Risk Hazard Crisis Pub Pol (First Pub Online)

Received: 16 October 2023 | Revised: 11 January 2024 | Accepted: 9 February 2024
DOI: 10.1002/rhc3.12298
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Environmental vulnerability as a public

priority: The view of local economic elites
Manlio F. Castillo
Public Administration Department, Centro

de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, Abstract
CIDE (Center for Research and Teaching in The study explains the factors leading local
Economics), Mexico City, Mexico
economic elites (LEEs) to consider vulnerability
to natural hazards (VNH) a priority public
Correspondence
Manlio F. Castillo, Public Administration
problem. An Optimal Scaling Regression model
Department, Centro de Investigación y was estimated based on information from 57
Docencia Económicas, CIDE (Center for Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) cities. The
Research and Teaching in Economics),
Mexico City, Mexico.
estimation included variables related to risk
Email: manlio.castillo@cide.edu exposure, social conditions, and disaster man-
agement instruments. The central factors that
Present address explain why LEEs consider VNH a priority
Manlio F. Castillo, CIDE, Carretera México‐ problem are the level of real exposure to natural
Toluca 3655, Lomas de Santa Fe, Álvaro
Obregón, Mexico City 01210, Mexico.
risks and a high proportion of the local popula-
tion living in poverty. LEEs seem to assume that
the social deprivations that accentuate environ-
mental vulnerability should be treated indepen-
dently of the problem of equity; LEEs seem to
relativize the VNH problem as the size of the city
increases by assuming that VNH does not affect
the whole city; government instruments for the
management of natural hazards do not exert
any influence on the perception of LEEs on
environmental vulnerability. The findings help
us to understand the low collective effective-
ness of emergency management instruments in
the LAC region.
KEYWORDS
disaster policy, disaster prevention and management,
emergency management, environmental risks, Latin America,
urban vulnerability
© 2024 Policy Studies Organization.
Risks Hazards Crisis Public Policy. 2024;1–20. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/rhc3 | 1

19444079, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rhc3.12298 by Centro De Investigacion Y Docencia Economicas, A.C., Wiley Online Library on [14/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 | CASTILLO
INTR ODUC TION

What explains that local economic elites (LEEs) consider vulnerability to natural
hazards (VNH) as a priority public issue? To date, VNH has been studied from the
individual perspectives of vulnerable people or specific social groups. However, there
are few studies on how VNH comes to be considered a priority problem in the local
government agenda and how different local actors intervene to make this happen.
LEEs can be defined as actors that concentrate economic power and local influence
through their properties, investments, wealth, and political relations associated with
economic power. Although they can significantly influence government agendas and
public decisions in their cities and localities, LEEs have received little attention as
empowered actors in the environmental, climate change, and VNH policy arenas. In
fact, LEEs may have more local influence on VNH policies and management than the
vulnerable population (Lewis, 2014).
LEEs are sensitive to the VNH agenda because a disaster may affect their
investments and profitability expectations. Additionally, many examples exist of how
LEEs pressure governments to prioritize the recovery of spaces related to their
investments after a natural catastrophe. Moreover, they also usually take advantage of
the business opportunities represented by reconstruction processes (e.g., Araujo
et al., 2008; Aviña et al., 2019; González‐Muzzio & Sandoval, 2018; Islam et al., 2017;
Ruiz, 2021).
The perception of LEEs on VNH is relevant for at least three additional reasons.
First, the perceptions of VNH vary among social groups and socioeconomic strata,
that is, people hold dissimilar opinions about their own environmental vulnerability
and that of other groups in different social conditions (see, e.g., Steckley &
Doberstein, 2011). As disconcerting as it may seem, objective information on the risk
of catastrophes or the experiences (even when recurrent) of natural disasters do not
have a decisive influence on the accurate perception of vulnerability in the population,
nor are determinant for people to admit their situation of risk (or that of others) and act
accordingly (Ling et al., 2015; Motta & Rohrman, 2021).
Second, the availability of objective information on VNH does not ensure that local
governments prioritize the issue of environmental vulnerability; there must also be a
demand from the public or local interest groups in this regard (Drews & van den
Bergh, 2016). On the other hand, even when such demand exists, there may be
disagreements between social sectors or interest groups, or their perceptions may not
have the same capacity to influence political actors or those in charge of local
planning. For example, formulating development plans for dozens of cities in Latin
America and the Caribbean (LAC), carried out by the Inter‐American Development
Bank (IADB), requires the opinion of various social groups to define the most pressing
public problems. In preparing these plans, the IADB tends to give greater weight to the
perceptions of local economic groups than the public (BID, 2021).
Confusion or social disagreements regarding VNH risks, combined with the
disincentives that local governments often have to consider natural hazards as a
critical issue, often lead to not seeing VNH as a public or local government priority. As
a result, carelessness is reinforced in disaster prevention as well as in the design,
dissemination, and effective operation of emergency management instruments
associated with environmental vulnerability.
Third, by influencing the prioritization of VNH as a public and governmental
problem, LEEs affect local emergency management. Consequently, revealing what
factors explain the perception of LEEs on the problem of VNH contributes to filling a
gap in the literature on emergency management due to natural hazards.
VULNERABILITY AND LOCAL ELITES | 3
The LAC region is especially prone to various potentially disastrous natural

phenomena (hurricanes, floods, storms, landslides, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes,
tsunamis, and so on). The environmental vulnerability of the region has increased
consistently over time, fostered by poverty, accelerated population growth, migration
to cities, and deforestation (Pielke et al., 2003), as well as the effects of climate change
(Weiss, 2008). At the beginning of this century, the IADB estimated that 40 large‐scale
disasters occur in the LAC each year, which places the region just behind Asia in the
degree of impact by natural phenomena (Freeman et al., 2002).
Governments in the region do not usually prioritize VNH or disaster prevention.
Consequently, material and human losses have increased with each new disaster
(Pielke et al., 2003). Additionally, most LAC governments maintain a vertical, reactive,
and highly militarized emergency and risk management model (Frenkel, 2019; Passos
& Acácio, 2021). The region's governments implicitly assume that natural phenomena
are unavoidable and produce “normal” disasters, neglecting social or governmental
responsibility for their effects (De la Fuente, 2010; Frenkel, 2019; Weiss, 2008).
This research analyzes 57 LAC cities and contributes to a better understanding of
the motivations of the LEEs in Latin American and Caribbean cities to consider VNH a
severe public problem. The relevance of studying cities in LAC lies in the following
facts: (1) LEEs in the region, as in other countries, have a significant influence on local
environmental policy or its consequences (see, e.g., Correa et al., 2004; Reyes, 2012;
Rodríguez‐Becerra & Espinoza, 2002); (2) disasters associated with natural phe-
nomena that occur in developed countries are not representative of the problems
faced by LAC countries due to the economic and social conditions of the region, and
the emergency management mechanisms of their countries (see Pielke et al., 2003);
and (3) the high degree of natural exposure in the region (De la Fuente, 2010).
The main findings of this study are as follows: (1) the central factors that explain
why LEEs consider VNH a priority problem are the level of real exposure to natural
risks and a high proportion of the local population living in poverty; (2) LEEs do not
relate the problem of VNH to social inequality, but seem to assume that the social
deprivations that accentuate environmental vulnerability should be treated indepen-
dently of the problem of equity; (3) LEEs seem to relativize the VNH problem as the
size of the city increases by assuming that VNH does not affect the entire population
but only those groups that reside in some areas of the city; and (4) government
instruments for the management of natural hazards do not exert any influence on the
perception of LEEs on environmental vulnerability, which suggests a disconnect
between the authorities and the various social and stakeholders concerning the
planning and responding to natural disasters.
The following section describes the main findings in the literature on emergency
management related to natural hazards. This section also exposes the main factors
influencing the perception of VNH. Some working hypotheses are derived from the
discussion of the literature. Subsequently, the methodology, the construction of the
variables, and the data sources are described. The next sections present the results
and the discussion of their implications. Then, in the last section, some conclusions
are offered.
PR EVIOUS ST UDIES A ND HY POTHES ES

Vulnerability “refers to the propensity to be harmed […] and to be unable to deal with
that harm alongside the social processes creating and maintaining that propensity”
(Kelman et al., 2016, p.130). VNH comprises, in particular, the damages that can be
4 | CASTILLO
suffered via the action of natural phenomena. However, neither natural disasters nor
VNH are defined exclusively regarding attributes such as location or climate.
The concept of vulnerability has evolved to incorporate how social conditions
affect the propensity to suffer damage in the face of events beyond our control
(Lewis, 2014). Vulnerability depends not only on where people are located but also on
their social, economic, and psychological conditions (Lewis & Lewis, 2014). From this
perspective, the responsibility of governments in the attention to vulnerable groups
and disaster prevention is even more significant: in addition to the natural factors of
vulnerability, such as environmental degradation, there are deficiencies in manage-
ment, including incompetence, corruption, or the inappropriate use of political power
to address these problems (Lewis, 2012).
Additionally, a social group that does not consider itself vulnerable, even when
objectively exposed to disaster risks, cannot take the necessary actions to prevent
emergencies, deal with them when they occur, or recover from them properly
(Doğulu, 2018). The initiative, preparation, participation, and coordination of social
actors and the population are crucial to properly managing emergencies in the face of
natural hazards or disasters (Raška, 2013; Teka & Vogt, 2010). Without proper
management, the magnitude of the effects of natural phenomena and the time
necessary for recovery may be considerably increased, which tends to raise material
and human losses in catastrophes.
Despite its importance, VNH is not always considered a priority issue by local
governments, which prevents the development of adequate management instruments
to respond to environmental emergencies and address risk creation rather than risk
reduction (Lewis, 2012). Several reasons help us understand this behavior: (1) the
response to a catastrophe usually has greater political profitability than its prevention,
while investing in prevention has much higher political risks and costs, especially if
the intervention fails; (2) it is still simple for governments (and acceptable for the
public) to qualify disasters as completely natural phenomena that occur commonly,
instead of admitting that vulnerability is also produced by political actions or
omissions, and social behaviors; and (3) those who mainly suffer the consequences of
disasters (i.e., vulnerable groups) have little capacity to influence public decisions or
modify the political scenario (Lewis, 2014).
Local interest groups, such as economic elites, are crucial to promoting the
environmental and VNH agenda (Drews & van den Bergh, 2016). The following
paragraphs describe the main factors that influence the social perception of VNH.
Based on this literature, an argument is advanced about how LEEs perceive
environmental vulnerability, and some hypotheses are proposed to answer the
research question.
Elements influencing the perception of VNH

According to Burton et al. (2018), the conceptual frameworks for analyzing the VNH
problem can be classified into three categories: the risk‐hazard, the socio‐ecological
systems, and the political ecology approach. The first focuses on the danger caused by a
natural hazard and the ability to resist and recover from it. The socio‐ecological systems
approach analyzes the susceptibility of a system as a function of its environmental
exposure. Finally, the political ecology approach incorporates the environmental, social,
economic, and political elements that influence the ability of a social group to prevent,
address, and recover from a disaster associated with a natural phenomenon (Burton
et al., 2018). This research is positioned within the third framework.
From the perspective of political ecology, three factors help explain the vulnerability of
an individual or social group to natural hazards: exposure, social susceptibility, and
adaptive capacity (Andrade & Szlafsztein, 2018; Burton et al., 2018). Exposure refers to the
physical‐geographical characteristics of a population's base, making it more or less risky to
inhabit (e.g., a seismic‐ or hurricane‐prone area). Susceptibility (also called sensitivity or
fragility) includes the social traits of individuals or groups that predispose them to the
effects of a natural disaster, for example, poverty, housing and social infrastructure
conditions, etc. Finally, adaptive capacity is defined as the ability to prevent and deal with
natural disasters, which includes the capacity for community organization as well as the
government instruments for preventing emergencies and intervening during or after their
occurrence (Andrade & Szlafsztein, 2018; Burton et al., 2018).
Exposure, susceptibility, and adaptation have been analyzed, directly or indirectly,
among individuals or social groups in specific contexts. Generally, such studies examine
the conditions and responses of vulnerable people or those who have suffered the adverse
effects of different natural phenomena. Although some studies analyze the economic or
productive consequences of disasters (e.g., Murciano et al., 2021; Logroño & Barriga, 2020),
no research examines the specific perception of economic elites on VNH.
The general argument of this research is that the exposure to natural hazards, the
social susceptibility, and the institutional support provided by local governments —
through the instruments for emergency management of natural hazards— also
contribute to shaping LEEs’ perception of the degree of VNH in their immediate
environment (i.e., the city). An essential matter of this research is to contrast whether
the influence of these three elements on the perception of LEEs occurs in the same
sense as has been documented about the vulnerable population (see Figure 1).
Hypotheses
The perception of VNH is related to past experiences and the information they provide
(Leina et al., 2021) to those directly affected and governments or other economic and
FIGURE 1 Factors explaining vulnerability to natural hazard (VNH) and its perception. Source: The
author.
6 | CASTILLO
social actors. As the interests of LEEs can also be compromised by natural hazards
(e.g., via an impact on their investments) and as they may have information on
previous experiences or the real risks of disasters, the first hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 1. Among LEEs, greater exposure to natural hazards is associated

with a greater perception of VNH.
Such an apparently obvious relationship may not always be valid and requires testing
since the evidence is inconclusive. It is common to find dissociations between the real
threats and the public's perception of their vulnerability (Motta & Rohrman, 2021).
The appropriate perception of the exposure risk to natural disasters is one of the
fundamental elements in identifying the conditions of vulnerability where some
sectors of the population live (Krasovskaia et al., 2007; Ruddell et al., 2012) and taking
appropriate prevention measures. Still, people may have inaccurate assessments of
the natural risks they face where they live (Motta & Rohrman, 2021). Different groups
in the same locality may have divergent perceptions of environmental problems and
how these affect them or place them in a vulnerable situation (Meli et al., 2015;
Mirenda, 2020; Pearson & Schuldt, 2018). About this concern, some conflicts produced
by opposing perceptions of environmental risk within some communities have been
documented (Leina et al., 2021). Testing Hypothesis 1 enables us to examine LEEs
assessments concerning VNH in the presence of specific natural risks.
As expected, the proper processing of vulnerability information is not enough.
Even if people are aware of the risks they run and are alert to the possible occurrences
of natural disasters, the social conditions (e.g., poverty, precarious housing, and
public infrastructure) limit their capacity for prevention and response (Ling et al., 2015).
Several studies have documented how demographic and socioeconomic variables
(e.g., educational level, occupation, mental health) affect individual and collective
responses to disasters or their prevention (Bright et al., 2018; Brooks et al., 2017;
Cvetkovic & Grbic, 2021). Other research suggests that people with better economic
conditions have some advantages in scenarios of environmental vulnerability
(Daddoust et al., 2018).
However, people also have specific opinions on other people's or communities’
vulnerability in different socioeconomic contexts (Steckley & Doberstein, 2011). For
example, the evidence of Steckley and Doberstein (2011) suggests that disaster
survivors consider impoverished individuals and other subgroups more vulnerable.
Nevertheless, elites’ attitudes regarding socially deprived groups may vary greatly,
ranging from empathetic, paternalistic, or definitively unsupportive positions (Reis &
Moore, 2005). LEEs also have diverse perceptions regarding inequality and its effects
on the most precarious populations (Krozer, 2020; Moraes et al., 2018). The social
perspectives of elites on other groups may permeate environmental conflicts
(Reyes, 2012) and, therefore, the perception of ecological vulnerability.
The perceptions of socially disadvantaged people by elites have been extensively
studied in developing countries, as those in the LAC region. However, the results are
not entirely conclusive. According to Hossain and Moore (1999), the perceptions of
developing country elites are not fixed but malleable. They are sensitive to the
argument that reducing poverty is in everyone's interest. Hossain and Moore (2002)
argue that elites in developing countries are presently more antipoverty than elites in
the 19th century.
Although some ideas may have been nuanced, the specific context of each country
shapes the local elites’ view of the social reality around them. For instance, Brazilian
elites identify poverty as a consequence of the State's malfunction, resulting in
adverse economic effects, whereas Uruguayan elites view poverty as a moral

dilemma linked to the deterioration of human dignity (López, 2013; Reis, 2011). In
contrast, the Haitian economic elites’ primary concern is the acceleration of
population growth, which further induces poverty (Thomaz, 2005).
As documented by Krozer (2020) and Sabatini (2003), elites in LAC tend to have a
distorted view of social reality, the well‐being of the majority, their own advantages,
and the disadvantages of others (Warikoo & Fuhr, 2014). Nonetheless, their economic,
political, and symbolic power (de Swaan, 1988) allows them to decisively influence the
design and implementation of policies and programs, with the consequences this may
have for the management of public affairs (see, for instance, Bandiera & Levy, 2010;
Mayo, 2006; Oxford Analytica, 2018).
In addition to a confused view of social reality, a common trait seems to be present
in LAC elites: a declared sympathy (in discourse) for the poor or even a sense of a
“civilizing mission” towards socially disadvantaged people (de Albuquerque, 2019)
but an uncertain degree of commitment to concrete actions to reduce poverty or raise
social welfare. For instance, in Brazil, elites feel responsible for addressing the
problem of poverty (Reis, 2010) but reject redistributive policies (López et al., 2022). A
similar trend can be seen among Chilean elites, as Atria et al. (2020) observes. In Haiti,
privileged groups express feeling responsible for social problems but are not
sufficiently committed to promoting serious discussions or interventions on this
subject (Thomaz, 2005).
To determine whether there is evidence of social sensitivity of LEEs on the specific
issue of VNH, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 2. Among LEEs, a greater social susceptibility is related to a greater

perception of VNH.
Finally, the ability to adapt and deal with emergencies associated with natural
phenomena has been the subject of numerous studies. Those that refer to the role of
governments are especially interesting, because the perception of disasters is usually
more related to the authorities’ performance in managing an emergency than the
phenomena per se (Leina et al., 2021). Additionally, the interactions between officials,
political actors, and citizens shape the public's perception of natural hazards and their
possible consequences (Bolsen & Druckman, 2018; Rahm & Reddick, 2011).
The institutional support offered by local governments is central to the adaptation
capacity because the authorities’ interventions aim to reduce vulnerability, prevent an
emergency, provide timely and effective attention when an emergency occurs, or enable
the recovery of people and affected areas. Government instruments seek to promote
greater collective effectiveness through collaboration with at‐risk or affected communities.
Coordination with these social groups, their support and trust are crucial (Doğulu, 2018) for
the preparation and appropriate implementation of prevention and support instruments
created by local governments (Cvetkovic & Grbic, 2021; Motta & Rohrman, 2021). For this
reason, the importance of involving the public (especially vulnerable communities) in
developing instruments like plans or risk management strategies is emphasized (Teka &
Vogt, 2010). Suppose different social sectors do not trust the mechanisms designed by their
local authorities to prevent or address natural disasters or are simply ignorant of them. In
that case, they may perceive a greater environmental vulnerability. A final hypothesis
emerges from this idea:
Hypothesis 3. The existence of better government instruments for managing

natural hazards is associated with a lower VNH among LEEs and vice versa.
8 | CASTILLO
M ATE R I A L S A N D M E T H O D S
A cross‐sectional database was used to test the hypotheses. The database contains
information from 57 cities in Mexico, Central America, South America, and the
Caribbean. The data was collected from the Action Plans prepared by the IADB for
each city between 2012 and 2019 (BID, 2021).
The Action Plans were designed through the application of the Emerging and
Sustainable Cities Program (ESCP) promoted by the BID (2019). Since 2012, the IADB
has implemented the ESCP (initially called Initiative for Emerging and Sustainable
Cities) to help medium‐sized cities in the LAC region improve their planning processes
and build a viable route for urban sustainability.
The application of ESCP methodology begins with the diagnosis of a city. The
diagnosis collects information from primary and secondary sources. Also, various
social and governmental actors are consulted to identify priority urban problems and
propose strategies to address them.
The information gathered by IADB analysts can be classified into two groups. The
first comprises the official statistical information of each city and technical studies
formulated explicitly for implementing the ESCP methodology. Independent special-
ized agencies conduct these studies and gather information on climate change
mitigation, disaster risk, vulnerability, and urban growth.
The second information group corresponds to perception data from the public
(Public Opinion Filter)1 and the main local economic actors (Economic Filter) on each
city's public problems and their priority level. For data collection, the ESCP has
designed a standardized methodology for all the cities the program covers
(BID, 2016a), ensuring that the cities’ information is comparable.
An Optimal Scaling Regression (OSR) was estimated for the data analysis. This
multivariate analysis method allows the examination of nonlinear relationships between
categorical and continuous variables (Meulman, 1998; Meulman et al., 1998), such as those
in this study. Optimal scaling transforms the original categorical data through an iterative
procedure that assigns them a numerical quantification; this process aims to maximize the
multiple correlation (R2) (Apon, 2020; Meulman et al., 2019).
Optimal scaling is especially useful in models with few observations or many
variables (Meulman et al., 1998).2 This regression method has been used to evaluate
the effects of environmental education on flood control (Idowu & Olutope, 2022), the
level of urban integration of migrants (Li et al., 2022), the evaluation of public tourism
services (Xu & Sun, 2015), and the satisfaction of employees with their income
(Yang, 2013), and so on.
Dependent variable
Five of the variables used in the estimation come from official sources of the cities
analyzed. The other two, including the dependent variable, were created from the
information generated by the ESCP methodology. All variables are representative at
the city level since the units of analysis are the cities included in the study.
The dependent variable (PRIORITY) is the level of importance that the LEEs assign
to the VNH problem. This variable is taken from the Economic Filter (BID, 2016a)
estimated for each city through a survey of local economic agents (industrialists,
merchants, members of business organizations, and so on).
The Economic Filter aims to identify the economic impact of each issue included in
the ESCP methodology on the city,3 including environmental vulnerability. The filter
uses the multi‐criteria evaluation methodology, also called Qualitative Economic

Impact Decision Method, or the Socioeconomic Benefits Estimation Method. In both
cases, data are collected on how local economic agents perceive environmental
vulnerability and its impact on the city's production, employment, and competitive-
ness (BID, 2016b).
The method of analysis used (multi‐criteria matrices, hedonic prices, contingent
valuation, and so on) determines the data collection instruments. For instance, the
multi‐criteria evaluation method employs a matrix survey in which respondents
assess the impact of each ESCP topic on production, employment, and competitive-
ness based on their perception. The obtained data are normalized, ranked, and
weighted to generate a traffic light system indicating the priorities of each ESCP topic.
The Economic Filter is comparable to the results obtained in other cities and other
filters of the methodology (BID, 2016a).
The filter provides a good reference about LEEs’ perception of the VNH problem.
The color of the traffic light is codified as follows: green when LEEs think the VNH is
“not important” or “not a priority,” yellow if they consider the VNH to be a “moderate”
problem, or red when it is perceived as a “high priority and urgent problem.” The
PRIORITY variable is ordinal. For OSR, the traffic lights were re‐coded in an ascending
quantification, according to the severity denoted by colors: 1 for the green light, 2 for
the yellow, and 3 for the red one.
Independent and control variables

Real vulnerability to natural hazards (Exposition)
This variable represents the factor of exposure to natural disasters. The exposure
indicator is taken from studies on climate change and disaster risk (specifically, from
the analysis of risk to natural hazards and vulnerability) using the ESCP methodology.
The calculation of this indicator is based on objective information. It reflects the
degree to which different phenomena, such as droughts, earthquakes, floods,
hurricanes, and so on, can impact a city in terms of direct economic and human
losses. From their analysis of the information, the IADB specialists get a traffic light
with which they determine whether the level of exposure of a city to natural hazards is
“high” (red), “medium” (yellow), or “low” (green) (see BID, 2016b). The traffic lights
were re‐coded as a dichotomous variable to denote a high (1) or medium/low VNH (0).
Population below the poverty line (Social)
This variable represents the factor of social susceptibility to natural hazards. It is the
percentage of the population below the poverty line, according to the official
information of each city.
Institutional support
This variable refers to local governments’ instruments to prevent and respond to
environmental threats and disasters. The model introduces two variables associated
with this factor: contingency plans (CONTINGENCYP) and mitigation plans (MITIGA-
TIONP) of each city. Both variables are taken from the IADB Action Plans, which are
10 | CASTILLO
codified as traffic lights, according to the following criteria: green (1) if a plan is
complete and updated; yellow (2) if a plan exists but is incomplete or outdated; and
red (3) if the local government does not have a plan. For the estimation, the traffic
lights were recategorized as ordinal variables.
Gini coefficient (Inequality)

The Gini coefficient is used as a control variable. It is a measure of income inequality
among the population of each city. The variable was used as a proxy for social
inequality.
Population (POP)
It is a control variable that represents the total population of each city. A larger
population is expected to be associated with a greater perception of VNH, because a
disaster could potentially affect more people.
Table 1 summarizes the characteristics and expected signs of the variables
according to the hypotheses. For the research, the statistical significance of the
independent variables and the relation sign with the dependent variable are more
important than the magnitude of the coefficients.
For OSR estimation, some variables need to be discretized. Discretization is the
procedure through which variables are re‐coded before calculating the estimators.
Continuous variables were discretized by assigning ranges to cases with an
approximately normal distribution. Categorical variables did not need to be re‐coded.
Table 2 shows the main descriptive statistics of the variables used for model
estimation.
RESULT S
The estimates were calculated using information from 57 cities in LAC. The list of
cities and countries analyzed can be consulted in the Appendix A1.
Three regression models were estimated introducing the variables by blocks to
expose the consistency of the relationships among them. Table 3 shows these results.
TA B L E 1 Characteristics of the variables and expected effects.
Variable Label Type Expected effect

Dependent PRIORITY Ordinal (not applicable)
Independent EXPOSITION Dichotomous +/not significant
SOCIAL Continuous +/not significant
CONTINGENCYP Ordinal +
MITIGATIONP Ordinal +
INEQUALITY Continuous +/−
POP Continuous +
Source: The author.
TA B L E 2 Main descriptive statistics.
Variable Mean Median Minimum Maximum SD N

PRIORITY 1.93 2 1 3 0.73 60
EXPOSITION 0.45 0 0 1 0.50 60
SOCIAL 26.1 25.9 0.08 79.7 16.8 57
CONTINGENCYP 2.25 2 1 3 0.79 60
MITIGATIONP 2.62 3 1 3 0.61 60
Control
INEQUALITY 0.47 0.45 0.34 0.74 0.09 60
POP (millions) 0.52 0.38 0.003 2.53 0.46 60

Source: The author.
Table 3 reveals that the values of the coefficients of the variables EXPOSITION,
SOCIAL, CONTINGENCYP, and MITIGATIONP remain stable when the other variables
are added, as does their statistical significance. All three models have a significant
F‐test at 99% confidence (p < 0.01). Model 3, which includes all variables under study,
explains 39.5% of the variation in the dependent variable (PRIORITY). The implications
of the results are discussed in the following section.
DISCUSSION
Based on the evidence, it is not possible to reject Hypothesis 1, which proposes that
LEEs associate greater exposure to natural hazards with a greater VNH. LEEs in LAC
seem to have risk perceptions that are more in line with the actual threats of the
natural environment, in contrast to the discrepancies, conflicts, or inaccuracies that
usually occur within some at‐risk groups (Leina et al., 2021; Motta & Rohrman, 2021;
Pearson & Schuldt, 2018).
A possible explanation is that LEEs can access and process objective information
on natural hazards due to their position and relative influence on the government and
its policy agenda. This finding is relevant because LEEs can act as entrepreneurs or
intermediaries in promoting policies related to the environment, climate change, or
the protection of vulnerable groups (Petridou & Mintrom, 2021; Ramírez et al., 2023;
Castillo et al., 2021).
However, it is important to note that political and other factors may bias or
influence the elites’ perspectives on the problem. As Douglas and Wildavsky (1982),
and Althaus (2003) point out, risks become politicized. As political actors, interest
groups also seek to convince the public that some decisions or actions are riskier than
others (Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982), sometimes distorting scientific evidence to suit
their interests or exploiting people's political ignorance (Althaus, 2003). Therefore, a
direct relationship between the perception of risk exposure and the involvement of
LEEs in the problem cannot be affirmed.
The results also show that LEEs in the LAC associate more significant social
deprivation with higher VNH. That is, LEEs recognize that a population living in
poverty or social deprivation is more likely to suffer the adverse effects of a natural
12 | CASTILLO
TA B L E 3 OSR: Estimation results.
Standardized coefficients
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
EXPOSITION 0.188* (0.104) 0.282** (0.129) 0.271** (0.125)
SOCIAL 0.587*** (0.09) 0.621*** (0.133) 0.634*** (0.101)
CONTINGENCYP 0.144 (0.196) 0.141 (0.179)
MITIGATIONP 0.147 (0.156) 0.133 (0.154)
Control
INEQUALITY −0.1 (0.118)
POP −0.26** (0.115)
n 57 57 57
2
R 0.345 0.38 0.47
2
R (corrected) 0.321 0.306 0.395
F 14.241*** 5.111*** 6.215***
Note: SE estimation in parentheses.

Abbreviation: OSR, Optimal Scaling Regression.
*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.
Source: The author.
phenomenon. Therefore, it is not possible to refute Hypothesis 2. This finding is

important because it suggests that elites possess a certain level of responsiveness to
socially disadvantaged groups concerning vulnerability and environmental risks.
Nonetheless, caution is required when interpreting this information. According to
the literature, LAC elites commonly separate their rhetoric of solidarity towards
socially disadvantaged individuals from actual efforts to advance more egalitarian or
socially beneficial policies (e.g., Atria et al., 2020; López et al., 2022; Reis, 2010). Thus,
even if LEEs recognize that impoverished individuals are more vulnerable to natural
hazards, this does not mean they are willing to do anything about it.
On the other hand, the results indicate that LEEs separate the problems of social
inequality from the VNH. As shown in Table 3, inequality is not an element that
influences the perception of LEEs on environmental vulnerability. Therefore, it is less
likely that the adoption of strategies or policies to prevent or respond to disasters
related to natural phenomena will be promoted from a social inequality argument.
As the evidence suggests, LEEs believe poverty and inequality should be
addressed separately. Additionally, they assert that inequality does not impact VNH.
The lack of a pro‐equality social vision among the LEEs in the LAC cities could explain
this perception. Drews and van den Bergh (2016) state that progressive influences and
egalitarian social worldviews help explain public support for environmental policies.
However, these elements seem not to be present in the cities analyzed. This finding
aligns with literature that reveals that elites are reluctant to embrace equity policies
(e.g., Atria et al., 2020; López et al., 2022; Thomaz, 2005), even when they accept that
there are severe problems of poverty and social inequality.
Moreover, it is interesting to note that the size of a population is significant, albeit
with the opposite sign than expected. A larger city was expected to be associated with
a higher perception of VNH due to the potential impact on more people. However, the
inverse relationship between the size of a population and the severity's perception of
VNH suggests that, in a large city, LEEs tend to relativize the problem of VNH. This
finding is consistent with (1) the inequity in the distribution of risks and vulnerability,
argued by Giddens (1990), and (2) the limited urban vision of the LEEs, who tend to
build exclusionary cities without considering the consequences for other social
groups, as contended by Sabatini (2003) and others.
The relativization may be because the larger a city is, the less likely it is to be utterly
vulnerable to natural phenomena, that is, it is more likely that there are different
intraurban areas with varying levels of environmental risk. This fact makes it possible
to delimit and locate the settlements and groups more susceptible to being affected by
natural disasters, generating the perception that the entire city is not at risk but only in
some specific areas, generally those in worse social conditions. Thus, the results
associated with social susceptibility, inequality, and population are coherent and
contribute to formulating a possible explanation of LAC economic groups’ social
vision concerning VNH.
Finally, the variables associated with institutional support and, specifically, with the
role of government instruments in managing natural hazards provide suggestive
results. Neither of the two tools of government intervention included in the model
proved to be significant in explaining the degree of priority that economic elites assign
to VNH; thus, Hypothesis 3 should be rejected. This result may be due to (1) the lack of
knowledge among LEEs on local government instruments for preventing and dealing
with emergencies associated with natural phenomena; (2) the distrust of LEEs in the
interventions and instruments of the authorities concerning this type of emergency; or
(3) both factors.
The above reasons are equally problematic for managing LAC cities’ vulnerability
and environmental emergencies. The evidence suggests that local governments in the
region maintain limited interactions with citizens regarding the processes of
preparation and implementation of contingency and mitigation plans to deal with
natural disasters. It also implies that local governments do not exploit the influence of
privileged groups to promote the issue at the local level.
A lack of community participation and interest groups in these processes can
significantly reduce the collective effectiveness necessary to prevent and face natural
disasters (Teka & Vogt, 2010), denying or undermining the institutional support and
trust required for effective coordinated action (Doğulu, 2018). In such circumstances, it
is challenging to configure efficient intervention mechanisms regarding prevention,
care, or resilience for emergencies related to natural disasters. A better comprehen-
sion of the function of disaster management tools in LAC would aid in understanding
why many cities in the region continue to experience the detrimental impacts of
natural phenomena and struggle to establish effective measures to mitigate them.
CONCLUSION S
Modern societies generate, amplify, and distribute risks and threats through different
means. In turn, actors with some power of public persuasion (politicians, govern-
ments, interest groups, stakeholders, citizens, international organizations, private
agents, and so on) use the available information to convince others of the seriousness
or harmlessness of an alleged natural, technological, organizational, or social risk.
This process frequently leads to establishing policies and decisions to address the
risks governments select as deserving of attention. Thus, it is crucial to comprehend
14 | CASTILLO
the factors that account for the perceptions and motivations of particular actors, such
as the LEEs, who possess the power to influence public decisions.
LEEs can significantly influence the prioritization of public problems at the
local level, including those related to environmental vulnerability. To that effect, it
is relevant to continue analyzing how these actors perceive VNH regarding their
economic interests and social vision. Also, the ability of LEEs to function as
promoters or intermediaries in adopting policies aimed at preventing or
managing emergencies associated with natural disasters or, more widely, climate
policies is important.
According to the results of this study, the main factors influencing LEEs to judge
VNH as a priority problem are the level of actual exposure to natural risks and a high
proportion of poor population. First, these findings show that elites may have a more
realistic perception of environmental threats than the vulnerable population. Second,
the results suggest that LEEs in LAC acknowledge the vulnerability of socially deprived
individuals to ecological hazards or natural phenomena. However, this does not
necessarily lead them to promote actions or policies in this regard.
Apart from the disassociation of perception from action, LEEs in LAC cities also
appear to separate the issues of poverty and inequality. Additionally, they do not
relate the VNH problem to social inequality, although inequality is territorially
manifested. Local elites influence the public agenda and governmental decisions
amidst these contradictions, limitations, and dissonances. Thus, there is a need to
continue analyzing their behavior.
One of the most interesting findings is the apparently null influence of government
instruments for managing natural hazards on the perception of LEEs on environ-
mental vulnerability. Although this topic requires further analysis for better
confirmation, the disconnection between both variables suggests the local popula-
tion's and stakeholders’ low involvement in emergency management. It also suggests
that such a disconnect may contribute to the lack of collective effectiveness in facing
natural disasters and understanding why LAC cities suffer each year from various
catastrophic events without consolidating their capacities for prevention, adaptation,
and resilience.
The study's results support the argument that LAC countries should shift from
centralized and vertical emergency and disaster management models to a horizontal
prevention policy. This policy should involve the participation of diverse social and
community actors in the development and implementation of disaster management
plans and instruments. Incorporating network governance principles and collabora-
tive management practices can promote collective social responsibility and improve
communication, which can help address the challenge of reconciling different
perspectives on vulnerability and environmental risks that prevail in highly unequal
social contexts like those found in LAC.
The main limitation of this research is related to the nature of the information used.
The study does not distinguish between the levels of exposure to different natural
phenomena because they are all grouped under the same variable. Further studies
should be able to differentiate whether disaster management or the response of the
various local actors varies according to the type of phenomenon and the risk it
represents. Additionally, future research should develop better measures of the
effectiveness of institutions in preventing or coping with natural hazards.
Despite these limitations, the study has three main strengths. First, it provides
empirical information on the behavior of a type of actor (LEEs) that can strongly
influence the design and implementation of disaster risk reduction and infrastructure
policies or other related policies, such as climate change.
The second strength is the focus on local actors. Although the risk society
approach views local natural hazards as events forming part of global and systemic
hazards, it is still necessary to understand how local actors and governments
contribute to reducing or increasing the risks associated with natural phenomena,
especially in highly unequal environments such as those of Latin American societies.
Third, from the results of this study, some important questions arise for future research;
for example, why is LEEs’ perception of natural risks more adjusted to reality than that of
vulnerable groups? Under what circumstances do LEEs engage in and promote policies
related to the environment, climate change, or the protection of groups environmentally at
risk? How could the relativization of the problem affect the agenda and the promotion of
protection policies? To what extent do different perceptions of poverty and social inequality
contribute to adopting protection policies from environmental vulnerabilities? Future
research should explore these issues more deeply in LAC cities and other contexts.
ORCID
Manlio F. Castillo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0427-6170
ENDNOT ES
1
The Public Opinion Filter “provides information about how the population perceives the priority level of
the issues analyzed in the methodology” (BID, 2016b, p. 65). The filter is based on an opinion survey that
yields representative results for the city's entire population, with a margin of error less than or equal to
5%. The survey questionnaire is standardized for all cities. The survey asks respondents to answer this
question: “What are the three areas (in order of importance) that you think should be priorities for the
government?” Respondents’ answers are then ranked and weighted to obtain a traffic light system
indicating the priorities identified by the population (see BID 2016).
2
To learn more about the OSR method, consulting Meulman et al. (2019) is especially recommended.
3
The complete list of topics included in the methodology of the ESCP is as follows: water; sanitation and
drainage; solid waste management; energy; air quality; mitigation of climate change; noise; vulnerability
to natural hazards in the context of climate change; land use planning; urban inequality; mobility and
transportation; human capital; internationalization; productive capacity; business capacity; innovation,
research and development; labor market; financial sector; fiscal environment; business environment;
connectivity; education; public safety; health; modern public management; participatory public
management; transparency; taxes and financial autonomy; management of public expenditure; and
fiscal sustainability (BID, 2016b).
REFERENC ES
de Albuquerque, Afonso. 2019.“Protecting Democracy or Conspiring Against It? Media and Politics in Latin
America: A Glimpse From Brazil.” Journalism 20(7): 906–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917738376
Althaus, Scott L. 2003. Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610042
Analytica Oxford. 2018 “Latin America Political Inequality is Set to Increase.” Oxford.
de Andrade, Milena M. N., and Claudio F. Szlafsztein. 2018. “Vulnerability Assessment Including Tangible
and Intangible Components in the Index Composition: An Amazon Case Study of Flooding and Flash
Flooding.” Science of The Total Environment 630(July): 903–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.
02.271
Apon, Luc. 2020. “Optimal Scaling Regression with Factor‐by‐Curve Interactions.” Master thesis, Leiden
University.
Araujo, M. Caridad, Francisco H. G. Ferreira, Peter Lanjouw, and Berk Özler. 2008. “Local Inequality and
Project Choice: Theory and Evidence From Ecuador.” Journal of Public Economics 92(5–6): 1022–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.12.005
Atria, Jorge, Juan Castillo, Luis Maldonado, and Simón Ramirez. 2020. “Economic Elites’ Attitudes Toward
Meritocracy in Chile: A Moral Economy Perspective.” American Behavioral Scientist 64(9): 1219–41.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764220941214
16 | CASTILLO
Aviña, Nancy, Guadalupe Milián, and María L. Guevara. 2019. “Otra Respuesta Frente a Los Desastres. Huracán
Ingrid Y Tormenta Tropical Manuel, Chilpancingo, Guerrero, México.” Espacio y Desarrollo 32: 29–54.
Bandiera, Oriana, and Gilat Levy. 2010. “Diversity and the Power of the Elites in Democratic Societies: A
Model and a Test.” CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP7985. London.
BID. 2016a. “Filtro Económico.” Washington, D.C.: BID.
BID. 2016b. “Guía Metodológica. Iniciativa de Ciudades Emergentes y Sostenibles.” Washington, D.C.: BID.
BID. 2019.“Programa Ciudades Emergentes y Sostenibles.” www.iadb.org/es/desarrollo-urbano-y-vivienda/
programa-ciudades-emergentes-y-sostenibles
BID. 2021. “Programa CES‐Planes de Acción.” Programa Ciudades Emergentes y Sostenibles. www.iadb.
org/es/desarrollo-urbano-y-vivienda/programa-ciudades-emergentes-y-sostenibles
Bolsen, Toby, and James N. Druckman. 2018.“Do Partisanship and Politicization Undermine the Impact of a
Scientific Consensus Message About Climate Change?” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 21(3):
389–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217737855
Bright, Candace F., Edward Sayre, Roma Hanks, and Braden Bagley. 2018. “Social Vulnerability and
Perceptions of Recovery From the 2011 Tuscaloosa Tornado.” Southeastern Geographer 58(4): 328–47.
https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.2018.0034
Brooks, Samantha K., Rebecca Dunn, Richard Amlôt, G. James Rubin, and Neil Greenberg. 2017.“Social and
Occupational Factors Associated With Psychological Wellbeing Among Occupational Groups Affected
by Disaster: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Mental Health 26(4): 373–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09638237.2017.1294732
Burton, Christopher G., Samuel Rufat, and Eric Tate. 2018.“Social Vulnerability: Conceptual Foundations and
Geospatial Modeling.” In Vulnerability and Resilience to Natural Hazards, edited by Sven Fuchs and
Thomas Thaler, 53–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316651148
Castillo, Manlio F., Edgar R. de la Cruz, and Heidi J. Smith. 2021. “Políticas Prodensificación Y Cambio
Climático: Los Desafíos De Las Ciudades Mexicanas.” Sobre México Temas de Economía 2(3): 1–29.
https://doi.org/10.48102/rsm.vi3.79
Correa, María E., Sharon Flynn, and Alon Amit. 2004. Responsabilidad social corporativa en América Latina:
Una visión empresarial. Santiago: CEPAL.
Cvetkovic, Vladimir, and Lazar Grbic. 2021.“Public Perception of Climate Change and Its Impact on Natural
Disasters.” Journal of the Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijic, SASA 71(1): 43–58. https://doi.org/10.
2298/IJGI2101043C
Daddoust, Leila, Hamid R. Khankeh, Abbas Ebadi, Robab Sahaf, Maryam Nakhaei, and Ali Asgary. 2018.
“The Vulnerability of the Iranian Elderly in Disasters: Qualitative Content Analysis.” Iranian Journal of
Nursing and Midwifery Research 23(5): 402. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_127_17
De la Fuente, Alejandro. 2010.“Natural Disasters and Poverty in Latin America: Welfare Impacts and Social
Protection Solutions.” Well‐Being and Social Policy 6(1): 1–15.
Doğulu, Canay. 2018.“Assessing the Social Psychological Aspects of Vulnerability and Resilience for Natural
Hazards: Theoretical and Methodological Contributions.” Geophysical Research Abstracts 21: 1593.
Douglas, Mary, and Aaron Wildavsky. 1982. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological
and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Drews, Stefan, and Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh. 2016.“What Explains Public Support for Climate Policies?
A Review of Empirical and Experimental Studies.” Climate Policy 16(7): 855–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14693062.2015.1058240
Elisa P. Reis and Mick Moore. (2005). Elite Perceptions of Poverty and Inequality. London: Zed Books.
Freeman, Paul K., Leslie A. Martin, Joanne Linnerooth‐Bayer, Koko Warner, and George Pflug. 2002.
“Sistemas nacionales para la gestión integral del riesgo de desastres. Estrategias financieras para la
reconstrucción en caso de desastres naturales.” Washington, D.C.
Frenkel, Alejandro. 2019.“‘Disparen Contra Las Olas’: Securitización Y Militarización De Desastres Naturales
Y Ayuda Humanitaria En América Latina.” Íconos ‐ Revista de Ciencias Sociales no. 64(April): 183–202.
https://doi.org/10.17141/iconos.64.2019.3435
Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
González‐Muzzio, Claudia, and Vicente Sandoval. 2018. “Capitalismo de desastre en procesos de
reconstrucción en Chile.” In Reconstrucción de ciudades intermedias en el siglo XXI. Procesos de
Gentrificación Post Desastres Naturales, edited by Jorge Inzulza, Andrés Maragaño, Camilla Boano and
Iban Díaz, 41–54. Santiago: CONICYT, Universidad de Talca, Universidad de Chile.
Hossain, Naomi, and Mick Moore. 1999.“Elites, Poverty, and Development.” Background Paper for the World
Development Report 2000/1 on Poverty. Brighton, Sussex.
Hossain, Naomi, and Mick Moore. 2002.“Arguing for the Poor: Elites and Poverty in Developing Countries.”
IDS Working Paper 148. Brighton, Sussex. https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.
500.12413/3917/Wp148.pdf
Idowu, Akinrosoye A., and Abiola Olutope. 2022. “The Effect of Media Campaign and Environmental
Education on Flood Control in Osun State, Nigeria.” British Journal of Mass Communication and Media
Research 2(1): 81–92. https://doi.org/10.52589/BJMCMR-XSDC7X3Y
Islam, Rabiul, Greg Walkerden, and Marco Amati. 2017. “Households’ Experience of Local Government
During Recovery From Cyclones in Coastal Bangladesh: Resilience, Equity, and Corruption.” Natural
Hazards 85(1): 361–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2568-6
Kelman, I., J. C. Gaillard, James Lewis, and Jessica Mercer. 2016. “Learning From the History of Disaster
Vulnerability and Resilience Research and Practice for Climate Change.” Natural Hazards 82(S1):
129–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2294-0
Krasovskaia, I., L. Gottschalk, A. Skiple Ibrekk, and H. Berg. 2007.“Perception of Flood Hazard in Countries of the
North Sea Region of Europe.” Hydrology Research 38(4–5): 387–99. https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2007.019
Krozer, Alice. 2020. “Seeing Inequality? Relative Affluence and Elite Perceptions in Mexico.” UNRISD
Occasional Paper ‐ Overcoming Inequalities in a Fractured World: Between Elite Power and Social
Mobilization, No. 8. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD).
Leina, César A. M., Guadalupe d. C. A. Gordillo, and Elisa C. Rueda. 2021.“Gestión De Riesgos Y Estrategias
Comunitarias Ante Los Desastres En Localidades De La Región Istmo‐Costa En Chiapas.” LiminaR
Estudios Sociales y Humanísticos 19(2): 188–200. https://doi.org/10.29043/liminar.v19i2.849
Lewis, James. 2012.“The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Versus Disaster Risk
Creation (DRC).” PLoS Currents 4(June): e4f8d4eaec6af8. https://doi.org/10.1371/4f8d4eaec6af8
Lewis, James. 2014.“The Susceptibility of the Vulnerable: Some Realities Reassessed.” Disaster Prevention
and Management 23(1): 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-04-2013-0066
Lewis, James, and Sarah A. V. Lewis. 2014. “Processes of Vulnerability in England? Place, Poverty and
Susceptibility.” Disaster Prevention and Management 23(5): 586–609. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-03-
2014-0044
Li, Haibo, Haitao Li, Shengyu Guo, Xuelong Fan, and Feiyue Liu. 2022. “Study on Group Differences in
Migrant Workers’ Urban Integration in China.” Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 16 (May). Frontiers
Media SA: 813867. https://doi.org/10.3389/FNINT.2022.813867
Ling, Frank H., Makoto Tamura, Kazuya Yasuhara, Kiyotake Ajima, and Cong V. Trinh. 2015.“Reducing Flood
Risks in Rural Households: Survey of Perception and Adaptation in the Mekong Delta.” Climatic Change
132(2): 209–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1416-0
Logroño, Iván S. L., and Andrea M. Barriga. 2020. “Percepción Social Del Cambio Climático En Un Valle
Interandino En La Sierra Del Ecuador.” Espacio y Desarrollo no. 36: 101–34. https://doi.org/10.18800/
espacioydesarrollo.202002.005
López, Matias. 2013.“The State of Poverty: Elite Perceptions of the Poor in Brazil and Uruguay.” International
Sociology 28(3): 351–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580913484346
López, Matias, Graziella M. Silva, Chana Teeger, and Pedro Marques. 2022. “Economic and Cultural
Determinants of Elite Attitudes Toward Redistribution.” Socio‐Economic Review 20(2): 489–514. https://
doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwaa015
Mayo, Marjorie. 2006.“Elite Perceptions of Poverty and Inequality.” Community Development Journal 41(2):
260–2. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsl006
Meli, Paula, Rosalva Landa, Xavier López‐Medellín, and Julia Carabias. 2015. “Social Perceptions of
Rainforest and Climatic Change From Rural Communities in Southern Mexico.” Ecosystems 18(8):
1343–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9903-8
Meulman, Jacqueline J. 1998. “Optimal Scaling Methods for Multivariate Categorical Data Analysis.” New
York, SPSS White Paper: IBM, SPSS White Paper.
Meulman, Jacqueline J., Lawrence J. Hubert, and Willem J. Heiser. 1998. “The Data Theory Scaling
System.” In Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization, edited by A. Rizzi, M.
Vichi and H. Bock, 489–96. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-72253-0_66
Meulman, Jacqueline J., Anita J. van der Kooij, and Kevin L. W. Duisters. 2019. “ROS Regression:
Integrating Regularization With Optimal Scaling Regression.” Statistical Science 34(3): 361–90. https://
doi.org/10.1214/19-STS697
Mirenda, Cloe. 2020. “Percepciones Del Cambio Climático En Perspectiva De Género En Jalisco, México.”
Letras Verdes. Latin American Journal of Socio‐environmental Studies 28(September): 31–48. https://
doi.org/10.17141/letrasverdes.28.2020.4307
Moraes, Graziella, Matias López, Elisa P. Reis, and Chana Teeger. 2018. “Elites’ Perceptions of Inequality.
Who Supports Redistribution? Why, When and How?” In Overcoming Inequalities in a Fractured World:
Between Elite Power and Social Mobilization, 19. Geneva: UNRISD.
Motta, Matthew, and Andrew Rohrman. 2021. “Quaking in Their Boots? Inaccurate Perceptions of Seismic
Hazard and Public Policy Inaction.” Behavioural Public Policy 5(3): 301–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.
2019.18
18 | CASTILLO
Murciano, Mauro G., Yajie Liu, Vahdet Ünal, and José L. S. LIzaso. 2021.“Comparative Analysis of the Social
Vulnerability Assessment to Climate Change Applied to Fisheries From Spain and Turkey.” Scientific
Reports 11(1): 13949. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93165-0
Passos, Anaís M., and Igor Acácio. 2021.“The Militarization of Responses to COVID‐19 in Democratic Latin
America.” Revista de Administração Pública 55(1): 261–72. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-761220200475
Pearson, Adam R., and Jonathon P. Schuldt. 2018.“Climate Change and Intergroup Relations: Psychological
Insights, Synergies, and Future Prospects.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 21(3): 373–88.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217747750
Petridou, Evangelia, and Michael Mintrom. 2021. “A Research Agenda for the Study of Policy
Entrepreneurs.” Policy Studies Journal 49(4): 943–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12405
Pielke, Roger A., Jose Rubiera, Christopher Landsea, Mario L. Fernández, and Roberta Klein. 2003.
“Hurricane Vulnerability in Latin America and the Caribbean: Normalized Damage and Loss Potentials.”
Natural Hazards Review 4(3): 101–14. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2003)4:3(101)
Rahm, Dianne, and Christopher G. Reddick. 2011. “US City Managers' Perceptions of Disaster Risks:
Consequences for Urban Emergency Management: US City Managers' Perceptions of Disaster Risks.”
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 19(3): 136–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2011.
00647.x
Ramírez, Edgar E., Manlio F. Castillo, and Eliana I. Sánchez. 2023.“How Policy Entrepreneurs Encourage or
Hinder Urban Growth Within a Political Market.” Urban Affairs Review 59(4): 1250–78. https://doi.org/10.
1177/10780874221097078
Raška, Pavel. 2013. “Political Regulations and Social Perception of Natural Risks: ‘Risk Society’, the Czech
Experience and the European Context.” AUC Geographica 48(2): 61–74. https://doi.org/10.14712/
23361980.2015.5
Reis, Elisa P. 2010. “Poverty in the Eyes of Brazilian Elites.” WIDER Working Paper, No. 2010/103. Helsinki.
Reis, Elisa P. 2011. “Elite Perceptions of Poverty and Inequality in Brazil.” In The Great Gap: Inequality and
the Politics of Redistribution in Latin America, edited by Merike Blofield, 89–108. Penssylvania:
Penssylvania State University Press.
Reyes, Cecilia. 2012. “Las Elites y los Nadies. Caso de estudio sobre la influencia de la elite chilena en un
conflicto ambiental.” Oslo: Oslo University.
Rodríguez‐Becerra, Manuel, and Guillermo Espinoza. 2002. Gestión ambiental en América Latina y el
Caribe. Evolución, tendencias y principales prácticas, edited by David Wilk. Washington, D.C.: BID.
Ruddell, Darren, Sharon L. Harlan, Susanne Grossman‐Clarke, and Gerardo Chowell. 2012. “Scales of
Perception: Public Awareness of Regional and Neighborhood Climates.” Climatic Change 111(3–4):
581–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0165-y
Ruiz, Naxhelli. 2021.“Corrupción Pasiva En La Reconstrucción De La Ciudad De México.” Revista Mexicana
de Sociología 83(2): 419–48.
Sabatini, Francisco. 2003. “La segregación social del espacio en las ciudades de América Latina.”
Washington, DC.
Steckley, Marylynn, and Brent Doberstein. 2011. “Tsunami Survivors’ Perspectives on Vulnerability and
Vulnerability Reduction: Evidence From Koh Phi Phi Don and Khao Lak, Thailand.” Disasters 35(3):
465–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2010.01221.x
de Swaan, Abram. 1988. In Care of the State: Health Care, Education, and Welfare in Europe and the USA in
the Modern Era. New York: Oxford University Press.
Teka, Oscar, and Joachim Vogt. 2010.“Social Perception of Natural Risks by Local Residents in Developing
Countries—The Example of the Coastal Area of Benin.” The Social Science Journal 47(1): 215–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2009.07.005
Thomaz, Omar R. 2005.“Haitian Elites and Their Perception of Poverty and Inequality.” In Elite Perceptions of
Poverty and Inequality, edited by Elisa P. Reis and Mick Moore, 127–35. New York: Zed Books.
Warikoo, Natasha K., and Christina Fuhr. 2014. “Legitimating Status: Perceptions of Meritocracy and
Inequality Among Undergraduates at an Elite British University.” British Educational Research Journal
40(4): 699–717. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3108
Weiss, Patricia. 2008. “Natural Disasters in Latin America and the Caribbean: National, Regional and
International Interactions. A Regional Case Study on the Role of the Affected State in Humanitarian
Action.” HPG Working Paper, October. London.
Xu, Jufeng, and Mengyang Sun. 2015.“Research on the Tourist Demands and Evaluation for Public Tourism
Services.” Tourism and Hospitality Development Between China and EU, 249–59. Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35910-1_20
Yang, Yi. 2013. “Is Inequality or Deficiency the Real Trouble? ‐ The Influencing Factors of the Income
Satisfaction of Chinese Sci‐Tech Personnel.” Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering 236 LNEE, 1081–89.
Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7010-6_120/COVER
How to cite this article: Castillo, Manlio F. 2024. “Environmental vulnerability

as a public priority: The view of local economic elites.” Risk, Hazards, & Crisis in
Public Policy. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12298
A PP EN DI X: LIST OF CITIES INCLUDED IN THE ESTIMATION
City Country*
Añelo Argentina
Asunción Paraguay
Bahía Blanca Argentina
Barranquilla Colombia
Campeche Mexico
Cartagena Colombia
Coatzacoalcos Mexico
Cochabamba Bolivia
Cuenca Ecuador
Cumaná Venezuela
Gran Jujuy Argentina
Gran Mendoza Argentina
Hermosillo Mexico
Ibagué Colombia
La Paz Mexico
La Serena‐Coquimbo Chile
Las Heras Argentina
Lázaro Cárdenas Mexico
Malargüe Argentina
Managua Nicaragua
Manizales Colombia
Mar del Plata Argentina
Montego Bay Jamaica
Montería Colombia
Montevideo Uruguay
Nassau Bahamas
Panamá City Panama
(Continues)
20 | CASTILLO
City Country*
Paramaribo Suriname
Paraná Argentina
Pasto Colombia
Pereira Colombia
Popayán Colombia
Quetzaltenango‐Xelajú Guatemala
Riohacha Colombia
Rionegro Colombia
Salina Cruz Mexico
Salta Argentina
Santa Ana El Salvador
Santa Marta Colombia
Santiago de los Caballeros Dominican Republic
Sincelejo/Corozal Colombia
Tapachula Mexico
Tres Lagoas Brazil
Trujillo Peru
Valdivia Chile
Valledupar Colombia
Xalapa Mexico
*The list includes 19 countries in the LAC region.

Source: The author.
AU T H O R B I O GR A P H Y
Manlio F. Castillo is an Associate Professor in the Public Administration

Department at the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas
(CIDE, Center for Research and Teaching in Economics), Mexico City.
His research focuses on urban management and policy, including urban
regimes, metropolitan collaboration, public service provision, and
disaster management. He has collaborated on research evaluating
urban programs and management practices in Mexico's and Latin America's local
governments.

Risk Hazard Crisis Pub Pol (First Pub Online)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Risk Hazard Crisis Pub Pol (First Pub Online)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 16 October 2023 | Revised: 11 January 2024 | Accepted: 9 February 2024

Environmental vulnerability as a public

Public Administration Department, Centro

© 2024 Policy Studies Organization.

Risks Hazards Crisis Public Policy. 2024;1–20. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/rhc3 | 1

INTR ODUC TION

The LAC region is especially prone to various potentially disastrous natural

PR EVIOUS ST UDIES A ND HY POTHES ES

Elements inﬂuencing the perception of VNH

Hypothesis 1. Among LEEs, greater exposure to natural hazards is associated

adverse economic effects, whereas Uruguayan elites view poverty as a moral

Hypothesis 2. Among LEEs, a greater social susceptibility is related to a greater

Hypothesis 3. The existence of better government instruments for managing

uses the multi‐criteria evaluation methodology, also called Qualitative Economic

Independent and control variables

Population below the poverty line (Social)

Gini coefﬁcient (Inequality)

TA B L E 1 Characteristics of the variables and expected effects.

Variable Label Type Expected effect

Independent EXPOSITION Dichotomous +/not signiﬁcant

SOCIAL Continuous +/not signiﬁcant

INEQUALITY Continuous +/−

TA B L E 2 Main descriptive statistics.

Variable Mean Median Minimum Maximum SD N

EXPOSITION 0.45 0 0 1 0.50 60

SOCIAL 26.1 25.9 0.08 79.7 16.8 57

CONTINGENCYP 2.25 2 1 3 0.79 60

MITIGATIONP 2.62 3 1 3 0.61 60

INEQUALITY 0.47 0.45 0.34 0.74 0.09 60

POP (millions) 0.52 0.38 0.003 2.53 0.46 60

TA B L E 3 OSR: Estimation results.

SOCIAL 0.587*** (0.09) 0.621*** (0.133) 0.634*** (0.101)

CONTINGENCYP 0.144 (0.196) 0.141 (0.179)

MITIGATIONP 0.147 (0.156) 0.133 (0.154)

INEQUALITY −0.1 (0.118)

POP −0.26** (0.115)

F 14.241*** 5.111*** 6.215***

Note: SE estimation in parentheses.

phenomenon. Therefore, it is not possible to refute Hypothesis 2. This ﬁnding is

How to cite this article: Castillo, Manlio F. 2024. “Environmental vulnerability

A PP EN DI X: LIST OF CITIES INCLUDED IN THE ESTIMATION

Bahía Blanca Argentina

Gran Jujuy Argentina

Gran Mendoza Argentina

Las Heras Argentina

Lázaro Cárdenas Mexico

Mar del Plata Argentina

Montego Bay Jamaica

Panamá City Panama

Salina Cruz Mexico

Santa Ana El Salvador

Santa Marta Colombia

Santiago de los Caballeros Dominican Republic

Tres Lagoas Brazil

*The list includes 19 countries in the LAC region.

Manlio F. Castillo is an Associate Professor in the Public Administration

You might also like

SOCIAL 0.587* (0.09) 0.621* (0.133) 0.634*** (0.101)

F 14.241* 5.111* 6.215***