IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v112y2022i3d10.1007_s11069-022-05280-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying factors contributing to social vulnerability through a deliberative Q-Sort process: an application to heat vulnerability in Taiwan

Author

Listed:
  • Leslie Mabon

    (The Open University)

  • Wan-Yu Shih

    (Ming-Chuan University)

Abstract

Extreme heat events are gaining ever more policy and societal attention under a warming climate. Although a breadth of expertises are required to understand drivers of vulnerability to hazards such as extreme heat, it is also acknowledged that expert assessments in group settings may be subject to biases and uneven power relations. In this Technical Note, we outline a structured deliberative process for supporting experts to work collaboratively to assess social vulnerability to a climate-related hazard, in this case extreme heat in Taiwanese cities. We argue that adapting elicitation approaches such as Q-Methodology for use in collaborative settings can help to organise expert discussion and enable dialogue and mutual learning, in a way that supports consensus-building on vulnerability assessment. Outcomes from our collaborative assessments suggest elderly people living alone, elderly people over 75, pre-existing circulatory diseases and level of participation in community decision-making may all be notable drivers of heat vulnerability in the Taiwanese context. Methodologically, we argue that collaborative sorting exercises offer a way to embed local and experiential knowledges into assessments of available evidence, but that strong facilitation and additional checks are necessary to ensure an inclusive process that reflects the diversity of perspectives involved.

Suggested Citation

  • Leslie Mabon & Wan-Yu Shih, 2022. "Identifying factors contributing to social vulnerability through a deliberative Q-Sort process: an application to heat vulnerability in Taiwan," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 112(3), pages 2609-2623, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:112:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11069-022-05280-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-022-05280-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-022-05280-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-022-05280-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jennifer J. Roberts & Ruth Lightbody & Ragne Low & Stephen Elstub, 2020. "Experts and evidence in deliberation: scrutinising the role of witnesses and evidence in mini-publics, a case study," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(1), pages 3-32, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mikko Leino & Katariina Kulha & Maija Setälä & Juha Ylisalo, 2022. "Expert hearings in mini-publics: How does the field of expertise influence deliberation and its outcomes?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 429-450, September.
    2. Lisette Beek & Niek Mouter & Peter Pelzer & Maarten Hajer & Detlef Vuuren, 2024. "Experts and expertise in practices of citizen engagement in climate policy: a comparative analysis of two contrasting cases," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(1), pages 1-22, January.
    3. Nørskov, Sladjana & Damholdt, Malene F. & Ulhøi, John P. & Jensen, Morten Berg & Mathiasen, Mia Krogager & Ess, Charles M. & Seibt, Johanna, 2022. "Employers’ and applicants’ fairness perceptions in job interviews: using a teleoperated robot as a fair proxy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    4. Stephen Elstub & Jayne Carrick & David M. Farrell & Patricia Mockler, 2021. "The Scope of Climate Assemblies: Lessons from the Climate Assembly UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.
    5. Moshe Maor & Tereza Capelos, 2023. "Symposium: Affect and emotions in policy dynamics," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(3), pages 439-448, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:112:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11069-022-05280-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.