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

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