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

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