Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31007726›Full record

ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Climate change

Explaining differential vulnerability to climate change: A social science review.

Kimberley Thomas, R Dean Hardy, Heather Lazrus, Michael Mendez, Ben Orlove, Isabel Rivera-Collazo, J Timmons Roberts, Marcy Rockman, Benjamin P Warner, Robert Winthrop

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Climate change. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

85 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Cultural and Institutional Factors Driving Severe Repetitive Flood Losses: Insights From the Jersey Shore.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025
    Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Kimberley ThomasDepartment of Geography and Urban Studies Temple University Philadelphia Pennsylvania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9600-385X
R Dean HardySESYNC University of Maryland Annapolis Maryland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4541-9430
Heather LazrusEarth System Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder Colorado.
Michael MendezSchool of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University New Haven Connecticut.
Ben OrloveSchool of International and Public Affairs Columbia University New York New York.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0489-4219
Isabel Rivera-CollazoDepartment of Anthropology and Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego California.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6857-2318
J Timmons RobertsCenter for Environmental Studies Brown University Providence Rhode Island.
Marcy RockmanNational Park Service Washington District of Columbia.
Benjamin P WarnerDepartment of Geography and Environmental Studies University of New Mexico Albuquerque New Mexico.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8874-1692
Robert WinthropDepartment of Anthropology University of Maryland College Park Maryland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6710-948X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The varied effects of recent extreme weather events around the world exemplify the uneven impacts of climate change on populations, even within relatively small geographic regions. Differential human vulnerability to environmental hazards results from a range of social, economic, historical, and political factors, all of which operate at multiple scales. While adaptation to climate change has been the dominant focus of policy and research agendas, it is essential to ask as well why some communities and peoples are disproportionately exposed to and affected by climate threats. The cases and synthesis presented here are organized around four key themes (resource access, governance, culture, and knowledge), which we approach from four social science fields (cultural anthropology, archaeology, human geography, and sociology). Social scientific approaches to human vulnerability draw vital attention to the root causes of climate change threats and the reasons that people are forced to adapt to them. Because vulnerability is a multidimensional process rather than an unchanging state, a dynamic social approach to vulnerability is most likely to improve mitigation and adaptation planning efforts. This article is categorized under:Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Values-Based Approach to Vulnerability and Adaptation.

Indexed as

accessculturegovernanceknowledgevulnerability

Identifiers

PMID31007726
PMCPMC6472565

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.