Poverty and inequalities

Evidence consistently confirms that the capacity of an individual, family or community to prepare for, withstand and respond to a hazard or crisis is enabled or constrained by social status, income and ethnicity (Bosher et al., 2007).

There is consensus that the poor suffer the greatest losses from disasters (Oxfam, 2013; Shepherd et al., 2013). In 2008, the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) recorded that 94% of all people killed by disasters between 1975-2000 were from low or lower-middle income groups (UNISDR, 2008, p. iii). Hazards deprive the poor of their assets, livelihoods and labour, reproducing poverty and inequality (UNISDR, 2008, p. iii; Shepherd et al., 2013). On the other hand, ‘good DRM can reduce the impact of disasters on poor people’, as shown by the impact of comparable hazards in different contexts (Shepherd et al., 2013, p. viii). For example, in 2008, Cyclone Nargis killed 138,000 people in Myanmar, while Hurricane Gustav, of similar strength, killed 153 in the Caribbean and US (Shepherd et al., 2013, p. ix).

Research in eight villages in coastal Andhra Pradesh in southern India concluded caste is a key factor determining access to the resources essential to assist recovery from disasters (Bosher et al., 2007). In this case, ‘lower’ castes lacked access to assets (e.g. livestock), public facilities (e.g. water) and political networks (e.g. access to local government) necessary to aid their recovery. Whilst these castes were able to use informal social networks to support their resilience to disasters, typically through women’s participation with CBOs and NGOs, this did not completely compensate for the systemic discrimination they encountered. Social capital created through informal networks could not entirely substitute for the lack of economic capital. The authors emphasise that inclusion in an unequal society, not exclusion, is at the root of poverty and its effects in this case (Bosher et al., 2007).

Gender is an important form of inequality shaping vulnerability and resilience to disasters (Ganapati, 2012, 2013; OCHA, 2012; Oxfam, 2012; Turnbull et al., 2013, pp. 21-23). For women and girls, inequities in the everyday, not just in times of disaster, tend to create greater risk, reduce life chances, and deepen material and immaterial losses (Bradshaw & Fordham, 2013, p. 3). At the same time, women and girls have often made substantial, gender-specific contributions, e.g. in DRR (Bradshaw & Fordham, 2013). However, few studies have to date examined how gender roles and responsibilities in everyday life affect different women’s and men’s experience of hazards (Ajibade et al., 2013). As well, gender is only one of many factors affecting people’s experiences of disaster: one study in coastal areas of Lagos, Nigeria, found that gendered experiences of flooding were also influenced by place, class and household structure (Ajibade et al., 2013).

There is also considerable concern expressed in the literature about the vulnerability of other high-risk populations, including children, the elderly, and people with disabilities and people with chronic diseases. Such groups can be disadvantaged and discriminated against, and can face multiple inequalities that amplify risk (Peek et al., 2010, p. 1261). There is consensus that, while disadvantaged groups are usually more exposed and vulnerable to hazards, they can also contribute to building disaster resilience (e.g. Oliver-Smith et al., 2012; Oxfam, 2013; Turnbull et al., 2013). Nevertheless, rigorous analysis of the resilience of these groups to disasters, and of intersecting inequalities, is limited and uneven. For example, Peek et al. (2010) found that the situation of children with disabilities, numbering an estimated 200 million worldwide, has barely been studied.

• Ajibade, I., McBean, G., & Bezner-Kerr, R. (2013). Urban Flooding in Lagos, Nigeria: Patterns of Vulnerability and Resilience among Women. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1714–1725.
  See document online
• Bosher, L., et al. (2007). Resource Accessibility and Vulnerability in Andhra Pradesh: Caste and Non-caste Influences. Development and Change, 38(4), 615–640.
  See document online
• Bradshaw, S., & Fordham, M. (2013). Women, Girls and Disasters. A Review for DFID. DFID.
  See document online
• Ganapati, N. E. (2012). In Good Company: Why Social Capital Matters for Women during Disaster Recovery. Public Administration Review, 72(3), 419-427.
  See document online
• Ganapati, N. E. (2013). Downsides of Social Capital for Women During Disaster Recovery: Toward a More Critical Approach. Politics and Society, 41(1), 72–96.
  See document online
• OCHA (2012). OCHA Gender Toolkit 7. Gender and Resilience. OCHA.
  See document online
• Oliver-Smith, A., et al. (2012). Addressing loss and damage in the context of social vulnerability and resilience. Policy Brief No. 7. UN University.
  See document online
• Oxfam (2013). No accident. Resilience and the inequality of risk. Oxfam International.
  See document online
• Oxfam (2012). Indonesia Case Study: Jenggala’s women living close to disaster. Oxfam UK.
  See document online
• Peek, L., et al. (2010). Children With Disabilities in the Context of Disaster: A Social Vulnerability Perspective. Child Development, 81(4), 1260–1270.
  See document online
• Shepherd, A., et al. (2013). The Geography of Poverty, Disasters and Climate Extremes in 2030. ODI. See document online
• Turnbull, M., et al. (2013). Toward Resilience: A Guide to Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation. Catholic Relief Services.
  See document online
• UNISDR (2008). Linking disaster risk reduction and poverty reduction: good practices and lessons learned. UNISDR.
  See document online