealand

The biophysical characteristics of a place not only bring variations in natural hazards, but also influence people’s associated perception and response to the hazard. Although these influences are noted in the literature, their relationship has been less explored for planning hazard mitigation and disaster response. This paper evaluates the role of place in a hazardscape by using a case study of the Wellington Region, New Zealand. The study explores the differences between the physical and perceived susceptibility to natural hazards and how this affects people’s response to a hazard. The analysis is based on a questionnaire survey and interviews conducted with local people. It finds that disparities between physical and perceived hazard susceptibility engender different motivations and types of response. A close alignment of the two produces a high response rate for earthquakes and droughts, whereas a significant divergence leads to a poor response as observed for volcanic ash fall. The relationship, however, is not linear, as indicated by the poor response even to such well-perceived hazards as tsunami and bushfire. The reasons behind this uneven response can be related back to place characteristics, such as the nature of hazard susceptibility, as well as factors such as fatalism or blasé effect. It is concluded that mapping physical and perceived susceptibility to hazards over space, understanding their relationship and ultimately narrowing the gap between perception and reality can contribute to effective hazard management at a place.

Progressive climate change and disasters: connections and metrics

While scientists continue to make projections regarding disasters under climate change and other (often more important) drivers, we are also bombarded with apocalyptic images of ‘‘the world is about to end soon’’—from the Hollywood flicks 2012 and Knowing to news reports of cults (Harris May 22, 2011; Lubin May 14, 2011; BBC December 22, 2010). Are images of catastrophe coupled with the doom and gloom of a world under climate change projections making people lose hope and feel apathetic about taking action? Evidence is mixed, suggesting that outcomes are frequently contextual. However, proposing links between progressive climate change and disasters without details or suggestions on how to act may contribute to increasing fatalism or apathy. The gap between scientists’ knowledge and public perception has many explanations, from moneymaking to the media’s over-exuberance with exaggerating reality through to insufficient understandable information given by, or accepted from, scientists when communicating with the public. For example, much scientific discourse, including some from IPCC (2007), points to a positive relationship between climate change and disasters. However, intricacies of this relationship are not always fully explored, despite the science being available and long-established in history. In particular, vulnerability tends to cause disasters much more than hazard, yet it is rarely emphasised that although climate change will affect climate-related hazards (exacerbating some and reducing others), human decisions are the principal influencers on human vulnerability. As such, while the metrics are clear for climate change impacts on some specific hazards (e.g. Knutson et al. 2010), they are frequently unclear for establishing or refuting links between climate change and disasters (not just hazards). A good number of studies

Progressive climate change and disasters: communicating uncertainty

Communication of uncertainty gained prominence from risk communication work starting in (at latest) the 1980s and has increasingly become salient with a growing need to communicate uncertainty of climate change impacts (USPHS 1995; Nerlich et al. 2010). Nonetheless, ignorance, apathy and blaming persist in many sectors, from the general public to specialist scientists, indicating various (mis)understandings of and responses to uncertainty. The reasons are complicated, but some can be understood by addressing what, why, whom, how and when uncertainty is communicated. A major dilemma of communicating uncertainty is that it is more about certainty (Sandman and Lanard 2011). Failure of uncertainty communication or its misunderstanding may lead to loss of trust, a poor reputation and inadequate response (Sandman and Lanard 2011). One common misinterpretation of hazard uncertainty is that a ‘‘100-year flood’’ will not happen soon after its recent occurrence. That can reduce public preparedness, and subsequently, a repeated occurrence of such flood could lead to further asset losses along with loss of trust in risk communication. A few important dimensions to consider in communicating uncertainty are information on its (1) source, (2) scale and (3) complexity. While it may seem obvious to communicate the source of uncertainty, it does not always happen. Disasters such as fires, floods, and droughts—even earthquakes and tsunami!—are misattributed to climate change (Sarewitz and Pielke 2005). Frequently, the causes of hazards and disasters are portrayed to be external to the human domain, discounting human actions and vulnerability. For example, floods are often communicated to be caused by heavy rain or snowmelt without accounting for the role of human activities changing river morphology and local vulnerability, despite repeatedly being pointed out in the literature.

Tracking a moving target of migration: island perspectives

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore aspects of migration from islands in the context of disasters including climate change.Design/methodology/approach – The paper is a conceptual exploration reviewing strengths and limitations of key literature.Findings – The paper finds that not much work goes into sufficient depth to understand the topic properly. It suggests that truisms should be admitted and the many factors influencing migration should be fully investigated.Originality/value – The paper examines migration topics from an island perspective.

Rethinking communication in risk interpretation and action

Abstract Communication is fundamental to the transfer of information between individuals, agencies and organizations, and therefore, it is crucial to planning and decision-making particularly in cases of uncertainty and risk. This paper brings forth some critical aspects of communication that need to be acknowledged and considered while managing risks. Most of the previous studies and theories on natural hazards and disaster management have limited perspective on communication, and hence, its implication is limited to awareness, warnings and emergency response to some selected events. This paper exposes the role of communication as a moderator of not just risk interpretation and action but also various factors responsible for shaping overall response, such as individual decision-making under uncertainty, heuristics, past experiences, learning, trust, complexity, scale and the social context. It suggests that communication is a process that influences decision-making in multiple ways, and therefore, it plays a critical role in shaping local responses to various risks. It opens up the scope for using communication beyond its current use as a tool to manage emergency situations. An in-depth understanding of ongoing communication and its implications can help to plan risk management more effectively over time rather than as a short-term response.