Locating potential sources of capacity and vulnerability in geographically remote areas: Reflections based on three case studies

This article analyzes the relationship between geographical and social forms of remoteness and the concepts of vulnerability and capacity using three case studies. Recognizing that capacities and vulnerabilities tend to co-exist in a population, the article assumes that the dynamics between these concepts are situational. Scholars have for some time theorized geographic remoteness as a source of disaster vulnerability and marginalization, yet few studies have looked more specifically at the strategies employed by communities to cope in spite of their geographic remoteness and relative exclusion. In this context, it is important to further probe into the origins of locally developed coping mechanisms and embrace a better understanding of remoteness as a concept beyond geography.

The analysis of the cases show a number of preliminary insights for further investigation. One is that remote communities tend to avoid dependence on external actors when possible, having built up resources and skills over time that enable them to face most routine contingencies with relative ease. Second, power dynamics between remote communities and centralized actors can make disaster management difficult if local capacities are overrun but trust is not present. Third, remoteness mainly becomes a direct source of vulnerability if remoteness translates into neglect, rendering places ‘peripheral’. Generalizable insights suggest that relationships take time to build and cannot be easily established after the fact. The cases hence suggest that remote areas typically have a strained relationship with centralized authorities which fosters local coping strategies but also a fear of external dependence, which may prove problematic in times of adversity. The article recommends that decision-making processes and powers be relocated back to and closer to communities, allowing them to influence the outcome of decisions affecting their lives, livelihoods and capability. Communities need to be included in significant development decisions and indigenous knowledge bases must be encouraged and recognized. Furthermore, policies and strategies should prepare for uncertainty rather than for predicted outcomes