Identifying different frames of resilience–vulnerability nexus in disaster study

Abstract

ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to investigate how vulnerability and resilience have been constructed in the disaster literature to unpack the resilience–vulnerability nexus. This study identifies four different frames of the resilience–vulnerability nexus in the disaster literature: opposite, overlap, separate, and inclusion. It points out that the concepts of disaster resilience and vulnerability share some conceptual underpinnings but have incompatible conceptualizations in their emerging phases, states, diving mechanisms, relationships with hazards, and modes of depiction. Accordingly, we suggest that it is theoretically possible to reframe disaster vulnerability and resilience as gradable antonyms, at least in the dimension of capacity or loss potential. We note how there has been little theoretical work addressing the resilience–vulnerability nexus within the field of disaster research. The arguments presented in this article thus have the potential to aid disaster researchers and disaster risk reduction (DRR) practitioners who might be confused regarding the relationship between resilience and vulnerability. This study may also be conducive to bridging the gap between academic study and DRR practice by facilitating dialog between the disaster vulnerability and resilience research communities.