Blind Spots on Achilles' Heel: The Limitations of Vulnerability and Resilience Mapping in Research

12 Pages·2014·3.31 MB·English

IntJDisasterRiskSci(2014)5:74–85 www.ijdrs.com
DOI10.1007/s13753-014-0014-5 www.springer.com/13753
ARTICLE
Blind Spots on Achilles’ Heel: The Limitations of Vulnerability
and Resilience Mapping in Research
Jessica Heesen • Daniel F. Lorenz • Michael Nagenborg •
Bettina Wenzel • Martin Voss
Publishedonline:30March2014
(cid:2)TheAuthor(s)2014.ThisarticleispublishedwithopenaccessatSpringerlink.com
Abstract Themappingofvulnerabilityandresiliencehas 1 Introduction
become an important tool for vulnerability and resilience
research. By definition, maps are selective representations. Themappingofvulnerabilityandresiliencehasbecomean
However, the predominant methods of mapping also have important tool and one of the predominant quantitative
constraints. When addressing vulnerability and resilience, forms of expression for vulnerability and resilience
theselimitations,barriers,andblindspotshavetobetaken researchforpracticalexperts,politicians,andothergroups,
into account. Some aspects cannot be easily mapped, such but also the general public. Maps provide important
as specific forms of knowledge and interpretation, the insights into spatial dimensions and the relations of vul-
processuality of vulnerability and resilience, the dynamics nerability and resilience; they can enhance risk communi-
ofsocialprocesses,thecontextoforigin,theestablishment cationandsupportdecision-makinginallphasesofdisaster
of contingent interpretations, and so on. These limitations management (Edwards et al. 2007). But as the practical
arenotonlytheoreticallyimportant,butalsoarepractically experience within our collaborative research effort has
significant, since maps themselves become dispositifs. demonstrated, the predominant methods of mapping also
They are regarded as representations of reality, shape have constraints, barriers, and blind spots. These limita-
particular interpretations of vulnerability and resilience, tions are not only theoretically or epistemologically
and are used as a basis for decision-making. If the important, but also have practical and political conse-
unmappedpreconditionsof mapping remainunconsidered, quences. This article discusses these limitations and
this can lead to problematic side effects. consequences.
Mapsare,bydefinition,selectiverepresentations(Black
Keywords Cartographic bias (cid:2) Foucault (cid:2) Mapping 1997; Raffestin 2003), since they need to be limited to
constraints (cid:2) Vulnerability mapping certain aspects to obtain a heuristic value. Thus, Monmo-
nier(1996,p.1)points outthatitis‘‘notonly[…]easyto
lie with maps, it’s essential. […] There’s no escape from
the cartographic paradox: to present a useful and truthful
picture, an accurate map must tell white lies.’’ Commonly
these white lies become hidden, because maps tend to
J.Heesen
InternationalCenterforEthicsintheSciencesandHumanities naturalize themselves through the reproduction of a sign
(IZEW),UniversityofTu¨bingen,72074Tu¨bingen,Germany system that is presented as given. As Pickles writes, ‘‘map
knowledge is never na¨ıvely given. It has to be learned and
D.F.Lorenz(&)(cid:2)B.Wenzel(cid:2)M.Voss
the mapping codes and skills have to be culturally repro-
DisasterResearchUnit(DRU),FreieUniversita¨tBerlin,
12165Berlin,Germany duced’’ (Pickles 2004, p. 61). The predominant mapping
e-mail:[email protected] procedures build on specific codes and standards, on
epistemologically and discursively framed background
M.Nagenborg
knowledge,andonassociatedtextsandculturalcontextsof
DepartmentofPhilosophy,UniversityofTwente,
7500AEEnschede,Netherlands interpretation and action (Wood and Fels 2008), both in
123
IntJDisasterRiskSci 75
theirproductionandintheirreading.Thesefoundationsare research carried out by the DRU involved the use of GIS
embedded in a certain Western scientific culture (Harley and mapping tools. During the course of this specific
2001d) in which non-Western or other variant cartogra- research, the limitations of using such systems became
phies are often not acknowledged (Pickles 2004). Fur- increasinglyobvious.Whendiscussingtheparticularissues
thermore, different forms of knowledge, interpretations, such as the representation and its implications it became
andmeaningsoftensimplycannot bemapped at allwithin clear that some of the limitations and challenges experi-
the script-focused Western sign system. Referring to the enced by the authors are fundamental. Therefore, this
work of Dauenhauer (1980), Harley (2001c, p. 84) termed article brings together insights from theory and practice to
this ‘‘intentional and unintentional suppression of knowl- provide a deeper understanding of the limitations of vul-
edgeinmaps’’cartographicsilence.Withthedigitalization nerability and resilience mapping.
of mapping, we increasingly have to take into account the
relevanceofthe influence ofthe instrumentsbeingused in
the mapping process, as Curry (1998) has pointed out for 2 The Concepts of Vulnerability and Resilience
geo-information systems (GIS). Map-making always
involves making choices about what will be represented The concept of vulnerability emerged within different
and what will not. However, the ontologies upon which fields (in the context of natural hazards and risk research,
geo-information systems are based often remain invisible, forexample,inresearchonfamine,disastermitigation,the
and are often not questioned by the users. insurance business, and development) to help in under-
This article reveals such limitations and blind spots, as standing the condition or the predisposition of a system to
well as the agency of vulnerability and resilience map- sufferharmduetoahazard(Adger2006).Thedefinitionof
pings. Beginning with some fundamental remarks on the what should be understood by ‘‘vulnerability’’ is hotly
concepts of vulnerability and resilience, the tension contested within scientific and economic groups (such as
between a rather phenomenological conception and the theinsurance industry),aswell asineveryday life (Yamin
restraints of mapping vulnerability and resilience is intro- et al. 2005). A rather simplistic view, which defines vul-
duced and outlined. This is followed by the central argu- nerability as the probability that a social, ecological, or
ment, that social processes are spatialized and objectified physical reference unit will suffer harm in the case of a
bymappings.Evenifthisbasicdifficultyisacknowledged, certain event, is confronted with numerous other concep-
the validity of mappings may remain an issue due to tions, including further interdependent influencing factors,
questionable data sources, statistical and other methodo- and means of protection referring to different time scales,
logical problems, and their visual representation. Spatial- spatial references, and so forth (Voss 2008).
ization, objectivation, and constrained validity are not just The mapping of vulnerability reduces differences and
of theoretical importance; rather, they become even more interdependencies on the reflexive-conceptual level. Espe-
crucial to shaping the reality of mappings as determining cially mappings of social vulnerability on the global scale
factors. We do not argue against mapping as such, but might render whole continents as vulnerable to hunger or
rathercallforcriticalreflectiononitsrestraints,carefuluse poverty, but not scrutinize the heterogeneous historical,
and,wherepossible,complementaryconsiderationofother political, and cultural conditions that led to these threats.
data sources, as well as the combination of different The global approach to the mapping of vulnerability is
quantitative and qualitative methods. generally dominated by single natural hazards like tsuna-
This article is based on collaborative research by the mis or earthquakes, focusing for example on the geo-
International Center for Ethics in the Sciences and graphical reach of waves, or the magnitudes and the
Humanities (IZEW) ofthe Universityof Tu¨bingen and the frequency of their occurrence (see, for instance, the Vul-
Disaster Research Unit (DRU) of the Freie Universita¨t nerabilityAtlasofIndia(BMTPC1999),ortheWorldRisk
Berlin.1 While the IZEW focused on the ethical implica- Report (Alliance Development Works 2013)). But the
tions of using GIS in security and safety research in gen- magnitude of extreme natural processes alone does not
eral, the DRU conducted a vulnerability assessment study conveyanyinformationabouttheirsocialrelevance.Ared-
at the urban district level, and also carried out the devel- colored coastal zone displaying risk of a tsunami (Sinaga
opment and testing of an alternative participative study et al. 2011) does not necessarily indicate social vulnera-
designtoassessvulnerabilityinspecificsocialspaces.The bility, if people living within this area prepare themselves
adequately through building standards, warning systems,
andaninternalizeddisasterculture.Ifsuchacultureexists,
1 This research is part of the collaborative research project BASID
there might be some specific ecological but no social vul-
(Security Barometer for Germany), which is a transdisciplinary
nerability, even if tsunamis are probable. In the practical
collaborative project of six partners from academia and practice. It
wasfundedbytheGermanFederalMinistryofEducation(BMBF). use of the term vulnerability, these different references—
123
76 Heesenetal.LimitationsofVulnerabilityandResilienceMappinginResearch
ecological, social, and physical—are often mixed up, and exposed to the same pressure or stress. The resilience
sometimes it is simply forgotten that exposure is only one approach further asks how people adapt to their environ-
precondition of vulnerability, not vulnerability itself. A ments, building capacities relevant to the specific chal-
Handbook for Vulnerability Mapping, for instance, gives lenges to which they are exposed.
the following advice: ‘‘Vulnerable sites are those where Culturallyshapedworldviews,norms,andvaluesplaya
people live, work and visit’’ (Edwards et al. 2007, p. 6). crucial role, developed through a constant grappling with
Furthermore,thebackgroundassumptionthattheeffects the biophysical and social environment. Seen through the
of deviation triggered by a natural dynamic have to be resilience lens, understanding of loss, risks, and hazards
solely negative, as long as they potentially cause bio- becomes correspondingly relative. Without going so far as
physicalharmorhumancasualties,isasocialconstruction toargueforaradicalculturalrelativism,itshouldbenoted
that serves as a basis for every form of mapping. What is thatthemeaningattachedtovulnerabilityandlossdoesnot
seen as negative and damaged depends on cultural norms primarily evolve from recourse to single key figures, but
and patterns of interpretation (Douglas and Wildavsky only emerges when such concepts are linked back to
1982). Forms of loss are framed by different cosmologies, individualandculturalsystemsofmeaningorcosmologies.
leadingtoverydifferentwaysofdealingwithloss,ranging These systems of meaning usually consist of irreducible
from repression strategies to full acceptance or fatalism. dimensions that cannot be quantified. This means that
There are many scientific approaches that try hard to certainassessmentcriteriathatmaybedifficulttoquantify
include these social and cultural aspects and their positive have to be given consideration in vulnerability and resil-
and negative effects in mapping, and some are more suc- ience. Every quantifying assessment is thereby limited in
cessful than others. Nevertheless, we maintain that car- scope,andpureanalyticalfiguresproveinsufficientwhenit
tography has general limitations in representing these comes to cultural significance. This is all the more true
relativistic, highly complex cultural conditions. The more when dealing with different cultures with different value
global the perspective, the higher the likelihood that rele- systems,butalsostandsforstudieswithincultures.Certain
vant cultural or social determinants, or other factors forms of susceptibility and loss are historically and cul-
enhancing or reducing the possible effects of an extreme turally accepted, and are considered ‘‘normal’’ in contrast
natural event (for example, coping mechanisms that help to others (Macamo 2003).
people to live with chronic problems, or rituals that con- Therefore,differentstrategiestoprotectlifecanbeseen
serve collective memories of past events) tend to be as ‘‘normal,’’ and against the background of varying cos-
neglected (see again the World Risk Report (Alliance mologiesthey are justifieddifferently. Strategies toreduce
Development Works 2013) as an example). vulnerability and enhance resilience are only rational in
Most of what has been said before with respect to vul- part, yet remain soimplicitly. To alargeextent,people let
nerabilityis truefor resilience aswell.The concept has its themselves ‘‘float’’ without reflection; they are led by
background in very different disciplines and its meaning others, or are driven by economic and political forces.
is—perhaps even more—contested. The root word resilire These rather ‘‘practical’’ strategies (Bourdieu 2000) are
was first mentioned in ancient Rome by Lucius Annaeus developed in a coevolutionary process of humans and
Seneca (Alexander 2013), and since the 1950s the concept environment. Such highly complex, multilevel, dynamic,
has been used in psychological (Werner 1971) and socio- and nonlinear strategies, developed in different environ-
logicalstudies(Antonovsky1979).Theconceptunderwent ments, can never be fully captured by objectifying meth-
its most prominent reinvention within the field of social ods, which necessarily abstract from those mutually
ecology through C. S. Holling’s studies in the 1970s supportive and stabilizing relational, nonlinear processes.
(Holling 1973), and spread across many disciplines over Emanating from a positivistic position, vulnerability and
the next two decades, ascending to the core of different resilienceresearchisslowlyopeninguptothiscomplexity.
discourses, for example, disaster risk reduction (DRR), Themappingofvulnerabilityandresilienceisanimportant
disastereducationandprevention,riskcommunication,and tool.Butitalsorunstheriskofslowingdownthiscreeping
sustainability, among others. Instead of questioning which paradigm shift (McEntire 2004).
hazards or other factors enhance vulnerability, the resil-
ience approach emphasizes the factors that allow people,
groupsofpeople,animalpopulations,orwholeecosystems 3 Mapping Spatializes and Objectifies Social Processes
to cope with extreme dynamics in their biophysical envi-
ronment, including, in the case of humans, social setting. The predominant methods of mapping are only able to
The resilience approach asks why some humans become depictprocesses—especiallysocialprocesses—toalimited
traumatized, while others can continue to live their ‘‘nor- extent. Social phenomena often cannot be mapped in the
mal’’ lives without morbid transformation, while being samewayasphysicalobjectsornaturalevents,thatis,with
123
IntJDisasterRiskSci 77
acertainfixedlocationinspace.Socialphenomenabelong the different possible views of reality in relation to a spe-
toadistinctontology,andtheyevadegeographicalfixation cific set of instruments. In a media-critical approach,
as they are not tied to objective representation. Time questionsareessentialabouthowasignsystemisusedand
remains a crucial dimension in maps (Wood 2010). The in which way other perspectives are excluded by a special
majority of maps still designate only a physical place at a form of representation. For a more comprehensive under-
certain point in time, where all social processes that con- standing of geographic information systems, a critical
stituterealitystandstill(Schlo¨gel2003),eventhoughthere analysis of data sources is a first condition.
have been major steps forward in mapping dynamics.
Therefore, processes are only seen as a snapshot without
development, or are filtered out. Many processes do not 4 Problems of Data Sources and Data Analysis
even enter maps in the first place, due to distant spatial or
temporal drivers, societal meaning and relevance, and Vulnerability(andresilience)mapsdisplaythe‘‘locationof
transformationovertime(althoughthisishiddeninamap; siteswherepeople,thenaturalenvironmentorpropertyare
Wood 2010). For example, vulnerability as ‘‘a product of [not] at risk due to a potentially catastrophic event that
thepast’’(HilhorstandBankoff2004,p.3)orasaresultof couldresultindeath,injury,pollutionorotherdestruction’’
distant societal and historical processes (Hewitt 1997; (Edwards et al. 2007, p. 3). Such maps are the complex
Blaikie et al. 1994) often incorporates subliminal causes product of data indicating vulnerability or resilience pro-
over long periods of time, such as colonialism or global- jected onto a map. But where do the data come from, and
ization, that are nearly impossible to show in a map. To how are they processed? One common procedure is that
understand fully the production of vulnerability and resil- researcherswithageneralunderstandingoftheconceptsof
ience, the underlying social causes need representation in vulnerability and resilience look at the basis of statistical
their processual character, implying that different spatial data to see which indicators they can identify. Different
and temporal scales are incorporated (Black 1997). Vul- groups of social, economic, and demographic indicators
nerability and resilience research runs the risk of falling maybecombinedwithphysicalandlandusedatatopredict
prey to the ‘‘fallacy of misplaced concreteness’’ (White- and categorize levels of community vulnerability or resil-
head 1925, 1997), where abstract concepts are treated as ience. In order to combine multiple indicators and maxi-
alleged single spatial causes at a contingent element of mizeareacoverage,theeasyavailabilityoflargedatabases
timeinthemapping.Theabstractconceptsofvulnerability and geographic information systems provide an apparent
andresiliencecannotbelimitedtoisolatedfactorsthatcan viable solution. This poses the danger ‘‘that community
be located and displayed easily. The fallacy of misplaced vulnerability is defined and measured by and through the
concreteness involves the objectification or the reification available large databases, such asthe census,because they
(Berger and Luckmann 1966) of vulnerability and resil- are there, rather than because these databases encapsulate
ience, that is, they are merely apprehended as natural cir- vulnerability’’ (King 2001, p. 147). This is even more
cumstancesandnotasaproductofvarioussocialprocesses problematicinthecaseofresilience,sincetheconceptand
(Hilhorst and Bankoff 2004). indicatorsofresilienceareevenmorecontested(Carpenter
However, in terms of media theory, actor-network the- et al. 2001; Klein et al. 2003; Brand and Jax 2007).
ory, and affiliated approaches of critical theory or cultural Practical questions arise from census data and other
studies,aso-calledobjectification throughmappingcanbe surveyscollectedforpurposesotherthan vulnerabilityand
described as a ‘‘normal’’ process (Pickering 2001). To resilience mapping. These concern content and phenome-
objectify social processes in a map means producing one nology, as well as spatial and temporal adequacy.
cultural code rather than other, competing cultural codes. Regardinggeneralproblemswithcensusdata,King(2001)
As a result of this approach, not only is the objectification extensively discusses the limitations of using socioeco-
itselfcritical,butalsothediscoursesornarrativesthatlead nomic indicators to predict a community’s vulnerability to
to it. With regard to the mapping of vulnerability, this natural hazards. Standardized sets of census data exclude
suggests not only that the use of geographic information many variables relevant to vulnerability and resilience.
systems and the corresponding special languages is prob- Therefore, some factors that influence vulnerability and
lematic,butalsopotentiallythatthetacitjustificationlinks resilience to a great extent, such as risk perception, social
for vulnerability and insecurity can gain authority and networks, preparedness measures, are more prone to car-
power by using a seemingly neutral map (Glasze et al. tographic silence than others. Studies show that people’s
2005;HarendtandSprunk2011).Inthisperspective,maps awarenessandpreparednessdoesnotalwayscoincidewith
have to be regarded as objectifications—which media in defined vulnerability characteristics (for example, elderly
general always are. Similar to other media like television, people were highly aware and prepared, while young
newspapers, or books, maps show a certain perspective on migrants were not). An important aspect is the
123
78 Heesenetal.LimitationsofVulnerabilityandResilienceMappinginResearch
incongruence of spatial and social entities, since the from higher levels of aggregation (Meentemeyer 1989).
boundariesofcommunitiesintermsofsocialtiesareoften Thismayleadtotheimplicitassumptionthatpeopleinone
at odds with administrative borders. Data decay is another region are ‘‘equally’’ vulnerable, as illustrated by the case
prominent problem: with the passage of time, census data of food insecurity in Ethiopia (Stephen 2004): early-
ceases to be valid and up-to-date due to mobility, migra- warning decision-makers conceptualize the spatial dimen-
tion,andsocialchange.Nonetheless,theknowledgeofthe sionoffoodsecurityasaggregatedbecausethisservestheir
changingpatternsofvulnerablegroups’residences(single- own and international agendas. As a consequence, local-
parentfamilies,elderly,andsoon)iscrucialtoemergency ized problems do not command the solutions or resources
planners (King 2001; Hufschmidt 2009; Fekete 2012). that they should.
When analyzing and processing spatial data, several Classificationalsoturnsouttobeproblematic.Atypical
statistical problems may arise that are amplified by their means of showing data by the classification of categories
visual representation in vulnerability maps. One of the are choropleth maps, where areas are shaded in relation to
most discussed issues is the definition of data collection the classified statistical measure, for example, population
districts or analytical spatial units. As for census data, the density. Choropleth maps are often used in inappropriate
boundaries of the collection districts have to be constant, applications; class breaks are artificial separations that can
but the population may vary heavily; thus it is difficult to be manipulated to yield choropleth maps supporting
achieve homogeneity regarding population numbers or (politically) divergent interpretations. Existing alternatives
equality (King 2001; Fekete 2012), though some (theoret- to classic choropleth maps include cartography of ratios,
ical) approaches have been proposed to overcome this proportions,andvisualizationofreferencevalues(Madelin
difficulty (Openshaw 1984; Madelin et al. 2009). The et al. 2009).
arbitrariness of the analytical units’ definition is mostly Apart from statistical problems, the visual (re)presen-
pragmaticallymotivated,butmaysometimesbepolitically tationofthestatisticaldataimpliesgenericproblemsofits
motivated also. However, it almost inevitably leads to a own. Cartographic subtleties such as projection, general-
statistical bias called ‘‘modifiable areal unit problem’’ ization, color schemes, and so on may lead to misinter-
(MAUP). The issue was described in detail by Openshaw pretations of maps. Knowledge about the effects of colors
(1984, p. 4): ‘‘Whereas census data are collected for and shades cannot be assumed to be globally consistent.
essentially non-modifiable entities (people, households) Therefore it is necessary to explain the meaning of sym-
they are reported for arbitrary and modifiable areal units bols, signs, and colors in maps, recognizing cultural dif-
(enumeration districts, wards, local authorities).’’ Recog- ferences, and to be careful and cautious when reading and
nition of the MAUP has resulted in a number of proposed interpreting maps from the perspective of a different cul-
solutions, such as interpolation and smoothing, the visu- tural context.
alization of size effects in cartograms, gridding-methods,
and interactive cartography (Madelin et al. 2009).
Transparency is crucial in how analytical spatial units 5 Maps as Dispositif
are defined and how statistical resultsare derived from the
collected data. This holds true for processes of data Maps do not represent reality; instead they have a perfor-
aggregation and standardization as well. Data has to be mative character: ‘‘By constant processes of referencing,
aggregatedforprivacyprotectionandeasierdatahandling, citing, layering, the map accumulates social assent and,
butdetailandprecisionarelostinthisprocess(King2001). historically, has established itself as an ‘authoritative’
Standardizing data is crucial for comparison. It allows the reference object’’ (Pickles 2008, x). In the manufacturing
use of multivariate methods, but the variety within aggre- of maps, certain patterns of data interpretation are deter-
gations is no longer visible. As Klinenberg (2003) showed mined. In turn, the form of determination is an expression
in his study of the 1995 Chicago heat wave, vulnerability and empowerment of a certain claim of validity. Maps are
and resilience are the result of an interplay of certain similartoothersemanticsystemsinthattheyareamedium
indicators: the most affected population in the case of the for intersubjective processes of reaching understanding of
heat wave was old and poor and isolated and African dominantascriptions of significance (Harley 2001b;Wood
Americanandlivinginareaswithhighviolentcrimerates. 2010).Ifacontextofjustificationwithinacertainsemiotic
Aggregated and standardized data may not reveal this systemisestablishedbymapping,itbecomes‘‘anauthority
interactionofindicators;thiscanmisleaddecision-makers, thatmaybehardtodislodge’’(Harley2001a,p.168),since
but such data can also be misused by them for their own alternative facts, linkages, and interpretations may not be
interests.Connectedtotheproblemsofdataaggregationis displayed within the semiotic system.
the question of ‘‘ecological fallacy.’’ Ecological fallacies Withthegivenagencyofthemapping,otherconcurrent
can occur when an inference is made about an individual interpretationsareexcluded.Therefore,mapsthatoriginate
123
IntJDisasterRiskSci 79
from the alleged attempt at being descriptive and reducing asvulnerablebycoloringthemred,asforexamplewiththe
reality’s complexity become prescriptive and establish World Risk Report (Alliance Development Works 2013),
singular meanings and interpretations that become them- may have practical consequences that run contrary to the
selves part of reality and the background for interpretation intentions (Bankoff 2003). Investors, for example, might
of the world (Wood 1992; Wood and Fels 2008). In the use this map as guidance: although they may not know
words of Harley (2001b, p. 79), cartography often much about the concept of vulnerability and its implica-
‘‘remains a teleological discourse, reifying power, rein- tions, they understand the red color as a warning sign. But
forcing the status quo, and freezing social interactions it is also important to recognize that mapping vulnerabili-
within charted lines.’’ ties might also have the opposite effect: once an area has
In this context, the French philosopher and sociologist been marked as ‘‘vulnerable,’’ this might lead to an unjust
Michel Foucault coined the concept of dispositif, or distribution of resources whereby they are mainly directed
‘‘apparatus.’’ Dispositifs are (mostly invisible) implemen- towards vulnerable areas at the expense of others. Dis-
tations of different manners of power in discourses, insti- courses of ‘‘underdevelopment’’ and the dependency of
tutions, architecture, administration, science, and so on Southern countries on industrialized OECD (Organization
(Foucault2008):‘‘Endeavouring[…]todecipherdiscourse for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries
through the use of spatial, strategic metaphors enables one are also carried forward by mapping and visualizing vul-
to grasp precisely the points at which discourses are nerability, leading to the multiple and largely destructive
transformed in, through and on the basis of relations of effectsdiscussedwithinpostcolonialstudies(Bhabha1994;
power’’ (Foucault 1980, p. 69). A dispositif supports cer- Loomba et al. 2005). Furthermore, for numerous cultures,
tain types of knowledge (Foucault 2008), and in this sense the (scientific) mapping of risks may be perceived as a
maps produce and stabilize the ascription of knowledge provocation of celestial powers, with the direct conse-
and power. Like statistics (Porter 1995), maps may legiti- quence that such communities’ feeling of security will be
mize decisions by giving decision-makers something con- negatively impacted, with further significant consequences
crete with which to justify themselves. This seems a for their actions (Voss 2008). This holds true for matters
reasonableparallel,giventhesimilaritiesbetweenstatistics large and small: valuation differences should betaken into
and maps described in the literature (Raffestin 2003).2 consideration all over the world. Every failure to include
Moreover,mapsarecommensuratewiththedemandsof suchconsiderations,beitintendedornot—forexample,on
internet communication and traditional broadcasting a discourse level (see dispositif)—leads to distortions, the
media: both ask for visualizations and a simple ‘‘lan- valuation of which can only be made on the social level,
guage,’’ and they both promote a visual trend that is also not based on exclusiveness demanding expert knowledge.
evidenced,forexample,inthegrowingnumberofpictorial
representations in online communication (for example,
icons). In media theory and practice, the reduction of 6 An Inductive Concept of Vulnerability:
reality by numbers and statistics is an important and An Alternative Approach
common method to gain attention (Luhmann 1990). Maps
are ideal visual support for a controversial presentation: While there are good reasons to critically reflect upon
they combine a commonly accepted statistical relevance maps, we should also be aware that—as with statistics
withtheadvantageofbeingeye-catchers.Inthisway,maps (Saetnan et al. 2010)—we can hardly give maps up alto-
arenotonlyrelevantforacademiaandpolitics,butalsofor gether, since disaster preparedness planners, emergency
the constitution of the public sphere and public opinion, managers,andscientists need dataonhow manypeoplein
and it can be expected that the importance of maps will different sorts of categories may need special intervention
grow in the next media-dominated decades. or assistance in a crisis, or additional information (King
Since mappings of vulnerability and resilience are per- 2001).Rather,map-makersandmap-usersshouldbeaware
formative interpretations of reality, people act upon them ofthe problemsconnected tomaps ingeneral (particularly
(Thomas and Thomas 1928). When certain areas are ren- vulnerabilityandresiliencemaps)inordertoavoidpitfalls
dered unsafe, this might lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, and misinterpretations of those maps. We also need to
because vulnerability can be increased by its mere attri- carefully reconsider the use of the maps we make, and be
bution.Aworldmapthatdescribesareasorevencontinents aware of the specific limitations of mapping.
What we need in matters of vulnerability and resilience
mappingisnotapositivisticconstructionandinterpretation
2 Ofcourse,thereareprominentexamplesofartisticandsubversive
of maps, but their foundation on a contextual and differ-
map designs, like Guy Debord’s ‘‘Guide psychoge´ographique de
entiatedexplorationofconcreteplaces(inthiscontextalso
Paris’’(1955).Butonecanhardlyimaginetheuseofsuchmapsina
crisissituation. seetheagencyofthe‘‘participatoryruralappraisal,’’Leurs
123
80 Heesenetal.LimitationsofVulnerabilityandResilienceMappinginResearch
1996). Places are subdomains of a physical environment, (Albrechtslund and Glud 2010). As Wood (2010, p. 111)
endowedwithparticularsignificance,values,andpractices put it, a ‘‘whole culture of counter-mapping has emerged’’
(for example, a particular neighborhood). The main focus in the twenty-first century that challenges conventional
here is on the interaction between an individual or group concepts, but which at the same time remains ‘‘marginal
within a specific environment. In contrast, the production and fragile’’ in opposition to state- and corporate-driven
of a space occurs through the reciprocal interaction mapping. Rooted in development studies, approaches such
between people. A space is a more abstract framing of as rapid rural appraisal or participatory rural appraisal
certain types of practice than, for example ‘‘nation’’ or (Chambers 1983, 1997) have given rise to alternative
‘‘economicarea’’(Tuan1979).Safetyasphysicalintegrity participatorytechniquesofdescribing,analyzing,andeven
is constituted through concrete places. An inductive con- mappingsocialrealities—mainlyindevelopmentprograms
cept of vulnerability and resilience evolves from the spe- in the Global South. Consequently, genuine participatory
cific to the general, focusing on given circumstances of mapping or community-based mapping has developed
vulnerability or resilience and feelings of security or under the influence of mental maps (Lynch 1960). In the
insecurity. However, this focus should not only be related case of marginalized indigenous peoples, not only in
to geographically measurable units, but must also be wid- countries in the Global South, such as Indonesia (Peluso
enedtothesocialconditionsthatproduceplacesandspatial 1995),butalsocommunitiesindevelopedcountriessuchas
entities. If we are well aware of such fundamental prob- the Inuit in the Territory of Nunavut (Wood 2010), par-
lems,thenvulnerabilityandresiliencemapsshouldbeseen ticipatory mapping serves as counter-mapping, displaying
in relation to historical trajectories and sociodemographic differentclaimsandentitlementsthatarenotpresentinthe
and sociopolitical parameters. As such, they can be predominant discourse. The dissemination of information
accompanied by, and explained through, time series that technology and GIS has led to a digitalization of partici-
provide information on the correlation of cultural and patory mapping and the development of participatory GIS
socialnormsandvalues,developments,incometrends,and (PGIS) or public-participation GIS (PPGIS). Such partici-
so on. This can make transparent complex historical (that patory approaches are used in the context of risk and vul-
is, long-term)cause andeffect relationships, aswell asthe nerabilityaswell:Smithetal.(2000),forexample,applied
relativityofprocessesinthesocialhistoryoftheaffected— participatory risk mapping (PRM) to research and map
at least selectively. risks faced by East African pastoralists; Reichel and
Ina thorough interpretation ofspatialization,a new and Fro¨mming (2014) used a PGIS approach to map the local
differentapproachispossible:aspatializedorregionalized DRR knowledge related to climate change in the Swiss
idea of vulnerability focused on explaining danger from a Alps. As illustrated by counter-mapping approaches, it is
concrete—and not abstract—perspective, where the bodily notessentially necessaryto compile onemap involvingall
dimension is taken into account. This implies spotlighting stakeholders, because sometimes the visualization of the
‘‘place’’ as an instantaneous context of intelligibility different attributions of meaning within the same physical
(Heesen 2008). In this sense, the spatialization of vulner- placebydifferentstakeholdersholdsmeritthatisnottobe
ability can be conceived of as an indication of a context- underestimated—especially in relation to vulnerability
related and inductive approach to the concept of vulnera- issues (Voss 2008).
bility. This approach leads to an augmented picture of the In response to this, the DRU developed an exploratory
production of security; a picture that includes the specific approachbasedonqualitativeandethnographicapproaches
character of a place as an interplay between real factors, such as participatory photography (Harper 2002; Gotschi
subjective perceptions, and intersubjective constructions. et al. 2009), and participatory photo-mapping (PPM)
Thechoiceandweightingoffactorsformingthebasisof (Liebermann and Coulson 2004; Dennis et al. 2009).
mappingsarehardlyeverevident,butaresubjecttoexpert Combined with GIS-mapping, this can ascertain and visu-
assessment that can differ greatly between nonprofession- alize the different attributions of risk and vulnerability by
als. Mu¨ller et al. (2011) illustrate this case with disagree- professional actors in emergency preparedness and
ments in the assessment of the most explanatory variables response, as well as nonprofessionals from the general
for vulnerability between professionals and nonprofes- public. As part of the DRU project ‘‘Risk Attribution in
sional residents. In most cases, local people in, and the Space’’(Lorenzetal.2014),participants(nonprofessionals
inhabitants of, the area in question are not involved in the of the general public and professionals in emergency pre-
mapping process by public authorities. While it might be paredness and response, such as police, fire department,
possible to include local actors in the decision-making civil protection, and welfare workers, N = 15) were pro-
processaboutwhatkindofdataisbeingcollectedandhow vided with digital cameras with integrated GPS units.
it will be processed, such participatory approaches to Asafirststep,participantswereaskedtotakepicturesof
mapping are still rare when it comes to decision-making perceived hazards, risks, and vulnerability along fixed
123
IntJDisasterRiskSci 81
Fig.1 AttributionofvulnerabilitybyprofessionalsinKiel,Germanybymeansofphotomapping
Fig.2 AttributionofvulnerabilitybynonprofessionalsinKiel,Germany,bymeansofphotomapping
123
82 Heesenetal.LimitationsofVulnerabilityandResilienceMappinginResearch
Fig.3 CongruenceandincongruenceofprofessionalandnonprofessionalattributionofdisastervulnerabilityinKiel,Germany
routes in known and unknown districts in the northern districts, perceived risks or vulnerabilities. They can focus
GermancitiesofKielandHamburg.Insteptwo,additional ontheirsituationalperceptionofthebiophysicalandsocial
data were gathered: the photographs taken by the partici- environments in terms of insecurity. Such an approach is
pantsbecameobjectsofdetailedsemistructuredinterviews, rooted in the everyday experience of the living environ-
inwhichindividualaswellasprofessionalattributionsand ment.Withthegivencombinationofqualitativeandspatial
meanings were attached to particular images and therefore methods the resulting maps donotprovide anobjectivistic
locations. In step three, these images together with their display of vulnerability but rather show the different
attribution were mapped as part of a GIS allowing the attributions of stakeholders and the relevance of different
individual attributions to be matched and contrasted, and forms of knowledge in these attributions in capturing the
additionalspatialdatatobeincluded.Inthefourthandfinal complexity and manifoldness of vulnerability.
step the participants discussed the different attributions in Therefore, the differences in attribution between non-
stakeholder workshops. Contested knowledge among the professionals and professionals can be assessed and com-
participants became obvious and could be assessed in pared, both in qualitative detail and with spatial accuracy.
detail. The maps provide a subjective account of personal and
This methodological process favors a rather inductive communal vulnerability as perceived by professionals
understandingoftheconceptofvulnerability.Inthissense, (Fig. 1) and nonprofessionals (Fig. 2). The color indicates
vulnerability is not limited to quantifiable, single key fig- the personal vulnerability (from yellow to red); the diam-
ures. Rather the concept opens itself to different cultural eter indicates the vulnerability of the local people. The
norms,differentcosmologies,anddivergentperceptionsof incongruence of different attributions within the same
vulnerability that arise from ‘‘practical’’ strategies (even physical place by different stakeholders indicates a gap in
though they originate from specific cultural standpoints), the perception of disaster vulnerability (Fig. 3). But with-
and creates a constant need to deal with biophysical and out arguing for more adequate perceptions among specific
social environments, subjective perceptions, and intersub- stakeholders, an argument that is often implicit in com-
jective constructions. In contrast to other forms of partic- parisons of professional and nonprofessional judgments,
ipatory mapping (Smith et al. 2000), the participants need such an approach acknowledges the very different con-
neither conceptual nor spatial knowledge about the ceptions of vulnerability. The combination of GIS and
123
IntJDisasterRiskSci 83
qualitative interviews allows analyzing the underlying objectification itself as cultural code. We do not believe
driversforthedifferentattributionindetailwithrespectto that such alternative approaches will replace the predomi-
different perceptions, understandings, and constructions of nant positivistic procedures of mapping in the foreseeable
vulnerability. This is not only instructive for theoretical future, since the reduction of complexity is frequently
purposes but also most relevant for the practice of disaster desired to support decision-making. But alternative
preparedness. The detailed trial reveals, for example, that approaches that recapture the complexity of vulnerability
the attribution made by professionals and not by the gen- illuminate the subtle reductionism of the discourse, and
eral public is not due to ignorance but rather explained by contribute to a gradual change.
specific expert knowledge that is simply not available to
the general public. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the
The demonstration of the differences and their expla- Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, dis-
tribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
nation are not just scientifically significant, but also a
author(s)andthesourcearecredited.
means of communication. The discussion of the scientific
results in stakeholder workshops (step four of the meth-
odology)withtheparticipatingprofessionalsinemergency References
preparedness and response and nonprofessionals of the
general public has practical consequences, since the com- Adger,N.2006.Vulnerability.GlobalEnvironmentalChange16(3):
parative mapping raises awareness of different perceived 268–281.
Albrechtslund, A., and L.N. Glud. 2010. Empowering residents: A
realities among professionals and nonprofessionals that
theoreticalframeworkfornegotiatingsurveillancetechnologies.
might conflict in emergency situations. Even though the
Surveillance&Society8(2):235–250.
focuswithinthisresearchprojecthasbeenonvulnerability Alexander, D.E. 2013. Resilience and disaster risk reduction: An
while individual perspectives on resilience played a sub- etymological journey. Natural Hazards and Earth System
SciencesDiscussions1:1257–1284.
ordinate role, it would be possible to use the developed
Alliance Development Works. 2013. World Risk Report 2012.
method to focus on resilience in forthcoming projects.
http://www.worldriskreport.com/uploads/media/WRR_2012_
en. Accessed 20 March 2014.
Antonovsky, A. 1979. Health stress and coping. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
7 Conclusion and Outlook
Bankoff,G.2003.Culturesofdisaster.Societyandnaturalhazardsin
thePhilippines.London:Routledge.
Vulnerability and resilience are scientific concepts that try Berger,P.,andT.Luckmann.1966.Thesocialconstructionofreality.
tocapturecomplexsocialandculturalphenomenaandtheir GardenCity:AnchorBooks.
Bhabha,H.K.1994.Thelocationofculture.NewYork:Routledge.
interplay that lead to disaster or to the development of the
Black, J. 1997. Maps and politics. Chicago: University of Chicago
capacity to cope with extreme adverse conditions. Logi-
Press.
cally, these cultural and social phenomena cannot be Blaikie,P.,T.Cannon,I.Davis,andB.Wisner.1994.Atrisk.Natural
objectified or even quantified to any full extent. The pro- hazards,people’svulnerability,anddisasters.London:Routledge.
BMTPC (Building Materials & Technology Promotion Council,
duction of maps as spatializations and objectifications of
MinistryofHousing&UrbanPovertyAlleviation,Government
temporal and spatial scales surmounting social processes
ofIndia).1999.VulnerabilityAtlasofIndia.http://www.bmtpc.
reducecomplexityonthereflexive-conceptuallevel.These org/DataFiles/CMS/file/map%20of%20india/Vulnerability%20
limitations are due to the selective characteristic of maps. Atlas%20of%20India.pdf.Accessed20March2014.
Bourdieu, P. 2000. Pascalian meditations. Stanford: Stanford Uni-
Amapitselfoftengivesnoinformationabouttheoriginsof
versityPress.
the data, the intentions and selections of the map-maker,
Brand,F.S.,andK.Jax.2007.Focusingthemeaning(s)ofresilience:
andthetransparencyandcomprehensibilityofthemapping Resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object.
process thus remain unclear. We suggest that the stages of EcologyandSociety12(1):Article23.
Carpenter, S., B. Walker, J.M. Anderies, and N. Abel. 2001. From
indicator selection, data sourcing, data processing, and
metaphortomeasurement:Resilienceofwhattowhat?Ecosys-
other decisions should be made consciously and transpar-
tems4(8):765–781.
ently, or should be scrutinized if transparency is not Chambers, R. 1983. Rural development—Putting the last first.
apparent. But the problem goes deeper: maps of vulnera- Harlow:PearsonEducationLimited.
Chambers, R. 1997. Whose reality counts? Putting the first last.
bilityandresilienceoftenseemlikeendsinthemselves,but
Sterling,VA:StylusPub.
as maps become dispositifs, they shape the social and
Curry, M. 1998. Digital places: Living with geographic information
political construction of reality, including the disaster technologies:Geographicsystemsincontext.London:Routledge.
cultureinterms ofdisaster preparedness and management. Dauenhauer,B.P.1980.Silence:ThephenomenonandItsontological
significance.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.
Mapsshouldratherbeunderstoodandtreatedasameansof
Debord,G.1955.PsychogeographicguideofParis,ed.theBauhaus
communication; therefore it is necessary to contest the
Imaginiste. Fredriksberg: Permild & Rosengreen. http://imagi
process of objectification in cartography, or to reflect the narymuseum.org/LPG/Mapsitu1.htm.Accessed20March2014.
123