Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35874100›Full record

ReviewiScience2022

The challenges of dynamic vulnerability and how to assess it.

Marleen C de Ruiter, Anne F van Loon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in iScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. Navigating the definition of urban flooding: A conceptual and systematic review of the literature.Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

2 authors.

Marleen C de RuiterInstitute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Anne F van LoonInstitute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent disasters have demonstrated the challenges faced by society as a result of the increasing complexity of disaster risk. In this perspective article, we discuss the complex interactions between hazards and vulnerability and suggest methodological approaches to assess and include dynamics of vulnerability in our risk assessments, learning from the compound and multi-hazard, socio-hydrology, and socio-ecological research communities. We argue for a changed perspective, starting with the circumstances that determine dynamic vulnerability. We identify three types of dynamics of vulnerability: (1) the underlying dynamics of vulnerability, (2) changes in vulnerability during long-lasting disasters, and (3) changes in vulnerability during compounding disasters and societal shocks. We conclude that there is great potential to capture the dynamics of vulnerability using qualitative and model-based methods, both for reproducing historic and projecting future dynamics of vulnerability. We provide examples using narratives, agent-based models, and system dynamics.

Indexed as

Earth sciencesEnvironmental eventSocial sciences

Identifiers

PMID35874100
PMCPMC9304616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.