1.3. Social Approach to Vulnerability

And then coming to the social approach, what they did was they divided into 8 sectors the whole region into the eight sectors like you can see the River Delta which is forming out and the whole heritage properties about here. And that what they did was they divided this whole territory residential territory into 8 sectors and the community representatives from each sector formed the group to accomplish the group mapping exercise. So there is a huge exercise what they did developed in each sector.

The researchers implemented a social approach by dividing the region into eight distinct sectors. This division was strategic, allowing the community representatives from each sector to collaborate in a group mapping exercise. This exercise aimed to gather comprehensive data about vulnerabilities in their respective areas, particularly related to their heritage properties and residential territories. By involving community members, the approach emphasized local knowledge and perspectives, which are vital for accurate assessment and response planning.

Think of the eight sectors like slices of a pie. Each slice represents a different neighborhood or community within the larger geographical area. Just as each slice has its unique flavor and ingredients, each sector has its distinct challenges and resources. By dividing the pie into equal parts, community members can focus on what makes their slice special and identify the best ways to support it.

And collected a lot of inventories and the data. So the biggest difficulty here is comparing the two maps because of the spatial data format one is the traditional flood risk map uses the one-meter raster grid cells, whereas the risk perception map is based on the polygons of varying sizes. So that is where a difficult to compare the same set of spatial data.

Once the data collection process was completed, researchers faced a significant challenge: comparing two different types of maps. The first map was a traditional flood risk map, which presented data in grid cells of one meter each. The second map was a risk perception map, which used polygons of different shapes and sizes to represent areas of varying vulnerability. This contrast in data presentation made it difficult for researchers to draw accurate comparisons and understand the overall risk landscape.

Imagine trying to compare two photographs taken from different angles: one is a close-up shot, while the other captures a wide-angle view of the same scene. While both photographs depict the same subject, their different perspectives can lead to confusion about the details and context. Similarly, the two maps, despite having valuable information, presented their data in formats that made direct comparison challenging.

Now when you talk about the physical vulnerability what are the places which has been in highly damaged, medium damaged, and the low damaged and which has been not defined. Similarly, the social the target groups which are actually which are the most of these communities which are often affected and this is the social vulnerability map.

The researchers classified vulnerability into different layers. Physical vulnerability was assessed by categorizing areas as highly damaged, medium damaged, low damaged, or not defined. This classification helped identify which buildings, roads, or infrastructure were most at risk or had already suffered damage. Similarly, they also examined social vulnerability, focusing on target groups or communities that were frequently affected by floods. A social vulnerability map was created to visualize these groups and their specific risks.

Think of vulnerability like a multi-layered cake. Each layer represents a different type of risk: the bottom layer could be physical damage, while the middle layer represents economic vulnerability, and the top layer reflects social risks. Just as a baker needs to understand the structure of a cake to create a successful dessert, researchers need to comprehend each layer of vulnerability to effectively plan responses and support those affected.

When we say economic vulnerability, when the flood happens obviously what kind of business sector often closes down, shuts down for a period of some time and or how their livestock gets damaged so this is all about the economical. Mostly you can see that on the edges you can see that most of the commercial aspect has been damaged. The cultural vulnerability: and you can see that you know much of the cultural properties are under the high risk.

Economic vulnerability was recognized as a critical component of overall risk. The impact of flooding often leads to business closures and damage to livestock, affecting local economies and livelihoods. Areas of commerce are particularly vulnerable and may suffer extensive damage during floods. Additionally, cultural vulnerability was assessed, highlighting how many cultural properties—significant for history and identity—are at high risk during such disasters. The loss of these properties could mean losing important pieces of heritage for future generations.

Consider a local bookstore that serves as a hub for community gathering and learning. If a flood damages the store, not only does the physical building suffer, but the community also loses a vital resource that fosters connection and cultural sharing. Similarly, cultural properties serve this purpose on a larger scale, embodying the history and traditions that shape a community's identity.

Now what they did was they tried to combine this map and one is using all the digital tools how they combined and this is again a combined flood risk map by a traditional approach. So by both by the social approaches and as perception approach and by their scientific approaches how they have able to get a similar set of data but of course they could able to identify.

The researchers undertook efforts to combine various mapping approaches to create a unified flood risk map. They integrated data from traditional flood mapping techniques with insights gathered through social approaches and public perception. This combination allowed for a more comprehensive overview of flood vulnerabilities, though they noted that each approach brought different strengths and weaknesses in terms of data quality and granularity.

Imagine trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle with pieces from different sets: some fit well together while others don't quite match. By bringing together pieces from traditional data collections and community insights, researchers aimed to create a complete picture of flood risk, recognizing that combining various sources can lead to better understanding, even if some parts are more challenging to fit.

--