|
|
Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 55, Zeilen: 1 ff. (entire page) |
Quelle: Maguire Cartwright 2008 Seite(n): 6-7, Zeilen: 6: 26 ff.; 7: 1 ff. |
---|---|
[However, when vulnerability is viewed as a “state”, these] characteristics are used to label a whole community (or subsections of a community) as intrinsically vulnerable and, by extension, less able to cope with stressors, shocks and change (Brooks 2003).
While both the “hazard” and “state” approaches recognise that vulnerability cannot be considered independently of the local context (of a change, stressor, or hazard) both have been criticised for a number of reasons. Both approaches take a “deficit” view of the ability of communities to manage or cope with change. This has been used to identify (and “label”) vulnerable groups within a community, or to compare levels of vulnerability between communities, leading to differential inputs – positive or negative – into those communities. Both, the natural hazards approach and the application of vulnerability as a state fail to acknowledge the importance of the resources and capacities of a community which enable them to overcome these vulnerabilities and to cope with changes (Brooks 2003, 02-12). Brooks N (2003) Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: a conceptual framework (Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 38). University of East Anglia. |
However, when vulnerability is viewed as a ‘state’, these characteristics are used to label a whole community (or subsections of a community) as intrinsically vulnerable and, by extension, less able to cope with stressors, shocks and change (Brooks 2003).
[page 7] While both the hazards and ‘state’ approaches recognise that vulnerability cannot be considered independently of the local context (of a change, stressor, or hazard) (Brooks 2003), both have been criticised for a number of reasons. Both approaches take a ‘deficit’ view of the ability of communities to manage or cope with change. This has been used to identify (and ‘label’) vulnerable groups within a community, or to compare levels of vulnerability between communities, leading to differential inputs – positive or negative – into those communities. Both the natural hazards approach to vulnerability and the application of vulnerability as a ‘state’ fail to acknowledge the importance of the resources and capacities of a community which enable them to overcome these vulnerabilities and to cope with changes (Brooks 2003). Brooks N (2003) Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: a conceptual framework (Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 38). University of East Anglia. |
The source is not given. |
|