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

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