Studying Vulnerability: Participation and Incident Reports

Scholars in many fields of research have developed models, theories and concepts attempting to grasp and manage dangers that are often difficult to concretely imagine. Their final objective is to maintain the safety of the system considered. Dealing with potential hazards, some researchers distinguish between the vulnerability approach and the risk approach. The risk based approach is focused on acquiring accurate probabilistic information about the events themselves. Yet, Sarewitz (2003: 806) reminds that “there are numerous cases in which accurate assessment of risk is impossible” and that “lack of experience with many phenomena and outcomes means that understanding the uncertainty of the uncertainty estimates is impossible”. Thus, beyond the risk-based approach, another perspective emerged: vulnerability analysis (VA). Vulnerability can be described as “the degree to which a system, subsystem, or system component is likely to experience harm due to exposure to a hazard” (Turner et al. 2003: 8074). VA seems capable of overcoming the shortcomings of risk analysis in situations where knowledge about both probabilities and outcomes is incomplete or insufficient (Sarewitz 2003). The vulnerability approach and the classical risk analysis approach are thus based on different premises (Gilbert 2006): while risk analysis focuses on the hazard, VA focuses on the system under threat.
From that starting point, we realized in order to analyse the state-of-the art in the field of vulnerability analysis, with particular emphasis on participatory approaches. The aims were: i) to study how the concept of vulnerability has been defined and used in different fields of application (e.g. natural and industrial hazards) and ii) to analyse whether the theoretical claim that participatory approaches to vulnerability analysis have the potential for great scientific and political outputs has been actually demonstrated in practice. Based on this study we formulate a threefold critique: first, VA has been treated separately in natural and technological hazards fields. This separation is unproductive for a fine-grained understanding of what vulnerability can provide as a concept, as it prevents vulnerability to unleash the full range of its potential. Second, VA focused on assessment tools that are mainly quantitative, whereas qualitative appraisal is a key to assess vulnerability in a comprehensive way and to inform policy-making. Third, a systematic literature review on participatory VA case studies allows us to argue that participation has been important to address the above, but it remains too closed down in its approach and would rather benefit from embracing a more opened, encompassing perspective.
Therefore, we suggest re-thinking participatory VA as one part of a dynamic process between opening-up and closing-down strategies, in order to support a reflexive vulnerability governance framework. Doing so is not exempt of challenges, though. Since analytical reflection on vulnerability is to be transferred into practices of risk and vulnerability governance, taking into account the context in which governance agents need to take appropriate decisions is of primary importance. Thus, based on the conclusion of this presentation, the practical ways of realizing a reflexive vulnerability governance should now be explored.