Lunenburg Part 2 - Section 5 - Social Vulnerability - August 30.pdf

Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association
Solutions d'adaptation aux changements climatiques pour l'Atlantique
Municipality of the District of Lunenburg:
A Case Study in Climate Change Adaptation
Part 2 - Section 5
Social Vulnerability to Climate Change in the
Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia
Michaela Cochran, Patricia Manuel & Eric Rapaport
School of Planning, Dalhousie University
Halifax, Nova Scotia
May 2012
i

Report: This report was commissioned by the Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association
(ACASA), a non-profit organization formed to coordinate project management and planning for
climate change adaptation initiatives in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and
Newfoundland and Labrador and supported through the Regional Adaptation Collaborative, a
joint undertaking between the Atlantic provinces, Natural Resources Canada and regional
municipalities and other partners.
Project management: Climate Change Directorate, Nova Scotia Department of Environment,
5151 Terminal Road, PO Box 442, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 2P8
Disclaimer: This publication is not to be used without permission, and any unauthorized use is
strictly prohibited. ACASA, the authors, the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince
Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Regional Adaptation Collaborative are not
responsible for any unauthorized use that may be made of the information contained therein.
The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of ACASA, its
associated provinces, or other partners of the Regional Adaptation Collaborative.
The School of Planning, Dalhousie University makes no representations, express or implied, as
to the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information, maps, and data contained
herein. The data are for informational purposes only and should not be used for legal,
engineering, or surveying purposes. Decisions made from such information are the responsibility
of the user. The School of Planning, Dalhousie University assumes no responsibility for its use.
The user may not re-sell, sub-license, or otherwise reproduce, publish or disseminate for
commercial purposes data available through this report.
The Municipality of the District of Lunenburg advises that all data provided for use in this report
are generally believed to be accurate and the best information available. They may, however,
occasionally prove to be incorrect, incomplete or out-of-date; thus data accuracy is not
guaranteed.
Acknowledgements: Dalhousie University, School of Planning ACAS project team thanks the
Nova Scotia Department of Environment for the opportunity to contribute to the ACAS program
and to assist in building municipal capacity to address climate change impacts. In particular, we
thank Mr. Will Green, Dr. Dan Walmsley and Ms. Kyla Milne for their guidance and support
throughout the course of these projects.
The research assistants to the projects were honours undergraduate and graduate students in
the professional planning programs of the School of Planning. The skill development and
training afforded to them through participation in ACAS is exemplary of partnerships in educating
young professionals in adaptation planning. The School of Planning, Dalhousie University
thanks NS Department of Environment for this outstanding opportunity.
The project team thanks Mr. Jeff Merrill, Acting Director of Planning for the Municipality of the
District of Lunenburg and other municipal staff, for welcoming us to their community, providing
us with local support, and facilitating our work wherever assistance was needed. Thank you too,
to municipal councilors for promoting our projects in the community and to their council
colleagues. Like NS Department of Environment, the Municipality has been instrumental in
furthering the education of our student research assistants.
Thank you also to the managers and professionals of the various other government departments
and non-government agencies with a stake in climate change adaptation planning who provided
their time and knowledge to this project
i

And, thank you to the many residents of the District of Lunenburg who showed interest in our
work, who participated in the project, and who gave their time, knowledge and insights to
identifying the risks, challenges and opportunities of climate change impacts.
Cover page photo credit: Zoë Wollenberg
This report is available for download from the ACASA website at: www.atlanticadaptation.ca
ii

Executive Summary
Researchers have observed that throughout both the developing and developed world the
impacts of natural hazards are unequal: the most severe consequences are on underprivileged
people and areas. This observation has led to the study of social vulnerability to climate
change.
An important component of research on social vulnerability to climate change is the
development of methods for measuring the geographic distribution of social vulnerability,
through the use of an index. An index of social vulnerability measures the prevalence of various
indicators of social vulnerability in different geographic areas. The purpose of such an index is
to identify the most socially vulnerable areas so that efforts related to adaptation, emergency
management, and disaster relief may be directed to those areas. Areas of greater social
vulnerability will experience more severe consequences from a natural hazard than those of
lesser socially vulnerability even if they have the same physical exposure.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate social vulnerability to climate change impacts in the
Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. The study assesses the prevalence of
characteristics that contribute to the social vulnerability of individuals and households, using
data aggregated at the Statistics Canada dissemination area level. It generates an index of
social vulnerability that can also have for application in Nova Scotia, generally, and proceeds to
map the index to visually represent the distribution of residential areas and populations in the
District with high levels of social vulnerability. This assessment will allow the District of
Lunenburg to identify areas most at need of assistance, particularly in focusing adaptation and
emergency management planning on high-risk populations and areas. It will also serve as an
example for other Nova Scotia municipalities.
This study used a mixed methods approach: an index of social vulnerability that measures data
from statistical sources, and consultations with persons possessing local knowledge relevant to
issues of social vulnerability, to provide context for the index results and offer additional local
detail.
The indicators selected for use in the index of social vulnerability are based on the Canadian
Social Determinants of Health. Indicators chosen include: low income; government transfer
payments; unemployment; children; seniors; seniors living alone; lone parent families; no
secondary education; no knowledge of English or French; recent immigrants; visible minorities;
and Aboriginal identity. The report includes a full explanation of the reasons for the inclusion of
each factor, and the exclusion of other factors relevant to social vulnerability.
All statistical data are sourced from the 2006 Census of Canada. The unit of analysis is the
dissemination area – the smallest scale at which Census data is available. The prevalence of
each indicator of social vulnerability, in each dissemination area, is measured in comparison to
the average for all dissemination areas in Nova Scotia. The unit of measurement is the standard
deviation of results in Nova Scotia for that indicator. Scores are assigned categories of low to
high vulnerability, colour-coded, and mapped using Esri ArcGIS v. 10 Geographic Information
System software. This method closely resembles that of Dr. Susan Cutter, a prominent
researcher of social vulnerability to climate change.
In order to estimate the possible impacts of storm surge on socially vulnerable populations in the
Municipality, and specifically in the coastal regions, storm surge scenarios generated in a
companion ACAS project were overlaid with the mapped results of the index of social
vulnerability. The most severe storm surge scenario is based on the storm surge generated by
Hurricane Juan in 2003, which caused serious damage along the Atlantic coast.
iii

The District’s extensive and irregular coastline results in high exposure to the impacts of sea
level rise and storm surge. The study found that sea level rise alone could disrupt access in
some areas, and hundreds of residences could be either inundated through sea level rise, even
in the short term, or isolated under the storm surge scenarios. Fortunately, few services that
socially vulnerable populations rely on are likely to be impacted. Damage to roads and power
lines are a significant concern, and could increase social vulnerability by causing loss of
electrical power, the isolation of residents from essential services, and disrupted access by
emergency services. Lack of land use planning in the majority of the District allows new
construction in at-risk locations, increasing the number of residents who could be directly
affected.
On average, overall social vulnerability in the District is near or below average, as assessed in
the context of Nova Scotia. High property values along the coast influence the calculation of
social vulnerability for the coastal dissemination areas; the result is that social vulnerability is not
high in the areas with the highest physical risk. However, socially vulnerable populations do
exist in coastal areas, such as in Dissemination Area 117, which includes coastal areas on either
side of the LaHave River, as well as the LaHave Islands – areas that are at high risk of
inundation and isolation.
Many areas that have average or below average overall social vulnerability also have above
average levels of social vulnerability for particular indicators, such as the proportion of senior
citizens among the population, residents with low levels of education, and recent immigrants.
The assessment of social vulnerability provides decision makers and service providers in the
District of Lunenburg with the knowledge necessary to incorporate considerations of social
vulnerability into land use and emergency management planning. Understanding the strengths
and weaknesses of various geographic areas will allow emergency management planners to
target each area with the most appropriate type of assistance, in order to reduce overall
vulnerability.
iv

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
III
INTRODUCTION 1
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES 1
METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH 2
SOCIAL VULNERABILITY TO CLIMATE CHANGE 2
INDICES OF SOCIAL VULNERABILITY 2
REVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGICAL LITERATURE OF SOCIAL VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 3
METHODS 5
FIELD OBSERVATIONS 5
DEVELOPING AN INDEX OF SOCIAL VULNERABILITY 6
DATA COLLECTION 6
DATA ORGANIZATION 6
DATA INTERPRETATION: ANALYSIS 7
DATA INTERPRETATION: SYNTHESIS 8
REVIEW OF MUNICIPAL PLANNING POLICY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 9
CONSULTATIONS 9
INTEGRATION AND CONCLUSIONS 10
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 10
DEFINING SOCIAL VULNERABILITY 10
WHY USE AN INDEX OF SOCIAL VULNERABILITY? 11
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH APPROACH 12
STATISTICS CANADA CENSUS DATA 12
LIST OF FACTORS 13
WEIGHTING OF INDICATORS 21
CONSULTATIONS 23
ETHICAL ISSUES 23
RESULTS AND FINDINGS 24
STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION 24
FIELD OBSERVATIONS 25
SUMMARY OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS 26
INDEX OF SOCIAL VULNERABILITY 26
PROFILE BY INDICATOR 27
PROFILE BY DISSEMINATION AREA 30
SOCIAL VULNERABILITY TO SEA LEVEL RISE AND STORM SURGE IN 2025 32
SEA LEVEL RISE AND STORM SURGE SCENARIO IMPACTS 34
IMPACTS ON SERVICES IN THE DISTRICT OF LUNENBURG 50
REVIEW OF MUNICIPAL PLANNING POLICY 54
STRATEGIC PLAN 54
INTEGRATED COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY PLAN 56
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 58
SECONDARY PLANS 59
RIVERPORT AND DISTRICT 59
PRINCES INLET 60
v

OAKLAND 61
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FEASIBILITY STUDY 61
SUMMARY 62
CONSULTATIONS 63
PHYSICAL RISK 63
CONSTRAINTS TO RISK PREVENTION 64
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 65
COMMUNITY 66
SOCIALLY VULNERABLE POPULATIONS 67
SENIORS 67
NEW AND SEASONAL RESIDENTS 67
LOW INCOME & SOCIAL ASSISTANCE 68
ISOLATION 69
GENERAL DISCUSSION 69
PHYSICAL IMPACTS 70
SOCIAL VULNERABILITY ON THE COAST 70
REDUCING VULNERABILITY 71
CONCLUSION 73
APPENDIX A: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 77
ASSESSING SOCIAL VULNERABILITY TO CLIMATE CHANGE: CONCEPTS & METHODS 77
ASSESSMENTS OF SOCIAL VULNERABILITY TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN CANADA 79
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH IN CANADA 82
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH IN CANADIAN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 83
APPENDIX B: TABLE OF INDICATORS AND SUPPORTING SOURCES 85
LOW INCOME 85
UNEMPLOYMENT 85
GOVERNMENT TRANSFER PAYMENTS 85
CHILDREN 86
SENIORS 86
SENIORS LIVING ALONE 86
LONE PARENTS 86
NO SECONDARY EDUCATION 87
NO KNOWLEDGE OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES 87
RECENT IMMIGRANTS 87
VISIBLE MINORITIES 87
ABORIGINAL PERSONS 88
APPENDIX C: MAPS OF PROFILE BY INDICATOR FOR THE DISTRICT OF LUNENBURG 89
LOW INCOME 90
GOVERNMENT TRANSFER PAYMENTS 91
UNEMPLOYMENT 92
CHILDREN 93
SENIORS 94
vi

SENIORS LIVING ALONE 95
LONE PARENTS 96
NO SECONDARY EDUCATION 97
LANGUAGE – NO KNOWLEDGE OF ENGLISH OR FRENCH 98
RECENT IMMIGRANTS 99
VISIBLE MINORITIES 101
ABORIGINAL IDENTITY 102
APPENDIX D: RADAR DIAGRAMS FOR EACH DISSEMINATION AREA IN THE DISTRICT
OF LUNENBURG 103
APPENDIX E: LIST OF SERVICES 112
vii

Introduction
Social vulnerability refers to the inability of individuals or groups to withstand negative impacts
from stressors. While social vulnerability is experienced on an individual level, it is determined
on a social, cultural and political level: people are socially vulnerable not because of inherent
characteristics, but because of socially, culturally, and politically determined levels of access to
various resources. Socially vulnerable individuals and groups are those members of society that
experience marginalization and exclusion, and therefore limited access to the resources they
require to successfully endure challenging situations.
Emergency management planning is a component of climate change adaptation planning. It is
directed at being prepared for acute conditions (such as storm surge) or avoiding long term
conditions, such as placing critical infrastructure (service centres, or emergency routes) or
vulnerable populations (seniors, infirmed, economically disadvantaged) in locations at risk of
climate change impacts (such as storm flooding and sea level rise inundation in coastal areas).
Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of various geographic areas within a municipality
will allow emergency management planners to target each area with the most appropriate type
of assistance, and will support land use decisions, broadly, in order to reduce overall
vulnerability.
Rationale and Objectives
The primary purpose of this study is to evaluate social vulnerability to climate change impacts in
the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. The study uses data aggregated at
the dissemination area level to assess the prevalence of characteristics contributing to the social
vulnerability of individuals and households, and represents this vulnerability spatially, illustrated
with maps and diagrams. The objectives of this study area:
to generate an index of social vulnerability for application in Nova Scotia;
to identify residential areas and populations in the District of Lunenburg with high levels
of social vulnerability, and community services that serve socially vulnerable people;
to suggest the possible impacts of climate change, specifically storm surge flooding, on
socially vulnerable populations and areas in the District of Lunenburg; and
to suggest opportunities for reducing adverse impacts on socially vulnerable populations
in the District of Lunenburg.
A second purpose of the study is to generate a methodology for assessing social vulnerability
that may be applied in other Nova Scotia municipalities, in order to assist them in meeting the
upcoming requirement to create a Climate Change Action Plan. Many municipalities in Nova
Scotia are small and have limited capacity and resources. Therefore, the most suitable
methodology for assessing social vulnerability will be easily replicated; use readily available
data; and require minimal technological capacity or expert knowledge.
The results of this study will provide information that facilitates decisions by the Municipality of
the District of Lunenburg on how to minimize storm surge impacts on its citizens by focusing
emergency management planning on high-risk populations and areas. The results will also
1

illustrate the relationship of areas of physical risk to climate change impacts (storm surge in this
project) and also high social vulnerability; this association suggests situations to address through
land use planning that directs people, generally, and socially vulnerable groups in particular,
away from hazardous locations. The methods used in this project will also provide an example
for other Nova Scotia municipalities to replicate.
Methodology and Approach
Social Vulnerability to Climate Change
Anthropogenic climate change refers to changes in the environment caused mainly by the
production of greenhouse gases by humans. The principal impacts are global warming and
associated sea level rise and an anticipated increase in the frequency and severity of extreme
weather events such as storms. Researchers who study natural hazards and major climate shifts
have observed that the human impacts of these phenomena are not uniform – instead, certain
portions of the population are much more heavily affected than others. This has led to the
conclusion that the impact of a natural hazard is not determined by the severity of the hazard
alone, but also by a combination of pre-existing physical, social and economic conditions that
make people more or less vulnerable to this impact: the complex range of factors that cause
social vulnerability in general also determine social vulnerability to climate change.
Social vulnerability results in social vulnerability to climate change impacts because it
encompasses factors that determine people’s access to resources that can help them to prepare
for, withstand, and recover from a natural hazard. These resources may be physical, economic,
or social. Examples include good quality housing that can weather a storm; disposable income
to spend on emergency supplies or post-event repairs; and social connections with neighbours
that could provide assistance in a time of need.
While residents and local decision-makers have little control over many of the factors influencing
the severity or degree of climate change and its expression as impacts, the effects of climate
change may be anticipated, and negative impacts reduced. An assessment of social vulnerability
to climate change impacts has the potential to identify populations and areas at greatest risk, so
that measures can be taken to reduce that risk - a hazard does not have to become a disaster.
Indices of Social Vulnerability
Scholars of social vulnerability to natural hazards assert that, since the impacts of natural
hazards are the greatest on socially vulnerable people, the best way to reduce overall impacts is
to focus climate change adaptation, emergency management planning, and disaster relief on
socially vulnerable populations and areas. In order to direct resources to those most in need,
planners and decision-makers need to understand who and where these people are.
To this end, researchers have developed a variety of methods for assessing social vulnerability.
One type of method is the application of an index of social vulnerability. An index of social
vulnerability aims to quantify the prevalence of various factors of social vulnerability by
geographic area, in order to identify those areas with the highest levels of social vulnerability.
The factors considered are usually chosen through one or a combination of two methods: a
theoretical grounding in social sciences literature; or observed statistical relationships amongst
factors understood to contribute to social vulnerability. By providing a quantifiable measure, an
index of social vulnerability allows the comparison of levels of social vulnerability geographically,
2

and over time. This creates a justifiable basis for directing adaptation and emergency
management initiatives to those areas in greatest need.
Various conceptual bases and methodologies for indices of social vulnerability that inform the
conceptual framework of this project are presented in the section that follows.
Review of the Methodological Literature of Social Vulnerability
Assessment
The following brief literature review focuses on the methodology employed in various studies
regarding social vulnerability to climate change impacts. Appendix A is an annotated List of
References summarizing each of the referenced sources.
This review establishes the methodological framework, or approach, for this project and will be
useful to other researchers attempting social vulnerability assessment for their communities or
regions
Dr. Susan Cutter is Director of the Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute at the University
of South Carolina, and a leading scholar in the field of vulnerability to extreme weather events.
Her research focuses on developed nations, particularly the United States. In the mid-1990s,
she pioneered the Hazards-of-Place approach to understanding vulnerability to environmental
hazards. This approach considers both social and biophysical vulnerability in an integrated
framework.
In 2003, Dr. Cutter and several colleagues developed the Social Vulnerability Index, or SOVI for
application in the United States. 1 Cutter et al. constructed their SOVI using county-level socioeconomic
and demographic data, as well as data about the built environment. After choosing
indicators of social vulnerability based on social sciences research, they then employed a factor
analytic approach – a statistical process known as principal components analysis – to reduce the
number of variables in the SOVI to those that account for the greatest proportion of the variance
in the data. They then mapped the results to reveal spatial patterns in social vulnerability. The
SOVI only considers social vulnerability; Cutter intends the results to be used in conjunction with
assessments of biophysical risk to illustrate overall vulnerability.
Following Cutter’s development of the SOVI, other researchers have performed assessments of
social vulnerability using very similar methodology. For example, Drs. Jean Andrey and Brenda
Jones of the Waterloo University Department of Geography and Environmental Management,
conducted an assessment of social vulnerability and hazard exposure for Greater Vancouver in
2008. 2 In his 2011 Bachelor of Community Design Honours Thesis, Jonathan Critchley, in
partnership with the Halifax Regional Municipality, performed an analysis of social vulnerability
to storm surge for the Halifax Harbour, based primarily on Cutter’s methodology. 3
Other researchers have proposed alternative methodologies for constructing an index of social
vulnerability. In a 2004 study by Dwyer et al. 4 of Geoscience Australia, the investigators
developed a series of qualitative criteria to guide indicator selection, rather than using statistical
methods to reduce a large number of variables to those exerting the most statistical influence on
data variance.
1 Cutter et al., 2003.
2 Andrey and Jones, 2008.
3 Critchley, 2011.
4 Dwyer et al., 2004.
3

While Cutter made no attempt to determine weights for the variables considered, Dwyer et al.
employed a method – known as decision tree analysis – for weighting indicators, based on the
results of a risk perception questionnaire distributed to both experts in the field of natural
hazards and non-experts. They also used the statistical procedure of synthetic estimation to
approximate the degree of cross-correlation amongst indicators – the degree to which members
of the population experience multiple factors of social vulnerability. Like Cutter’s SOVI, Dwyer et
al.’s method for assessing social vulnerability is for use in conjunction with natural hazards
data. 5
All of the aforementioned studies also employ nationally available statistical information about
factors of vulnerability, so that the resulting index can be applied throughout a country. The
advantage of this approach is that it allows for the comparison of social vulnerability amongst
various locations, facilitating targeted funding for the most vulnerable areas.
However, some researchers argue that this type of approach is too large in scale, so that locally
relevant factors and important details are masked. 6 These researchers advocate a qualitative,
bottom-up approach to assessing social vulnerability. These methods tend to evaluate social
vulnerability on a community level, based on features and experiences of an entire community.
This contrasts the methods discussed above, which are all concerned with the social
vulnerability of individuals in households: they measure the prevalence of factors of social
vulnerability that are experienced by individuals, such as age, income, family composition, or the
ability to speak the dominant local language. This information is aggregated at various levels,
depending on the geographic units used by the relevant national statistical agency.
Drs. Ellen Wall and Katia Marzall of the University of Guelph studied the adaptive capacity for
climate change of Canadian rural communities in 2006. They chose to document current
adaptive responses as the basis for understanding future adaptive capacity, rather than applying
a theoretical model. Their approach was to identify community resources – social, human,
institutional, natural and economic – and select appropriate indicators for measuring them. They
used a variety of data sources and types, including statistical data, contemporary research on
rural Canada, and key informant interviews. 7
In 2003, Drs. John Dolan and Ian Walker, then of the University of Victoria Department of
Geography, integrated an assessment of individual and household vulnerability, based on
demographic features, with community-scale determinants such as income distribution, reliance
on natural resources and critical infrastructure susceptible to sea-level rise impacts, access to
technology, and institutional frameworks. Similar to Wall and Marzall, they emphasized the use
of qualitative, community-based research methods involving institutions, local decision-makers,
resource users and residents, arguing that scientific knowledge must be grounded in local
experience to obtain the most meaningful results. 8
In another similar study, researchers from McGill University, Carleton University, and the
University of Toronto cooperated in a study of community vulnerability in the Canadian arctic.
The approach was a case study of a small Inuit community. This research used a process of
retrospective analysis to examine how community members have responded to anomalous
conditions; identify adaptive responses; characterize processes and conditions shaping
vulnerability; and suggest the potential implications of future climate change. These researchers
5 Dwyer et al., 2004.
6 Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 26.
7 Wall and Marzall, 2006.
8 Dolan and Walker, 2003.
4

also emphasize the need for detailed local knowledge to understand the complex interactions of
climatic and non-climatic factors of vulnerability in the study area. 9
The Brandon University Department of Applied Disaster Studies is a unique degree program in
Canada dedicated to the study of emergency management and disaster responses. Faculty
member Dr. John Lindsay notes that emergency management in Canada has been slow to
include social vulnerability in risk assessments, in spite of abundant Canadian social sciences
research that could be used to inform such work. He argues that the Canadian Social
Determinants of Health are well-established indicators of social vulnerability in Canada, and that
population health promotion and disaster management are a natural pairing due to shared goals
and concerns. 10
In a 2007 report commissioned by the Canadian Red Cross, Drs. Elaine Enarson and Sarah
Walsh, also of the Brandon University Department of Applied Disaster Studies, echo this
conclusion. Their research analyzes the extent to which the needs and capacities of socially
vulnerable populations are integrated into Canadian emergency management, and identifies
opportunities to improve emergency management planning and practice. 11
Numerous national and international organizations have performed reviews of vulnerability
assessment methodology and practice. Examples include reports by Hans-Martin Füssel of the
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, for the World Bank 12 ; researcher Tapsell and
colleagues from the Middlesex University Flood Hazard Resarch Centre in London, England for
CapHaz-Net, a European research network devoted to investigating the social dimensions of
natural hazards 13 ; a research group from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the
University of East Anglia 14 ; and by Cutter an her research team in a literature review published in
Social Science Quarterly. 15
These reviews all emphasize the fact that the assessment of social vulnerability to climate
change impacts is a relatively new and undeveloped area of research, particularly regarding
application in developed nations; there is no established research method or criteria for
assessing social vulnerability. This is problematic, as the research methods employed can have
a significant influence on the results obtained. They also note that social vulnerability is a
complex phenomenon that is difficult to quantify. However, these reviews all agree that these
challenges do not invalidate research into social vulnerability to climate change, but rather
demand further study.
Methods
Field Observations
Field observations provided the opportunity to gain familiarity with the Municipality of the District
of Lunenburg. Documentation of field observations included written notes and photographic
recording of areas of social housing; areas of housing requiring maintenance, which could
indicate insufficient income to carry out repairs; the locations of important physical infrastructure
and social services; and isolated rural areas with limited or poorly maintained road access.
9 Ford et al., 2009.
10 Lindsay, 2010.
11 Enarson and Walsh, 2007.
12 Fussel, 2009.
13 Tapsell et al., 2010.
14 Adger et al., 2004.
15 Cutter et al., 2003.
5

Developing an Index of Social Vulnerability
An index of social vulnerability is the primary means of assessing social vulnerability in the
Municipality of the District of Lunenburg. As there is no established index of social vulnerability
for application in Canada, it was necessary to design one.
Conceptual Framework
The first step in creating an index of social vulnerability was to establish a conceptual framework
in which to work. The Conceptual Framework is described at the end of this Methods section.
This process involved a review of literature to address various interpretations of social
vulnerability, and the strengths and weakness of different methodologies for assessing it.
Selecting Variables and Indicators
Identifying factors that contribute to social vulnerability in Canada involved two methods: a
review of variables commonly considered in indices of vulnerability; and consulting established
sources (in the literature and contacting experts) regarding marginalized and disadvantaged
Canadian populations. The consultation ensured that the factors chosen were accurate indictors
of social vulnerability specifically in Canada.
This deductive approach is a more intuitive and, therefore, potentially a more accessible
approach to assessing social vulnerability, because it is based on established social sciences
research and a theoretical understanding of the causes of social vulnerability. In contrast, an
inductive research approach to identifying variables uses complex statistical procedures
requiring expert knowledge.
Identifying Indicator Proxies
In order to ensure that any Nova Scotia municipality could replicate the methodology used in the
index of social vulnerability all data came from a single source: the Statistics Canada Census of
Population. Because not all indicators of social vulnerability correspond directly to a question
appearing on the Census, it was necessary to determine proxies – substitutes that closely
approximate the indicators – with which to evaluate the indicators.
Data Collection
Census data came from one of two sources: the Canadian Census Analyzer, a service through
which participating institutions may access Statistics Canada data; or free, publicly-available
online data from CANSIM, Statistics Canada’s key socioeconomic database.
Census data collected at the dissemination area level allowed the finest grain of analysis
possible. This choice facilitated the project objective of providing the District of Lunenburg with
knowledge about the spatial distribution of social vulnerability within the study area – not simply
an indication of overall vulnerability throughout the study area.
Data Organization
Microsoft Excel, a commonly used spreadsheet software, was used to organize and analyze the
data.
6

Data Interpretation: Analysis
For each dissemination area, the raw population count for each indicator of social vulnerability
was converted into a percentage of the total population. All categories are scaled so that higher
values indicate greater social vulnerability, and lower values indicate lesser social vulnerability.
The prevalence of each indicator was then compared to the average prevalence of that indicator
for all dissemination areas in Nova Scotia. The measure of comparison is the number of
standard deviations from the mean. Using standard deviations demonstrates not only that the
prevalence of a particular indicator is above or below the mean, but also how much above or
below the mean it is, in comparison to the average of how much all Nova Scotia dissemination
areas differ from the mean. The data were then assigned to categories of very low to very high
based on the number of standard deviations from the mean. This method is consistent with that
used by Cutter et al. in the SOVI, with some differences in the number and range of categories
chosen. 16
Combining the number of standard deviations above or below the mean for each indicator in an
additive model produced an overall score of social vulnerability. 17 All indicators are weighted
equally, with the exception of the ‘low income’ category, which was accorded double weighting.
This choice is described at the end of this Methods section under Conceptual Framework –
Weighting of Indicators.
Using average results for Nova Scotia as the benchmark for comparison allows the results to
indicate the District of Lunenburg’s social vulnerability in relation to the province overall, as well
as the spatial distribution of social vulnerability within the study area. Because the same index
may be applied to any Nova Scotia municipality, the results may be used to determine those
areas in Nova Scotia most in need of attention.
This project not only calculates disaggregated and summative indices of social vulnerability but
also presents the information visually using two techniques. The first method of visual
representation is choropleth mapping, which displays the index scores geographically, so that
the relative vulnerability of different dissemination areas, and the location of any areas where
social vulnerability is concentrated, may be easily recognized. This technique is widely used for
the visual representation of data from an index of social vulnerability. 18 Ranges of scores for
each indicator are assigned a colour, and each dissemination area is assigned the colour
corresponding to its score for that indicator. The coloured map thus created reveals patterns in
the geographic distribution of any particular indicator. This is an important step, as the types of
needs generated by various indicators of social vulnerability may be quite different. 19 The overall
score for all indicators, the aggregated index, is also mapped, so that the location of
dissemination areas with the greatest overall social vulnerability can be identified.
The second method was to generate a vector diagram or radar chart displaying social
vulnerability in each dissemination area (Figure 1). Each indicator of social vulnerability
corresponds to a line radiating from a central point. Concentric rings around this central point
represent increasing degrees of vulnerability, measured by standard deviations from the mean.
A point is marked on each line, according to the prevalence of the corresponding indicators of
vulnerability. The points are then connected with lines, and the shape created is filled with
shading. This shape visually represents the profile of social vulnerability in a dissemination area,
where the parts of the shape created that extend furthest from the centre of the radar chart
16 Cutter et al., 2003. p. 254.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid. p. 24
19 Ibid. p. 109
7

indicate the indicators of greatest vulnerability. Radar charts provide an easily understood
representation of complex information about a particular dissemination area, so that the needs of
that area can be better understood. 20
Figure 1: Sample Radar Chart
Data Interpretation: Synthesis
The final step in the mapping procedure was to overlay the mapped information from the index
of social vulnerability with sea level rise and storm surge scenario maps generated in a previous
ACAS study (see Part 2, Section 1 of this report). This demonstrates the intersection of social
vulnerability with anticipated climate change impacts.
Interpretation involved counting both the number of residential buildings, and number of services
that socially vulnerable people rely on, that would be either inundated or isolated (areas
surrounded by water, or where the only road access is flooded) in each scenario. Some studies
attempt to mathematically combine data about physical impacts with data from the index of
social vulnerability, to obtain a numeric representation of overall vulnerability. This process
involves assigning a numeric weight to different flood impacts (such as a value of 1 for buildings
inundated and a value of 0.5 for buildings isolated). However, the choice of weightings and
method for combining the data is highly subjective, and can cause very significant differences in
the results obtained. Instead, this study uses a qualitative approach to interpreting the extent of
physical impacts in light of the degree of social vulnerability in each dissemination area.
The mapping component of this project was carried out using a Geographic Information System
(ArcGIS). GIS is a widely-used mapping and geospatial analysis tool used by many
municipalities, including the District of Lunenburg. The municipality has an existing database of
GIS data for features such road networks, infrastructure and dwellings. Additionally, Light
Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data, which provides a highly accurate GIS-compatible map of
the study area, was available for most areas of the District of Lunenburg. Finally, the ACAS sea
level rise and storm surge scenarios were also generated in GIS.
However, this mapping and overlay procedure could easily be carried out using other means –
either through the use of graphic software capable of displaying layers of information, such as
the Adobe Creative Suite, or manually. While skilled draftspersons can create hand-generated
20 Wall and Marzall, 2006. p. 388
8

maps of equal or superior quality to computer-generated graphics, even a very simple rendition
using tracing paper placed over a map showing dissemination area boundaries would be
effective. It was the position of this project within the suite of ACAS projects that ultimately
determined the use of an automated geospatial mapping and synthesis approach.
Review of Municipal Planning Policy and Emergency Management
This component of the research involved a document review of the District’s Strategic Plan,
Integrated Community Sustainability Plan, and Economic Development Strategy, as well as
secondary plans for coastal areas in the District. Consultations with emergency management
personnel provided information about emergency management plans. The purpose was to
determine the extent to which considerations of social vulnerability are integrated into municipal
planning and emergency management.
Consultations
The next step in the study’s methodology was to carry out consultations with sources of local
knowledge. This process helped to ensure the inclusion of relevant factors in the index of social
vulnerability, as well as to compensate for weaknesses in the index and provide further local
context. Additionally, consultees provided further insight into municipal planning and emergency
management policy and practice. This type of approach is consistent with the work of Wall and
Marzall, Dolan and Walk, and Ford et al. 21 While most assessments of social vulnerability use
only either a statistical or community-based approach, the use of both approaches in a single
study allows it to benefit from the strengths of each method, while counterbalancing their
weaknesses. 22
This method was important because dissemination areas in rural areas, such as the District of
Lunenburg, are quite large, with the result that the index of social vulnerability could not capture
some important local factors. The consultations with knowledgeable local persons provided more
detailed information about how social vulnerability might manifest in rural areas, and the types of
needs that socially vulnerable persons might experience in an extreme weather event.
These consultations were semi-structured in nature, allowing consultees to speak broadly about
their understanding of social vulnerability in Lunenburg District. This strategy ensured that
unexpected information would be included in the perspective of local social vulnerability. A list of
questions helped to structure the conversation so that any areas of interest not identified by the
consultees could also be explored.
Selecting Persons to Consult
Persons selected for consultation included the following:
municipal Councilors, who have knowledge of local decision-making processes and
issues of concern in the community;
municipal planners, who are aware of community demographics and development
patterns;
Community Services, Public Health and Community Health representatives, who are
knowledgeable about health and socioeconomic concerns in the community, and have
direct contact with socially vulnerable persons;
21 Wall and Marzall, 2006.
22 Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 26–27.
9

epresentatives of social service organizations, such as Second Story Women’s Centre,
who serve socially vulnerable persons;
and a representative of the Regional Emergency Management Organization, who
understands local emergency management priorities and capacity.
Identifying themes
Reviewing the notes and recordings of the consultations produced themes around social
vulnerability in the District of Lunenburg from the perspective of those involved in service
provision in the municipality. Of particular interest were consultees’ insights into strengths and
weaknesses in community capacity to meet the needs of socially vulnerable persons in an
extreme weather event.
Integration and Conclusions
The final phase of the study involved integrating information obtained from all of the methods
described above to produce a picture of social vulnerability to climate change impacts in the
District of Lunenburg.
Conceptual Framework
Defining Social Vulnerability
The most socially vulnerable populations vary somewhat depending on location, but have the
common thread of experiencing marginalization or lack of social and economic capital, and
almost always include the poor, minorities, disabled persons, young children and the elderly. 23
Social vulnerability takes a different shape in different places because it is socially determined,
not the result of inherent traits. Social vulnerability is created in a social, cultural, political,
economic, and historical context, through relations, structures and processes in wider society.
Therefore, people have little to no control over the forces that render them socially vulnerable. 24
Rather, social vulnerability is enacted through the accordance of different levels of access to
social, political, and economic resources to various people and social groups. 25
It is important to understand the scale on which social vulnerability is generated: entire social
groups are impacted by the social forces that limit access to resources, so members of those
social groups are more likely than other members of society to be socially vulnerable. However,
this does not mean that every member of those social groups is socially vulnerable.
Because social vulnerability is not determined by inherent traits, it is also not static: people can
become more or less vulnerable if their situation changes. For example, as a person enters old
age, or if a disability becomes more severe, they may become more socially vulnerable; if a
23 Dwyer et al., 2004; Tapsell et al., 2010, p. 21; Adger et al., 2004. p. 30; Cutter et al., 2003. p. 243;
Cutter et al., 2009. p. 20.
24 Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 6–7; Dolan and Walker, 2003. p. 2–3; Ford et al., 2009. p 139; Enarson and
Walsh, 2007. p. 7, 10, 36; Mikkonen and Raphael, 2010. p. 7.
25 Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 8, 20; Dwyer et al., 2004. p. 3; Dolan and Walker 2003. p. 2–3; Enarson and
Walsh, 2007. p. 7, 10.
10

person’s employment improves and they earn a higher income, they may become less socially
vulnerable. 26
Social vulnerability exists independently and prior to the event of a natural hazard. Social
vulnerability is significant when a natural hazard occurs because the social, economic, and
political resources that socially vulnerable people have limited access to are necessary in order
to prepare for, withstand, and recover from natural hazard impacts. Additionally, these impacts
can worsen existing social vulnerability. 27 So, social vulnerability to natural hazards can be
conceptualized as the interaction of pre-existing social vulnerability, and natural hazard
impacts. 28
Why Use an Index of Social Vulnerability?
The rationale behind assessing social vulnerability is that it helps us to define where the need is
and set priorities through knowledge about spatial distribution patterns. Understanding what
vulnerabilities exist, and where they are concentrated, is necessary in order to design the most
effective risk mitigation strategies. Having an effective way of appraising social vulnerability
facilitates anticipating problems; monitoring progress and trends; measuring the effectiveness of
mitigation approaches; and increasing awareness amongst the public and policy-makers. 29
An index of social vulnerability measures the prevalence in geographic areas of various factors
understood to contribute to social vulnerability. Indicators are especially useful for gauging
processes or phenomena that are complex and difficult to measure directly. 30
However, indices of social vulnerability also have numerous weaknesses. Social vulnerability is
a complex, multi-dimensional phenomena, and therefore challenging to quantify. Additionally,
the study of its role in mediating natural hazard impacts is relatively recent and undeveloped. As
a result, theoretical or conceptual models of social vulnerability to natural hazards are both
limited and varied, and there is no consistent set of metrics or methodology for performing an
assessment. 31
This is significant because methodological choices can have a considerable impact on the
results obtained. Such choices include the indicators selected; weighting of indicators; methods
of comparison; aggregation techniques; and the scale of analysis. 32 A persistent problem is lack
of reliable, location-specific data about factors of social vulnerability: data availability can
determine what indicators are chosen, even if those are not the most accurate or comprehensive
indicators. 33
Further, all indices of social vulnerability require simplifying assumptions: clearly, not all persons
in a subpopulation that tends to experience social vulnerability are socially vulnerable; and not
all persons in a geographic area with high socially vulnerability are socially vulnerable. 34
26 Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 22; Enarson and Walsh, 2007. p. 4, 11; Adger et al., 2004. p. 13–14.
27 Andrey and Jones, 2008. p. 147–148; Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 11, 20; Adger et al., 2004. p. 29–30;
Cutter et al., 2009. p. 20.
28 Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 7–8; Dolan and Walker, 2003. p. 3; Adger et al., 2004. p. 30; Cutter et al., 2009.
p. 20.
29 Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 19.
30 Dwyer et al., 2004. p. 8.
31 Cutter et al., 2003. p. 244, 257; Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 12; Fussel, 2009. p. 28.
32 Fussel, 2009. p. 8; Cutter et al., 2009. p. 22.
33 Cutter et al., 2009. p. 13; Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 30.
34 Tapsell et al., 2010. p., 22–23, 29–30.
11

Social Determinants of Health Approach
A strong body of health and social sciences research has demonstrated that the primary factors
affecting health are not lifestyle choices or medical treatments, but the broader conditions that
shape people’s daily lives. 35 Examples include social conditions, work environments, housing
quality, food security, health and social services, and educational institutions. 36 This research is
accepted by leading international institutions such as the World Health Organization, and by the
Public Health Agency of Canada. 37 In fact, Canada was a leader in developing the population
health approach, starting in the 1970s. 38
The types of social, economic and physical factors that determine population health are closely
related to those that disaster management studies have linked to social vulnerability: people
require the same types of resources to be healthy as to cope with natural hazard impacts. 39
Recent studies performed at the Brandon University Department of Applied Disaster Studies,
and the Canadian Red Cross, therefore conclude that the social determinants of health are the
best measures of social vulnerability to natural hazard impacts. 40
Statistics Canada Census Data
As previously mentioned, this study uses data from the Census of Canada – a reliable and
readily accessible source. Where a social determinant of health cannot be directly measured,
this study calculates the prevalence of demographic characteristics associated with that social
determinant.
While Statistics Canada is a credible data source, there are limitations to Census data. Of
greatest concern is the lack of data for some factors of social vulnerability. This problem is
explored further under the heading Factors Not Included, in the List of Factors section of this
report. A lesser concern relates to data accuracy: many questions only appear on the long form
Census, which is distributed to only 20% of the population. Results from the long form Census
are rounded up or down to the nearest multiple of 5, and are assumed to be representative of
the entire population. Information may be suppressed in order to protect the privacy and
anonymity of respondents. Results are also suppressed in cases where the response rate to
either the long or short form Census is too low be considered representative for a given
dissemination area.
This issue raises a further difficulty with the use of Census data. Starting with the 2011
collection, the long form Census is no longer mandatory, raising concerns about response rates.
This is particularly problematic in regards to the availability of accurate data for an index of social
vulnerability, as socially vulnerable persons are less likely to fill out a voluntary Census. 41 In a
letter to the Prime Minister, Dr. Patti Groome, Canada Research Chair in Cancer Care
Evaluation, Department of Oncology at Queen’s University, stated that epidemiologists and
population researchers will no longer be able to use Census data because this information will
not be representative, and will no longer be accepted by the international research community
35 Ibid., p. 7.
36 Ibid.
37 World Health Organization, 2011.
38 Public Health Agency of Canada, 2003.
39 Lindsay, 2010. p. 292, 296–297; Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 48.
40 Enarson and Walsh, 2007. p. 24–25; Lindsay, 2010. p. 292.
41 Clark, 2010.
12

as providing valid information. She noted that this is of particular concern to research pertaining
to the social determinants of health. 42
Another limitation in using Census data relates to the size of dissemination areas. Dissemination
areas each have a population of approximately 250 people; as a result, they range widely in
geographic size, from very small in urban areas, to quite large in rural areas. The large size of
rural dissemination areas reduces the detail of spatial analysis that can be achieved in these
areas.
Finally, Census data cannot be used to gain insight into the interaction of various factors,
because Statistics Canada does not provide information about reposes to multiple different
questions. For example, it is not possible to determine the proportion of people who have low
income, no secondary education, and are lone parents; only independent information about each
statistic is provided.
List of Factors
The following factors, or indicators, comprise the index of social vulnerability developed for this
study. This section documents the basis in scholarship on assessments of social vulnerability to
natural hazards, and establishes its legitimacy in the Canadian context. The Census statistic
used to measure each indicator is identified. Where necessary, the Statistics Canada definition
of terms is provided. Appendix B contains a table listing supporting sources for the inclusion of
each indicator.
Low Income
Census Canada Statistic: Prevalence of low income in private households.
Statistics Canada Definition: “Percentage of economic families or persons not in economic
families who spend 20% more of their after-tax income than average on food, shelter and
clothing … These prevalence rates are calculated from unrounded estimates of
economic families and persons 15 years of age and over not in economic families.” 43
Socioeconomic status exerts a profound influence over the ability of individuals and households
to cope with the impacts of an extreme weather event. 44 Lack of wealth does not directly cause
social vulnerability; rather, it determines the level of people’s access to resources and services
that increase resilience to natural hazard impacts. 45 People with low income have less money to
spend on preventative measures, insurance, emergency supplies, and recovery efforts. While
poor people may have less to lose than the wealthy in monetary value, the losses they suffer are
nonetheless relatively greater, because it is more difficult for them to repair or replace lost
possessions. 46 People with low income have less access to communications and transportation
resources that may be crucial prior to or during an extreme weather event, and less ability to pay
for resources and services that may be in high demand after a disaster, such as
accommodations and clothing. 47 For these reasons, some measure of income is almost
universally included as an indicator in assessments of social vulnerability. 48
42 Groome, 2010.
43 Statistics Canada, 2009e.
44 Lindsay, 2010. p. 298.
45 Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 9.
46 Cutter et al., 2009. p. 20; Adger et al., 2004. p. 73; Cutter, 2003. p. 251; Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 16, 21.
47 Cutter et al., 2009. p. 20; Tapsell et al., 2010. p 22, 26.
48 Adger et al., 2004. p. 30; Cutter et al., 2003. p. 245; Cutter et al., 2009.
13

Income is predominant amongst the social determinants of health in Canada, due to its influence
on living conditions, psychological functioning, and health-related behaviours. 49 Perhaps most
importantly in relation to natural hazards, low income predisposes people to material and social
deprivation, limiting their ability to obtain potentially life-saving necessities such as food, clothing
and housing. 50 Additionally, Canadians with low income have diminished access to health
services: the bottom third of Canadian income earners are 40% more likely experience long wait
times, and 50% less likely to see a specialist when needed. They may also be unable to pay for
uninsured services such as prescription medication or home care. 51 Low income is a significant
factor in Canada, which has an increasing rate of poverty that is already one of the highest
amongst wealthy developed nations. 52
It is noteworthy that Census data regarding low income includes only those persons living in
private households. Statistics Canada collects only very basic information (such as name,
gender and age) from the residents of collective dwellings such as health care facilities, group
homes, shelters and temporary accommodations. 53
It is unfortunate for the purpose of this project that the income of residents of collective dwellings
is not available, as many of these people are likely to have low income. Some residents of
collective dwellings may experience high social vulnerability: institutionalized persons may be
marginalized, very young or very elderly, or suffer from disabling health problems; and
temporary residents may have limited social resources or familiarity with local weather patterns
or emergency procedures. It could be helpful for an index of social vulnerability to consider the
proportion of the population in such circumstances. However, the Statistics Canada category of
collective dwellings also includes residences such as work camps and military bases, whose
residents are less likely to experience social vulnerability. Therefore, the proportion of the
population that resides in collective dwellings is not usable as an indicator of social vulnerability.
Unemployment
Census Canada Statistic: Unemployment Rate.
Statistics Canada Definition: “Refers to the unemployed expressed as a percentage of the
labour force in the week (Sunday to Saturday) prior to Census Day (May 16, 2006).”
Unemployment rate = (unemployed / labour force) X 100. 54
Unemployment may be considered in social vulnerability assessments because of the obvious
link between employment and income; a secure job may provide the financial resources
necessary to invest in adaptive strategies, or withstand a period when income generation is
disturbed. 55 Conversely, unemployment may lead to material deprivation and poverty. 56
However, employment and unemployment have further implications. Regardless of income,
employment provides a social network, which is recognized as an important factor in
withstanding and recovering from a natural hazard, principally because social networks facilitate
49 Public Health Agency of Canada, 2003. p. 12.
50 Mikkonen and Raphael, 2010. p. 12.
51 Ibid., p. 38.
52 Ibid., p. 12, 30.
53 Statistics Canada, 2009a.
54 Statistics Canada, 2009f
55 Wall and Marzall, 2006. p. 385.
56 Mikkonen and Raphael, 2010. p. 17.
14

communication and collective action. 57 People in a social network may provide each other with
assistance, share resources, or even simply check on each other’s whereabouts and wellbeing.
Employment also provides psychological benefits: a sense of identity, and a structure for day-today
life. Lack of employment is associated with physical and mental health problems, as well as
reliance on unhealthy coping behaviours. 58 Insecure employment is also damaging: researchers
have noted negative effects on personal relationships, parenting effectiveness, and children’s
behavior. 59 These adverse effects are not limited to individuals and their families, but rather
impact communities as a whole. 60
Many Canadians experience unemployment and job insecurity: only half of working aged
Canadians have had a single full-time job for over six months; and the country ranks 26 th of 28
wealthy developed nations in an evaluation of rules and regulations that protect employment and
provide benefits to temporary workers. 61
Government Transfer Payments
Census Canada Statistic: Composition of Income - % Government Transfer Payments
Statistics Canada Definitions: “The composition of the total income of a population group or a
geographic area refers to the relative share of each income source or group of sources,
expressed as a percentage of the aggregate total income of that group or area.” 62
Government transfer payments “refers to all cash benefits received from federal,
provincial, territorial or municipal governments during 2005 … This variable is derived by
summing the amounts reported in: the Old Age Security pension and Guaranteed Income
Supplement, Allowance and Allowance for the Survivor; benefits from Canada or Quebec
Pension Plan; benefits from Employment Insurance; Child benefits; and other income
from government sources.” 63
Indices of social vulnerability may include a measure of dependence on the social safety net.
People who rely on public assistance for survival are likely to be both economically and socially
marginalized, and require additional support following a natural hazard. 64 Reliance on
government income limits people’s ability to rebuild or obtain alternate shelter following an event,
as well as their access to health care resources. 65
In comparison to other wealthy developed nations, Canada performs poorly in terms of
protections and supports provided by the government, such as family allowances, childcare,
unemployment insurance, health and social services, social assistance and disability benefits,
home care, and retirement provisions. In this area, Canada is ranked 24 th of 30 wealthy
developed nations. 66 Concerns in Canada include financial benefits too low to pay for adequate
lodging, food and heating; insufficient services such as counseling and training; and highly
restrictive eligibility requirements. 67 For example, only 40% of Canadians are eligible to receive
57 Dwyer et al., 2004. p. 23; Wall and Marzall, 2006. p. 381; Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 33.
58 Mikkonen and Raphael, 2010. p. 17.
59 Ibid.
60 Public Health Agency of Canada, 2003
61 Mikkonen and Raphael, 2010. p. 17.
62 Statistics Canada, 2009c.
63 Statistics Canada, 2009d.
64 Cutter et al., 2003. p. 249.
65 Andrey and Jones, 2008. p. 152.
66 Mikkonen and Raphael, 2010. p. 35.
67 Ibid., p. 36.
15

Employment Insurance benefits even though they pay into it. 68 A weak social safety net and
emphasis on individualism is harmful not only for those persons reliant on social services, but for
the population as a whole, due to reduced social cohesion and communal action – both
important factors in weathering the impacts of an extreme weather event. 69
Children & Seniors
Census Canada Statistics: Children: population aged 19 and under.
Seniors: population aged 65 and over.
These two demographic groups are among the most affected by disasters. 70 Both groups may
have limited capacity to respond in an emergency situation. The very young tend to experience
the greatest impacts in the response and recovery phases of a disaster: disruptions to normal
life have a significant psychological and physical impact of children. 71
Seniors may be affected by medical conditions associated with advanced age, such as reduced
mobility, sensory impairment, or confusion. These conditions may make it difficult or impossible
for an individual to receive, understand, and respond to warnings. 72 Seniors often have limited
financial means to help them manage the costs of preparing for or recovering from a natural
hazard. 73 The elderly also tend to be more reluctant to evacuate their homes, and experience
more distress at the idea of living in a group setting, even on a temporary basis. 74
Members of both of these demographic groups are more likely to require assistance, placing
additional demands on able-bodied adults, and limiting their ability to contribute to preventative
measures, evacuation procedures, or post-event recovery efforts. 75 Although these groups are
included in the index for similar reasons, they are each considered as separate indicators.
Seniors Living Alone
Census Canada Statistic: Number of persons not in census families aged 65 years and over,
living alone.
Statistics Canada Definition: (Persons over 65 in census families are by definition not living
alone. Census family “Refers to a married couple (with or without children of either or
both spouses), a couple living common-law (with or without children of either or both
partners) or a lone parent of any marital status, with at least one child living in the same
dwelling.”) 76
Seniors who live alone are exposed to a combination of factors that increase their level of risk to
natural hazards. In addition to those limitations that elderly persons may experience regardless
of their living situation, those living alone do not have the most immediate support network in a
disaster – the household. They may have less access to information about evacuations or
shelters, and struggle to manage all financial repercussions on their own. 77 Seniors who live
68 Ibid., p. 35.
69 Ibid., p. 36.
70 Cutter et al., 2003. p. 251.
71 Cutter et al., 2009. p. 21; Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 16.
72 Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 16; Dwyer et al., 2004. p. 21.
73 Wall and Marzall, 2006. p. 382; Dwyer et al., 2004. p. 21.
74 Cutter et al., 2009. p. 21–22..
75 Wall and Marzall, 2006. p. 382; Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 17.
76 Statistics Canada, 2009b.
77 Andrey and Jones, 2008. p. 151.
16

alone are particularly vulnerable if injured at home during an extreme weather event, or if they
lack emergency supplies or a heat source in cold climates. 78
Lone Parents
Census Canada Statistic: Total lone-parent families.
Lone parent households are commonly included in indices of social vulnerability. 79 These
households are at greater risk in a natural hazard because lone parents bear sole responsibility
for their household, and do not have access to the support network that a household of more
than one adult provides. 80 Single parents may be too busy caring for their children to engage
effectively in preparation, evacuation, or recovery; and reliance on a single income or social
assistance may limit their financial means. 81
These experiences hold true for single parents in Canada, where single mothers have the
highest poverty rates of any population subgroup, and the lack of universal childcare restricts
single parents’ ability to participate in other activities. 82
No Secondary Education
Census Canada Statistic: Total population 15 years and over with no certificate, diploma or
degree. Certificates, diplomas and degrees include secondary school graduation,
registered apprenticeship and trades, college, and university. 83
Low levels of education contribute to social vulnerability both directly and indirectly. People with
limited literacy may be unable to understand warnings about anticipated weather events, or
instructions regarding protective measures, evacuation procedures, or recovery assistance.
Education may facilitate a scientific understanding of the complex nature of natural hazards, and
of advanced warnings in the form of forecast data. 84
More generally, education can foster the ability to plan for future situations, such as climate
change impacts. 85 However, researchers also note that indigenous knowledge and informal
education may be equally useful as formal education in understanding and anticipating extreme
weather events. 86
Low education is also associated with poverty and marginalization. Because people with low
socio-economic status are less likely to have a political voice, governments may overlook their
welfare. 87
Education is among the Canadian social determinants of health, and is highly correlated with
other determinants, such as income, employment security and working conditions. 88 Education
provides better access to social and economic resources, as well as increasing understanding of
78 Dwyer et al., 2004, p. 24.
79 Tapsell et al., 2010, p. 29
80 Dwyer et al., 2004, p. 24.
81 Cutter et al., 2003, p. 248; Andrey and Jones, 2008. p.151; Tapsell et al., 2010. p.17.
82 Enarson and Walsh, 2007, p. 46.
83 Statistics Canada, 2010.
84 Adger et al., 2004. p, 75.
85 Wall and Marzall, 2006. p. 382.
86 Adger et al., 2004. p. 60.
87 Ibid.
88 Mikkonen and Raphael, 2010. p. 15; Public Health Agency of Canada, 2003.
17

actions individuals can take to improve their own situation. 89 The influence of education on social
well-being and health is enhanced by public policies that fail to ensure adequate income and
social services to all citizens: it plays a lesser role in social democratic welfare states that
provide these services, than in liberal welfare states such as Canada. 90 Although Canada
performs well relative to other developed nations in terms of education, low education is still a
significant concern: approximately one quarter of Canadians over the age of 15 have not
completed high school, 91 and more than 40% of adult workers have literacy below high school
equivalency. 92
No Knowledge of Official Languages
Census Canada Statistic: Total population by knowledge of official languages: Neither English
nor French.
The ability to speak the predominant local language is included in indices of social vulnerability
because this skill is necessary in order to understand communications regarding natural
hazards. These may include warnings, evacuation orders and instructions, and materials about
protective measures or recovery assistance. 93
Language barriers may also result in social exclusion and discrimination, further enhancing
vulnerability. 94
In Canada, people who are unable to speak either English or French may be at higher risk to
natural hazard impacts because they are unable to understand warnings and instructions, or due
to social exclusion.
Recent Immigrants
Census Canada Statistic: Total Recent Immigrants.
Statistics Canada Definition: “Recent immigrants are those who settled in Canada less than
five years ago. According to data from the 2006 Census, recent immigrants are those
who came to Canada between 2001 and 2006.” 95
Many indices of social vulnerability consider that immigrants who do not speak the predominant
local language, or that belong to a visible minority group, are more likely to experience social
vulnerability. 96 Lack of trust in government advice and warnings may also be problematic for
immigrants from some nations. 97
Recent immigrants to Canada may be unfamiliar with local weather patterns, lack knowledge of
available social and economic resources, or have limited social support networks. 98 Additionally,
recent immigrants are among those Canadians most likely to experience social exclusion and
89 Ibid.
90 Mikkonen and Raphael, 2010. p.15–16.
91 Statistics Canada, n.d.
92 ABC Life Literacy Canada, 2011.
93 Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 16; Dwyer et al., 2004. p. 24; Wall and Marzall, 2006. p. 384; Cutter et al. 2003.
p. 245; Enarson and Walsh, 2007. p. 11, 25–26.
94 Cutter et al. 2003. p. 246; Public Health Agency of Canada, 2003.
95 Statistics Canada, 2008.
96 Cutter et al., 2003. p. 246, 253; Cutter et al., 2009. p. 20.
97 Dwyer et al., 2004. p. 24.
98 Enarson and Walsh, 2007. p. 11, 31.
18

marginalization, limiting their access to important social and economic resources. 99 All of these
factors increase the social vulnerability of recent immigrants to Canada.
Visible Minorities
Census Canada Statistic: Total visible minority population.
Statistics Canada Definition: “Visible minority refers to whether a person belongs to a visible
minority group as defined by the Employment Equity Act and, if so, the visible minority
group to which the person belongs. The Employment Equity Act defines visible minorities
as "persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white
in colour." The visible minority population consists mainly of the following groups:
Chinese, South Asian, Black, Arab, West Asian, Filipino, Southeast Asian, Latin
American, Japanese and Korean.” 100
Indices of social vulnerability generally include indicators relating to visible minorities. 101 Some
studies use indicators of particular racial or ethnic groups relevant in a specific study area. 102
Visible minority populations may be socially vulnerable due to lack of access to resources, and
social, economic and political marginalization and discrimination. 103
In Canada, visible minorities in all provinces experience lower income, and higher
unemployment and underemployment than Canadians of European decent. Alarmingly, this
trend has increased rather than decreased in recent decades. 104 Additional experiences of
marginalization and discrimination include devaluation of language and culture, and lack of
access to culturally appropriate health care and services. 105
Aboriginal Persons
Census Canada Statistic: Total Aboriginal Identity Population.
Statistics Canada Definition: “Refers to those persons who reported identifying with at least
one Aboriginal group, that is, North American Indian, Métis or Inuit, and/or those who
reported being a Treaty Indian or a Registered Indian, as defined by the Indian Act of
Canada, and/or those who reported they were members of an Indian band or First
Nation.” 106
Aboriginal persons face a unique set of challenges rooted in their history of colonialization, and
are included in some indices of social vulnerability for this reason. 107 While these long-standing
conditions are rooted in historical events, they continue to be perpetuated: in 2007, the United
Nations General Assembly approved a Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
identifying measures national governments can take to improve the situation of Aboriginal
99 Mikkonen and Raphael, 2010. p. 32–33.
100 Statistics Canada, 2011c.
101 Cutter et al., 2009. p. 20–21; Cutter et al., 2003. p. 245.
102 Cutter et al., 2003. p. 254–255; Andrey and Jones, 2008. p.151.
103 Cutter et al., 2003. p. 253–254; Cutter et al., 2009. p. 20–21; Lindsay, 2010. p. 295; Enarson and
Walsh, 2007. p. 25–26, 31.
104 Mikkonen and Raphael, 2010. p. 47.
105 Public Health Agency of Canada, 2003.
106 Statistics Canada, 2007a.
107 Cutter et al., 2003. p. 253–254.
19

peoples. The four nations that voted against its adoption were all wealthy developed nations with
Aboriginal populations: Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. 108
In Canada, Aboriginal persons have an average income 30-40% lower than non-Aboriginal
persons, and approximately double the rate of unemployment and incidence of low income.
Aboriginal Canadians are also much more likely than other Canadians to experience food
insecurity, live in crowded or substandard housing, experience physical or mental illness, and
have a low level of education. 109 These patterns of exclusion and marginalization increase the
social vulnerability of Aboriginal persons in Canada. 110
Factors Not Included
The following portion of this report discusses factors of social vulnerability that are not included
in this index.
Gender is commonly identified as a factor of social vulnerability. 111 Gender is one of the
Canadian Social Determinants of Health, principally because women carry more responsibilities
caring for children and homemaking. 112 Women also experience economic and workplace
discrimination. Women in Canada are more likely to be employed in low-wage jobs, and earn
approximately 80% of the hourly wages of men for the same job. This gap is not lessening, and
has in fact increased somewhat in the past decade, placing Canada among the bottom four of
22 wealthy developed nations ranked for income equity. 113 Additionally, women are less likely to
have full time work or be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. However, as gender is
equally distributed throughout geographic areas in Canada, including gender as an indicator
adds little to an index of social vulnerability which purpose is to illustrate the spatial distribution
of vulnerability.
Disability is among the Canadian Social Determinants of Health. While this is in part due to the
physical or mental challenges that disabled persons experience, the main consideration in
including disability among the Determinants of Health is Canada’s limited willingness to provide
persons with disabilities the supports necessary to participate in Canadian life. 114 Canada ranks
27 th of 29 wealthy developed nations in regard to disability benefits, which fall well below the
poverty line in most cities. 115 As almost 15% of Canadians experience a disability, this is a
significant contributor to social vulnerability in Canada. 116
Disabilities of all forms are particularly challenging in the event of a natural hazard. People with
sensory disabilities (speech, hearing, vision) or mental disabilities are disadvantaged because
they are at greater risk of not receiving or understanding important communications, while those
with physical limitations may be unable to evacuate in an emergency, or participate in
preparation or recovery activities. 117 Interruption in required care is of concern for persons with
108 Mikkonen and Raphael, 2010. p. 42.
109 Ibid., 41–42.
110 Enarson and Walsh, 2007. p. 15.
111 Cutter et al., 2003. p. 246; Dwyer et al., 2004. p. 27; Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 6.
112 Mikkonen and Raphael, 2010. p. 44.
113 Ibid.
114 Ibid., 50.
115 Ibid.
116 Statistics Canada, 2007b
117 Dwyer et al., 2004. p. 25; Enarson and Walsh, 2007. p. 17–18.
20

disability in the event of a natural hazard: in the case of medically dependent persons (requiring
continual medical care or life-support for survival), this interruption could be life-threatening. 118
Clearly, disability is an important consideration in understanding social vulnerability to extreme
weather events. Unfortunately, Statistics Canada does not provide Census data about disability.
Although the Census does include a question about disability, this question has been used only
to determine the distribution of the Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS), which
releases information about disability only at a national level. Additionally, the PALS survey was
discontinued following the latest release in 2006. 119 As the index of social vulnerability proposed
in this study uses only readily available census data, it is therefore not possible to include
disability in the index - a very significant limitation. This study attempts to compensate for this
limitation by considering issues relating to disability in the consultations with people with local
knowledge of issues relevant to social vulnerability, discussed in the Consultations section of this
report.
Transient populations are a high-risk group in the event of a natural hazard. Temporary
residents of all types may be unfamiliar with local weather patterns, and lack social networks or
knowledge of emergency procedures and sources of assistance. Homeless people are among
those most vulnerable: they experience very high rates of low income, food insecurity,
marginalization, and both physical and mental illness. 120 Although basic Census information is
collected from homeless shelters about their residents, this information is not available at the
dissemination area level, and only accounts for homeless persons residing at shelters when the
Census is performed. Therefore, while homeless populations are important in understanding
social vulnerability, and their needs must be considered in emergency management planning, it
was not possible to include homeless persons in this index of social vulnerability.
While the inclusion of indicators relating to disability, medical dependence, and homelessness
would certainly improve the index of social vulnerability, their omission may not, in fact,
undermine the overall results. In a 1996 study comparing socioeconomic and health indices in
the province of Manitoba, changes in the indicators selected, and the scale at which the index
was applied, did not yield inconsistent results. The authors noted that similar studies performed
in England reached the same conclusion. 121
A final consideration is that some indices of social vulnerability to climate change impacts
include indicators about the built environment. For example, indices may include dwelling type,
as some types of dwellings are less resistant to specific hazards, such as flooding, than
others. 122 These types of indicators are not included in this study, so that the index may be used
for multiple different hazard types, as well as for purposes not related to natural hazards.
Weighting of Indicators
Most indices of social vulnerability do not apply weights to the vulnerability indicators used, but
rather assume that all variables considered have an equal contribution to social vulnerability. 123
Generally, this choice is made due to the absence of defensible criteria for applying weights to
indicators. 124 Most researchers acknowledge that in fact, different indicators of vulnerability will
118 Enarson and Walsh, 2007. p. 17.
119 Clark, 2010.
120 Mikkonen and Raphael, 2010. p. 29; Enarson and Walsh, 2007. p. 15, 47.
121 Frohlich and Mustard, 1996. p. 1275, 1277.
122 Cutter et al., 2003. p. 245–247.
123 Dwyer et al., 2004. p. 18; Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 31.
124 Cutter et al., 2003. p. 254.
21

e more or less significant in different circumstances, and that the factors contributing to
vulnerability are complexly inter-related. 125
Those studies that do apply weight to different indicators rely on complex statistical procedures
that are difficult to communicate to non-specialists; therefore, the results of these studies may
easily be misinterpreted. 126 It is also important to note that this type of statistical method does
not find those factors that contribute most to social vulnerability. Rather, it simplifies the
mathematical model used to calculated social vulnerability by observing correlations between
various indicators: variables with similar spatial patterns are grouped together, and only the
variable in each grouping that exerts the most influence on spatial distribution is considered in
the index of social vulnerability. This allows a small number of variables to be considered in the
index, yet achieves similar results to an index using a much greater number of variables. Again,
this is a simplifying statistical technique, not a measurement of which variables have the most
influence on social vulnerability.
Another technique is to weight indicators according to an understanding of the importance of
certain indicators. 127 This study applies double weighting to the low income indicator, based on
an extensive review of literature regarding assessments of social vulnerability, and the Canadian
Social Determinants of Health.
Income is frequently acknowledged as the most significant contributor to social vulnerability;
some even ask if it is possible to differentiate between social and economic vulnerability. 128 In
Canada, socioeconomic status is also recognized as the most fundamental social determinant of
health. 129 This is in part due to the fact that income determines the quality of other social
determinants of health. “Low income predisposes people to material and social deprivation. The
greater the deprivation, the less likely individuals and families are able to afford the basic
prerequisites of health such as food, clothing, and housing. Deprivation also contributes to social
exclusion by making it harder to participate in cultural, educational, and recreational activities.” 130
Income is so significant in determining health that the rationale in selecting many of the other
social determinants of health relates to income: women, visible minorities and immigrants,
Aboriginal persons, disabled persons, unemployed persons, and those with low levels of
education, are all more likely than other Canadians to have low income, and therefore suffer
material deprivation, social exclusion, and higher rates of physical and mental illness. 131
Economic security becomes especially important in the event of a natural hazard, because
disposable income is necessary for people to take action in anticipating, coping with, and
recovering from impacts. 132 Low income is a significant concern in Canada, where approximately
one in ten citizens live below the Low Income Cut-Off, and the earnings gap between the rich
and the poor has reached a three-decade high and continues to rise more quickly than in the
United States. 133
125 Adger et al., 2004. p. 22–23, 93; Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 20.
126 Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 32.
127 Dwyer et al., 2004. p. 18; Cutter et al., 2009. p. 23.
128 Lindsay, 2010. p. 298; Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 5–6, 33; Adger et al., 2004. p. 74; Enarson and Walsh,
2007. p. 11.
129 Scott and Lessard, 2007.
130 Mikkonen and Raphael, 2010. p. 12.
131 Ibid., p. 15, 17, 32, 41, 44–45, 46–47, 50–51.
132 Enarson and Walsh, 2007. p. 11.
133 Statistics Canada, 2011b.
22

The prevalence of low income is a particularly useful indicator because of the manner in which
Statistics Canada calculates this statistic: “Low income cut-offs (LICOs) are intended to convey
the income level at which a family may be in straitened circumstances because it has to spend a
greater portion of its income on the basics (food, clothing and shelter) than does the average
family of similar size. The LICOs vary by family size and by size of community.” 134 Therefore, this
statistic helps to take into account factors relevant to social vulnerability that the Census does
not measure directly – such as food security.
Consultations
The consultations performed for this study form an independent methodological approach from
the index of social vulnerability; the insight of consultees helped to ensure, however, that the
indicators selected were appropriate for application in the District of Lunenburg, and that
indicators relevant in the local context had not been overlooked.
Consultation with community members, representatives of local service organizations, and
decision-makers is qualitative method advocated by researchers who prefer a community-based
approach to assessing social vulnerability. 135 This type of approach is particularly suited to rural
areas where social vulnerability is likely to be dispersed throughout the study area, rather than
concentrated in particular neighbourhoods, as is common for urban areas.
Ethical Issues
Ethical issues in this project mainly relate to concerns about labeling population subgroups or
geographic areas as socially vulnerable. While mapping the results of an index of social
vulnerability is an important communication tool for illustrating why prioritization is necessary in
emergency management and impact mitigation, vulnerability maps do have drawbacks, in that
they can lead to stigmatization: it is important to emphasize that not all people living in a highrisk
area are socially vulnerable. 136 It is also important to recall that not all members of a socially
vulnerable population subgroup are socially vulnerable.
Additionally, social vulnerability is not a negative judgment, but rather an observation that certain
individuals and groups are more likely to experience hardships, and may be at higher risk in an
extreme event. For example, there is clearly nothing wrong with children or being a child;
children are simply at higher risk when a natural hazard occurs. Finally, social vulnerability is not
a personal choice or failure: people are not socially vulnerable because of anything they do or do
not do. Rather, they are socially vulnerable because of political, social and economic structures
and forces that are beyond their control.
For these reasons, Drs. Enarson and Walsh recommend the term ‘high risk’ over ‘vulnerable’ in
order to emphasize the purpose of the classification (identifying those who may require
assistance) rather than conveying a judgment of personal characteristics. They also not that the
word ‘vulnerable’ may convey ideas of neediness and dependence, while in fact, members of
socially vulnerable groups have many strengths and capacities. 137 ‘Socially vulnerable’ is used in
this study, however, in order to remain consistent with the predominant terminology used in
research on the topic.
134 Statistics Canada, 2011a.
135 Wall and Marzall, 2006; Ford et al., 2009.
136 Cutter et al., 2009. p. 24; Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 59–60..
137 Enarson and Walsh, 2007. p. 24.
23

A final concern, common to a great deal of work on climate change impacts, relates to the idea
of fear-mongering. The purpose of this research is not to generate fear about the negative
impacts of climate change; rather, it is to empower communities with the knowledge necessary
to take proactive measures to reduce adverse impacts. Communities are not helpless in face of
climate change impacts.
Results and Findings
Findings from the research are presented in six sections as follows:
overview of the field observations;
identification of social vulnerability independent from storm surge impacts. This
discussion includes two components: the spatial distribution of social vulnerability
amongst all dissemination areas; and the strengths and weaknesses of each individual
dissemination area. It is helpful to consider patterns of social vulnerability throughout the
study area. Although the storm surge scenarios illustrate the extent of storm surge
inundation, they do not illustrate the other impacts that occur in the conditions that cause
storm surge, such as strong winds and rain, which could affect the entire study area.
Additionally, the results from the index of social vulnerability help to provide a better
understanding of the overall context. Lastly, these findings may be useful for other
applications not considered in this report, such as social vulnerability to other climate
change impacts like increased rainfall flooding, or for purposes completely unrelated to
climate change, such as directing funding for social programs. Both the spatial
distribution of social vulnerability, and the strengths and weaknesses of each
dissemination area, are discussed. This is an important step to facilitate the analysis of
potential storm surge impacts that follows, as various population subgroups may have
different needs during different phases of the disaster cycle. 138
overlay of the storm surge scenarios with mapped social vulnerability. The overlay
demonstrates the intersection of socially vulnerable populations and areas with possible
storm surge impacts;
potential impacts from storm surge on community organizations that serve socially
vulnerable people;
municipal planning policies and practices as they relate to issues of social vulnerability;
and
themes and highlights from the consultations with persons possessing knowledge
relevant to social vulnerability in the District of Lunenburg.
Study Area Description
Figure 2 locates the District of Lunenburg in Lunenburg County on Nova Scotia’s ‘South Shore’.
The District is described in detail in Part 1 Introduction and Background, to this report series on
the District of Lunenburg ACAS projects.
138 Ibid., p. 26; Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 15–18, 45–46.
24

Field Observations
Travelling through the District, homes of many types, sizes, and conditions are visible: large and
luxurious, modest and well cared-for, and a small proportion of homes in disrepair. While some
older homes are lovingly restored, a few appear weathered and in need of maintenance. These
different types of homes are spread throughout the District, with few distinct areas displaying
exclusively either wealth or poverty.
The smaller communities along the District’s coast, such as Riverport, Kingsburg, Rose Bay, the
LaHaves, Petite Riviere, Green Bay, and Broad Cove, appear relatively prosperous, with
evidence of new development, flourishing local businesses, and abundant tourism. Particularly
on the Kingsburg Peninsula, a significant proportion of recently-constructed homes appear to be
high-end custom homes. The larger community of Bridgewater, an independent municipality, but
also the geographic location of government and administration buildings for the District of
Lunenburg, is pleasant but less picturesque, with many homes and services to meet the needs
of a working-class population.
Figure 2: The Municipality of the District of Lunenburg is located on the south shore of Nova
Scotia and is within the County of Lunenburg. It is bordered to the east by the Municipality of the
District of Chester and surrounds the towns of A) Bridgewater, B) Lunenburg, and C) Mahone
Bay (Data Source: Province of Nova Scotia).
Coastal development includes both historic and recently-constructed homes very close to the
ocean shoreline and to the LaHave River. In some areas, particularly around the Kingsburg
Peninsula, homes are located in close proximity to eroding drumlin cliffs, or amongst low-lying
sand dunes.
25

Rural roads throughout the District lead through spectacular scenery. Many are located directly
on the coast, very close to sea level; they are, in fact, the shoreline. In some locations, long
roads lead to only one or two isolated residences. Some of these less-populated roads are
cracked, uneven and potholed.
In many locations both along the coast, such as the Stonehurst/Blue Rocks area, along the
LaHave River, and Green Bay, rock armouring has been placed to protect roads and residences.
In some areas, storm damage to this armouring is clearly visible.
The road and powerlines on the narrow Crescent Beach leading to the LaHave Islands are close
to sea level and appear precarious and highly exposed. Wooden cribbing and rose bushes are in
place to help stabilize the fragile sand dunes.
Summary of Field Observations
Field observations performed in the District of Lunenburg do not provide conclusive knowledge
of social vulnerability. They suggest, however, the potential for loss of access or loss of electrical
power to island and peninsular communities, or that new residents may have limited awareness
of the hazards of locating directly on the coast, and are concerns relevant to climate change
impacts in the study area. Field observations also suggest that households and individuals with
lower socioeconomic status are dispersed throughout the area, rather than being concentrated
in particular communities or areas.
Index of Social Vulnerability
The following section discusses the results of the index of social vulnerability. The level of social
vulnerability in each dissemination area is calculated by measuring the prevalence of each factor
of social vulnerability as a percentage of the total population, and expressing that percentage by
the number of standard deviations that it falls above or below the mean for Nova Scotia.
Because all statistics used in the study measure proportion of the population that experiences a
characteristic that increases social vulnerability, higher scores always indicate greater social
vulnerability.
The results are expressed visually by grouping them into seven equal categories (Table 1),
which are each assigned a colour in a range from red (high vulnerability) to green (low
vulnerability).
Level of Social Vulnerability Standard Deviations from Corresponding Colour
the Mean
Very High +1.25 or more Red
High +0.75 to +1.249 Dark Orange
Above Average +0.25 to +0.749 Light Orange
Average -0.25 to +0.249 Yellow
Below Average -0.25 to -0.749 Light Green
Low -0.749 to -1.249 Medium Green
Very Low -1.25 or more Dark Green
Table 1: Index of Social Vulnerability Classifications
26

Average results for Nova Scotia are used as the baseline to provide a justifiable basis for
describing vulnerability as low or high – such classifications require a point of comparison.
However, in order to fully understand the significance of the results, it is important to keep in
mind what these average results for Nova Scotia are.
The average results amongst all dissemination areas in Nova Scotia, for each indicator, are as
follows (Table 2):
Indicator Average Standard Deviation
Low Income 9.05% 9.26%
Government Transfer Payments 16.24% 8.85%
Unemployment 9.88% 7.13%
Children 22.63% 6.18%
Seniors 15.65% 8.28%
Seniors Alone 4.28% 3.69%
Lone Parent Families 17.32% 11.21%
No Secondary Education 27.43% 11.80%
Language (Neither English nor
French) 0.14% 0.86%
Recent Immigrants 0.67% 2.06%
Visible Minorities 3.72% 7.04%
Aboriginal Identity 2.96% 10.80%
Table 2: Average Prevalence of Indicators of Social Vulnerability in Nova Scotia
The results of the index of social vulnerability are explored in the following sections. First, the
Profile by Indicator section presents the geographic distribution of social vulnerability using
choropleth mapping. Then, a profile of social vulnerability for each dissemination area is
presented using vector diagrams in the Profile by Dissemination Area section.
Profile by Indicator
This section describes the distribution of social vulnerability by indicator amongst dissemination
areas in the District of Lunenburg.
Table 3 shows all indices of social vulnerability data for the District of Lunenburg.
27

Table 3: Index of Social Vulnerability Results for the District of Lunenburg. Colours indicate
relative vulnerability, moving from very high (red) to very low (green) social vulnerability.
28

Next, the results from Table 3 are displayed using choropleth mapping. Overall social
vulnerability (aggregated for all indicators) in the District is presented in the map in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Overall Social Vulnerability in the District of Lunenburg.
29

Social Vulnerability scores in the District range from Below Average to Above Average. As a
general pattern overall, Average and Below Average social vulnerability prevails throughout the
District. One of the few exceptions to this pattern is Dissemination Area 117 (the La Have
Islands and the lower La Have River area) which exhibits above average vulnerability when all
vulnerability indicators are considered together. The result for this area should be of particular
interest to the municipality in the context of examining social vulnerability to coastal climate
change impacts.
The maps for each indicator of social vulnerability, accompanied by a description of the indicator
and the pattern for each indicator are provided in Appendix C. The maps suggest that the Above
Average social vulnerability in District 117 derives from vulnerability of a higher proportion of
seniors
Profile by Dissemination Area
Table 4 presents all indices calculated for social vulnerability for the District of Lunenburg. In this
table, the axes are transposed in order to better illustrate the range of scores present in each
dissemination area, rather than the range of scores for each indicator amongst the various
dissemination areas.
Table 4: Index of Social Vulnerability Results for the District of Lunenburg (Enlarge this table
with Word View – Zoom Function for improved legibility).
30

Figure 4. Social Vulnerability in the District of Lunenburg by indicators averaged for all
dissemination areas.
Figure 4 visually presents social vulnerability by indicators averaged across all dissemination
areas in the District. Extensions of the radar arms toward the outer perimeter indicate increasing
vulnerability (Above Average, High and Very High) for those indicators. Contractions of the
radar arms toward the centre of the diagram indicate decreasing vulnerability (Below Average,
Low and Very Low) for those indicators.
The overall pattern suggests Average or Below Average social vulnerability through most
indicators in the District. ‘No Secondary Education’ is the one indicator that shows a Higher than
Average prevalence which thus contributes to Higher than Average vulnerability based on that
indicator. Others, however, have Lower than Average prevalence including ‘Visible Minorities’,
‘Children’, ‘Lone Parent Families’, ‘Low Income’.
The radar charts for each dissemination area, independently, are presented in Appendix D. Here
it is evident that this average pattern displayed in Figure 3 is not carried through for each
dissemination area. The higher proportion of ‘Seniors’, in particular, as well as ‘Seniors living
Alone’, in some dissemination areas is contributing to social vulnerability in those areas.
31

Social Vulnerability to Sea Level Rise and Storm Surge in 2025
The following section presents the results of interpreting social vulnerability in the context of sea
level rise inundation and storm surge flooding for year 2025.
Details for sea level rise inundation and storm flooding for the District of Lunenburg are
described in detail in Part 2, Section 1 of this report. In summary, the scenarios are:
Scenario A: Local Subsidence + Global Sea Level Rise – predicted 0.18 metres.
Scenario B: Relative Sea Level Rise + Higher High Water at Large Tide + 100 Year
Return Period Storm Surge - for a total of 2.89 m.
Scenario C: Relative Sea Level Rise + Higher High Water at Large Tide + Benchmark
Storm Surge - for a total of 3.47m..
The spatial impact of the flooding is considered according to properties that are either inundated
(building flooded), or isolated (flooding surrounding the building or area on all sides, blocking all
land transportation routes).
Once dissemination areas are identified, the implications of the results from the index of social
vulnerability are explored. A brief explanation of that interpretation is as follows:
Various socially vulnerable groups may have different areas of need, at various phases before,
during and after a natural hazard. These needs fall into four main categories: education,
communication, evacuation, and overall need. The following discussion, based on information
from the Indicator Selection section of this report, explains these categories of need.
Education:
Some populations may be less aware of natural hazard risks, or have difficulty understanding
informative materials. Where these populations are prevalent, it will be important to ensure that
all residents receive educational materials that are clear and understandable to them.
Seniors are more likely than other age groups to experience sensory or cognitive
limitations that will make it difficult for them to understand educational material.
Residents with low education may have difficulty understanding scientific terminology, or
reading material that uses complex language or that is not illustrated.
Residents that do not speak English or French may be unable to understand educational
materials.
Recent immigrants may be unfamiliar with local weather hazards.
Communication:
Certain socially vulnerable groups may be unable to understand warnings about extreme
weather events, or evacuation orders. Where these groups are prevalent, it will be necessary to
tailor such communications to the abilities of the local population, or seek alternative methods of
notifying residents about natural hazards and emergency procedures.
32

Seniors are more likely than other age groups to experience sensory or cognitive
limitations that make it difficult for them to understand warnings and evacuation orders.
Residents with low education may have difficulty understanding scientific terminology or
complex language. Those with low literacy may be unable to understand written
communications that are not illustrated.
Residents that do not speak English or French may be unable to understand written or
verbal communications.
Evacuation:
Evacuation can be crucial to preventing unnecessary losses. Some populations may have
difficulty with evacuation because they lack a personal vehicle or have limited mobility. It is
important to consider the transportation needs of these groups in emergency management
plans.
Seniors are more likely than other age groups to have limited mobility.
Residents with limited financial resources are less likely to own a personal vehicle.
Marginalized groups often experience low income, and would therefore also be less likely
to own a vehicle. These groups include residents with low income; residents that rely on
government transfer payments; residents that are unemployed; lone parent families;
persons with low education; persons with no knowledge of either official language; recent
immigrants; visible minorities; and residents with Aboriginal identity.
Overall:
Some residents will require assistance in all phases of the hazard cycle: in preparation; during
the event; and in recovery.
Residents with limited resources may be unable to invest in protective measures,
insurance, emergency supplies, an alternate power or heat source, or repairs following a
natural hazard. Populations that are likely to have limited financial resources include:
those with low income; residents that rely on government transfer payments; residents
that are unemployed; seniors; lone parent families; persons with low education; persons
with no knowledge of either official language; recent immigrants; visible minorities; and
residents with Aboriginal identity.
Families with children, particularly lone parent families, may be too busy looking after
their children to be involved in efforts to prepare for, withstand, or recover from an
extreme weather event.
Seniors have an increased incidence of sensory, cognitive, and physical limitations, and
may require assistance preparing for, withstanding, and recovering from a natural
hazard.
Table 5 summarizes the explanations above. The table is an example to illustrate the
interpretations that follow. In the discussion of impacts on various dissemination areas, this
table, with an added column indicating the prevalence of each indicator, presents aspects of
vulnerability that are likely to require attention in that dissemination area.
33

Table 5: Example of Interpreting Indicators and Areas Requiring Attention
Sea Level Rise and Storm Surge Scenario Impacts
The majority of the District of Lunenburg’s dissemination areas are inland and will not be
affected by sea level rise and storm surge. Unfortunately, the LiDAR data set used to generate
the sea level rise and storm surge scenarios for the ACAS projects does not cover the entire
coastline of the Municipality. Therefore, some coastal sections that are likely to experience sea
level rise and storm surge impacts are not included in the sea level rise and storm surge
scenarios, presented in Part 2, Section 1 of this report. These areas include portions of Second
Peninsula, Heckmans Island, the Stonehurst/Blue Rocks area, the LaHave Islands, and Tancook
Island.
The map in Figure 5 illustrates the spatial relationship between overall vulnerability (from Figure
3) and coastal flooding by the year 2025 in the coastal dissemination areas (or sections of them)
located in the LiDAR swath provided through the ACAS project. The area depicted here centres
on Riverport-Kingsburg (DAs 115-118).
34

Figure 5. Storm Surge Scenarios in the District of Lunenburg
35

Impacts on Residential Properties
Scenario A: Local Subsidence + Global Sea Level Rise = 0.17 metres
In this scenario, dissemination areas 113 and 117 are affected.
Dissemination Area 113: 1 building inundated
Dissemination Area 117: 3 buildings inundated, 120 isolated
Access routes impacted include:
Bridge access from Indian Path to Bayport
The Riverport Bridge
The Petite Riviere Bridge
Several bridges between and amongst Crescent Beach and the LaHave Islands
While alternate routes to the Kingsburg Peninsula exist, access to the LaHave Islands is lost in
this scenario, resulting in the isolation of island residents.
Scenario B: Relative Sea Level Rise + Higher High Water at Large Tide + 100 Year Return
Period Storm Surge - 2.89m.
Under this scenario the following dissemination areas are impacted:
Dissemination Area 113: 7 buildings inundated; 476 isolated
Dissemination Area 114: 6 buildings inundated; 2 isolated
Dissemination Area 115: 33 buildings inundated; 376 isolated
Dissemination Area 116: 58 buildings isolated
Dissemination Area 117: 54 buildings inundated; 395 isolated
Dissemination Area 118: 31 buildings inundated; 503 isolated
Dissemination Area 119: 1 building inundated; 6 isolated
Dissemination Area 120: 7 buildings inundated; 29 isolated
Dissemination Area 135: 17 buildings inundated; 103 isolated
Dissemination Area 154: 1 building inundated; 23 isolated
Affected Access routes include:
Portions of Oakland Road in the Mahone Bay area
Portions of Indian Point Road
Portions of Mader’s Cove Road
Bridge access from Indian Path to Bayport
The Riverport Bridge
36

The Petite Riviere Bridge
Several bridges between and amongst Crescent Beach and the LaHave Islands
Portions of Drews Hill Road
Portions of Green Bay Road
Portions of Bear Trap Road
Portions of Beach Road
Scenario C: Relative Sea Level Rise + Higher High Water at Large Tide + Benchmark Storm
Surge = 3.47m.
Under this scenario, the following dissemination areas are impacted:
Dissemination Area 113: 17 buildings inundated; 492 isolated
Dissemination Area 114: 6 buildings inundated; 2 isolated
Dissemination Area 115: 51 buildings inundated; 378 buildings isolated
Dissemination Area 116: 3 buildings inundated; 78 isolated
Dissemination Area 117: 98 buildings inundated; 435 isolated
Dissemination Area 118: 57 buildings inundated; 503 isolated
Dissemination Area 119: 4 buildings inundated; 96 isolated
Dissemination Area 120: 15 buildings inundated; 29 isolated
Dissemination area 135: 20 buildings inundated; 132 isolated
Dissemination Area 154: 1 building inundated; 66 isolated
Affected Access routes include:
Portions of Oakland Road, in the Mahone Bay area
Portions of Indian Point Road
Portions of Mader’s Cove Road
Areas of road near the intersection of Edgewater Street, Oakland Road, and Jane’s
Road, requiring a detour around the Town of Mahone Bay
Bridge access from Indian Path to Bayport
The Riverport Bridge
The Petite Riviere Bridge
Portions of Petite Riviere Road
Several bridges between and amongst Crescent Beach and the LaHave Islands
Portions of Blueberry Hill Road
37

Portions of Bayview Road
Portions of Gates Bay Road
Portions of Bear Trap Road
Portions of Beach Road
Impacts on Non-Residential Properties
In addition to residential properties, a number of commercial, industrial and marine facilities are
impacted. These include restaurants, stores, wharves, and fisheries-related infrastructure,
including a High Liner Foods fish plant. Damage to these businesses and facilities could result in
the interruption in or loss of employment for residents, thereby increasing their social
vulnerability.
The maps in Appendix E illustrate these spatial patterns of vulnerability.
Areas outside the LiDAR-Generated Scenarios:
LiDAR data were unavailable for portions of Dissemination areas 114 and 115. In those areas,
the 5 metre contour – the contour closest to the storm surge predicted in Scenario C – serves as
a surrogate for a flood scenario zone. A number of properties have residences situated below 5
metres elevation.
Dissemination Area 113 has 16 buildings located below 5 metres in elevation.
Dissemination Area 114 has 248 buildings located below 5 metres in elevation; access
routes servicing 412 buildings are located below 5 metres in elevation.
Dissemination Area 117 has 27 buildings located below 5 metres in elevation; loss of
access to buildings in this area is already accounted for in scenarios A-C.
Dissemination Area 135 has 2 buildings located below 5 metres in elevation.
Assessment of Affected Dissemination Areas
This section interprets the aspects of vulnerability that are likely to require attention in each
dissemination area moving from Mahone Bay south along the coast to Voglers Cove.
Dissemination Area 135
Under Scenario B, 17 buildings in DA 135 are inundated, and 103 are isolated.
Under Scenario C, 20 buildings in DA 135 are inundated, and 132 are isolated.
DA 135 has 2 buildings located below 5 metres in elevation.
Dissemination area 135 has Average overall social vulnerability, with indicator scores ranging
from Low to Very High.
While this area has Below Average levels of low income and unemployment, a High level
of family income comes from government transfer payments.
38

This may reflect the Very High proportion of seniors, who rely on retirement pensions and
Old Age Security payments. A Below Average proportion of residents in dissemination
area 135 are seniors living alone.
This area has a Low proportion of children, and an Average proportion of lone parent
families.
An Above Average proportion of residents in the area have no secondary education.
This area has an Average level of residents who speak neither English nor French, and
Below Average level of recent immigrants, visible minorities, and persons with Aboriginal
identity.
Dissemination area 135 has Average to Low scores for most indicators of social vulnerability.
The Very High proportion of seniors are likely to require assistance in all stages of a natural
disaster, as will those relying on government transfer payments, regardless of age: these
residents may have a reduced ability to invest in protective measures; emergency supplies such
as food, fuel or alternative heat sources; and are less likely to own a private vehicle for
evacuation.
Due to the Above Average level of residents without secondary education, it will be important
that communications and warnings be clearly worded, and avoid scientific terminology or jargon.
Fortunately, the small proportion of recent immigrants suggests that many residents will be
familiar with local weather patterns.
Dissemination Area 135
Areas Requiring Attention
Indicator and Score
Low Income Below Average
Government Transfers High x x
Unemployment Below Average
Children Low
Seniors Very High x x x x
Seniors Alone Below Average
Lone Parent Families Average
No Secondary Education Above Average x x x x
Language Average
Recent Immigrants Below Average
Visible Minorities Below Average
Aboriginal Identity Below Average
Overall
Average
Education: Requirement for extra emphasis on education, or specialized
educational materials.
Communication: Requirement for specialized communications strategies.
Education
Communication
Evacuation: Need to consider evacuation requirements for residents without a
personal vehicle or with limited mobility.
Overall: Requirement for assistance in all phases of the hazard cycle.
Table 6. Areas Requiring Attention – Dissemination Area 135
Evacuation
Overall
39

Dissemination Area 154
Under Scenario B, 1 building in DA 154 is inundated, and 23 are isolated.
Under Scenario C, 1 building in DA 154 is inundated, and 66 are isolated.
This dissemination area has Below Average overall social vulnerability, with scores ranging from
Very Low to Average.
Dissemination area 154 has Average levels of low income, and Below Average levels of
unemployment and reliance on government transfer payments.
The area has an Average proportion of seniors, and Below Average proportion of
residents who are seniors living alone.
A Very Low proportion of residents are children, and a Low proportion of families have a
single parent.
An Average level of residents speak neither English nor French, while Below Average
levels have no secondary education, or are recent immigrants, visible minorities, or have
Aboriginal identity.
Dissemination area 154 has no areas of great concern in the event of a natural hazard. While
the levels of seniors and persons with low income are Average for Nova Scotia, this nonetheless
represents a significant proportion of the population; therefore, residents in this dissemination
area may require assistance preparing for, enduring and recovering from a natural hazard, due
to limited resources or physical limitations.
Dissemination Area 154
Areas Requiring Attention
Indicator and Score
Low Income Average
Government Transfers Below Average
Unemployment Below Average
Children Very Low
Seniors Average
Seniors Alone Below Average
Lone Parent Families Low
No Secondary Education Below Average
Language Average
Recent Immigrants Below Average
Visible Minorities Below Average
Aboriginal Identity Below Average
Overall
Below Average
Education: Requirement for extra emphasis on education, or specialized
educational materials.
Communication: Requirement for specialized communications strategies.
Education
Communication
Evacuation: Need to consider evacuation requirements for residents without a
personal vehicle or with limited mobility.
Overall: Requirement for assistance in all phases of the hazard cycle.
Evacuation
Overall
40

Table 7. Areas Requiring Attention – Dissemination Area 154
Dissemination Area 158
No buildings are impacted in DA 158.
Dissemination area 158 has Below Average overall social vulnerability. Indicator scores range
from Low to High.
This area has Below Average levels of low income, Low unemployment, and Average
levels of income from government transfer payments.
Dissemination area 158 has a High level of seniors, but a Low level of seniors living
alone.
A Below Average proportion of residents are children, while a Low proportion of families
are lone parent families.
An Average proportion of residents have no secondary education or speak neither
English nor French, while a Below Average proportion are recent immigrants, visible
minorities, or have Aboriginal identity.
Social vulnerability in this dissemination area is minimal; the High proportion of seniors is the
only area in which special attention is required. Senior residents may require assistance in all
stages of the natural hazard cycle.
Dissemination Area 158
Areas Requiring Attention
Indicator and Score
Low Income Below Average
Government Transfers Average
Unemployment Low
Children Below Average
Seniors High x x x x
Seniors Alone Low
Lone Parent Families Low
No Secondary Education Average
Language Average
Recent Immigrants Below Average
Visible Minorities Below Average
Aboriginal Identity Below Average
Overall
Below Average
Education: Requirement for extra emphasis on education, or specialized
educational materials.
Communication: Requirement for specialized communications strategies.
Education
Communication
Evacuation: Need to consider evacuation requirements for residents without a
personal vehicle or with limited mobility.
Overall: Requirement for assistance in all phases of the hazard cycle.
Table 8. Areas Requiring Attention – Dissemination Area 158
Evacuation
Overall
41

Dissemination Area 113
Under Scenario B, 17 buildings in DA 113 are inundated, and 476 are isolated.
Under Scenario C, 17 buildings in DA 113 are inundated, and 492 are isolated.
DA 113 has 16 buildings located below 5 metres in elevation.
This dissemination area has Average overall social vulnerability, with indicator scores ranging
from Low to Very high.
This area has Average levels of low income, Above Average levels of unemployment,
and Below Average proportions of income from government transfer payments.
A Low proportion of residents are children or live in lone parent families.
A Very High proportion of residents are seniors, with an Above Average proportion of
residents being seniors living alone.
While a Below Average level of residents have no secondary education, an Average level
speak neither English nor French, and an Above Average level are recent immigrants.
A Below Average proportion of residents are visible minorities or have Aboriginal identity.
Income and unemployment are average or near average for dissemination area 113 but higher
proportions of seniors and seniors living alone indicate a significant population that will require
assistance throughout all stages of the hazard cycle. Recent immigrants may lack knowledge
and experience of hazard risks, and therefore require education about these dangers.
Dissemination Area 113
Areas Requiring Attention
Indicator and Score
Low Income Average
Government Transfers Below Average
Unemployment Above Average x x
Children Low
Seniors Very High x x x x
Seniors Alone Above Average x x x x
Lone Parent Families Low
No Secondary Education Below Average
Language Average
Recent Immigrants Above Average x x x
Visible Minorities Below Average
Aboriginal Identity Below Average
Overall
Average
Education: Requirement for extra emphasis on education, or specialized
educational materials.
Communication: Requirement for specialized communications strategies.
Education
Communication
Evacuation: Need to consider evacuation requirements for residents without a
personal vehicle or with limited mobility.
Overall: Requirement for assistance in all phases of the hazard cycle.
Evacuation
Overall
42

Table 9. Areas Requiring Attention – Dissemination Area 113
Dissemination Area 114
Under Scenario B, 6 buildings in DA 114 are inundated, and 2 are isolated.
No additional buildings are inundated or isolated under Scenario C.
DA 114 has 248 buildings located below 5 metres in elevation; access routes servicing 412
buildings are located below 5 metres in elevation.
Dissemination area 114 has Average overall social vulnerability. Indicator scores range from
Low to High.
An Average proportion of residents have low income, are unemployed, or rely on income
from government transfer payments.
A Low level of residents are children or live in lone parent families.
A High proportion of residents are seniors; an Average proportion are seniors living
alone.
Above Average levels of residents have no secondary education, while an Average level
speak neither English nor French.
Below Average proportions of residents are recent immigrants or visible minorities, with
an Average proportion having Aboriginal identity.
This dissemination area’s most significant area of concern is its population of seniors who are
likely to require assistance preparing for, withstanding, and recovering from a storm surge
impact. Communications and warnings about extreme weather events should be very clear, due
to the presence of residents without secondary education.
43

Dissemination Area 114
Areas Requiring Attention
Indicator and Score
Low Income Average
Government Transfers Average
Unemployment Average
Children Low
Seniors High x x x x
Seniors Alone Average
Lone Parent Families Low
No Secondary Education Above Average x x x x
Language Average
Recent Immigrants Below Average
Visible Minorities Below Average
Aboriginal Identity Average
Overall
Average
Education: Requirement for extra emphasis on education, or specialized
educational materials.
Communication: Requirement for specialized communications strategies.
Education
Communication
Evacuation: Need to consider evacuation requirements for residents without a
personal vehicle or with limited mobility.
Overall: Requirement for assistance in all phases of the hazard cycle.
Evacuation
Overall
Table 10. Areas Requiring Attention – Dissemination Area 114
Dissemination Area 115
Under Scenario B, 33 buildings in DA 115 are inundated, and are isolated.
Under Scenario C, 51 buildings in DA 115 are inundated, and 378 are isolated.
DA 115 has 16 buildings located below 5 metres in elevation.
Dissemination area 115 has Below Average overall social vulnerability, with indicator scores
ranging from Low to High.
This area has a Low proportion of low income, Below Average reliance on government
transfer payments, and Average unemployment.
A Low level of residents are children or live in lone parent families, while a High
proportion are seniors, and an Above Average proportion are seniors living alone.
An Above Average proportion of residents have no secondary education, with an
Average proportion speaking neither English nor French.
Below average levels of residents are recent immigrants, visible minorities, or have
Aboriginal identity.
44

The area’s relatively high population of seniors and seniors living alone in dissemination area
155 may require assistance throughout the natural hazard cycle. Due to the presence of
residents with no secondary education, communications regarding extreme weather events must
be clear and straightforward.
Dissemination Area 115
Areas Requiring Attention
Indicator and Score
Low Income Low
Government Transfers Below Average
Unemployment Average
Children Low
Seniors High x x x x
Seniors Alone Above Average
Lone Parent Families Low
No Secondary Education Above Average x x x x
Language Average
Recent Immigrants Below Average
Visible Minorities Below Average
Aboriginal Identity Below Average
Overall
Below Average
Education: Requirement for extra emphasis on education, or specialized
educational materials.
Communication: Requirement for specialized communications strategies.
Education
Communication
Evacuation: Need to consider evacuation requirements for residents without a
personal vehicle or with limited mobility.
Overall: Requirement for assistance in all phases of the hazard cycle.
Table 11. Areas Requiring Attention – Dissemination Area 115
Evacuation
Overall
Dissemination Area 116
Under Scenario B, 58 buildings in DA 116 are isolated.
Under Scenario C, 3 buildings in DA 116 are inundated, and 78 are isolated.
This dissemination area has Below Average overall social vulnerability. Indicator scores range
from Low to Above Average.
A Low proportion of residents have low income or unemployed, with an Average
proportion of income coming from government transfer payments.
The population of children is Below Average, and the area has a Low level of lone parent
families.
An Above Average proportion of residents are seniors or seniors living alone.
A Low level of residents have no secondary education, with an Average level speaking
neither English nor French.
45

Below Average proportions of residents are recent immigrants, visible minorities, or have
Aboriginal identity.
This dissemination area’s most significant concern in the event of a natural hazard is its
population of seniors and seniors living alone, who are likely to require assistance preparing for,
withstanding, and recovering.
Dissemination Area 116
Areas Requiring Attention
Indicator and Score
Low Income Low
Government Transfers Average
Unemployment Low
Children Below Average
Seniors Above Average x x x x
Seniors Alone Above Average x x x x
Lone Parent Families Low
No Secondary Education Low
Language Average
Recent Immigrants Below Average
Visible Minorities Below Average
Aboriginal Identity Below Average
Overall
Below Average
Education: Requirement for extra emphasis on education, or specialized
educational materials.
Communication: Requirement for specialized communications strategies.
Education
Communication
Evacuation: Need to consider evacuation requirements for residents without a
personal vehicle or with limited mobility.
Overall: Requirement for assistance in all phases of the hazard cycle.
Evacuation
Overall
Table 12. Areas Requiring Attention – Dissemination Area 116
Dissemination Area 117
Under Scenario B, 54 buildings in DA 117 are inundated, and 395 are isolated.
Under Scenario C, 98 buildings in DA 117 are inundated, and 435 are isolated.
DA 117 has 27 buildings located below 5 metres in elevation.
Dissemination Area 177 has Above Average overall social vulnerability, with scores ranging from
Low to Very High.
This area has Above Average proportions of residents with low income and income from
government transfer payments, while an Average proportion are unemployed.
A Low proportion of residents are children, but an Above Average level of families have a
lone parent.
A Very High proportion of residents are seniors or seniors living alone.
46

A High proportion of residents are recent immigrants, while a Below average proportion
are visible minorities, and an Average proportion have Aboriginal identity.
Dissemination area 117 is amongst those with the highest overall social vulnerability in the
District of Lunenburg. The area of greatest concern is the Very High proportion of seniors and
seniors living alone, who will require assistance throughout the natural hazard cycle. Residents
with low income, who rely on government transfer payments, and lone parent families may lack
the resources they need to cope with a natural hazard. Recent immigrants may be unaware of
risks from natural hazards, and require education about these risks.
Dissemination Area 117
Table 13. Areas Requiring Attention – Dissemination Area 117
Dissemination Area 118
Under Scenario B, 31 buildings in DA 118 are inundated, and 503 are isolated.
Under Scenario C, 57 buildings in DA 118 are inundated, and 503 are isolated.
This dissemination area has Below Average overall social vulnerability. Indicator scores range
from Low to High.
Areas Requiring Attention
Indicator and Score
Low Income Above Average x x
Government Transfers Above Average x x
Unemployment Average
Children Low
Seniors Very High x x x x
Seniors Alone Very High x x x x
Lone Parent Families Above Average x x
No Secondary Education Average
Language Average
Recent Immigrants High x x x
Visible Minorities Below Average
Aboriginal Identity Average
Overall
Above Average
Education: Requirement for extra emphasis on education, or specialized
educational materials.
Communication: Requirement for specialized communications strategies.
Education
Communication
Evacuation: Need to consider evacuation requirements for residents without a
personal vehicle or with limited mobility.
Overall: Requirement for assistance in all phases of the hazard cycle.
Evacuation
A Below Average level of residents have low income, with Average levels of
unemployment and Low proportions of income coming from government transfer
payments.
A Low proportion of residents are children, with Below Average proportion of lone parent
families.
The area has an Above Average level of seniors, and a High level of seniors living alone.
Overall
47

Low proportions of residents have no secondary education, are recent immigrants or
visible minorities, or have Aboriginal identity, while an Average proportion have no
secondary education.
Dissemination area 118 should place special attention in emergency management efforts on
their population of seniors, especially those living alone, who are likely to require assistance
preparing for, withstanding, and recovering from an extreme weather event.
Dissemination Area 118
Areas Requiring Attention
Indicator and Score
Low Income Below Average
Government Transfers Low
Unemployment Average
Children Low
Seniors Above Average x x x x
Seniors Alone High x x x x
Lone Parent Families Below Average
No Secondary Education Below Average
Language Average
Recent Immigrants Below Average
Visible Minorities Below Average
Aboriginal Identity Below Average
Overall
Below Average
Education: Requirement for extra emphasis on education, or specialized
educational materials.
Communication: Requirement for specialized communications strategies.
Education
Communication
Evacuation: Need to consider evacuation requirements for residents without a
personal vehicle or with limited mobility.
Overall: Requirement for assistance in all phases of the hazard cycle.
Evacuation
Overall
Table 14. Areas Requiring Attention – Dissemination Area 118
Dissemination Area 119
Under Scenario B, 1 building in DA 119 are inundated, and 6 are isolated.
Under Scenario C, 4 buildings in DA 119 are inundated, and 96 are isolated.
This dissemination area has Average overall social vulnerability, with indicator scores ranging
from Low to Very High.
Dissemination area has an Average level of low income and Below Average proportion of
income from government transfer payments, but Very High unemployment.
A Below Average proportion of residents are children, and a Low proportion of families
have a lone parent.
48

An Average level of residents are seniors, while an Above Average level are seniors
living alone.
Average proportions of residents have no secondary education or speak neither English
nor French.
Below Average proportions of residents are recent immigrants or visible minorities, while
an Average proportion have Aboriginal identity.
Although levels of low income and reliance on government transfer payments are moderate in
this dissemination area, the Very High unemployment rate indicates that many residents may be
making due with less income than usual, and therefore have a limited ability to invest in
measures to prepare for, withstand, and recover from a natural hazard. Seniors living alone are
a high-risk group in an extreme weather event, and will likely require assistance.
Dissemination Area 119
Table 15. Areas Requiring Attention – Dissemination Area 119
Dissemination Area 120
Under Scenario B, 7 buildings in DA 120 are inundated, and 29 are isolated.
Under Scenario C, 15 buildings in DA 120 are inundated, and 29 are isolated.
This dissemination area has Average overall social vulnerability. Indicator scores vary widely
from Low to Very High.
Areas Requiring Attention
Indicator and Score
Low Income Average
Government Transfers Below Average
Unemployment Very High x x
Children Below Average
Seniors Average
Seniors Alone Above Average x x x x
Lone Parent Families Low
No Secondary Education Average
Language Average
Recent Immigrants Below Average
Visible Minorities Below Average
Aboriginal Identity Average
Overall
Average
Education: Requirement for extra emphasis on education, or specialized
educational materials.
Communication: Requirement for specialized communications strategies.
Education
Communication
Evacuation: Need to consider evacuation requirements for residents without a
personal vehicle or with limited mobility.
Overall: Requirement for assistance in all phases of the hazard cycle.
Evacuation
Overall
This area has a Low proportion of residents with low income, but Above Average
proportions of income from government transfer payments, and Very High
unemployment.
49

Below Average levels of residents are children or lone parent families, while Above
Average levels are seniors or seniors living alone.
A High proportion of residents have no secondary education, with an Average proportion
unable to speak either English or French.
Below Average levels of residents are recent immigrants or visible minorities, while an
Average level have Aboriginal Identity.
While residents who are unemployed or rely on income from government transfer payments may
not have low income, they are likely making due with less income than usual, and therefore may
lack the resources necessary to cope with a natural hazard. Seniors, especially those living
alone, are likely to require assistance. Due to the High population lacking secondary education,
communications regarding natural hazards must be in plain language.
Dissemination Area 120
Areas Requiring Attention
Indicator and Score
Low Income Low
Government Transfers Above Average
Unemployment Very High x x
Children Below Average
Seniors Above Average
Seniors Alone Above Average x x x x
Lone Parent Families Below Average
No Secondary Education High
Language Average
Recent Immigrants Below Average
Visible Minorities Below Average
Aboriginal Identity Average
Overall
Average
Education: Requirement for extra emphasis on education, or specialized
educational materials.
Communication: Requirement for specialized communications strategies.
Education
Communication
Evacuation: Need to consider evacuation requirements for residents without a
personal vehicle or with limited mobility.
Overall: Requirement for assistance in all phases of the hazard cycle.
Evacuation
Overall
Table 16. Areas Requiring Attention – Dissemination Area 120
Impacts on Services in the District of Lunenburg
Socially vulnerable people may rely on services provided by both government and community
organizations, particularly in times of stress and during emergency situations such as an
extreme weather event. 139 Some individuals also rely on private businesses, such as
139 Enarson and Walsh, 2007. p. 37–39.
50

pharmacies, for medical services. If these services are inundated or become inaccessible due to
storm surge, they may be unable to operate, or clients may be unable to reach them. This could
leave already vulnerable persons without the supports they require to manage in a challenging
circumstance. While storm surges are generally relatively short in duration, a severe storm surge
could cause damage to infrastructure that creates a longer-lasting impact. Services mapped
include those located in the Towns of Chester, Mahone Bay, Lunenburg and Bridgewater, as
they also serve clients residing in the District of Lunenburg. Please refer to Appendix G for a list
of services mapped.
Storm Surge Impacts
Very few of the services mapped are impacted in any of the storm surge scenarios. Additionally,
no essential services, such as hospitals, are impacted in any scenario. Most of the services that
are affected are churches. Churches in the District play an important community role; while
many do not provide services that socially vulnerable residents are likely to rely on for day-today
needs, others function as food banks.
Although services may not be directly impacted by flood waters, they may be affected indirectly;
a large number of residential areas could experience either flooding or isolation, a situation that
would leave staff unable to reach these services.
Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the extent of storm surge in 2025 relative to mapped services in
Mahone Bay and the Riverport and Kingsburg area, respectively.
In Scenario A, a pharmacy and church in Mahone Bay are impacted.
In Scenario B, additional churches in Mahone Bay, Rose Bay and Riverport could be
inundated, while access to a second church in Rose Bay and subsidized housing area in
Riverport is lost.
In Scenario C, impacts are the same as those in Scenario B, except that the subsidized
housing in Riverport could be inundated.
51

Figure 6: Storm Surge Scenarios with Mapped Services in Mahone Bay
52

Figure 7: Storm Surge Scenarios with Mapped Services in Riverport and Kingsburg
53

Review of Municipal Planning Policy
The majority of the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg does not employ land use planning.
There are, however, a number of planning documents that guide municipal actions. These
include the Strategic Plan, Integrated Community Sustainability Plan, and Economic
Development Strategy. Additionally, the Municipality commissioned a Public Transit Feasibility
Study, which addresses concerns about the lack of transportation options in the District.
Several areas within the District of Lunenburg have adopted land use planning controls. This
report examines the Secondary Planning Strategies of those planned areas located on the
coast, specifically Riverport and District, Princes Inlet, and Oakland. Secondary plans are
important in this consideration of planning policy and social vulnerability because they are the
plans that establish the land use zoning and by-laws that regulate such things as the
development mix in an area and the housing density and form, aspects of direct relevance to
social vulnerability. The opportunity for affordable housing and physical access within a
community to employment, goods and services is directly controlled by land use designation.
Strategic Plan
The Municipality’s 2005 Strategic Plan, reviewed and amended in 2009, provides a vision
statement of a ‘community of communities’ with a diversity of cultural backgrounds, and high
quality community services supported by a strong volunteer base. It further describes the District
as caring, tolerant and progressive, and a lifelong home offering a high quality of life. 140
Valued features of the District acknowledged in the Plan include public access to waterways,
trails and open spaces; and superior community services such as schools, libraries, community
halls, fire departments and museums. 141 These valued features emphasize the importance of
amenities that are available to all residents, regardless of socioeconomic status. Characteristics
to be changed include improved job training and education facilities, expanded literacy,
infrastructure improvement to support the community’s economic and social development, a
proactive approach to long-term change and development, and a greater tolerance for
change. 142 These desired changes reflect an understanding of the need to support increased
opportunity for employment in the District, and the awareness of staff and council members of
the need “to overcome the inherent conservatism of many district residents” 143 in order to
accommodate change and ensure the availability of services that meet the needs of all
residents.
The Strategic Plan acknowledges challenges in the District that relate to issues of social
vulnerability, such as the need for improved employment opportunities. The Plan specifically
states that a strong and diversified economy supports the quality of life of all residents, and is
necessary to provide opportunities for youth to prosper in the Municipality. 144 Without these
opportunities, youth populations will continue to decline, resulting in a shortage of workers to
support the economy and the District’s aging population. 145
140 Stantec, 2009. p. 2.1.
141 Ibid., p. 1.2.
142 Ibid.
143 Ibid., p. 1.1.
144 Ibid., p. 2.2.
145 Ibid., p. 1.3.
54

The Plan also addresses the need for affordable housing to accommodate residents with low
income, and identifies escalating property values as a leading issue. 146 The plan contains the
following statements:
“There is a substantial need to pay attention to the deficiencies in affordable housing
within MODL. Poverty is apparent especially in some rural areas. If anything it
appears that the problem has worsened in recent years as property taxes have risen,
housing stock has aged and deteriorated in light of inadequate repairs and
maintenance, and some of the longstanding means of providing livelihoods in rural
areas have deteriorated. Council believes that they and citizens have a social and
civic responsibility to pay attention and look for ways to alleviate the problem
consistent with the means and jurisdiction available. For example, last year the
implementation of a Compassion Tax benefited approximately 1000 people but was
far from adequate to address issues of poverty.” 147
This statement describes the nature of the problem and accepts a responsibility to take action,
while acknowledging the Municipality’s limited ability to do so effectively. The plan lists the
desired outcomes of documenting housing and related needs of low-income residents, and
assessing best practices and an appropriate advocacy role for municipal government. 148
Affordable housing is designated a ‘next’ priority (following ‘now’ priorities) in the plan’s Strategic
Priorities Chart. 149
The Strategic Plan states that community services are directly associated with quality of life in
the District. 150 Concerns relevant to social vulnerability include escalating rates for fire and
waste service, a lack of policy regarding arts and culture, the absence of public transportation
services, and sidewalks and road shoulders in need of maintenance. 151 While the plan mentions
the need for equitable cost distribution, 152 and notes the role of fire departments in enhancing
community cohesion, 153 it does not explicitly discuss the needs of socially vulnerable
populations. For example, it does not recognize the relatively greater burden of increasing area
rates for individuals with low income, the possibility that the lack of arts and culture policy may
result in the exclusion of some residents from cultural activities, or the challenges faced by
individuals without private vehicles in accessing employment or services. Overall, the Plan
recognizes the need for cooperation with nearby municipal units, such as the Towns of Mahone
Bay, Lunenburg and Bridgewater. 154 While this is the case for all municipal activities, it is
particularly true for the efficient provision of community services.
The Strategic Plan includes a policy statement indicating the goal to serve all area residents:
“the Municipality will maximize opportunities for social and economic development … [and] strive
to improve the quality of life for all residents living and working in the larger community.” 155
Additionally, it notes the intent to have public participation for all decisions and actions in the
Municipality. 156
146 Ibid., p. 1.4.
147 Ibid., p. 2.21.
148 Ibid., p. 2.22.
149 Ibid.
150 Ibid., p. 2.2.
151 Ibid., p. 2.12, 2.19–2.20, 2.24–2.25.
152 Ibid., p. 2.25.
153 Ibid., p. 2.12.
154 Ibid., p. 2.17.
155 Ibid., p. 2.1.
156 Ibid., p. 2.6.
55

Unfortunately, it is unclear if the engagement tactics chosen for the plan review process will
have ensured that all members of the public were fairly represented. Engagement sessions were
held at a golf course 157 – a location often associated with exclusivity, where marginalized groups
may not have felt comfortable or welcome. In discussing the issue of who should be invited to
participate in consultation, the inclusion of ‘key stakeholders’ is described as important to ensure
that ‘key informants’ are represented. 158 However, the criteria for determining these key
representatives are not provided, and the need to represent the interests of vulnerable groups
that may have limited political input is not discussed.
Finally, while members of the public identified over 100 issues and opportunities in the plan
review engagement session, council and staff prioritized these issues to create a short list. 159
The process for determining which issues to prioritize is not described; therefore it is unclear if
any measures were taken to ensure that the priorities of council and staff aligned with those of
the public, or that the interests of more powerful groups were not given precedence over those
of marginalized groups.
Overall, the District of Lunenburg’s Strategic Plan identifies laudable goals for improving the
quality of life of all residents, and includes some initiatives to address issues of social
vulnerability. However, in other areas the needs of less fortunate residents are not addressed,
and processes to ensure the consideration of marginalized groups may require improvement.
Integrated Community Sustainability Plan
The District’s Integrated Community Sustainability Plan identifies a range of environmental,
economic, social, and cultural issues in the Municipality. Key concerns include the implications
of a shrinking working age population on public services and economic activities; deteriorating
infrastructure, specifically roads; and the impacts on small communities from the loss of critical
public infrastructure such as schools. 160
One grouping of sustainability issues relates to the area’s economic viability. Considerations
include the need for increased employment opportunity in local communities, and Municipal
support for local businesses. For example, the ICSP contains the goals of supporting the
ongoing viability of private resource land, and increased employment in the resource sector,
such as through small woodlots and farms. 161 One Municipal action item is to increase the
promotion of local foods in order to increase consumer support for local food producers. 162
Increased employment opportunities could reduce social vulnerability in the District.
The ICSP contains a strategic goal to support the socio-economic viability of communities by
developing a range of housing and economic alternatives. This section acknowledges that most
employment is located outside of local communities, and mentions the impact the planning
policies can have on enabling or limiting the types of development that can occur. 163 However,
this section does not identify a need for planning controls to accommodate housing that meets
the needs of low-income or marginalized residents.
157 Ibid., p. 1.3.
158 Ibid., p. 2.6.
159 Ibid., p. 2.3.
160 Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, 2010a. p. 13.
161 Ibid., p. 15, 24.
162 Ibid., p. 25.
163 Ibid., p. 15.
56

A related ICSP strategic goal is to sustain socio-economic viability through supporting “the local
delivery of public services as determined by the communities they are meant to serve.” 164
Discussion around this goal focuses on the influence of community services on economic
development. 165 This section does not identify areas of need for community services, or
establish the means to ensure that all community members are heard in the process of
determining local public service delivery priorities. Related concerns cited in the ICSP include
the desire to increase communication and coordinate service delivery amongst various levels of
government, 166 and the perceived “erosion of individual self-reliance with increased government
involvement in all arenas” noted by community members. 167 These concerns focus on issues
related to efficiency, and reflect a negative view of government involvement in community affairs.
The link drawn between government involvement and eroded individual self-reliance may reflect
a limited understanding of the circumstances experienced by individuals reliant on community
services, and the root causes of this reliance.
The ICSP notes that the environmental, economic and social costs of private-vehicle
transportation are likely to change in the future, that local governments and planning decisions
have an impact on residents’ choices regarding transportation, and that proactive measures to
anticipate future needs are fundamental to the ICSP process. 168 The ICSP therefore sets forth
the goal to deliver regional public transportation services, with the desired outcome of greater
equity and accessibility to local commercial destinations and social services. 169
Further discussion clarifies that the intent of this goal is not to transform transportation
preferences in the Municipality, but to provide alternative transportation options to community
members who are unable to drive, or who do not own a private vehicle. 170 This discussion
explicitly recognizes the needs of socially vulnerable populations such as youth, the elderly,
persons with disabilities, and individuals with low income. The ICSP notes the existence of wellorganized
local public support for this initiative. 171
Further statements in the ICSP acknowledge the importance of public access to amenities and
services: public access to beaches is listed as a priority for coastal management, 172 and an
action item to increase the use of electronic communications regarding municipal affairs is
motivated in part by the need to provide access to municipal services in a manner that does not
require the use of a personal vehicle. 173 The ICSP also sets out the goal to remove physical
accessibility barriers in municipal facilities, in recognition of the needs of those with limited
physical capacity. This need is described as an important social priority, in recognition of the
Municipality’s significant and growing population of seniors. 174
Overall, the ICSP addresses numerous issues relevant to social vulnerability. While the public
participation process does not specify measures to include representatives of all social
164 Ibid.
165 Ibid.
166 Ibid., p. 29.
167 Ibid., p. 10.
168 Ibid., p. 16, 34.
169 Ibid., p. 34.
170 Ibid., p. 34–35.
171 Ibid., p. 34.
172 Ibid., p. 28.
173 Ibid., p. 36.
174 Ibid., p. 31.
57

groups, 175 the ICSP does acknowledge the importance of integrating the involvement of active
community interests, and local agencies serving community members. 176
Economic Development Strategy
The District’s Economic Development Strategy reiterates many of the strengths and challenges
noted in the Strategic Plan and ICSP. The Strategy notes the relatively large number of middleincome
earners in the District in comparison to the rest of Nova Scotia, with lower than average
numbers of households earning either over $80,000 or at the very bottom of the income scale. 177
The number of incomes over $50,000 is increasing, and the number below $50,000 is
decreasing. 178
The Strategy states that the number of jobs in the District is increasing, but that the shrinking
manufacturing sector could result in the loss of a significant number of jobs. 179 The ‘youth
retention problem’ is described as a threat to the community’s well-being from an economic and
social perspective, and that the declining overall population is problematic in that it causes
decreased demand for local services, a diminished workforce to attract future employers, and a
shortage of new entrepreneurs to replace those who retire. 180
The Strategy does not fully explain how these employment trends fit together: if the number of
jobs in the District is increasing, why are youth leaving? If declining populations are causing
reduced demand for local services, why is the number of jobs increasing? Is the number of
incomes below $50,000 declining because a lack of jobs in this wage range has forced
employees lacking qualifications for higher-paying jobs to leave the District? Further clarification
could provide a better understanding of socioeconomic challenges.
While businesspeople interviewed as part of the Strategy’s public engagement process
repeatedly emphasized the need to improve the way the region attracts residents, particularly
the provision of more amenities for young families, 181 the Strategy does not emphasize this
approach in its recommendations.
The Economic Development Strategy suggests that supporting the rise of the ‘creative class’
may be an economic solution for the District. The notion of the creative class derives from
economist and social scientist Richard Florida’s widely popular theories about a class of
individuals whose innovation, particularly in high-tech fields, comprises a major economic driver.
These individuals are generally highly-educated professionals working in fields that create new
ideas and content, such as high-tech industries, science, engineering, architecture and design.
Florida maintains that these individuals are drawn to cities with thriving cultural scenes,
entertainment opportunities, night-life, and ethnic and cultural diversity. When ranking cities
according to their creativeness, Florida looks for the creative class share of the workforce; hightech
industry; innovation, measured as patents per capita; and diversity, measured by the
proportion of gay households, intended to indicate an area’s openness to different kinds of
people and ideas. 182
175 Ibid., p. 5.
176 Ibid., p. 21.
177 Millier Dickinson Blais Inc, 2009. p. 27.
178 Ibid.
179 Ibid., p. 55–56.
180 Ibid., p. 57.
181 Ibid., p. 39.
182 Florida, 2002.
58

While the Economic Development Strategy suggests that the Municipality seek to attract creative
industries to “form the backbone of the new economy,” 183 it does not address obvious barriers.
While the District has a relatively high proportion of apprenticeships, trades and overall collegebased
education levels in the workforce, it also has a higher than average proportion of
residents who haven’t completed high school, and a lower than average proportion of residents
with university education. 184 Overall, many District residents lack the characteristics Florida
describes in members of the creative class.
While the area has many natural and cultural assets, it also does not meet Florida’s criteria for a
‘creative city.’ Main industries include retail trade and health care and social services, rather than
high-tech innovation. From a technical standpoint, continued lack of internet service to
approximately 700 residences could be a significant barrier to creative industries. 185 The
population is not diverse by Florida’s standards, but culturally and ethnically quite homogenous,
with residents and community leaders acknowledging a significant degree of conservatism in the
District. 186 Additionally, the area’s cultural amenities do not fit Florida’s description of those
sought by members of the creative class.
Even if attracting creative industries was a suitable economic solution for the District of
Lunenburg, it is one with little promise to address the needs of socially vulnerable residents, who
are unlikely to possess the high levels of human and social capital required to join the creative
class. While attracting members of the creative class from other jurisdictions might help to grow
the local economy, this would provide little direct benefit to existing residents. The influx of the
creative class is often accompanied by gentrification, driving up already-heightened property
values; local business owners surveyed during the development of the Economic Development
Strategy felt that high property values already challenge the ability of young people and lower to
moderate income earners to afford living in the area, and that the community should consider
efforts to develop affordable housing. 187
Other strategies identified in the plan, such as retaining and enhancing the manufacturing
sector, particularly in the fields of advanced manufacturing and value-added products;
opportunities in food production and processing; and tourism, may have better potential to
support the economic well-being of the District and its residents.
Secondary Plans
Riverport and District
This planning area includes the communities of Riverport, Rose Bay, Lower Rose Bay, Upper
Kingsburg, Kingsburg, Feltzen South, Bayport, Indian Path, Middle LaHave, East LaHave, Lower
LaHave, Crouse’s Settlement and Five Houses, as well as portions of Tanner’s Settlement and
Grimm’s Settlement 188
183 Millier Dickinson Blais Inc, 2009. p. 61.
184 Ibid., p. 55.
185 Waters, 2012.
186 Stantec, 2009. p. 1.1.
187 Millier Dickinson Blais Inc, 2009. p. 43–44.
188 Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, 2009. p. 6.
59

This planning strategy focuses on promoting the area as an attractive rural residential
environment for residents of all ages. 189 Goals include the provision of services and amenities,
and the maintenance of the area’s existing character. 190
While the plan includes the provision of a variety of housing options as an objective, 191 it does
not include measures to do so. It acknowledges increasing land values, and describes infill
development as problematic, but does not explicitly state why higher density is viewed
negatively, 192 or discuss the consequences of high land values and limiting infill for residents
with lesser financial means. However, residential zoning permits up to four dwelling units per lot,
and will consider developments that do not meet zoning requirements through a development
agreement process. These options could possibly accommodate the need for less costly
housing options 193
The plan acknowledges some concerns relevant to social vulnerability, such as the need for
increased employment opportunities and public transportation service, and contains objectives
to lobby higher levels of government to address these needs. 194 Regarding transportation, the
plan identifies young people, seniors, and persons with low income as groups that are negatively
affected by the lack of alternatives to transportation by private vehicle. 195
Princes Inlet
The Secondary Planning Strategy for Princes Inlet contains similar goals to that of Riverport and
District. Goals include the preservation of the area’s environmental resources, and provision of
an attractive rural residential environment for all ages. 196 As with Riverport, Princes Inlet’s plan
contains a policy statement to provide for a variety of housing options to meet all ages and
needs, but does not specify how this will be accomplished. 197
The plan establishes two types of residential zoning: the Rural zone, which accommodates up to
four dwelling units in a single structure, per lot; and the Two-Unit Residential zone, which has
increased land use controls and a limit of two units per lot, but also allows small-scale business
developments that are considered compatible with surrounding uses. 198 In both zones, smallscale
multi-unit dwellings up to a maximum of 12 units and a maximum density of 50 dwelling
units per hectare will be considered by development agreement. 199 Provisions to allow homebased
businesses and denser housing forms could meet some needs of residents with limited
employment options or financial means.
While the plan does not recognize the need for affordable housing, it does contain a policy
statement to cooperate with the Nova Scotia Department of Community Services to provide
housing for the area’s seniors. 200 Unlike that for Riverport and District, the secondary plan for
Princes Inlet does not identify a demand for public transportation service.
189 Ibid., p. 9.
190 Ibid., p. 5, 9–10.
191 Ibid., p. 9–10.
192 Ibid., p. 5.
193 Ibid., p. 12.
194 Ibid., p. 9.
195 Ibid., p. 25.
196 Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, 2010b. p. 6.
197 Ibid., p. 7.
198 Ibid., p. 9, 13–15.
199 Ibid., p. 10, 15, 36.
200 Ibid., p. 25.
60

Oakland
The Oakland Secondary Planning Strategy notes that “Although the community still has a strong
orientation toward the sea as it did in earlier times, the attraction now is chiefly aesthetic
characteristics and recreational opportunities, rather than opportunities for gaining a
livelihood.” 201 Most of the provisions in the plan relate to the preservation and enhancement of
the area’s existing character, and the exclusion of development perceived to detract from this.
For example, a key policy statement is “…to ensure community input into how growth and
development occur within the planning area by requiring development agreements for those
development that are of a nature that without stricter controls have the potential to negatively
impact on the community.” 202 The plan does not clearly identify what types of development might
fall into this agreement, although a proposal for a ‘large resort complex’ is cited as a motivator
for initiating the planning process. 203
The predominant Rural zone allows up to four dwelling units per lot, as well as small-scale
commercial uses; small-scale multi-unit residential buildings to a maximum of 12 dwelling units
will be considered by development agreement. 204 The architectural features of buildings allowed
by development agreement are required to be ‘visibly compatible’ with nearby buildings. 205 The
plan establishes minimum lot area, frontage and setback requirements to provide for fire
separation, parking, maintenance, private outdoor space, solar exposure, and separation of land
uses to minimize conflicts. 206 The plan does not discuss the need for affordable housing, or the
impacts of density limitations or requirements for lot area and setbacks, on the area’s ability to
accommodate moderately priced homes.
The plan notes that quality of life is enhanced by the availability and accessibility of recreation
and health care services, and contains a goal of monitoring demographic trends to ensure the
recreational needs of the area are being met. 207 This commentary focuses on the needs of the
area’s aging population. The plan contains no other explicit recognition of the needs of socially
vulnerable populations.
Public Transportation Feasibility Study
Many of the plans and strategies discussed above refer to the need for public transportation
service in the District; a 2009 Public Transportation Feasibility Study explored this topic. The
study included focus groups with health, education, and community service providers, who may
have contributed insight into the needs of socially vulnerable populations. 208 The principal finding
of the study was that “the status quo – no transit service – has a negative impact on the quality
of life for many individuals from varying demographics and groups.” 209
Concerns include the inability of residents without cars to access employment, academic,
commercial, medical, and other services; and the observation that many residents currently must
either walk long distances, hitch-hike, or rely on friends, family, or volunteer services to reach
201 Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, 2003. p. i.
202 Ibid., 3.
203 Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, 2010b. p. 4.
204 Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, 2003. p. 5.
205 Ibid., 36.
206 Ibid., 30.
207 Ibid.
208 Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, 2010a. p. 8.
209 Municipality of the District of Lunenburg and HRD iTRANS, 2009. p. 12.
61

these services. 210 It also notes that transit is an integral component of sustainable growth, 211 and
that “Communities across Canada with similar populations and service areas commit resources
annually to provide public transportation to service their community.” 212 The study directly
acknowledges the impact of the lack of public transportation service on socially vulnerable
populations, and identifies a responsibility for the Municipality to respond to the need for this
service.
Summary
Planning documents in the Municipality vary in the degree to which they recognize the
challenges faced by socially vulnerable populations, and their commitment to addressing these
challenges.
While the Strategic Plan identifies a substantial need for affordable housing, it offers little in the
way of solutions; the remaining planning documents generally include a statement about
providing a variety of housing options, but do not link this to a responsibility to accommodate
affordable housing in land use controls, or suggest the means to generate variety in housing
options. Additionally, there is little or no recognition of the impacts of high property values, or
land-use controls that limit density or establish minimum lot sizes and setbacks, on the
availability of affordable housing, or the ability of communities to accommodate affordable
housing options.
While many of these planning documents address concerns about employment and the retention
of youth in the Municipality, they offer few solutions to these problems, and generally focus on
the need for higher levels of government to provide opportunities for education and training.
Additionally, some of these plans emphasize economic development that may benefit the region
as a whole, but fail to address the needs of individuals who are unemployed or earn a low
income.
The provision of community services is a theme throughout the planning documents examined.
They tend to emphasize the role of community services in supporting community cohesion, and
in improving quality of life. The needs of the District’s growing population of seniors are
emphasized throughout; other socially vulnerable groups tend not to be identified.
The lack of public transportation service is discussed in various planning documents. This area
is one in which the disadvantage and inequity for residents who are unable to drive due to their
youth, physical limitations, or lack of financial resources is explicitly discussed.
While these planning documents generally emphasize the importance of public participation in
planning processes, they tend not to discuss the issue of who is and is not participating, or the
potential for residents with strong political voices to be over-represented, and the needs of
populations with less social capital overlooked. Similarly, while ‘stakeholders’ are identified as
important groups to include in public consultations, there are no criteria provided for determining
who these stakeholders are. The use of the word ‘stakeholder,’ which derives from the spheres
of business and finance, may indicate weight placed on the financial stake of interested parties
in planning considerations.
Overall, the planning documents reviewed recognize the need to accommodate change in the
Municipality, for example by responding to the needs of an aging population, or by adapting to
shifting economic conditions. On the other hand, many of the land-use planning provisions aim
210 Ibid., p. 2–3.
211 Ibid., p. 2.
212 Ibid., p. 12.
62

to maintain existing conditions and prevent change to the ‘character’ of communities. It may be
challenging for the Municipality to reconcile these goals, especially if the needs of socially
vulnerable populations are considered.
Consultations
The index of social vulnerability and assessment of potential impacts on services that socially
vulnerable populations rely on provide a quantitative basis for understanding social vulnerability
that is particularly useful for the purposes of justifying targeted funding for those areas in
greatest need. The review of municipal planning policies illustrates the extent to which issues of
social vulnerability are integrated into municipal practices. However, quantitative methods,
especially regarding a phenomenon as complex and multi-faceted as social vulnerability, have
significant limitations in that they may be unable to capture details, subtleties, and unique local
phenomena; while municipal policies may not reflect all aspects of practice.
The insight of community members with knowledge pertinent to issues of social vulnerability
added depth and sensitivity to local conditions. Consultees for this study included
representatives from the following organizations: municipal council; municipal planning
departments; Public Health; the Luneburg Community Health Board; Second Story Women’s
Centre; the Regional Emergency Management Organization; and local fire services.
Physical Risk
Consultees described increasingly frequent and violent storms and hurricanes. They identified a
great deal of the coast as being at risk of storm surge inundation, and mentioned many locations
where flooding has already occurred. These areas at risk include Indian Point, Oakland,
Kingsburg, Hirtles Beach, Risser’s Beach, Crescent Beach and the LaHave Island, Green Bay,
Broad Cove, Voglers Cove, Cherry Hill, and the Tancook Islands. Rainfall flooding causes
elevated water levels in the LaHave River and its tributaries; consultees thought that some
homes in Upper LaHave might be situated in a floodplain, and expressed concern about
businesses and rental properties located directly on the LaHave River.
Access is a significant concern for many areas, with frequent road closures during storms.
Highly exposed roads exist in Western Shore, Martin’s Point, Chester, Blue Rocks, Broad Cove,
Voglers Cove, Green Bay, Broad Cove, Crescent Beach and Cherry Hill. Green Bay has been
cut off for as long as three days; because the area was impassable for emergency vehicles, a
4X4 has been used to evacuate a person requiring medical assistance. Consultees remarked
that roads in the Blue Rocks area flood very frequently, with armour rocks pushed onshore by
powerful wave action, making the road impassable. Concerns regarding road closures include
the inability of residents to obtain food and other supplies or reach medical services, and of
emergency services and home heating fuel trucks to reach residents.
In the case of snowstorms, even when roads are passable, snow can cause difficulties and
delays for emergency access to homes located down long driveways. While some consultees
described few areas as having only one access route, others commented on the high proportion
of private roads in the District; because private roads are not inspected, the Municipality might
not be aware of all access problems.
Other infrastructure-related concerns include electrical and ferry service. Highly exposed power
lines along Crescent Beach leave residents of the LaHave Islands at risk of losing electrical
power. Power outages are not unusual in the District; the loss of power is of particular concern
during cold weather when residents rely on home heating, as well as due to the additional risk of
63

costly damage if pipes freeze and burst. Power loss is an urgent concern for medically
dependent persons who rely on devices such as respirators for survival. Emergency backup
generators are a financial cost that socially vulnerable people may not be able to afford.
The Tancook Islands are isolated, accessible only by ferry; only a small number of residents are
present year-round. Consultees noted that ferry infrastructure is threatened by erosion around
the ferry docks. Riisser’s Beach has no cellular phone service or payphones; although
authorities evacuate the campground if a severe storm is anticipated, campers caught in
unexpected severe weather could be unable to contact emergency services.
Overall, many consultees indicated that access problems and damage to infrastructure are
increasing in frequency, and the costs of accessing remote areas and providing comprehensive
emergency service rise continually. Damage to infrastructure is costly to repair, and a significant
burden for a municipality with limited resources, particularly if damage is recurring. Some argued
that municipalities shoulder an unfair proportion of infrastructure maintenance costs. Due to
budget constraints, the Municipality currently does not perform proactive maintenance of
infrastructure, instead allowing facilities and equipment to function as long as possible, only
performing repairs when a component has broken.
Consultees identified a number of places of employment in locations with increased risk of storm
damage or inundation, such as LaHave Seafoods, the High Liner Foods fish plant, the LaHave
Bakery, boatworks in Lunenburg and Mahone Bay, and numerous active fishing wharves.
Damage to these locations could cause loss of employment and private property, resulting in
new or increased social vulnerability.
Constraints to Risk Prevention
Consultees demonstrated abundant knowledge about risk and probability of coastal flooding.
However, the ability of the Municipality to undertake preventative measures is severely limited by
the fact that the majority of the District, including much of the coastline, is unplanned, with no
land use planning controls. Consultees explained that a plebiscite with 66% of voters in support
of planning would be required to institute land use planning; although there is an additional
clause that would allow Council to institute planning, councilors and staff both felt that this would
be unlikely to occur except in an extreme situation, such as an imminent threat to the area’s
supply of drinking water.
Consultees noted that in those areas where secondary plans do exist, planning was instituted in
reaction to a proposed development that residents objected to - such as an asphalt plant in the
Blockhouse area, and a gun range near Riverport –rather than as a means to plan proactively.
Consultees had mixed perspectives about local interest in planning: some suggested that there
are no local champions for planning or climate change adaptation while others identified
significant community support for coastal planning, and speculated that this could be the majority
view. Several communities have expressed interest in coastal planning; examples include Petite
Riviere and the entire Broad Cove to LaHave area, where over eighty residents attended an
informational workshop; and Kingsburg, where the Kingsburg Coastal Conservancy includes a
large proportion of residents.
All consultees agreed that many long-time residents have a strong sense of ownership of their
land, and resist interference in their private property rights. However, they may also object to
new coastal development that blocks their view and access to the water. New residents may be
more supportive of land use planning; many have previously lived in areas with restrictions
imposed by planning controls, or have witnessed the types of problems that can occur without
planning. Consultees agreed that while local people are generally knowledgeable about weather
64

patterns and potential dangers (“Hell’s Point was named for a reason….”), new residents are
more likely to build in risky areas, and may be unaware of coastal processes and hazards.
Consultees noted that there is no mechanism for educating residents about these risks. A
representative of REMO also noted that the organization is not consulted about development.
Examples of recent development in potentially hazardous areas include newly-constructed
homes amongst sand dunes very close to sea level, or on eroding drumlin cliffs in Kingsburg;
and fish shacks converted to residences in Oakland and Indian Point. Several consultees
claimed that some new residents had complained about armour rock blocking their view until
they witnessed a severe storm and saw first-hand the effectiveness of armour rock in protecting
properties.
Due to the lack of planning control over coastal development, new physical vulnerability is being
generated in potentially hazardous coastal areas. While all consultees recognized this problem,
and felt that there should be some sort of control in place to either prevent new construction in
at-risk areas, or require engineering solutions, they had mixed views about how this type of
control could be instituted. Some argued that the Province must act first, instituting a provincewide
coastal planning initiative.
The reasons provided varied widely. Some felt that a provincial policy would remove the political
risk from municipal governments. Some argued that scientific rationale was required to remove
property rights in order to avoid potentially costly legal challenges. Others were unaware of a
municipality’s authority to institute planning controls without a specific grant of power from the
provinces. One consultee expressed the view that coastal planning in the District would be futile
if the rest of the province’s coast was left unplanned, and that adaptation was not a function of
municipal planning. The only area of clear consensus amongst consultees was that the
Municipality needs reliable research in order to determine setbacks in a rational way, but lacks
the resources to undertake this research.
Emergency Management
A variety of organizations participate in Emergency Management in the Municipality of the
District of Lunenburg. The Regional Emergency Management Organization (REMO) coordinates
amongst the emergency advisory groups and Assistant Emergency Coordinators from each of
the District of Lunenburg, the District of Chester, the Town of Bridgewater, and the Town of
Mahone Bay and helps each municipality to form emergency plans, and advises the Nova Scotia
Emergency Management Organization about the needs of the municipalities. REMO also
provides supplies to communities in need, beginning 72 hours after an extreme event.
REMO uses the Nova Scotia hazard risk vulnerability assessment model, which identifies
vulnerabilities corresponding to various types of hazards. In this context, ‘vulnerability’ is used in
a general sense, and does not refer to social vulnerability; however, a number of socially
vulnerable groups are identified in the framework: Aboriginal people, children, seniors, homeless
persons and other transient populations, persons with limited mobility, persons with a variety of
health concerns, medically-dependent individuals, persons with limited knowledge of official
languages, persons with low education, persons with low income, persons reliant on social
assistance, unemployed persons, single parents and single income families.
REMO’s efforts regarding these potentially vulnerable groups has focused on educating the
public about what vulnerabilities may exist under different hazard situations, and how individuals
with these vulnerabilities should respond. REMO has held town hall meetings regarding flood
risks, providing information to residents about what to do in the event of a flood, in order to
reduce vulnerability.
65

A representative of REMO noted that limited time and resources are constraints to emergency
planning in the District – REMO has no full time staff, and no single department or group is
involved in emergency management on a day-to-day basis. Consultees noted that retirees who
had been active in emergency management are not necessarily replaced. However, local
governments are supportive and involved in emergency management; residents frequently
contact their councilor in the case of road access problems due to snow, or long term power
outages.
There is very strong community involvement in the District’s Volunteer Fire Departments; fire
halls are important community gathering-places, and consultees mentioned that most local
people have at least one relative on the fire department. Summer residents are generally much
less involved in emergency management efforts. Consultees unanimously agreed that local fire
departments are very knowledgeable about their communities, and offer excellent service.
Fire departments work to prepare residents for anticipated weather events, such as in Petite
Riviere, where warning fliers are distributed, and the fire hall opened the day prior to an
expected storm. In the event of a severe storm, Fire Halls are opened as comfort stations as
early as 12 hours following the event, although they are only required to provide this service
after 72 hours. Consultees noted that local fire departments have very good knowledge about
areas at risk, those with access problems, and local residents that may require assistance.
Challenges for local fire departments include aging facilities that may experience storm damage;
some may also be located in hazardous locations themselves, such as the Petite Riviere Fire
department, which is located on the Petite River, and requires sandbagging in the event of very
heavy rainfall. Department members also noted that their volunteer status can be limiting: they
lack the authority to close a road due to safety concerns if falling trees or high winds cause
damage to power lines.
Consultees felt that the experience of minor events, such as long power outages, has helped to
prepare residents and emergency managers for the possibility of a more serious situation;
however, other storms that were expected to cause serious damage, but ultimately weakened
before impacting the area, may have generated a false sense of invulnerability amongst some
residents. Some consultees recounted that residents may refuse to evacuate in advance of a
storm, some staying to storm-watch or even swim in the ocean during a hurricane, placing
themselves in avoidable peril.
Community
Consultees described a strong sense of community in the District of Lunenburg, challenged by
its being spread over a large area. Councilors are engaged with their communities, and the
current mayor holds a town hall meeting in each district on an annual basis. Communities have
an ethos of ‘looking after their own,’ and consultees felt that neighbours would be aware of
community members who might require assistance, and would provide help to those residents.
In some of its activities, the District of Lunenburg adopts a similar approach; the recreation
department has a policy of ‘for the community, by the community,’ and does not build facilities or
infrastructure until the community asks for it. Comfort centres that function during and after storm
events are also community-organized, not operated by REMO.
While these indicators of community involvement are positive signs of healthy communities,
reliance on neighbours to be aware of residents that may require assistance, and on
communities to advocate for their own needs, may neglect the needs of some residents. Socially
vulnerable residents are less likely to feel entitled to community services, and may be unaware
of available channels to advocate for their own needs. Those at risk of being overlooked include
66

new residents, seasonal residents, and marginalized groups. Some of these residents may be
unknown to communities who might otherwise be happy to help; others may not be wellaccepted
in their community, and lack social networks and resources. Some consultees
described long-running rivalry amongst various communities in the District, as well as bias
against new residents, particularly those that do not comply with established social norms.
These attitudes could lead to exclusion, and increased social vulnerability of excluded groups
and individuals.
Additionally, some consultees noted lower levels of overall community involvement and
volunteerism than in the past; community events like suppers and gardens parties at churches
and community halls are organized mainly by seniors, who are not necessarily being replaced by
younger volunteers when they are no longer able to do this work. One consultee noted that while
young people may be doing volunteer work, this work may not be related to their immediate
community. Consultees also noted that while rural residents are less reliant on municipal
resources than urban residents, the localization of services in the Towns of Bridgewater and
Lunenburg, and loss of small businesses and services in the District’s smaller communities, has
reduced the ability of these communities to be self-sufficient.
Socially Vulnerable Populations
When asked about their understanding of social vulnerability in the District of Lunenburg,
consultees spoke about seniors, new and seasonal residents, residents with low income, single
parents, and issues to do with access or isolation, housing, and food security. Overall,
consultees indicated that socially vulnerable populations are quite dispersed throughout the
District, rather than being concentrated in particular areas.
Seniors
Consultees remarked at the high proportion of seniors in the District, and identified the elderly as
a particularly vulnerable group. Mahone Bay, Oakland, Prince’s Inlet, New Germany, Riverport,
Kingsburg, and Green Bay were all identified as areas with large senior populations. Some older
residents could have knowledge of local weather patterns and previous experience of extreme
weather events that would help them to anticipate adverse effects. They may also have
experienced a lifestyle in which families and small communities were more self-sufficient than
younger residents, especially those accustomed to urban living. However, other senior residents
are newcomers to the area, and may originate from urban areas; therefore they may be equally
as inexperienced as younger residents with regard to storm events.
Some consultees expressed concern about seniors homes, such as in Mahone Bay, and homes
for people with special needs, such as in Petite Riviere, where road access could be
problematic. All consultees agreed that local fire departments have an excellent awareness of
the locations of these types of facilities. REMO is also compiling a list of medically at-risk
individuals.
New and Seasonal Residents
Consultees felt that new and seasonal residents are a high-risk group in the event of a natural
hazard. These residents may not be as involved in community activities and emergency planning
as long-standing residents, and may not be aware of emergency procedures or organizations
and services that provide assistance. New residents may also lack knowledge about local
weather patterns, and therefore place themselves at risk.
67

Some consultees commented that newcomers are not always well accepted into communities in
the District, describing how people who do not have family connections in the area may be
viewed as outsiders and experience exclusion. This may be surprising to some new residents,
who are not prepared for the physical and social isolation they may experience. One consultee
noted that newcomers who do not belong to a faith group may find it particularly difficult to create
social connections. Another felt that traditional family arrangements are predominant in the
District, and that newcomers who do not conform to established norms may have especial
difficulty finding acceptance.
Low Income & Social Assistance
Consultees felt that low-income residents face increased risk from climate change impacts
because of their limited resources. Single parents were identified as a population group likely to
experience low income in addition to the challenge of sole responsibility for family well-being.
Several consultees remarked that when people already can’t afford rent, food, and heat for their
home, they will be unable to invest in emergency supplies or preventative measures to reduce
their physical risk. Individuals struggling to meet the expense of basic needs are unlikely to have
a contingency fund for unexpected expenses in the event of an emergency.
One issue of concern for low income residents is housing. The existing housing stock includes
many old homes, some of which are in poor repair, with leaky roofs and windows, or little to no
insulation; tenants have little control over the maintenance of rental units. Low income residents
may not be able to choose a home in good repair if they are renters, or may be unable to
sufficiently maintain their home, or invest in flood-proofing measures, if they are homeowners.
Consultees noted that there are modest homes in some low-lying areas that have clearly been
flooded in the past; environmental hazards such as mold and mildew, and structural safety are
concerns for these homes and their residents. They expressed concern that lower income
residents might not have flood insurance, and that loss of property value in the case of a flood
could be a serious burden.
Low income individuals without access to a personal vehicle are particularly disadvantaged, due
to the lack of alternative transportation options: travelling to a grocery store in Lunenburg or
Bridgewater is challenging, and individuals can only purchase as much as they can carry,
limiting their ability to maintain an emergency supply of food. Those with modest or shared
accommodations might also have limited storage space for food. Low-income individuals who
lack family connections in the area have fewer support networks, and are therefore more
vulnerable than others.
Many residents in the District are somewhat self-sufficient in food, keeping a garden and
perhaps chickens, and canning or freezing foods. However, those without their own property,
access to a yard, storage options, and knowledge of methods for preserving food, do not have
this advantage, and are entirely dependent on the ability to access grocery stores. These
residents may also be less likely to an alternative power source to operative a fridge or freezer in
the event of a power outage. One consultee questioned if support from food banks would be
available to residents in need in the event of a natural hazard; these organizations rely on
volunteers, who might be unable to volunteer if they are dealing with a crisis situation
themselves, or if access routes are disrupted.
Two consultees, both knowledgeable about population health issues, emphasized the
interconnected nature of challenges faced by individuals with low income: poverty is related to
housing, housing is related to food security, food security is related to transportation, and
transportation is related to employment opportunities. These relationships create multiple
68

vulnerabilities for individuals with low income, and result in a situation where one vulnerability
limits an individual’s ability to overcome another.
Consultees agreed that low-income individuals are dispersed throughout the District, but also
identified some patterns. Low income is more prevalent in fishing communities with government
wharves, such as Dublin Shore, Broad Cove, and Blue Rocks. Consultees felt that, due to high
property prices along the coast, a high proportion of residents living directly on the coast have
relatively high income, whereas lower income individuals are more likely to live further inland,
where property values are lower, and there is less likelihood of impact from storm surge.
Similarly, property values in the Town of Lunenburg have increased since its designation as a
UNESCO World Heritage Site; the cost of living is relatively high, and historic buildings which
had previously been converted to multi-unit dwellings have been reestablished as single unit
dwellings. As a result, lower income residents are more likely to reside in rural areas, smaller
towns, or in the Town of Bridgewater.
Nonetheless, consultees emphasized that some lower income residents remain in all areas of
the Municipality, including coastal areas, and would have a higher vulnerability to the impacts of
an extreme weather event.
Isolation
Consultees felt that, regardless of socioeconomic status, individuals and communities in
geographically isolated areas would be more vulnerable to natural hazard impacts. Disruption of
road access, coupled with longer distances from medical services and grocery stores, places
isolated residents at risk of being unable to obtain essential supplies and services. Consultees
noted that rural communities are less self-sufficient than in the past, due to the centralization of
shops and services in the larger towns.
General Discussion
The District of Lunenburg faces significant pre-existing physical vulnerability to extreme weather
events, and increasing impacts from such events as climate change accelerates their frequency
and severity. Meanwhile, an aging population is reducing the proportion of residents able to
contribute to adaptation and emergency planning. However, the District also has many strengths
that it can draw on; with knowledge of the degree and distribution of social vulnerability, and of
probable climate change impacts, communities in the District can work to reduce vulnerability
and negative impacts from climate change.
The following portion of this report provides an overview of the physical risk, social vulnerability,
and exposure of socially vulnerable populations to storm surge, integrating knowledge obtained
from all methods employed in the study: the index of social vulnerability; the overlay of storm
surge scenarios with mapped social vulnerability and services that socially vulnerable people
rely on; review of municipal planning and emergency management; and consultations.
While this report focuses on the impacts of storm surge on socially vulnerable populations, and
thus the coastal residents, it is useful to have knowledge about social vulnerability throughout
the District of Lunenburg. This is in part because the analysis in this report does not consider the
possible impacts of high winds and driving rain that accompany storm surge, and may result in
damage throughout the study area. Additionally, knowledge about social vulnerability provides a
better overall understanding of the study area.
69

Physical Impacts
The District’s extensive and irregular coastline, and numerous populated islands, causes high
exposure to sea level rise and storm surge. Dissemination areas with the greatest number of
residences that could be inundated include dissemination areas 114, 116, 117 and 118; those
with the most residences at risk of isolation include dissemination areas 113, 114, 115, 117 and
118.
Sea level rise alone may require a choice between costly improvements to infrastructure such as
bridges and roads, or the abandonment of certain infrastructure components. Because sea level
rise is an incremental process, the District has the opportunity to engage in long term planning in
anticipation of its impacts.
Storm surge, however, is much less predictable – a very severe storm could occur imminently,
or not for many years. While a storm surge would be relatively short in duration, damage to and
debris on roads and bridges could cause more lasting disruption to access, leaving emergency
services and vehicles bearing essentials such as home heating oil, unable to reach residents;
and residents unable to seek outside help or obtain supplies. Damage to power lines resulting in
loss of electrical power is another potential impact; this is of particular concern during winter
months when many residents would be without home heating. The loss of refrigerated and
frozen food would also be a significant hardship for residents with limited financial resources.
The cost of repairs to damaged infrastructure could be a substantial burden for the Municipality.
Social Vulnerability on the Coast
Overall social vulnerability in the District tends to be near or below average for Nova Scotia. The
highest social vulnerability amongst coastal dissemination areas occurs in dissemination area
117, which also faces a high risk of impacts from sea level rise and storm surge. However, this
area is also recognized for a high degree of community involvement and cohesiveness that can
help it to overcome these challenges and meet the needs of socially vulnerable residents.
While the remaining dissemination areas have overall social vulnerability that is at or below
average for Nova Scotia, the scores for individual indicators provide useful information about
each area’s strengths and weaknesses.
Indicator scores for low income, unemployment, and reliance on government transfer payments
vary widely amongst coastal dissemination areas, and all three conditions may not be present in
a single dissemination area. However, any one of these conditions may limit the ability of some
coastal residents to invest in measures to prepare for, withstand, and recover from a natural
hazard.
The District has a large population of seniors, particularly in dissemination areas along the coast.
Some of these residents may have a limited ability to understand or act upon warnings about
extreme weather events, and are more likely than other residents to require assistance with
evacuation in advance of, withstanding, and recovering from a natural hazard. Those living alone
– who are also concentrated in coastal areas – are at particular risk in the event of extreme
weather.
Throughout the District, low levels of education are common. While education rates are higher in
many coastal dissemination areas, low education is still a concern in others. While many
residents without secondary education have good common-sense knowledge and experience of
local weather patterns, some may also have greater difficulty understanding scientific
information about natural hazard impacts, or warnings and evacuation orders, particularly if they
have limited literacy.
70

Two coastal dissemination areas have significant populations of recent immigrants. While these
residents may not be socially vulnerable in other regards, they may be at greater risk in an
emergency situation due to a lack of familiarity with local weather patterns, emergency
procedures, and sources of assistance, as well as less developed social networks. Education
about natural hazards and steps to take in an extreme weather event may reduce their
vulnerability.
While the proportion of children in the District, particularly in coastal dissemination areas, is
relatively low for Nova Scotia, dissemination area 117, which exhibits other features of social
vulnerability, has an Above Average proportion of lone parent families. These families may
require additional assistance in the event of a natural hazard.
Fortunately, few services that socially vulnerable populations rely on are at risk of storm surge
inundation. However, both clients and staff living in areas at risk of inundation or isolation may
be unable to reach these services. Therefore, interruption in important services at a time of
enhanced need is still a possibility.
While most of the policy choices that can address the root causes of social vulnerability are the
purview of the provincial and federal governments, the District of Lunenburg does have
opportunities to reduce some areas of social vulnerability, for example through policy changes to
better accommodate the provision of good-quality low-income housing, and addressing the need
for public transportation service, which would improve area residents’ access to services –
particularly medical services and grocery stores – and employment opportunities.
Additionally, the Municipality could play a role in helping communities to adapt to changing social
resources. While the District has many strong communities, there is also a significant proportion
of new and seasonal residents that may be less integrated in community activities. Many
consultees noted that the role played by some historic community organizations, such as church
groups, is declining as their membership ages. Communities in the District will need to overcome
conservative tendencies in order to accept social change, compensate for these losses, and
both accept and promote new forms of community involvement.
Reducing Vulnerability
Climate change is expected to increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather events;
this will be as true for the District of Lunenburg as any other location. Repeat exposure has both
negative and positive implications: natural hazards can worsen existing vulnerability, as well as
creating new vulnerability; on the other hand, previous experience of extreme weather events
can identify areas of increased risk or vulnerability, as well as providing knowledge that can help
people to better prepare for adverse impacts. 213 Additionally, those that have experienced a
previous natural hazard may be more likely to take hazard risks seriously, and therefore be more
willing to participate in risk-reduction measures and respond to warnings. 214
In this sense, the District’s large population of seniors is both a source of vulnerability and a
potential driver of resilience. Seniors are more likely to experience sensory, mobility, or cognitive
limitations; those that do will require assistance preparing for an extreme weather event,
understanding and acting on warnings and evacuation orders, coping during an event, and
recovering afterwards. However, many of the District’s seniors will also be an excellent resource
for knowledge about local weather patterns, previous extreme weather events, and traditional
213 Enarson and Walsh, 2007. p. 14; Ford et al., 2009. p. 149, 152; Tapsell et al., 2010. p. 11, 17, 59.
214 Tapsell et al., 2010.
71

adaptive strategies. As younger urban residents may lack this knowledge and experience, it is
important for the area’s seniors to share their expertise. 215
In their analysis of the integration of high-risk populations into Canadian emergency
management planning, Drs. Enarson and Walsh of the Brandon University Department of
Applied Disaster Studies advocate just such an approach: they argue that both voluntary
organizations that serve socially vulnerable groups, and representatives of socially vulnerable
groups themselves, must be included in emergency management planning. 216
This approach has many benefits. It can help to avoid misconceptions and stereotypes amongst
planners and emergency management staff about the needs and capacities of socially
vulnerable groups. Pre-empting misconceptions both helps to counteract the social forces that
generate social vulnerability in the first place, as well as ensuring that the most effective
strategies are targeted towards the areas of greatest need, rather that wasting effort on
misdirected or inappropriate approaches. Additionally, involvement in emergency management
planning provides socially vulnerable populations with an opportunity for empowerment, and a
subsequent reduction in vulnerability. 217
In keeping with this thinking, Enarson and Walsh advocate for a change in terminology: they
describe how “The term “vulnerable” conveys to many — including many to whom it applies — a
sense of neediness and dependency, which indeed is how the term has often been interpreted in
practice by emergency responders and planners.” Instead, they suggest the term ‘high-risk
populations.’ 218
Techniques for integrating high-risk populations in emergency management planning include
inviting representatives of these groups to emergency management meeting; and developing
outreach and educational material, as well as emergency warnings and evacuation instructions,
in cooperation with them. 219 For example, residents with low literacy or minimal knowledge of
English can help to ensure that these materials can effectively communicate important
information in a clear and accessible way, without being condescending or patronizing. In this
manner, members of socially vulnerable populations can serve as local experts for emergency
management organizations.
Some members of society may be truly unable to help themselves; examples include the
infirmed elderly, the severely disabled, and medically dependent persons. The involvement of
government and voluntary organizations is essential in ensuring the well-being of these
community-members in the event of a natural hazard, as they are most knowledgeable about the
number, location, and specific needs of these community members. The Community Geomatics
Centre and Accessibility Sault Ste. Marie developed the concept of a Vulnerable Persons
Registry. This free, voluntary service provides first responders with key information about those
choosing to register, and helps to protect their safety in the event of an emergency. 220
REMO has already initiated a process to identify residents who will require assistance; this type
of proactive approach offers the District a means to help to prevent avoidable tragedies. The
District’s fire departments could be an excellent collaborative partner in this initiative. Consultees
unanimously emphasized that the fire departments are very knowledgeable about both potential
hazards and the residents or their jurisdictions. Fire departments could help to create awareness
215 Ford et al., 2009. p.149.
216 Enarson and Walsh, 2007. p. 36, 38.
217 Ibid., p. 20–23, 32, 43–45.
218 Ibid., p. 24.
219 Ibid., p. 43–45.
220 Sault Ste. Marie Innovation Centre, 2011.
72

about this program and use their knowledge of local populations to ensure that residents who
will require help are identified. As fire departments are the primary emergency services
personnel in the District, they should also be involved in planning for how the needs of residents
included in the database will be cared for.
The Municipality has significant challenges to overcome in order to reduce social vulnerability to
natural hazards. Lack of land use planning controls, and differing views about the Municipality’s
role in planning and adaptation, limit its ability to prevent residents from placing themselves at
risk. Similarly, municipal planning documents show various levels of awareness of issues related
to social vulnerability, as well as uncertainty about the appropriate role for the Municipality in
responding to these issues. Some planning documents focus on the aesthetic and tourist appeal
of the area, and the needs of the Municipality’s aging population, but do not explore the needs,
or implications of planning decisions, for socially vulnerable populations other than seniors.
Conclusion
The assessment of the spatial distribution of social vulnerability presented in this report provides
the District of Lunenburg with the necessary knowledge to target adaptation and emergency
planning efforts to those areas most in need. Additionally, it suggests the types of needs that
socially vulnerable populations may have in the event of a natural hazard, so that emergency
planners can provide the most needed forms of assistance.
Decisions about priorities for climate change adaptation and emergency management planning
will unavoidably privilege one set of interests over another. Considering social vulnerability in
climate change planning moves beyond mere accounting for the economic costs and benefits of
adaptation, and introduces an ethical component to decision-making. 221 However, this approach
is also a practical one: since socially vulnerable populations are the hardest hit by natural
hazards, the best way to reduce overall impacts from these events is by working to decrease
social vulnerability and limit negative impacts on socially vulnerable populations.
221 Adger et al., 2004. p. 35.
73

References
ABC Life Literacy Canada. (2011). Workplace Literacy Facts. http://abclifeliteracy.ca/workplaceliteracy-facts.
Adger, W. N., Brooks, N., Bentham, G, Agnew, M. and Eriksen.S. (2004). New Indicators of
Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research,
Norwich, UK.
Andrey, J. and Jones, B. (2008). The dynamic nature of social disadvantage: implications for
hazard exposure and vulnerability in Greater Vancouver. Canadian Geographer. Vol.
52(2). Pp. 146-168.
Clark, C. (2010). Scrapped mandatory census cuts even deeper for disability advocacy group.
The Globe and Mail, July 24, 2010.
Critchley, J. (2011). Social Vulnerability to Storm Surges in Halifax Harbour. Bachelor of
Community Design. Honours Thesis. Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS.
Cutter, S. (1996). Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Process in Human Geography. Vol.
20(4). Pp. 529-539.
Cutter, S., Boruff, B. and Lynn, S.W. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards.
Social Science Quarterly. Vol. 84(2). Pp. 242-261.
Cutter, S., Emrich, C., Webb, J. and Morath, D. (2009). Social Vulnerability to Climate Variability
Hazards: A Review of the Literature. Oxfam America. Hazards and Vulnerability
Research Institute.
Dolan, A. H., and Walker, I. J. (2003). Understanding vulnerability of coastal communities to
climate change related risks. Journal of Coastal Research. Itajai, Brazil.
Dwyer, A., Zoppou, C., Nielsen, O., Day, S. and Roberts, S. (2004). Quantifying Social
Vulnerability: A Methodology for Identifying those at Risk to Natural Hazards. Geoscience
Australia.
Enarson, E. and Walsh, S. (2007). Integrating Emergency Management and High-Risk
Populations: Survey Report and Action Recommendations. Canadian Red Cross.
Florida, Richard. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class: Why Cities Without Gays and Rock
Bands are Losing the Economic Development Race. Washington Monthly (May 2002).
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.florida.html.
Ford, J. D., Gough, W. A., Laidler, G. J., MacDonald, J., Irngaut, C. and Qrunnut. K. (2009). Sea
ice, climate change, and community vulnerability in Northern Foxe Basin, Canada.
Climate Research. Vol. 38. Pp. 137-154.
Frohlich, N. and Mustard, C. (1996). A regional comparison of socioeconomic and health indices
in a Canadian province. Social Science and Medicine. Vol. 42(9). Pp. 1273-1281.
Fussel, H.-M. (2009). Review and Quantitative Analysis of Indices of Climate Change Exposure,
Adaptive Capacity, Sensitivity, and Impacts. Background Note to the World Bank
Development Report 2010. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Grant, T. (2011). Income inequality rising quickly in Canada. The Globe and Mail, September 13,
2011. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/dailymix/income-inequality-rising-quickly-in-canada/article2163938/.
74

Groome, P. (2010). Census Changes Harm Canadians’ Health: Health professionals warn of
health impact of the loss of the mandatory long form census. Social Planning Toronto,
September 2, 2010. http://www.savethecensus.ca/savethecensus.ca/Resources.html.
Lindsay, J. (2010). Emergency Management in Canada: Near Misses and Moving Targets.
training.fema.gov.
———. (2003). The Determinants of Disaster Vulnerability: Achieving Sustainable Mitigation
through Population Health. Natural Hazards. Vol. 28. Pp. 291-304.
Mikkonen, J. and Raphael, D. (2010). Social Determinants of Health: The Canadian Facts.
School of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto, ON.
Millier Dickinson Blais Inc. (2009).Municipality of the District of Lunenburg Economic
Development Strategy (Phase One), 2009.
Municipality of the District of Lunenburg. (2010a). Municipality of the District of Lunenburg
Integrated Community Sustainability Plan.
———. (2010b). Princes Inlet & Area Secondary Planning Strategy,
———. (2009). Riverport and District Secondary Planning Strategy, 2009.
———. (2003). Oakland Secondary Planning Strategy and Land-Use By-Law. 2003.
Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, and HRD iTRANS. (2009). “Public Transportation
Feasibility Study: Final Report Summary.
Olive, D. (2007). Why poverty threatens us all. Toronto Star, October 20, 2007.
http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/268662.
Public Health Agency of Canada. (2003). What Makes Canadians Healthy or Unhealthy?,
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/determinants/determinants-eng.php.
Sault Ste. Marie Innovation Centre. (2011). Vulnerable Persons Registry.
http://www.ssmic.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=content&menuid=15&pageid=1169.
Scott, K., and Lessard, R. (2004). Income Inequality as a Determinant of Health. Public Health
Agency of Canada. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/oi-ar/pdf/02_income_e.pdf.
Stantec. (2009). Municipality of the District of Lunenburg Strategic Plan Review. Halifax.
Statistics Canada. (2011a). Low Income Cut-offs, November 8, 2011.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=13-551-X&lang=eng.
———. (2011b). “Persons in Low Income After Tax. June 15, 2011.
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/FAMIL19A-eng.htm.
———. (2011c). Visible Minority of Person, January 17, 2011.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/concepts/definitions/minority-minorite1-eng.htm.
———. (2010). Highest Certificate, Diploma or Degree, June 14, 2010.
http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/ref/dict/pop038-eng.cfm.
———. (2009a). 2006 Census Collection, January 30, 2009. http://www12.statcan.ca/censusrecensement/2006/ref/about-apropos/coll-eng.cfm.
———. (2009b). Census Family, November 20, 2009. http://www12.statcan.ca/censusrecensement/2006/ref/dict/fam004-eng.cfm.
75

———. (2009c). Composition of Income, November 20, 2009. http://www12.statcan.ca/censusrecensement/2006/ref/dict/pop020-eng.cfm.
———. (2009d). Government Transfer Payments, n.d. November 20, 2009.
http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/ref/dict/pop037-eng.cfm
———. (2009e). Prevalence of Low Income After Tax, November 20, 2009.
http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/ref/dict/fam021-eng.cfm.
———. (2009f). Unemployment Rate, November 20, 2009. http://www12.statcan.ca/censusrecensement/2006/ref/dict/pop125-eng.cfm.
———. (2008). Portrait of Immigrants in Canada, December 3, 2008.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/2008018/findings-resultats/portrait-eng.htm.
———. (2007a). Aboriginal Identity, August 20, 2007. http://www12.statcan.ca/censusrecensement/2006/ref/dict/pop001-eng.cfm.
———. (2007b). Participation and Activity Limitation Survey, December 3, 2007.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/071203/dq071203a-eng.htm.
———. (2005). Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics, May 3, 2005.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/about-apercu/fpos-pfso-eng.htm.
———. n.d. Census of Population. Canadian Census Analyzer,
Tapsell, S., McCarthy, S., Faulkner, S. H. and Alexander, M. (2010). Social Vulnerability to
Natural Hazards. CapHaz-Net: Social Capacity Building for Natural Hazards - Toward
More Resilient Societies. Middlesex University, London.
Wall, E. and Marzall, K. (2006). Adaptive capacity for climate change in Canadian rural
communities. Local Environment. Vol. 11(4) Pp. 373-397.
Waters, David. (2012). Letter, February 24, 2012.
World Health Organization. (2011). Social Determinants of Health.
http://www.who.int/social_determinants/en/.
76

Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography
Assessing Social Vulnerability To Climate Change: Concepts &
Methods
Tapsell, Sue, Simon McCarthy, Hazel Faulkner, and Meghan Alexander. Social
Vulnerability to Natural Hazards. CapHaz-Net: Social Capacity Building for Natural
Hazards - Toward More Resilient Societies. Middlesex University, 2010.
Under the auspices of CapHaz-Net, a research network devoted to investigating the social
dimensions of natural hazards, the authors of this report present a review of contemporary
literature on social vulnerability by both academics and practitioners, with a focus on extreme
hydrometeorological events. The report includes an examination of concepts and definitions; an
evaluation of various conceptual models and methods of assessing vulnerability; and discussion
about the roles and responsibilities of various actors, including the state, communities and
households. The authors note that there are numerous challenges in integrating climate change
adaptation, which is long term and generally approached in a top-down manner; and disaster
reduction, which considers immediate impacts, and is usually performed using a bottom-up
approach. The report also discusses a number of studies of vulnerability performed in various
European nations.
While this report is specific to Europe, the conceptual models examined may generally be
applied in any developed western nation.
Fussel, Hans-Martin. Review and Quantitative Analysis of Indices of Climate Change
Exposure, Adaptive Capacity, Sensitivity, and Impacts. Background Note to the World
Bank Development Report 2010. Washington: World Bank, 2009.
This publication by Hans-Martin Fussel is an exhaustive review of climate change and natural
hazard indices, performed for the World Bank. The focus of the report is an evaluation of indices
of vulnerability to be applied at the national level, in order to direct adaptation funding to the
most vulnerable nations. The indices discussed consider overall vulnerability, not only social
vulnerability.
While many of the features of these indices are not applicable to the study at hand, Fussel’s
discussion of conceptual and methodological choices is informative. Specifically, he offers an
assessment of aggregated and disaggregated vulnerability indices, and critiques various
methods for weighting indicators. He notes that such methodological choices have a great
impact on the results obtained by an index.
Adger, W. Neil, Nick Brooks, Graham Bentham, Maureen Agnew, and Siri Eriksen. New
Indicators of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity. Norwich: Tyndall Centre for Climate
Change Research, 2004.
This study has three main components. First, it sets forth a conceptual framework for developing
indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity, based on a literature review, meetings with
practitioners in the field of vulnerability, adaptation and natural hazards; and discussions with
what the authors describe as ‘key individuals.’ Second, the authors develop diagnostic indicators
of risk, measured in terms of the outcome of climate related disasters, measured by mortality,
morbidity and displacement. Third, they create a set of predictive indicators of vulnerability,
using publicly available data relating to social, economic, political and environmental factors.
77

The authors of this report present an evaluation of indices of vulnerability and adaptive capacity,
with a focus on the relationship between the indicators chosen and theoretical models of
adaptation. They describe the assets and shortcomings of two general approaches to selecting
indicators: a deductive research approach based on a theoretical understanding of relationships
amongst concepts and variables; and an inductive approach based on statistical relationships.
They also discuss issues of scale, dynamism (change over time in space, impacts from multiple
pressures) and complexity. They conclude this portion of the report with implications for best
practice in indicator studies.
In developing a conceptual framework, this study considers issues such as defining relevant
terms; timescale; generic and specific vulnerability to different hazards; and an exploration of
issues regarding the weighting and aggregation of indicators.
Cutter, Susan, Bryan Boruff, and W. Lynn Shirley. “Social Vulnerability to Environmental
Hazards.” Social Science Quarterly 84, no. 2 (2003): 242-261.
Dr. Susan Cutter is a prominent researcher in the field of natural hazards. In this article, she and
her co-authors present the SoVI – a social vulnerability index for the US. The SoVI is
constructed using county-level socio-economic and demographic data, as well as data about the
built environment. After normalizing the data to percentages, per capita, or density functions, a
factor analytic approach (principal components analysis) was used to reduce 42 initial variables
to 11 independent factors accounting for 76% of the variance in the data.
The variables are then expressed in terms of standard deviations from the mean, and placed in
an additive model to compute a summary score – the SoVI. The study’s authors note that,
lacking a defensible method for assigning weights to the factors, each factor is viewed as having
an equal contribution to overall vulnerability.
The results are displayed using chloropleth mapping to reveal spatial patterns in social
vulnerability. The SoVI only considers social vulnerability, and is intended to be used in
conjunction with assessments of biophysical risk.
The authors noted the difficulty of testing the ability of the SoVI to quantify social vulnerability –
they attempted to do so by comparing mapped results with the number of presidential disaster
declarations by county, and found no statistically significant relationship. When it appeared that
slightly more disaster declarations occurred in the least vulnerable counties, they hypothesized
that these presidential declarations may in fact be influenced by socioeconomic factors.
Dwyer, Anita, Christopher Zoppou, Ole Nielsen, Susan Day, and Stephen Roberts.
Quantifying Social Vulnerability: A Methodology for Identifying those at Risk to Natural
Hazards. Geoscience Australia, 2004.
As a part of an ongoing risk model development by the Risk Research Group at Geoscience
Australia, this study puts forth a method of measuring the vulnerability of individuals within a
household to risks from natural hazards.
The study utilizes 13 quantifiable vulnerability indicators and two hazard indicators. This report
sets forth a number of criteria the selection of indicators, including validity in terms of accurately
representing concepts expressed in the model used; data availability and quality; sensitivity to
time scale; quantitativeness; and recognition in social vulnerability literature. The authors note
that the indicators selected in their study do are not an exhaustive set of factors that influence
social vulnerability, but rather only those that can be accurately quantified.
The weighting of indicators was determined through a Risk Perception Questionnaire, in which a
combination of disaster risk experts and non-experts were asked to rank the ability of
hypothetical individuals to recover from a natural hazard impact. This data was then classified
78

and analyzed using a Decision Tree Analysis, a process that identifies relationships between
indicator attributes. Synthetic estimation was used to estimate the cross-correlation of various
indicator attributes (e.g. the number of persons who are over a certain age, and live alone, and
earn a low income…)
This methodology is intended to be layered with hazard and economic assessments.
Although the model is specific to people living in urbanized areas within an Australian city, the
authors note that minor changes could make it possible for various communities in many
different situations to be assessed.
Assessments of Social Vulnerability to Climate Change in Canada
Wall, Ellen, and Katia Marzall. “Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change in Canadian Rural
Communities.” Local Environment 11, no. 4 (August 2006): 373-397.
In this 2006 article, Ellen Wall and Katia Marzall document their work creating a framework for
assessing adaptive capacity for climate change in Canadian rural communities. Their study
employs a ‘bottom-up’ philosophy of documenting current adaptive responses as the basis for
understanding future adaptive capacity, rather than applying a theoretical model. The approach
is to identifying community resources, and select appropriate indicators for measuring them.
The methodology began with performing background research about the community, and
looking at climate change predictions and their likely impacts. Then, variables were selected and
indicators chosen based on a literature review and data availability. A combination of data
sources and types was used: statistical data; information made available through the New Rural
Economy Project phase 2 (NRE2) – an education program studying rural Canada since 1998;
through reviewing published site reports; and key informant interviews.
In order to achieve some commonality, initial assessments for each indicator were transformed
into scores based on a Likert scale (0-10). Finally, the resulting adaptive capacity framework
was applied to a case study. Findings were documented in ‘amoeba profiles’ – graphs that
visually represent how the community being studied performs in various areas.
79

The variables chosen were organized into five categories - social, human, institutional, natural
and economic resources - each with several relevant variables. The following table lists the
resource being evaluated, variables chosen, and indicators used to measure those variables.
Resource Definition Variables
Social
Human
Institutional
Natural
Economic
People’s relationships with each other through
networks and the associational life in their
community
Skills, education, experiences and general
abilities of individuals combined with the
availability of ‘productive’ individuals
Government-related infrastructure (fixed
assets)—utilities such as electricity,
transportation, water, institutional buildings and
services related to health, social support, and
communications
Endowments and resources of a region
belonging to the biophysical realm, including
forests, air, water, arable land, soil, genetic
resources, and environmental services
Financial assets including built infrastructure as
well as a number of features enabling economic
development
Community attachment, Social
cohesion
Productive population, Education
infrastructure, Education levels,
Political action
Utilities infrastructure, Emergency
preparedness, Health services,
Communications services, Potable
water quality
Potable water quantity, Surface
water, Soil conditions, Forest
reserves, Fish reserves
Employment levels and
opportunities, Economic assets
It is important to note that the goal of this case study was to assess the overall adaptability of a
Canadian rural community to the incremental impacts of climate change, with a focus on
agriculture. While some aspects of the study will not be relevant to the work at hand, the
conceptual basis and methodology are nonetheless instructive.
Andrey, Jean, and Brenda Jones. “The Dynamic Nature of Social Disadvantage:
Implications for Hazard Exposure and Vulnerability in Greater Vancouver.” Canadian
Geographer 52, no. 2 (2008): 146-168.
This 2008 study presents an assessment of social vulnerability to natural hazards in Great
Vancouver, British Columbia. The hazards considered in the study are earthquake-induced
liquefaction, wildfires and noise pollution. Variables were selected based on literature regarding
natural hazards and environmental equity. Other considerations included the particular social
composition of Greater Vancouver, and available Census data at the Census tract level for three
census years: 1986, 1996 and 2001. The 19 variables chosen include income, employment,
age, gender, ethnicity, family composition and dwelling attributes.
Raw data were converted to incidence rates for each census tract (e.g. number of seniors in a
tract as a percentage of the tract’s total population). Then, principal components analysis (PCA)
was applied to the data to reveal groups of variables with similar spatial patterns. The number of
variables is then reduced those components that account for the bulk of the variance in the data.
The principal components were subjected to an orthogonal varimax rotation to improve their
interpretability. Five principal components accounted for 88% and 86% of the data’s variance for
1986 and 2001, while four components accounted for 79% of the data variance for 1996.
The information obtained from the PCA was then mapped so that patterns of social
disadvantage could be compared both among census years, and to maps indicating hazard
exposure.
80

Dolan, A.H., and I.J. Walker. “Understanding Vulnerability of Coastal Communities to
Climate Change Related Risks.” In Journal of Coastal Research. Itajai, Brazil, 2003.
Dolan and Walker suggest a multi-scaled, integrated vulnerability framework that is to be locally
relevant, and employs a community-based, bottom-up approach. This integrated framework
considers both physical exposure and social vulnerability that leads to risk exposure and limits
the capacities of communities to respond to risk. Therefore, vulnerability is viewed as a physical
risk and social response in a defined geographic context.
This study is concerned with both discrete climate hazards, and the long-term impacts of climate
variability and change. Vulnerability is evaluated at both the individual/household and community
level: indicators include demographic features such as gender, income, disability, and family
composition; as well as community-scale determinants such as income distribution, reliance on
natural resources and critical infrastructure susceptible to sea-level rise impacts, access to
technology, and institutional frameworks. These features were assessed through qualitative,
community-based research methods involving institutions, local decision-makers, resource users
and residents. The authors emphasize the importance of grounding scientific knowledge in local
experience. The goal is to enhance local-level capacity to deal with change within existing
institutional frameworks.
At the time of publication, the authors were engaged in the application of their framework to a
case study in Haida Gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands), British Columbia.
Ford, J.D., W.A. Gough, G.J. Laidler, J. MacDonald, C. Irngaut, and K. Qrunnut. “Sea Ice,
Climate Change, and Community Vulnerability in Northern Foxe Basin, Canada.” Climate
Research 38 (2009): 137-154.
This report documents a case study on an Inuit community, examining the processes and
conditions shaping human vulnerability to sea ice change resulting from climate change. The
study employs a case study approach, using retrospective analysis to examine how community
members have responded to anomalous conditions; identify adaptive responses; characterize
processes and conditions shaping vulnerability; and suggest the potential implications of future
climate change.
The authors emphasize the significance of non-climatic factors in shaping vulnerability to climate
change impacts, and the roles of multiple, interacting climatic and non-climatic stressors that can
magnify impacts.
Critchley, J. (2011). Social Vulnerability to Storm Surges in Halifax Harbour. Dalhousie
University Bachelor of Community Design Honours Thesis.
In his 2011 Bachelor of Community Design Honours Thesis, Dalhousie University student
Jonathan Critchley performed an assessment of social vulnerability to storm surge for the Halifax
Harbour. In consultation with planning staff from Halifax Regional Municipality, Critchley
constructed an index of social vulnerability based primarily on Dr. Cutter’s hazard-of-place
model.
The index considers 12 criteria based on demographic and socioeconomic characteristics and
community emergency response services. The criteria are normalized based on scores amongst
Census dissemination areas around the Halifax harbour that are at risk of being affected by
storm surge. All criteria are assigned equal weight, and a composite index is formed. The
products are the indices and maps showing the spatial distribution of social vulnerability, which
create an accessible decision-making tool.
81

Social Determinants of Health in Canada
Public Health Agency of Canada. “What Makes Canadians Healthy or Unhealthy?”, 2003.
This Government of Canada website provides an explanation of the social determinants of
heath, explaining the underlying premises and providing evidence. The key determinants
identified by the Public Health Agency of Canada are: income; social support networks;
education and literacy; employment and working conditions; social environments; physical
environments; personal health practice and coping skills; healthy child development; biology and
genetic endowment; health services; and culture.
Income Inequality as a Determinant of Health.
This online resource is a summary based on papers and presentations by a government of
Canada senior policy analyst, and a Quebec director of public health and social services. It
explores the link between socioeconomic status and health outcomes, emphasizing the
abundance of evidence and epidemiological literature confirming that socioeconomic status and
income equality are fundamental determinants of health.
Mikkonen, Juha, and Dennis Raphael. Social Determinants of Health: The Canadian Facts.
Toronto: York University, School of Health Policy and Management, 2010.
This publication by the York University School of Health Policy and Management provides an
introduction to the Canadian social determinants of health, explaining how social factors and
living conditions have been proven to either promote health or cause disease. For each of
fourteen key determinants of health, the authors describe: why the determinant is important to
health; how Canada compares to other wealthy developed nations; and how the quality of the
social determinant can be improved.
The key determinants of health identified, in alphabetical order, are: Aboriginal status, disability,
early life, education, employment and working conditions, food insecurity, health services,
gender, housing, income and income distribution, race, social exclusion, social safety net,
unemployment and job security.
Frohlich, Norman, and Cam Mustard. “A Regional Comparison of Socioeconomic and
Health Indices in a Canadian Province.” Social Science and Medicine 42, no. 9 (1996):
1273-1281.
This study, conducted In 1996, examined correlations between socioeconomic status and health
outcomes. Health (hospital admissions and morbidity) and socioeconomic data were collected at
the enumeration area level, and aggregated at the municipal level. All data were normalized at
the provincial level for purposed of comparison. Correlations were identified between health and
socioeconomic measures using linear regression; regression coefficients were used as weights
in the socioeconomic index. The model was tested for robustness by choosing different levels of
aggregation, excluding portions of the study area, excluding certain indicators, and correlating
individual indicators. The model performed extremely well, yielding consistent results in all
cases.
This study found that socioeconomic risk explains 60% of variance in health status index at the
municipal level, and 87% of the variance at the regional level. It explains over 90% of variance in
both premature death and health care utilization at the regional level. The authors note that the
relationship between socioeconomic status and health occurs as a gradient across the social
hierarchy, rather than at a threshold of absolute poverty. They also theorize that high densities in
a geographic area of individual experiences that contribute to deprivation and therefore poor
health may also have group-level effects. The study does not examine implications for practices
82

in health care or mitigating socioeconomic inequalities; rather, its main usefulness is in guiding
the allocation of resources targeted at reducing socioeconomic inequalities in health.
Social Determinants of Health in Canadian Emergency Management
Lindsay, J. Emergency Management in Canada: Near Misses and Moving Targets
John Lindsay provides an evaluation of emergency management in Canada. He describes a
number of events that have shaped Canadian emergency management practices, discusses
challenges specific to the Canadian context. He notes that although Canada was a leader in
adopting the population health model in health care, and has continued to make the connection
between the determinants of health and disaster vulnerability, that Canada’s emergency
management system has been slow to identify the importance of considering social vulnerability
when performing risk assessments. He also acknowledges that further research is required to
better understand how the social determinants of health influence vulnerability in different
settings.
Lindsay, John. “The Determinants of Disaster Vulnerability: Achieving Sustainable
Mitigation through Population Health.” Natural Hazards 28 (2003): 291-304.
This paper aims to identify common goals between disaster management and health care in
regards to mitigating community vulnerability. He notes that the now well-accepted population
health model identifies many of the same social, economic and physical factors that disaster
management has linked to vulnerability: the same factors that allow people to be healthy also
allow people to cope with disasters. Additionally, disaster impacts are felt primarily in terms of
health, and other community impacts that can reduce population health. Therefore, reduction in
vulnerability through improving socioeconomic conditions will have a positive effect on
population health, not only through the reduction in disaster-related injuries and deaths, but also
by improving the social determinants of health in the community. Similarly, actions to improve
the social determinants of health with also reduce vulnerability to disasters. Lindsay suggests
that the integration of health promotion and disaster vulnerability reduction is a natural step,
citing a long-standing association between health promotion, city planning, community
development, and the environmental movement. He further identifies a role for the health sector
in mediation between economic and environmental interests that sometimes conflict.
Lindsay notes that, in the past, both health care and disaster management as disciplines have
emphasized reactive measures, neglecting the health aspects of pre-event mitigation and postevent
recovery needs.
Enarson, Elaine, and Sara Walsh. Integrating Emergency Management and High-Risk
Populations: Survey Report and Action Recommendations. Canadian Red Cross, 2007.
In a commissioned report for the Canadian Red Cross, scholars from the Brandon University
Department of Applied Disaster and Emergency Studies analyze how, and how well, the needs
and capacities of those most at risk are integrated into emergency management practices in
Canada.
Using a combination of a literature review and consultations with experts, the authors create a
framework for identifying and understanding social vulnerabilities as the population subgroup
level. This study employs a functional limitations approach that considers factors such as
mobility or communication restrictions. The social determinants of health are identified as clear
indicators of social vulnerability in Canada.
83

The integration of the needs and capacities of high-risk groups in emergency management is
evaluated through the use of an electronic survey of 48 emergency management agencies and
89 voluntary organizations that serve high-risk populations. Gaps in meeting the needs of highrisk
populations; shortcomings in resources and relationships amongst emergency management
and voluntary sector organizations; and suggested best practices are identified. The importance
of including representatives for, and advocates of, high-risk populations in emergency
management planning is highlighted.
While the results of the survey cannot be generalized to all emergency management and
voluntary organizations in Canada, the types of limitations and best practices identified are
instructive.
84

Appendix B: Table of Indicators and Supporting Sources
This table lists the indicators chosen for the index of social vulnerability, and studies that support
the inclusion of each indicator. In some cases, studies cited may suggest the use of a closely
related indicator, rather than the exact indicator chosen. For example, a study that suggests that
race and ethnicity are significant factors due to language and cultural barriers is cited as
supporting the inclusion of knowledge of Canada’s official languages as an indicator of social
vulnerability; a study that notes that both seniors and persons living alone are at higher risk
would be cited as supporting the inclusion of seniors living alone.
Low Income
Adger et al., New Indicators of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity.
Andrey and Jones, “The Dynamic Nature of Social Disadvantage: Implications for
Hazard Exposure and Vulnerability in Greater Vancouver.”
Cutter et al., Social Vulnerability to Climate Variability Hazards: A Review of the
Literature.
Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley, “Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards.”
Dolan and Walker, “Understanding Vulnerability of Coastal Communities to Climate
Change Related Risks.”
Dwyer et al., Quantifying Social Vulnerability: A Methodology for Identifying those at
Risk to Natural Hazards.
Enarson and Walsh, Integrating Emergency Management and High-Risk Populations:
Survey Report and Action Recommendations.
Lindsay, “The Determinants of Disaster Vulnerability: Achieving Sustainable Mitigation
through Population Health.”
Tapsell et al., Social Vulnerability to Natural Hazards.
Wall and Marzall, “Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change in Canadian Rural
Communities.”
Unemployment
Andrey and Jones, “The Dynamic Nature of Social Disadvantage: Implications for
Hazard Exposure and Vulnerability in Greater Vancouver.”
Cutter et al., Social Vulnerability to Climate Variability Hazards: A Review of the
Literature.
Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley, “Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards.”
Government Transfer Payments
Andrey and Jones, “The Dynamic Nature of Social Disadvantage: Implications for
Hazard Exposure and Vulnerability in Greater Vancouver.”
Cutter et al., Social Vulnerability to Climate Variability Hazards: A Review of the
Literature.
Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley, “Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards.”
85

Children
Andrey and Jones, “The Dynamic Nature of Social Disadvantage: Implications for
Hazard Exposure and Vulnerability in Greater Vancouver.”
Cutter et al., Social Vulnerability to Climate Variability Hazards: A Review of the
Literature.
Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley, “Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards.”
Dwyer et al., Quantifying Social Vulnerability: A Methodology for Identifying those at
Risk to Natural Hazards.
Enarson and Walsh, Integrating Emergency Management and High-Risk Populations:
Survey Report and Action Recommendations.
Tapsell et al., Social Vulnerability to Natural Hazards.
Wall and Marzall, “Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change in Canadian Rural
Communities.”
Seniors
Andrey and Jones, “The Dynamic Nature of Social Disadvantage: Implications for
Hazard Exposure and Vulnerability in Greater Vancouver.”
Cutter et al., Social Vulnerability to Climate Variability Hazards: A Review of the
Literature.
Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley, “Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards.”
Dwyer et al., Quantifying Social Vulnerability: A Methodology for Identifying those at
Risk to Natural Hazards.
Enarson and Walsh, Integrating Emergency Management and High-Risk Populations:
Survey Report and Action Recommendations.
Wall and Marzall, “Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change in Canadian Rural
Communities.”
Seniors Living Alone
Andrey and Jones, “The Dynamic Nature of Social Disadvantage: Implications for
Hazard Exposure and Vulnerability in Greater Vancouver.”
Dwyer et al., Quantifying Social Vulnerability: A Methodology for Identifying those at
Risk to Natural Hazards.
Lone Parents
Andrey and Jones, “The Dynamic Nature of Social Disadvantage: Implications for
Hazard Exposure and Vulnerability in Greater Vancouver.”
Cutter et al., Social Vulnerability to Climate Variability Hazards: A Review of the
Literature.
Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley, “Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards.”
Dwyer et al., Quantifying Social Vulnerability: A Methodology for Identifying those at
Risk to Natural Hazards.
Tapsell et al., Social Vulnerability to Natural Hazards.
86

No Secondary Education
Adger et al., New Indicators of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity.
Andrey and Jones, “The Dynamic Nature of Social Disadvantage: Implications for
Hazard Exposure and Vulnerability in Greater Vancouver.”
Cutter et al., Social Vulnerability to Climate Variability Hazards: A Review of the
Literature.
Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley, “Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards.”
Enarson and Walsh, Integrating Emergency Management and High-Risk Populations:
Survey Report and Action Recommendations.
Lindsay, “The Determinants of Disaster Vulnerability: Achieving Sustainable Mitigation
through Population Health.”
Tapsell et al., Social Vulnerability to Natural Hazards.
Wall and Marzall, “Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change in Canadian Rural
Communities.”
No Knowledge of Official Languages
Cutter et al., Social Vulnerability to Climate Variability Hazards: A Review of the
Literature.
Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley, “Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards.”
Dwyer et al., Quantifying Social Vulnerability: A Methodology for Identifying those at
Risk to Natural Hazards.
Enarson and Walsh, Integrating Emergency Management and High-Risk Populations:
Survey Report and Action Recommendations.
Tapsell et al., Social Vulnerability to Natural Hazards.
Recent Immigrants
Dwyer et al., Quantifying Social Vulnerability: A Methodology for Identifying those at
Risk to Natural Hazards.
Enarson and Walsh, Integrating Emergency Management and High-Risk Populations:
Survey Report and Action Recommendations.
Visible Minorities
Cutter et al., Social Vulnerability to Climate Variability Hazards: A Review of the
Literature.
Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley, “Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards.”
Enarson and Walsh, Integrating Emergency Management and High-Risk Populations:
Survey Report and Action Recommendations.
Lindsay, “The Determinants of Disaster Vulnerability: Achieving Sustainable Mitigation
through Population Health.”
87

Aboriginal Persons
Cutter et al., Social Vulnerability to Climate Variability Hazards: A Review of the
Literature.
Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley, “Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards.”
Enarson and Walsh, Integrating Emergency Management and High-Risk Populations:
Survey Report and Action Recommendations.
88

Appendix C: Maps of Profile by Indicator for the District of
Lunenburg
89

Low Income
This indicator measures the prevalence of low income in private households against the average
for Nova Scotia. The low income cut-off considers not only the dollar amount of household
income, but also locally factors such as the cost of necessities like food, clothing and shelter.
The District of Lunenburg has Below Average vulnerability with respect to prevalence of low
income, with vulnerability scores among the dissemination areas ranging from Low to Very High.
Scores among the coastal dissemination areas are Above Average, Average, Below Average
and Low.
90

Government Transfer Payments
This statistic shows vulnerability reflected by the proportion of census families’ income made up
by government transfer payments. There is an Average vulnerability as result of reliance on
government transfer payments in the District.
Scores range from Very Low to Very High showing great range across the district. This disparity
is evident among the dissemination areas bordering the coast.
91

Unemployment
The District of Lunenburg has Average social vulnerability when interpreted according to the
prevalence of unemployment, with scores ranging from Very Low to Very High. In most of the
coastal dissemination areas, however, the prevalence is average to very high.
92

Children
The District has a Below Average vulnerability with respect to proportion of children. Scores
range from Very Low to High, with Low social vulnerability arising from this indicator in the
coastal dissemination areas.
93

Seniors
The District has an Average vulnerability relating to the proportion of senior citizens, overall, with
scores ranging from Low to Very High. In the coastal dissemination areas, however, social
vulnerability as a result of the proportion of seniors is Above Average to Very High.
94

Seniors Living Alone
The District has an Average vulnerability based on the proportion of seniors living alone. Scores
range from Low to Very High and this range prevails among the coastal dissemination areas.
95

Lone Parents
This statistic provides the proportion of census families with lone parents - not the proportion of
the total population that is made up of lone parents.
The District of Lunenburg has a Below Average proportion of lone parent families, with scores
ranging from Very Low to High.
96

No Secondary Education
Social vulnerability reflected in the indicator ‘No Secondary Education’, is Above Average in the
District. Scores for this indicator range from Very Low to Very High. Scores in the coastal
dissemination areas are in the High to Low range and include the least vulnerability as a result of
‘No Secondary Education’.
97

Language – No Knowledge of English or French
The District of Lunenburg has an Average proportion of residents that have no knowledge of
either English or French. It is important to note that in Nova Scotia, an average of 0.14% of
each dissemination area’s population does not speak either English or French. Therefore,
98

dissemination areas where no residents are unable to speak either official language have an
Average score for this indicator. This is the case for all dissemination area in the District.
Recent Immigrants
99

Social vulnerability due to the proportion of recent immigrants in the District is Below Average
with vulnerability scores ranging from Below Average to High. Below Average vulnerability
prevails inland but is Above Average in some of the coastal dissemination areas.
100

Visible Minorities
The District of Lunenburg has Below Average vulnerability based on the proportion of visible
minorities in comparison to the rest of Nova Scotia. Scores are either Below Average or
Average. Vulnerability is below average in the coastal dissemination areas.
101

Aboriginal Identity
The District has Average vulnerability in the indicator of Residents with Aboriginal Identity.
Scores range from Below Average to Above Average in the District but are Average or Below
Average in the coastal dissemination areas.
102

Appendix D: Radar Diagrams for each Dissemination Area in
the District of Lunenburg
Each spoke radiating from the centre of the vector diagram represents an indicator of social
vulnerability, labeled around the circumference of the diagram. The concentric rings mark
standard deviations from the mean, with 2 standard deviations below the mean in the centre,
zero (the average for Nova Scotia) midway between the centre and the outer edge of the
diagram, and 2 standard deviations above the mean at the outer edge of the diagram.
Extensions of the radar arms toward the outer perimeter indicate increasing vulnerability (Above
Average, High and Very High) for those indicators. Contractions of the radar arms toward the
centre of the diagram indicate decreasing vulnerability (Below Average, Low and Very Low) for
those indicators.
The 13 coastal dissemination areas are presented first, moving from Mahone Bay south to
Voglers Cove.
Coastal dissemination areas
103

104

105

Inland dissemination areas:
DA 76
DA 77
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Language
(no English/
Seniors
Language
(no English/
Seniors
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
DA 78
DA 79
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Language
(no English/
Seniors
Language
(no English/
Seniors
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
DA 80
DA 81
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Language
(no English/
Seniors
Language
(no English/
Seniors
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
106

DA 82
DA 83
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Language
(no English/
Seniors
Language
(no English/
Seniors
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
DA 84
DA 85
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Language
(no English/
Seniors
Language
(no English/
Seniors
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
DA 86
DA 101
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Language
(no English/
Seniors
Language
(no English/
Seniors
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
107

DA 102
DA 103
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Language
(no English/
Seniors
Language
(no English/
Seniors
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
DA 104
DA 105
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Language
(no English/
Seniors
Language
(no English/
Seniors
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
DA 106
DA 107
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Language
(no English/
Seniors
Language
(no English/
Seniors
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
108

DA 123
DA 124
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Language
(no English/
Seniors
Language
(no English/
Seniors
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
DA 125
DA 126
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Language
(no English/
Seniors
Language
(no English/
Seniors
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
DA 127
DA 129
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Language
(no English/
Seniors
Language
(no English/
Seniors
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
109

DA 130
DA 131
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Language
(no English/
Seniors
Language
(no English/
Seniors
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
DA 132
DA 133
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Language
(no English/
Seniors
Language
(no English/
Seniors
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
110

DA 160
DA 161
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Language
(no English/
Seniors
Language
(no English/
Seniors
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
DA 162
DA 163
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Aboriginal Identity
Visible Minorities
Recent
Immigrants
Low Income
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-2.00
Government
Transfer
Unemployment
Children
Language
(no English/
Seniors
Language
(no English/
Seniors
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
No Secondary
Education
Lone Parent
Families
Seniors Alone
111

Appendix E: List of Services
The following table lists community services mapped in GIS for this assessment. This mapping
was performed by Justin Muise in the School of Planning Dalhousie University as part of the
infrastructure mapping reported in Part 2, Section 2 of this report. This table contains the
services extracted from the infrastructure data base provided by the District of Lunenburg, as
well as other assets identified through the social assets mapping reported in Part 2, Section 3 of
this report and from field observations and information provided during consultations with
representatives of government and community service agencies and groups.
Category
Name
Adult Education
Life Long Learning Classes at Mahone Bay Centre
NSCC Heritage Building
Breakfast Program
Pentz Elementary School
Petite Riviere Elementary School
Bayview Community School
Chronic Disease Management
Royal Canadian Legion
Asthma Clinic at Fisherman’s Memorial Hospital
Lunenburg Legion
Mahone Bay Legion
Western Shore Legion
Early Childhood Development
Bright Stars Children Centre
Bye the Sea Nursery School
HB Studios Day Care for staff
Lunenburg Day Care
Ocean View Children's Centre
Employment Programs
Food Bank
South Shore Work Activity Program (SSWAP)
Chester Lighthouse Food Bank
Lunenburg InterChurch Food Bank
112

Mahone Bay Food Bank
Hospital, Long term care, seniors
services, telehealth
Legal Support
Library
Long Term Care
Fishermen's Memorial Hospital
NS Legal Aid Services
Lunenburg Library
Harbour View Haven
Lunenburg Home for Special Care
Mahone Nursing Home
Veteran's Unit – Fisherman’s Memorial Hospital
Medical Centre
Dr. Diane Wilson
Lunenburg Medical-Dental Centre
Chester Health Centre
Gold River Health Centre
Pelham Medical Centre
Outreach Health Services
Heart to Heart In Home Care
VON Adult Day Program
Pharmacy
Chester Basin Pharmasave
Chester Pharmasave
Kinburn Pharmasave
Kinley's Drug Store
Place of Worship
All Saints Anglican Church
Chester Anglican Church
LaHave Anglican Church
Calvary Temple Pentecostal
Chester United Baptist Church

Grace Lutheran Church
St. Andrews Presbyterian Church
St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church
St. Martins Anglican Church
St. Matthew's Lutheran Church
Trinity United Church
Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church
Schools
Bayview Community School
Big Tancook Elementary School
Chester Area Middle School
Chester District Elementary School
Pentz Elementary School
Petite Riviere Elementary School
South Shore Waldorff School & Kindergarten
School, LGTB Support Program
Site Based Health Services
Forest Heights Community School
Addictions Services - Detox Unit located at
Fisherman’s Memorial Hospital
Public Health Office
Subsidized Housing
Blockhouse Hill (Seniors)
Cherry Lane Lodge (Seniors)
Ritcey's Cove Manor (Seniors)
Subsidized Housing, Long term
care
Support for Families
Shoreham Village
First Steps Early Intervention Program (in home
support)
Play group - Anglican Church Hall

South Shore Big Brothers Big Sisters Traditional
'Bigs' Program
Support for Families, Crisis
Support
Support for Persons with Special
Needs
Supports for Women, GLBT,
Community Meal
Chester & Area Family Resource Centre
Bonny Lea Farm
Second Story Women's Centre
Youth Health Guidance Counsellor (Bayview Community School -
FT)
Healthy Heights Youth Health Centre at Forest
Heights School