'God is a Trinidadian' : micro and small enterprise response towards heavy rainfall and flooding in a multi-level governance context in Downtown Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago

(1)

‘God is a Trinidadian’

Micro and small enterprise response towards heavy rainfall and

flooding in a multi-level governance context in Downtown Port of

Spain, Trinidad and Tobago

Ymkje Galama (5883997) Februari 2017

Lower Henry Street Upper Charlotte Street

Graduate School of Social Sciences

Research Master International Development Studies Email: y.galama@gmail.com

Supervisors : Dr. Hebe Verrest and Prof. Isa Baud Second reader: Dr. Michaela Hordijk

(2)

1

But the paradox is that the safer our world becomes, the more vulnerable we are when a disaster actually happens.

(3)

2

Foreword

First and foremost, I am thankful to all the respondents who were so kind to make time for me. My daily walks on the streets of Downtown Port of Spain became more personal and interesting every time, as I enjoyed the small talks with former and future respondents. Thank you for your kindness in showing me your livelihoods. I am so grateful to all the people from ODPM, Chamber of Commerce, NEDCO, Ministry of Labour and Small and Micro Enterprise-Development, Ministry of Water and Environment, Everglow, DOMA and other institutions for making time for me. Thank you! All my visits to you and interviews we had has made it possible to try to get a grip on de structures in place important for the Micro and Small Enterprises operating in Port of Spain.

Also thank you blueSpace-family for so much more than a desk in an office at the University campus. Thank you for giving me all the metaphorical space I needed for my own research. Especially thank you Christian and Maarten for your friendship and exploring the Trinidadian culture together. There are two people I would like to thank personally for showing me the Trinidadian everyday life. First, Lisa, thank you for the talks we had in your hair-salon. La Toya, thank you for becoming my bestie in Trinidad and Tobago.

Back in the Netherlands, thank you prof. Isa Baud for the first part of supervision and the kind emails after the shocking news. Thank you dr. Hebe Verrest for your patience, understanding and supervision of the everlasting finishing part. Thank you friends and co-students for the coffee moments and discussions during our first months of writing in the Bushuis.

I do not want to leave anyone out, but would like to especially thank Veerle, Frank, Trudy & Ron, Els & Ton, who have been there for me during all tough and weird phases. Thank you mom and dad for being the most loving parents a child can wish for and visiting me in Trinidad and Tobago. Lastly, thank you Rick for being who you are. You have had to put up with me and my thesis frustrations most and yet here you still are!

(4)

3

Abstract

For years the focus has been on vulnerability and resilience of governments and communities in natural disaster and climate change studies. It is quite time to engage the private sector. Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) play an important role in local communities and can broaden our understanding of effects, actions and reactions to extreme weather events in the Caribbean. During four months of fieldwork, qualitative and quantitative data were gathered comprising observations, MSE surveys, semi-structured and in-depth interviews with MSEs, governmental and entrepreneurial institutions. Spatial data has been gathered to analyse the biophysical position of enterprises to flooding and heavy rainfall, which are the most common events in Trinidad and Tobago. The findings indicate that MSE’s strategies are a combination of general MSE asset portfolios, the biophysical vulnerable position of MSEs and their asset erosion, a fuzzy governmental structure, lack of disaster policy for the private sector, the relative unimportant position of MSEs in national economy and policy making, a relative weak position of MSEs in entrepreneurial institutions, a culture of garbage behaviour, the individualistic way of entrepreneurship and laissez faire behaviour. The dynamic relationship of MSE’s strategies in a Trinidadian context makes insight of the MSE position to flooding and heavy rainfall possible which could support local communities to better prepare and adapt to such events.

(5)

4

Foreword ... 2

Abstract ... 3

Table of Contents ... 4

List of Tables ... 7

List of Figures, Maps and Photos ... 7

List of Boxes ... 8

Abbreviations ... 9

1 Introduction ... 10

1.1 Why focus on Small- and Micro-sized Enterprises? ... 10

1.2 Why a critical asset-based vulnerability adaptation approach? ... 11

1.3 Why Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago? ... 12

1.4 Why flooding and heavy rainfall? ... 13

1.5 Research questions and outline of thesis ... 13

2 Theoretical Framework ... 15

2.1 Moser’s asset adaptation and vulnerability approach ... 15

2.1.1 Asset vulnerability...16

2.1.2 Vulnerability dimensions ...20

2.1.3 Asset-based adaptation ...24

2.1.4 Types of strategies ...26

2.2 MSEs: from disasters victims to active actors ... 28

2.2.1 Multi-level governance...29

2.2.2 The dual relationship between agency and structure ...33

2.3 Concluding remarks ... 36

3 Research methodologies and methods ... 38

3.1 Research questions and operationalisation ... 38

3.2 Research design ... 40

3.2.1 Epistemological perspective ...40

3.2.2 Unit of analysis ...41

3.2.3 Selection of research area and respondents ...42

3.3 A mixed method design ... 43

3.3.1 Qualitative methods ...44

(6)

5

3.3.3 Sampling methods...47

3.4 Ethical issues and limitations ... 49

3.4.1 Ethical issues ...49

3.4.2 Limitations of research ...50

3.5 Data-Analysis ... 51

4 Research Context ... 53

4.1 Trinidad and Tobago ... 53

4.2 Zooming in: enterprises in downtown Port of Spain ... 54

4.3 Zooming out: macroeconomic development ... 57

4.4 Exposure to extreme weather events ... 58

5 Asset portfolios, vulnerability and asset erosion ... 63

5.1 General MSE’s assets ... 63

5.1.1 Physical assets ...64

5.1.2 Financial assets ...65

5.1.3 Human assets ...66

5.1.4 Social assets ...66

5.1.5 Natural assets ...67

5.2 Biophysical vulnerability of MSEs... 67

5.3 Flooding impacts on MSE’s assets ... 72

5.3.1 Flooding experience by MSEs ...72

5.3.2 Erosion and insecurity of financial asset ...73

5.3.3 Erosion and insecurity of physical asset ...76

5.3.4 Erosion and insecurity of human asset ...79

5.3.5 Erosion and insecurity of social asset ...80

5.4 Concluding remarks ... 82

6 Multi-level governance ... 84

6.1 Public organisations ... 84

6.1.1 Disaster management structures ...84

6.1.2 Disaster management actions ...87

6.1.3 Public perceptions ...91

6.1.4 Enterprise support structures and actions ...95

6.1.5 Enterprise support perceptions ...96

(7)

6 6.3.1 Structures ...98 6.3.2 Actions ...99 6.3.3 Perceptions ... 100 6.4 Collective organisations ...102 6.4.1 Structures ... 102 6.4.2 Actions ... 102 6.4.3 Perceptions ... 104 6.5 Concluding remarks ...105

7 Perception and adaptation of MSEs ... 107

7.1 Reduce impact strategies ...107

7.1.1 Strategies taken by MSEs ... 107

7.1.2 Structure <-> agency interactions ... 112

7.2 Mitigation strategies ...114

7.2.2 Litter behaviour ... 116

7.3 Coping strategies ...119

7.3.2 Liming is coping ... 121

7.5 Concluding remarks ...124

8 Conclusion ... 127

8.1 Main findings ...127

8.2 Theoretical implications and further research ...130

8.3 Policy recommendations ...133

References ... 135

Appendix 1 Operationalization scheme ... 143

Appendix 2 Questionnaire for MSEs ... 148

Appendix 3 In-depth start-up questions for MSEs ... 152

Appendix 4 Examples of questions for semi-structured interview with

stakeholders ... 153

Appendix 5 List of interviews with stakeholders ... 154

(8)

7

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Vulnerability factors according to scale and domain ... 21

Table 3.1 Collecting data using a mixed-method approach ... 44

Table 3.2 Conducted surveys in downtown Port of Spain ... 49

Table 3.3 Methods important for sub-questions ... 51

Table 4.1 Types of documented EWE in PoS and environs ... 60

Table 5.1 Business uses of utilities and public infrastructure ... 65

Table 5.2 Weekly turnovers ... 65

Table 5.3 Classification of downtown Port of Spain ... 70

Table 5.4 Erosion and insecurity in the assets of lower and upper MSEs ... 73

Table 5.5 Associations between MSE location and asset erosion ... 75

Table 5.6 Correlation between MSE location and damage to facility ... 78

Table 6.2 Total number of policies covered by insurance company ... 99

Table 7.1 Correlation between MSE location and ownership premise ... 110

Table 7.2 Correlation between MSE location and business type ... 111

Table 7.4 Correlation between MSE location and weekly turnovers ... 115

List of Figures, Maps and Photos

Figure 2.1 Conceptual scheme step 1 ... 18

Figure 2.2 Conceptual Scheme step 2 ... 20

Map 4.1 Trinidad and Tobago’s geographical location ... 53

Photo 4.1 Charlotte Street Enterprises. Author’s photo, December 2013. ... 56

Photo 4.2 Frederick Street enterprises. Author’s photo, December 2013. ... 56

Map 4.2 Flood Occurrence in Trinidad and Tobago (source: ODPM 2013) ... 59

Photo 4.3 Flooded City Gate and South Quay, November 2012 ... 62

Photo 5.1 Small Enterprises, Port of Spain. Author’s photo, December 2013. ... 63

Photo 5.2 Micro Enterprises, Port of Spain. Author’s photo, December 2013. ... 63

Figure 5.1 Relationship between floods and assets ... 68

Figure 5.2 Location of MSEs ... 68

Map 5.1 Downtown Port of Spain ... 71

Photo 6.1 Maintenance of drainage system, downtown Port of Spain ... 89

Photo 7.1 MSE Floodgate, downtown Port of Spain. Author’s photo, December 2013. ..108

(9)

8 Photo 7.4 Street venders operating on the drains, Port of Spain ...117 Photo 7.3 Paper packages left in the drains by entrepreneurs, Port of Spain. ...117 Figure 8.1 Theoretical additions to the original conceptual scheme ...133

List of Boxes

Box 2.1 Moser’s asset-based vulnerability framework for urban areas, adapted to the MSE sector ... 19 Box 6.1 Street construction ...103 Box 7.1 Additional reduce impact strategies ...109

(10)

9

Abbreviations

ABVAA Asset-Based Vulnerability Adaptation Approach

CARICOM Caribbean Community

CC Climate Change

CDM Comprehensive Disaster Management

CSO Central Statistical Office

DOMA Downtown Owners and Merchants Association

DMU PoSC Disaster Management Unit of the Port of Spain Corporation

EWE Extreme Weather Event

GIS Geographical Information System

GNI Gross National Income

IBIS Business incubator

MET Office Meteorological Services Trinidad and Tobago

MSE Micro and Small Enterprise

NEDCO National Entrepreneurial Development Company

ODPM Office of Disaster and Preparedness Management

PoS Port of Spain

PoSC Port of Spain Corporation

PNM People National Movement

SIDS Small Island Development State

SME Small and Medium Enterprise

SRA Strategic Relational Approach

UN-Habitat United Nations-Habitat

WASA Water and Sewage Authority of Trinidad and Tobago

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

(11)

10

1 Introduction

A lot of research has been done on the topics of vulnerability and resilience towards natural hazards in the Caribbean, however with a focus on governmental and community resilience (Adger et al. 2005; Barnett 2001; Pelling and Uitto 2001; Pelling 2003). There seems to be an information gap in natural disaster research regarding the business sector. It is essential to engage the business sector as they are an important sector in our society next to households and governments (Zhang et al. 2009). This study will explore how the business sector can too be affected by natural hazards, and how they act and react to or from these hazards. This research will be another step in making the existing knowledge gap between the private sector and natural hazard resilience smaller.

The study builds on the urban livelihood study of Verrest (2007), which also took place in a Caribbean context. To explore the livelihoods of Caribbean households, she looked at the diversity, vulnerability and impact of Household-based Economic Activities (HBEA) on household livelihoods. Also important in her study was the role of institutions for HBEAs. Inspired by the dissertation of Verrest, this study is narrowed down to natural disaster impacts and asset vulnerabilities and strategies of micro and small enterprises (MSEs), whereby the role and influences of a multi-level governance context are also put in place.

1.1 Why focus on Small- and Micro-sized Enterprises?

It is important to include the private sector in development research, because this can increase the understanding of how a country develops more completely (Agbeibor Jr. 2006; Knorringa and Helmsing 2008 Verrest 2007; Verrest 2013). The private sector can be divided into big, medium, small and micro-sized enterprises, or into formal/informal operating businesses (Knorringa and Helmsing 2008). In this research the focus lies on formal Small and Micro-sized Enterprises (MSEs). Agbeibor Jr. (2006) and Verrest (2007; 2013) discuss the importance of MSEs for pro-poor economic growth. Mead and Liedholm (1998) go one step further and state that MSE entrepreneurship is the most important source of income and employment for many countries in the developing world. MSEs would offer sustainable business solutions which fight poverty and

(12)

11 stimulate economic growth. MSEs are thus important job suppliers, providers of affordable products and services.

Not only is the private sector, including MSEs, important in development research, they also play an important role in disaster research (Flynn 2007; Runyan 2006; Wedawatta and Ingirige 2012; Zhang et al. 2009). Zhang et al. (2009) point out that businesses play an important role in the functioning of a community. They plead for more disaster research for businesses, because this will support communities to better prepare to, adapt to and mitigate against environmental hazards. Runyan (2006) argues that especially small businesses are an important part of the business sector when focusing on resilience to Extreme Weather Events (EWEs) (see section 1.4). First, they are more vulnerable compared to bigger enterprises, because they have fewer resources and fewer assets. Second, owners of small businesses are double vulnerable, because enterprise assets are closely interlinked with personal assets. This can be placed in perspective to owners of multinationals, where the assets of the business are separated from the personal life of the owner (Runyan 2006).

1.2 Why a critical asset-based vulnerability adaptation approach?

Households and communities should no longer be viewed as victims of disasters, but as active and strategic actors who can make their own changes –or choose not to make changes- in their vulnerability (Few 2003; Smith and Petley 2009). This is not only something which should apply to households and communities, but also to MSEs as they are also seen as change agents for communities (Knorringa and Helmsing 2008: 1055). It is time that this image will get extensive attention, because I believe that taking an active and dynamic perspective to MSEs will give a deeper understanding of the character and attitude of MSEs than when a passive perspective is taken and MSEs are seen as victims of disasters (Jessop 2005).

Drawing from the asset-based vulnerability adaptation approach of Moser (Moser and Satterthwaite 2008; Moser et al. 2010; Moser 2011) enables me to capture the active and dynamic character of MSEs. This asset based approach can support us determining how MSEs operate their business, how they are affected and how they act and react towards EWEs. This total of assets should be analysed in relation to the biophysical

(13)

12 vulnerable position of MSEs, because it can influence the management of MSEs’ complex asset portfolios. The connections between the erosion of MSE’s assets and their vulnerability can determine what strategies are taken, which can change or continue the vulnerability of MSEs (Füssel 2007; Moser 2011; Satterthwaite and Moser 2008). Not only the biophysical vulnerability, but also structural factors (including norms and customs, governmental and entrepreneurial institutions) play an important part in my research as they translate the asset adaptation of MSEs into asset adaptation strategies. Including the Strategic Relations Approach (SRA) supports me in building a bridge between natural disaster vulnerability and adaptation studies and the private sector, e.g. Micro and Small Enterprises. I will move beyond a view of self-contained MSEs by paying attention to both the agency and structure in analysing the asset adaptation and strategies of MSEs towards flooding and heavy rainfall. In the SRA approach the dual interaction between agency and structure is explained (Hay 2002).

1.3 Why Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago?

Port of Spain (PoS) is the capital city of Trinidad and Tobago, which is a Small Island Developing State (SIDS) located in the Caribbean. SIDSs are seen as highly vulnerable towards floods, hurricanes and other natural hazards compared to other states (Brigulio 1990). Moreover, global climate change and the (expected) increase in extreme climatic events, such as heavy rainstorms, determine the vulnerable position of the island (Ramlal and Baban 2008; Shenk et al. 2011). Common for a SIDS, Trinidad has large coastal zones where most of the population and businesses are concentrated. Trinidad and Tobago has an interesting economic position, as it is one of the most wealthiest nation in the Caribbean. The economy is mostly based on its fruitful oil and gas industry (Wignaraja et al. 2004). Tourism also plays an significant part for the local economy, throughout the dry season in Tobago and during Carnival in Trinidad. Trinidad and Tobago furthermore has a strong regional financial centre. The manufacturing in e.g. domestic production, industrial and retail sales also take a significant part in the local economy. Furthermore, Trinidad and Tobago has a growing trade surplus (CSO 2014). In order to keep the economy steady (the over-reliance on the oil industry has led to some negative consequences in the 70s and 80s), extra attention was given to the role of

(14)

13 the private sector after 1980, with a special focus on small businesses (Wignaraja et al. 2004). Especially in Port of Spain a lot of various economic activities can be found, since it is the central business district (Verrest 2007). Zooming in a bit more we find ourselves in the busiest commercial area: downtown Port of Spain. This is the urban location where the research has been conducted. The retail sector is most prominent in downtown Port of Spain and is important for the majority of the Trinidadians to do their shopping. Therefore, the MSEs included in this research are all retail enterprises.

1.4 Why flooding and heavy rainfall?

Evidence shows that there is an increase in Extreme Weather Events (EWEs) over the last couple of decades worldwide (Moser 2011). EWEs are weather extremes including windstorms, floods, droughts and heat waves. There are expectations that the occurrence will further increase, both in number and severity. These expectations are based on climate change impacts (Ramlal and Baban 2008; Pelling and Uitto 2001; Shenk et al. 2011; UNISDR 2013; Wedawatta and Ingirige 2012). Due to time availability of the research period not all types of EWEs could be integrated in the research. Flooding and heavy rainfall are the most frequent hazards with direct physical impact for Small Islands Development States. Especially urban areas are vulnerable to these hazard types, as road and building construction makes is harder for surplus water to be drained (Smith 2013). In downtown PoS flooding incidents are even increasing since the 1990s (ODPM 2013). Heavy rainfall can act as a cause of flooding, but can also have (in)direct impacts on households/businesses (Middelbeek, 2012; Smith 2013). I have therefor chosen to focus on these two types of EWEs.

1.5 Research questions and outline of thesis

Based on the above research problem the following research question is formulated:

‘How are asset adaptation strategies developed and performed through the relationship of agential (MSE asset portfolios) and structural (multi-level governance) factors and how do these strategies reflect the resilience of MSEs towards flooding and heavy rainfall in downtown Port of Spain?’

(15)

14 The research question will be answered in the Conclusion Chapter. Before we get there, the question needs to be divided to make analysis more feasible. The first sub-question, ‘What are the general assets of the MSEs in downtown Port of Spain and how are they

affected by flooding and heavy rainfall?’ will be answered in the first empirical chapter,

Chapter five. The second sub-questions, ‘How does the multi-level governance context

function in which the MSEs in downtown Port of Spain manage their asset portfolios?’ will

be the focus of the following Chapter six. The third and last sub-question ‘How do the

agential and structural factors come together and in what asset adaptation strategies do they result?’ will be answered in the last empirical chapter, Chapter seven. Answering

these sub-questions needs prior elaboration on the used theories, which can be read in Chapter two. These resulted in a conceptual framework which acts as the backbone throughout the research and analysis. How and with what methods research was done and how the data was analysed, including the ontology and epistemology, is explained in Chapter three. To understand the context in which the research was performed, information on the country’s history, culture, economy and climate can be read in Chapter four.

(16)

15

2 Theoretical Framework

In this chapter I set out the theories for exploring Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) in a biophysical and multi-level governance environment. First the asset adaptation and vulnerability approach of Moser (2011) and Moser and Satterthwaite (2008) is described. Their approach focuses on the community and household level, yet below theoretical framework shows that the same approach can be used in relation to MSEs. This includes theorizing MSE asset portfolios. Vulnerability dimensions support exploring the erosion of those asset portfolios. These links between vulnerability and asset erosion ask for asset adaptation and different strategies that MSE can take to decrease the erosion of assets and increase their resilience. The second part of this chapter is devoted to inclusion of the strategic side of the asset adaptation strategies. As MSEs operate in an context of multi-level governance which influences their agency, a separate section is devoted to exploring structural factors, influences and perceptions which can affect the agency leading to a change or continuity in the resilience of MSEs.

2.1 Moser’s asset adaptation and vulnerability approach

Carolyne Moser was one of the first to adopt an asset-based vulnerability approach in an urban context (1998). In this approach, she stresses the importance for development studies to look at what the poor do have, instead of looking at what they do not have. Moser puts this nicely together in her conclusion where she explains that the asset framework ‘goes beyond a static measuring of the poor, toward classifying the capabilities

of poor populations to use their resources to reduce their vulnerability.’ (p.14). The

asset-based vulnerability and adaptation approach (ABVAA) (Moser and Satterthwaite 2008; Moser 2011) goes beyond the earlier asset-based vulnerability approach from the 1990s by putting it in a climate change context. The studies of Moser are based at the asset adaptation and vulnerability at the community and household level, in relation to my research which is based at the level of micro and small enterprises.

There are two general aspects of the ABVAA. First you have to identify and analyse the connection between vulnerability and the erosion of assets. Then, the asset-based adaptation framework structures the identification of asset adaptation or resilience strategies which are performed by households and communities (Moser and

(17)

16 Satterthwaite 2008; Moser 2011). Thus, the approach can be divided into an asset vulnerability framework and an asset adaptation framework, which are discussed in the next section.

Before I do this, I need to justify using the ABVAA at a micro and small enterprise level. Moser solely focuses on a household and community level. I asked myself why asset vulnerability strategies are only used to identify households and communities and not businesses. It is important to also include the private sector in disaster studies, as they fulfil a crucial role in the functioning of a community. Using the ABVAA could enable a more complete and in-depth analysis of the characteristics and behaviour of MSEs towards flooding and heavy rainfall.

To build a bridge from Mosers’ research to mine I have looked at the urban livelihood approach of Household-based Economic Activities (HBEA) of Verrest (2007). To explore household vulnerabilities and livelihoods Verrest observed the impact of differed HBEAs. She hereby also looked at assets and strategies. As was mentioned in the introduction, it is important to include the private sector in natural disaster and vulnerability research. Where Moser sticks with households and communities as key actors, Verrest takes a step towards a more entrepreneurial direction. This entrepreneurial direction led me to include MSEs in the asset-based vulnerability and adaptation approach.

2.1.1 Asset vulnerability

To explore what asset-based adaptation strategies are taken by micro- and small enterprises (MSEs), we need to first identify and analyse the connection between vulnerability and the erosion of assets (Moser 2011). Vulnerability can be understood as lack of resilience to changes that threaten welfare and thus results in erosion of assets (Adger 2000; Moser 2011). This threat can be environmental, economic, social or political. The threat itself is the natural hazard, but turns into a natural disaster when clashing into a social vulnerable environment (Pelling 2003).

Vulnerability has mainly focused on social and political threats and risks, but for this research vulnerability to physical hazards is more important. The physical hazards in

(18)

17 this research are flooding and heavy rainfall, which are types of extreme weather events (EWEs). Such weather extremes have increased during the last couple of decades (Moser 2011) and indicate that we are dealing with a change in climate (Ramlal and Baban 2008; Pelling and Uitto 2001; Shenk et al. 2011; UNISDR 2013; Wedawatta and Ingirige 2012). Although it is important for my research to acknowledge the climate change context, it is a very fuzzy and politicalised term (Gupta, 2014). This makes it difficult to capture climate change down in research and come up with valuable conclusions. Flooding and heavy rainfall, as types of EWEs, are more structured problems. This supports researching, analysing and forming conclusions (Gupta, 2014). For example, people agree on the impact of flooding and heavy rainfall, while there is no universal agreement on the impact of climate change.

Not only climate change is a complex phenomenon, vulnerability has been used in many different ways by many different scientists (see, for instance, Fedeski and Gwilliam 2007; Ramlal and Baban 2008; Taubenböck et al. 2008). These scientists focused mostly on the external side of vulnerability by looking at factors such as risk, exposure and susceptibility. Moser on the other hand refers to the two-dimensional character of vulnerability. The first dimension is its sensitivity, which is the impact that external events can have on the system1_{(Moser 1998; Moser 2011; Verrest 2007). The second} dimension of vulnerability is its resilience, which is the ease and speed with which the system absorbs and accommodates future events (Moser 1995; Holling 1973; Pelling 2003).

I first want to make the connections between vulnerability and asset adaptation, but will elaborate further on different dimensions of vulnerability in section 2.1.2. For now, the first two layers of the conceptual scheme can be made, written in bold black in Figure 2.1. The overall global and regional context is a Small Island Developing State: Trinidad and Tobago. This is the layer in which the whole story takes place. In Chapter 3 the research context will be further elaborated. The Extreme Weather Events (EWEs) are the extreme weather events that can affect both the agential as the structural factors. There are two types of EWE important in my research: (flash) flooding and heavy rainfall. This captures the external side of vulnerability. These two hazards are

(19)

18 interlinked, as heavy rainfall can act as both a direct threat as an indirect threat, since it is also the most common cause of (river) floods (Few 2003). Factors important to consider when researching flood impact include drainage basin conditions, topography, vegetation, soils, urbanisation, deforestation and river alteration. These factors can influence the magnitude, frequency and speed of both heavy rainfall and (flash) flooding (Few 2003; Smith 2013).

Figure 2.1 Conceptual scheme step 1

Adapted from Hay (2002: 131), Lopes Cardozo (2009), Füssel (2007) and Moser (2011)

Important for understanding the resilience of the MSE sector includes looking if there is

change or continuity in the vulnerability of MSEs. A way to explore this change or

continuity is by an asset-based vulnerability adaptation approach, because vulnerability is conjoined to a lack of assets. As explained by Moser, ‘The more assets people have, the

less vulnerable they generally are; the greater the erosion of people’s assets, the greater their insecurity.’ (Moser 2011:6). This implies that the capability of MSEs to react to

shocks and stresses is dependent on the management or destruction of their assets. Shocks are discrete hazards, for example an earthquake or tsunami. Stresses are Global and Regional SIDS context

EWEs: (Flash) Flooding and heavy rainfall

Biophysical internal vulnerability

Agential factors: MSE asset portfolios

Structural factors: - political, economic, social and cultural institutions & organisations AGENCY Asset adaptation within context Asset adaptation strategies Re si lie n ce: Cha n ge a n d c on tin uit y Effects of actions increased strategic knowledge and learning

Effects of action partial transformation of external

socio-economic context for future adaptation strategies

(20)

19 continuous hazards such as heavy rainfall or floods (Moser and Satterthwaite 2008; Moser 2011). After being exposed to shocks and stresses, assets are shown to be a significant factor in self-recovery of the MSE. The way MSEs response to shocks and stresses is dependent on their asset portfolios (Moser 2011).

The importance of an asset based approach is also acknowledged indirectly by Wedawatta and Ingirige (2012), who indicate that flood impact goes beyond direct impacts such as damage to premises. Indirect impacts such as staff unavailable for work and disruption of the supply chain can also affect MSEs. Where Wedawatta and Ingirige (2012) discuss the difference between direct and indirect effects of EWEs, I believe it is important to further frame this impact. In this research not the impact, but the erosion of MSEs assets is central, because it gives a broader view of what is affected by flooding and heavy rainfall. There are two types of assets: tangible and intangible. Tangible are assets we can touch (physical and natural), and intangible assets are assets that cannot be touched (financial, human, social) (Siegel and Alwang 1999). These five assets are seen as the most important capitals according to Moser (2011). If these assets are managed in the right mix, this will increase the resilience of the community. Translated to the MSE level it can be said that the right asset management can increase the resilience of MSEs. In Box 2.1 the five most important assets for communities are therefore applied to MSEs.

Box 2.1 Moser’s asset-based vulnerability framework for urban areas,

adapted to the MSE sector

1. Physical capital: the stock of plant, equipment, infrastructure and other productive resources owned by the business sector.

2. Financial capital: the financial resources available to the MSE sector, which include savings, insurance and supplies of credit.

3. Human capital: labour is linked to this asset, including the health and nutrition status which influences people’s capacity to work, and skill and education determine the returns from their labour.

4. Social capital: the rules, norms, obligations, reciprocity and trust embedded in social and economic relations.

5. Natural capital: environmentally provided productive assets, including soil, atmosphere, minerals and land for shelter.

(21)

20 Another step in the conceptual scheme can be made, see Figure 2.2. The agential factors include the MSE sector itself, more in particularly the physical, human, social, financial and natural assets of MSEs. These assets determine the overall character of the enterprises.

Figure 2.2 Conceptual Scheme step 2

To be able to analyse the connection between vulnerability and the erosion of MSE’s

2.1.2 Vulnerability dimensions

Although Moser’s ABVAA is very applicable for my research, the concept of vulnerability is explained in a concise way. Füssel (2007) also stresses the interrelationship of the social and biophysical aspects of vulnerability, but does it in a more comprehensive way which enables analysing the connection between vulnerability and asset erosion more wholly. This is important, because the asset vulnerability has influence on how asset adaptation strategies can be identified (Moser and Satterthwaite 2008; Moser et al. 2010; Moser 2011).

Füssel introduces two important dimensions of vulnerability: scale and domain. Scale can be internal or external and domain can be socio-economic or biophysical. Table 2.1 Global and Regional SIDS context

EWEs: (Flash) Flooding and heavy rainfall

Agential factors: MSE asset portfolios

AGENCY Asset adaptation within context Asset adaptation strategies Re si lie n ce : C ha n ge a n d c on tin uit y Effects of actions increased strategic knowledge and learning

Erosion of MSE assets

Structural factors:

- political, economic, social and cultural institutions & organisations

(22)

21 below gives examples of vulnerability factors according to the above dimensions in the context of my research.

Table 2.1 Vulnerability factors according to scale and domain

Scale/Domain Socio-economic Biophysical

Internal Resilience

MSE’s asset adaptation

Sensitivity

Topography,

environmental conditions

External Structural factors

National policies,

emergency relief, economic globalisation, norms and customs

Exposure: shocks and stresses

(flash) Flooding, heavy rainfall

Adapted from Füssel (2007: 158)

Internal factors of vulnerability refers to the characteristics of the MSE sector and external factors include all other factors. The internal factors of vulnerability in a socio-economic domain are related to socio-economic resources, distribution of power and other characteristics of social groups. These socio-economic vulnerability factors can be linked to the five types of MSE’s assets (physical, financial, human social and natural assets), because the way MSEs manage and adapt their complex asset portfolios determines their internal socio-economic resilience (Moser and Satterthwaite 2008; Moser 2011). External vulnerability factors in a socio-economic domain are structural factors, including political, economic, social and cultural institutions which can play a role in the formation of MSE’s asset adaptation (Füssel 2007; Moser and Satterthwaite 2008; Moser 2011; Verrest 2007).

External vulnerability factors in a biophysical domain describes the exposure to shocks,

stresses and risks to which the MSE sector is subject. This exposure has been explained

previously by what Moser called the sensitivity of the system, which includes what impact external events can have on the system (section 2.1.1). To understand the impact of heavy rainfall and flooding to MSEs it is therefore desirable to include both internal as

(23)

22 external factors, as they together form the total biophysical impact (Füssel 2007; Chamber 1995).

To realise the total impact of MSEs the biophysical impact needs to be completed with the socio-economic impact. Therefore, the vulnerability factors as illustrated in Table 2.1 need to be observed not as static concepts, but as concepts in motion influencing one another. Füssel proposes a separate analysis of the four vulnerability factors, but to understand the asset-based vulnerability, erosion and adaptation, all factors need to be seen as dependent and dynamic factors. This is further explained in section 2.2.2 as the dual relationship between agency and structure.

In vulnerability factors discussed above there is however one aspect missing when trying to understand the connection between vulnerability and asset erosion: the general asset portfolios of MSEs. As can be observed in Table 2.1 asset adaptation is included without first describing the asset portfolios. Pellings’ framework on vulnerability from 2003 supports when closing this gap. In his explanation of human vulnerability there are two categories that can be linked to the vulnerability approach that has been taken so far. The first category is resistance. This is the part where general asset portfolios can be put, because it describes economic and physical health of the system and its maintenance. It represents the capacity of the system (e.g. MSEs) itself -and not its biophysical sensitivity- to withst-and the impact of extreme weather events (Pelling 2003). The second category is resilience, this is the same in Füssel’s case, and can describe the asset adaptation. Pelling (2003) explains resilience as the ability of a system to cope or adapt to hazard stress. This can take form in planned preparation or spontaneous actions taken in response to the natural hazard. More on different types of asset adaptation can be read in section 2.1.4.

Above theories can be captured and concluded into two pieces of the conceptual scheme, the internal side of vulnerability and erosion of assets, see Figure 2.3.

(24)

23

The internal side of vulnerability is illustrated as the red box with the yellow shape outline. This internal vulnerability can only be related to the MSE asset portfolios, because concerns the direct vulnerable position of MSEs towards flooding and heavy rainfall. This dual relationship between social and biophysical vulnerability is necessary to get a more thorough understanding of the vulnerability of MSEs towards flooding and heavy rainfall. The biophysical internal position influences the position of MSEs and can lead to different asset-based adaptation strategies. Furthermore, MSE asset portfolios in relation to this internal vulnerability can lead to the erosion of assets. The asset erosion is the sum of the biophysical vulnerability and impact of flooding and heavy rainfall on the MSEs. In other words, this is the risk that MSEs have to deal with. The erosion of assets in not an agential factor, as it happens outside the power of the agents (the MSE’s assets). It however can have influence in the way MSEs adapt to their vulnerability, as it can be defined as a structure that can influence the adaptation strategies of MSEs.

Global and Regional SIDS context EWEs: (Flash) Flooding and heavy rainfall

Biophysical internal vulnerability

AGENCY Asset adaptation within context Asset adaptation strategies Re si lie n ce: Cha n ge a n d c on tin uit y Effects of actions increased strategic knowledge and learning

Structural factors:

(25)

24 2.1.3 Asset-based adaptation

This research uses an asset-based framework of adaptation to shocks and stresses (in this research flooding and heavy rainfall) that identifies the role of assets in the resilience of MSEs, and therefore the change or continuity in vulnerability of the MSE sector.

Asset portfolios of communities and households, and in the case of this research MSEs, are according to Moser and Satterthwaite (2008) undoubtedly a key determinant in their adaptive capacity to reduce and to cope with shocks and stresses. I should therefore explore if the more assets a micro- or small-sized enterprise commands in the right mix, the greater their capacity is to buffer themselves against external shocks and stresses (1998: 16, put in own context). This has also been put forward by Chambers (1995) and Verrest (2007), who explain the need of vital assets for communities to withstand shocks and stresses and to obtain a livelihood.

Connections between the social-economic and biophysical domain of vulnerability (see Table 2.1) are necessary to get a more thorough understanding of the asset adaptation strategies of MSEs, because the biophysical internal position can influence the asset-based adaptation strategies of MSEs. For example, a biophysical vulnerability factor like topography can determine how MSEs plan their asset adaptation strategies. If a MSE would be located near a river, this can influence the insurance package of the company (Rasmussen 2006).

There are three basic principles important for asset-based adaptation strategies in the context of climate change, which also means that they are important in a context of other biophysical related natural disasters (Moser and Satterthwaite 2008; Moser et al. 2010; Moser 2011). These principles are important to keep in mind when applying ABVAA. Their principles are adopted to MSEs in a context of flooding and heavy rainfall.

According to the first principle, the processes of the assets held by the MSEs are influenced by external factors. This principle underpins that the asset adaptations of MSEs do not take place in a vacuum and are in constant interaction with external factors. These external factors include government policy, political- and non-governmental

(26)

25 institutions. Such an institution is a structure of social order that can govern the behaviour of, in this research, MSEs (Miller 2012). These institutions are formal organisations of government public and private services and can include laws, climate change policies, norms and regulations which can have either a negative or a positive effect on the asset adaptation strategies of MSEs: they can block or enable accessibility, or facilitate asset adaptation (Hay 2002; Moser and Satterthwaite 2008; Moser 2011; Pelling 2003). This step is outlined in the conceptual scheme (Figure 2.4) as the structural factors box. The constant relationship between the agential factors and the structural factors is indicated with the dotted arrow, because the interaction is not always clear. The structural factors need further theorizing when exploring asset adaptation. This is done in Section 2.2.1.

According to the second principle, assets can be interrelated. This can have either positive or negative effects. Namely, the adaptation of one asset can influence other assets. Or, if there is insecurity and erosion in one asset this can disturb other assets (Moser and Satterthwaite 2008; Moser et al. 2010; Moser 2011). The third principle Global and Regional SIDS context

AGENCY Asset adaptation within context Asset adaptation strategies Re si lie n ce: Cha n ge a n d c on tin uit y Effects of actions increased strategic knowledge and learning

Structural factors:

- political, economic, social and cultural institutions & organisations

(27)

26 includes the dynamic character of MSE asset portfolios. MSEs asset portfolios can change (rapidly) over time, because internal changes can occur. These changes are internally linked to the life cycle of people and businesses and externally linked to economic, political and institutional variability. The arrows in the conceptual scheme act as a metaphor for the dynamic character of MSE asset portfolios and the internal and external changes. Hence, the above principles influence the change or continuity in vulnerability of MSEs and should therefore be included in the research (Moser and Satterthwaite 2008; Moser et al. 2010; Moser 2011).

Before we can explore the structural factors further which will bring us closer to understanding MSE’s strategies within context, I will first discuss different types of asset adaptation strategies, as these help structuring the actions of the enterprises.

2.1.4 Types of strategies

There are four different types of vulnerability to climate change according to the ABVAA framework of Moser (2011) and Moser and Satterthwaite (2008). All types can (partly) be associated with an aspect of asset adaptation. The four types are interrelated and include: long-term resilience, pre-disaster damage limitation, immediate post-disaster responses and rebuilding. These types look at the vulnerability of different groups during different types of the risk hazard, whereby women (gender aspect) and children (age aspect) are viewed as being more vulnerable than other groups.

There are two reasons that make these types insignificant applicable to my study. First, in my research there is not a distinction of different vulnerability groups, because the focus on the vulnerability and adaptation strategies is on particular group: MSEs.2 Second, above phases are more about vulnerability and not about adaptation strategies. This implies MSE as victims rather as active agents who take strategies in relation to their vulnerability (see also Section 2.2).

Siegel and Alwang (1999) focus on asset strategies rather than on asset vulnerabilities. They make a distinction between three types: reduction, mitigation and coping risk management strategies. Coping is an example of an ex-post risk management strategy

(28)

27 and means that actions are dealing with outcomes already occurred or currently occurring. Mitigation and reducing are both ex-ante strategies put in place independently of a natural hazard, but with a focus on future hazard impact. I will elaborate a little further on these three types, because it is important to understand how MSEs adapt to flood and heavy rainfall risk.

First, reduce impact actions lower the probability of an event occurring, or decrease the impact of flooding and heavy rainfall (Siegel and Alwang 1999). An example connecting to the first explanation of reduce impact actions is the adaptation of drainage, which will decrease the intensity of water entering and affecting the premise. An example of decreasing the impact is having the stock located on higher shelves, which will reduce the erosion of assets during flooding hazards. Second, mitigation actions include (formal and informal) insurance actions that can compensate for losses and impact after flood and heavy rainfall occurs (Smith 2013). Third, coping actions are risk management actions taken by MSEs without prior planning. An example is moving the stock to higher shelves during flood and heavy rainfall, which can decrease the risk and minimise asset erosion.

Reducing and mitigation actions are important for MSEs to take, but often valued as luxury types, because people do not tend to include future possible losses in their cost-benefit analysis. Rather they act the moment of risk. Furthermore, most households (and in case of this research MSEs) do not focus rather on one strategy type, but combine and supplement them. Coping strategies are necessary to smooth entrepreneurship, despite having adopted reducing and mitigation strategies (Siegel and Alwang 1999). Above discussion on the character of strategies is captured in the box of asset based strategies in the conceptual scheme (Figure 2.5). In order to connect these types of strategies to asset erosion and vulnerability as previously discussed, it is necessary to examine what kind of asset type strategy is taken. For example, construction of a floodgate is both a physical asset adaptation which can be categorised as a reducing strategy. This will broaden our understanding of the agency and asset adaptation of MSEs taken within context.

(29)

28

The interactions between asset based strategies of MSEs and the context in which they operate is still fuzzy and needs further attention as this can close the gap between the agents, the structure and strategies. We can only more fully understand and explore the asset adaptation strategies once the agency (asset adaptation within context) is further developed, which is the focus of the following section.

2.2 MSEs: from disasters victims to active actors

The perspective of ‘the poor’ as active actors capable of reducing their vulnerability as put forward by Moser’s ABVAA, is also held by Sen (1999) and Smith and Petley (2009). In the classic Development as Freedom Amartya Sen discusses the capabilities and opportunities (poor) people have. Sen (p.53) focuses on what people can have and attain whereby the task of individuals is to be actively involved ‘in shaping their own destiny’ with the use of their capabilities. Additionally, Smith and Petley (2009) discuss that it is important not to look at the vulnerable position of people, but to look at what affected households and communities can do themselves and how their capabilities can be strengthened. In this way, people are no longer seen as disaster victims but as active Global and Regional SIDS context

AGENCY Asset adaptation within context Asset adaptation strategies Re si lie n ce: Cha n ge a n d c on tin uit y Effects of actions increased strategic knowledge and learning

Structural factors:

(30)

29 actors having the ability to absorb and recover from hazard impact. Hence, applying ABVAA supports viewing the MSE sector not as a disaster victim, but as active and strategic actors for or against change in their own vulnerability (Few 2003). The MSEs are the agents of development and change at the micro level. This all takes place in a certain multi-level governance context (next section) and the dual relationship between MSE and this context is of utmost importance (section 2.2.2) as it increases our grip on the creation of asset adaptation strategies.

2.2.1 Multi-level governance

In above sections I have gone into detail on actors (MSEs) and their agency (asset adaptation). To understand how MSEs come to their actions we need to acknowledge the context in which MSEs are operating, as this context is part of the development of actions. In the theories of Moser and Füssel such a context was theorised respectively as an institutional context and as structural factors.

Moser (2011) puts emphasis on a structure of social order created through government policy, political- and non-governmental institutions, which include laws, norms and regulations (section 2.1.3). In order to understand the relationship between agential and structural factors in my research in a more complete way I need to elaborate on what an institution is (Hay 2002). The term institution implies some kind of structuralism. The institutional context can be explained as the structure in which MSEs (the actors in this research) operate and evolve. The institutional contexts goes beyond the immediate control of MSEs that are directly involved and structures the interaction of MSEs through formal and informal institutions (Hay 2002, Verrest 2007). Formal institutions are shaped through law, rules and regulations and informal institutions are created through social practice. Institutions can also be created through both formal and informal consensus (Verrest 2007). These institutions can be seen as the implicit structure and exist besides, but also within, organisations. Organisations are more explicit as they, in comparison to institutions, can be touched and translate the formal and informal institutions to society.

Institutions and organisations operate in and between different levels of governance and involve various actors. Betsill and Bulkeley (2006: 141) call this a multilevel governance

(31)

30

of global climate change. This perspective includes social, political and economic

processes that exist and shape the environmental governance. These processes can be operationalised into three main actor groups: the public (political), private (economic) and collective organisations (social). As the organisations and institutions are part of the environment in which MSEs operate, in my research they are included in the structural factors.

Another important operationalisation next to the different actor-groups where the organisations and institutions can be found, are the different levels of scale on which these groups perform their actions (Betsill and Bulkeley 2006; Verrest 2007). Verrest makes a distinction between the macro-level of city and state, a meso-level of the neighbourhood and households themselves (micro level). This middle layer, the neighbourhood, is sometimes forgotten, but has the structural function of building blocks of social relationships. Therefore, in order to explore the social, political and economic processes/organisations/institutions in my research, a multi-level perspective will complete understanding how MSEs translate their assets into actions. In line of Verrests dissertation, I will focus on the three above levels of scale: city and state, neighbourhood and the MSEs themselves. The structural factors were already briefly touched in Section 2.1.3, but the part of structural factors in the conceptual scheme below (Figure 2.6) needed further attention and is now more complete as different categories of levels and scales are included.

(32)

31

At the city and state level in a Caribbean environment, national and local governmental actions and influences in disaster management and MSE development appear to have some structure over time and can be placed in a context of institutions and organisations. Pelling (2003) argues that especially national governments in the global South, including the Caribbean, are frequently identified to their complexity and institutional weaknesses. The complex organisational structures of those national governments can lead to less transparency in the decision-making process, conflicting responsibilities and could encourage corruption on a political scale. Such structures are of utterly importance to understand in what environment MSE-asset adaptation strategies are present and how they are formed.

Local governments’ actions and influences can also be part of the structured (political) context in which MSEs need to manage their complex asset portfolios. Not only can strengthening of local governments reduce vulnerability, it could also have opposite effects. For example, building regulations which are intended to decrease vulnerability could also lead to unplanned settlements (Pelling 2003). This could also be applied to Global and Regional SIDS context

Structural factors:

- political, economic, social and cultural institutions & organisations AGENCY Asset adaptation within context Asset adaptation strategies Re si lie n ce: Cha n ge a n d c on tin uit y Effects of actions increased strategic knowledge and learning

(33)

32 the MSE sector in developing nations, because there are a lot of unplanned MSEs constructed of unstable building material (Moser et al. 2010). The structured national and local political context can thus include certain laws, norms and regulations that can influence the agency of MSEs towards flooding and heavy rainfall.

Furthermore, institutions with a direct focus on the MSE sector need to be included to understand in what ways agency is formed. This will especially be captured in the neighbourhood scale, as specific economic and business-based institutions and organisations will structure the building blocks of the relations in and between the MSEs (Verrest 2007). Certain norms and rituals that become normalised do also take an engaging part in structuring the assets and actions of MSEs. These are the institutions at the MSE level, because they happen outside the direct influence of MSEs, but on a scale of MSEs themselves. These institutions can become cultural behavioural patterns that we do out of habit. As Hay explains it,

‘We behave the way we do because we have become habituated to behaving in particular

ways in particular context and because it is difficult and potentially risky, as a consequence, to imagine ourselves behaving in any other way.’ (2002: 106).

In this case we assume that MSEs act out of habit (Leezenberg and de Vries 2001), but Hay argues that these actors are at the same moment able to generate their intentions and motivations when doing so. Even in moments of habitus, actors are conscious and strategic (Hay 2002: 96-97).

Tellegen and Wolsink (2006) developed a schematic perspective on the behaviour of actors toward risk and vulnerability. Adapting their viewpoint, I can state that the way MSEs perform asset adaptation strategies is dependent on their cultural background and the position they have in society. The above discussed habit can take different forms in different ways of life. (p. 168). The authors discuss and explain five different ways of life, which are the result of a combination of social relations and cultural bias:

 The autonomous: whatever occurs is irrelevant and any kind of action cannot be analysed, because it all happens in an autonomous structure.

(34)

33  The fatalist: risk cannot be managed and vulnerability cannot be decreased,

because there is no control or predictability.

 The individualist: structures personal utility-seeking with laissez faire behaviour. There is great tendency to take risk which could lead to effective management of risk.

 The egalitarian: there is not so much managing, but preventing risk and a critical viewpoint on what is necessary.

 The hierarchist: procedural rationality is clearly present which is believed to lead to regulating and controlling of risks.

Such an understanding of the different ways of life will shape the institutions and context in which the actor can find him/herself and results in a certain kind of agency. These five ways of life are ideal types and most actors can be categorised into combinations of the different structured types. These ideal types nevertheless support understanding MSE actions and behaviour more wholly, as specific ways of life help us structure (otherwise overlooked) behavioural patterns.

I will now make final theoretical implications on the linkages between agency (MSE’s asset adaptation) and structure (institutions and organisations), before summarising the theoretical framework in a conceptual scheme (see section 2.3).

2.2.2 The dual relationship between agency and structure

In previous sections (specifically 2.1.2 and 2.1.3) the relationship between MSE asset (adaptation) and structural factors has already been (slightly) present, both in theories of Moser and Füssel. These structural factors where included in the third principle of Moser’s asset adaptation framework and in Füssels external socio-economic vulnerability factor. To link agency and structure, the dual relationship presented in Füssels’ and Mosers’ study needs more explanation. This backbone can be found in the ‘Political Analysis’ study of Hay (2002). He focuses on the relationship between structure and agency, although his analysis is abstract. His theoretical ideas become concrete when they are connected to the theories of Moser and Füssel. This combination of abstract and concrete theories as outlined below clarifies the dual relationship between structure and agency.

(35)

34 Hay (2002) describes two mechanisms within the relationship of structure and agency: strategic learning and direct effects. Moser explains structural factors as either ways to negatively or positively influence MSE’s asset adaptation. This is what Hay (2002:133) calls strategic learning: the agents are aware of the structural constrains/opportunities that can provide the basis of MSE’s asset adaptation strategies. Moser et al. (2010) furthermore discuss the relationship from agency to structure when they explain assets as the basis of agents’ power. This power can result in acting, reproducing or challenge and change the rules that normally govern the way a system uses and transforms their resources. This can be linked to what Hay (2002: 133) calls direct effects. These are effects upon the structured context. Actions and future actions take place and can transform (although partly) the structured context. It does not matter if the direct effects are intended or unintended, they exist either way.

Füssel explains the vulnerability dimensions of sphere and domain as independent factors of each other. He proposes a separate treatment for each of the four vulnerability factors (Table 2.1) and does not include the influences that one could have on the other. For this research it is important to acknowledge the dual connections between agency and structure. This means that Füssel’s approach is placed in the structure-agency argument. This means that internal and external vulnerability factors can influence each other. For example, structural socio-economic factors like national policies and norms and customs can affect the asset-based adaptation strategies performed by MSEs (Heltberg et al. 2009).

This structure-agency approach to asset adaptation is rooted in the Strategic-Relational Approach (SRA) (Hay 2002; Jessop 2005; Lopes Cardozo 2009). SRA puts emphasis on the spatio-temporal relations between structure (context) and agency (conduct). Furthermore, it stresses the dual and dynamic relationship between structure and actors, as they are not seen as ‘flip-sides of the same coin’, but exist ‘through their

relational interaction’ (Hay 2002:127). This means that both structure in relation to

agency and agency in relation to structure are examined, which can be quite tricky because agency and structure are practically intertwined (Hay 2002). The approach views structures as strategically selective contexts and actions as structurally

(36)

35 constrained. The agency is the point where both come together in a space for manoeuvre, which practically means (un)intentional strategies (Hay 2002; Jessop 2005; Lopes Cardozo 2009). In Figure 2.7 below this is captured in the agency box with bolted black letters, as this is the asset adaptation of MSEs within a context of political, economic, social and cultural institutions and organisations.

The Strategic-Relational Approach thus offers a dynamic understanding of the interaction between agency and structure, where not one is more powerful or present than the other (Hay 2002; Jessop 2005). This approach is about the explanation of a social phenomenon (Hay 2002: 93; Lopes Cardozo 2009). I can therefore apply SRA to asset adaptation of MSEs in an institutional context. All structural factors can either block or enable access, or help facilitating asset adaptation. Having adopted SRA, I can say the following: the external factors include the multi-level governance context in which strategic MSE actors have the ability to absorb and recover from hazard impact through the management of their complex asset portfolios. This structured context is also dynamic, because MSE agency also has effect on the context.

Global and Regional SIDS context EWEs: (Flash) Flooding and heavy rainfall

AGENCY Asset adaptation within context Asset adaptation strategies Re si lie n ce: Cha n ge a n d c on tin uit y Effects of actions increased strategic knowledge and learning

Structural factors: