Publication Details

Category Text Publication
Reference Category Journals
DOI 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.10.008
Title (Primary) The poverty–vulnerability–resilience nexus: evidence from Bangladesh
Author Akter, S.; Mallick, B.
Source Titel Ecological Economics
Year 2013
Department OEKON
Volume 96
Page From 114
Page To 124
Language englisch
Keywords State-and-transition model; Poverty; Socio-economic vulnerability; Socio-economic resilience; Natural disasters; Tropical cyclone; Bangladesh; Adaptive capacity
UFZ wide themes RU6
Abstract Vulnerability and resilience lie at the core of the new paradigm governing natural disaster risk management frameworks. However, empirical understandings of socio-economic resilience and its links with poverty and vulnerability are limited. This paper presents an empirical investigation of socio-economic resilience to natural disasters in a tropical cyclone-prone coastal community in Bangladesh. The results indicate that the cyclone in question had negative impacts on the community, particularly in terms of income, employment and access to clean water and sanitation. Consistent with the findings of the social vulnerability literature, our results also suggest that the poor were more vulnerable and suffered significantly higher economic, physical and structural damage. However, this high vulnerability did not necessarily lead to low resilience, as these individuals exhibited a greater ability to withstand the shock compared to their non-poor neighbors. This refutes the flip-side hypothesis of the link between vulnerability and resilience (i.e. vulnerability is the flip side of resilience). The findings imply that the increased risk of tropical cyclones is likely to reduce incomes and standards of living among the tropical coastal communities. However, the burden of these adverse impacts is unlikely to be disproportionally borne by the poorer segment of the society.
Persistent UFZ Identifier
Akter, S., Mallick, B. (2013):
The poverty–vulnerability–resilience nexus: evidence from Bangladesh
Ecol. Econ. 96 , 114 - 124 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.10.008