Socio-economic status, i.e. the relative position of an individual or family in society, is undoubtedly one of the most highlighted criteria for Vulnerability. Common indicators include household income, poverty, unemployment, education level, wealth, Inequality, and housing value. These socio-economic characteristics are closely interconnected. Adaptation capacity is the set of resources available to populations to counter the negative effects of hazards, along with the practices used to deploy them. This coping ability encompasses both the capacities exercised by individuals and households, and those accessed through social networks. Adaptation strategies tend to be effective when they involve accessing resources or allocating them to address immediate needs without sacrificing the viability of long-term livelihoods.
Education level: Education illustrates the connection between income and other forms of capital, as higher education levels can lead to better-paying jobs and higher incomes. A low level of education coincides with poverty, overpopulation, unemployment, income Inequality, and marginalization.
➔ Example “Education level”: In terms of qualification in Ault (France), nearly half of the population has no diploma or primary school certificate. Only 20% of the population over the age of 18 is in education.
Professional activity: Occupational activity and income are closely linked to other forms of capital that can be used as indirect indicators of social Vulnerability to floods.
➔ Example “Occupation”: In the Kokemaenjoki watershed (Finland), interviews with local stakeholders revealed that farmers in flood-prone areas are recognized as the most vulnerable groups by all interviewees, including citizens and authorities at all levels. This Vulnerability to floods primarily refers to susceptibility to financial losses due to flooding.
Financial capital: The costs of flood damages are higher for wealthier households in terms of absolute costs, but they represent a smaller proportion of the total income and capital of these households.
➔ Example “Financial capital”: Geraardsbergen (Belgium) is characterized by a diverse set of social profiles, raising questions about potential socio-spatial inequalities. Measures were not taken to ensure the presence of socially vulnerable people at information meetings. Although subsidies were offered, households had to cover the full cost of property-level protections (PLP) installation beforehand, which might not be feasible for all. While both a basic and a complete expensive plan of PLP implementation were proposed to households, they were not equally efficient. However, socioeconomic status does not determine the requirement for high or low protection. Hence, there might be a mismatch between the need for PLP and people’s ability to implement them. Social Vulnerability is known to exist but is not effectively considered in flood Risk Mitigation.
Social network coping capacities: Individuals can enhance their Adaptation capacity by using social networks to connect with the emotional, social, and economic resources of others. Attachment bonds connect people who occupy similar socio demographic levels and are geographically close, such as families, neighbors, close friends, and colleagues. Social bonds can mitigate Vulnerability by facilitating the lending of goods (essential items, food, seeds for farmers), exchanging information about risks, and maintaining the memory of Risk. Moreover, the quality and speed of a return to normalcy after a flood also depend on quick and sufficient access to external assistance. However, this capacity to obtain help depends on power relations and social connections, which are more accessible to affluent populations. Consequently, the Adaptation capacity of wealthier households is superior to that of poorer households.
Individual coping capacity: Preventive measures include the storage of food and medications, savings, organizing construction materials, purchasing insurance, and elevating structures and their contents. The use of such measures is determined by income and land tenure. The relative impact of floods is generally more significant for low-income groups. Those who cannot afford the costs of repair, reconstruction, or relocation may take years to recover from even moderately damaging floods.
➔ Example of “Individual Capacities”: The percentage of the population in Slough (England) receiving social benefits is 5.2%, while the national average of people requesting social benefits is 3.7%. It can be inferred that residents in this area will face greater difficulties in coping with the material consequences of a flood, making them vulnerable.
Want to go further?