In the study of disasters, the concept of vulnerability has been primarily employed as a cumulative indicator of the unequal distributions of certain populations in proximity to environmental and technological hazards and an individual or group ability to “anticipate, cope with, resist and recover” from disaster (Wisner et al. 2004). This concept has influenced disaster research as a means to question how natural, temporary, and random disasters are and focused analysis on the human-environmental processes that produce disasters and subject some populations more than others to risk and hazards. Critics also point out that vulnerability frameworks elude measure, strip people of agency, and reify stereotypes of the Global South. In light of both the historical importance and the sustained critiques of the concept, this chapter looks to anthropological and related literature to explore several questions: is it possible that vulnerability has outlived its usefulness? Is it still analytically meaningful for anthropologists currently working in the area of risk, hazards, and disasters? And what are the potential consequences or benefits that could come with conveying the concept of vulnerability to policy and decision makers?

中文翻译：

---

人类学视角下的灾害脆弱性

在灾害研究中，脆弱性的概念主要被用作累积指标，表明某些人口在环境和技术危害附近的分布不均，以及个人或团体“预期，应对，抵抗和复原”的能力。灾难（Wisner et al。2004）。这一概念影响了灾害研究，使人们质疑自然灾害，暂时性灾害和随机性灾害的发生方式，并将分析重点放在人类环境过程中，这些过程会造成灾害并使某些人口比其他人口更易遭受风险和危害。批评者还指出，脆弱性框架无法衡量，剥夺代理人员的身份，并无法体现全球南方的陈规定型观念。鉴于该概念的历史重要性和持续的批评，本章将对人类学和相关文献进行探讨，以探讨以下几个问题：脆弱性是否可能已经失效了？对于目前在风险，危害和灾难领域工作的人类学家来说，这仍然具有分析意义吗？向政策和决策者传达脆弱性的概念可能带来什么潜在的后果或利益？