Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38223542›Full record

ArticleJamba (Potchefstroom, South Africa)2023

A bibliometric and systematic review of the Methods for the Improvement of Vulnerability Assessment in Europe framework: A guide for the development of further multi-hazard holistic framework.

Ali Jamshed, Irfan A Rana, Joern Birkmann, Joanna M McMillan, Stefan Kienberger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Jamba (Potchefstroom, South Africa), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Ali JamshedInstitute of Spatial and Regional Planning, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Planning, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4802-1225
Irfan A RanaDepartment of Urban and Regional Planning, National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3157-1186
Joern BirkmannInstitute of Spatial and Regional Planning, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Planning, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8733-3964
Joanna M McMillanInstitute of Spatial and Regional Planning, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Planning, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4843-0029
Stefan KienbergerDepartment of Geoinformatics - Z_GIS, University of Salzbur, Salzburg, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4800-4516

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conceptual frameworks are vital for identifying relevant components, dimensions and indicators to assess vulnerability to natural hazards and climatic change. Given the fact that vulnerability is applied and used in various disciplines and by multiple schools of thought, several conceptual frameworks to assess and conceptualise vulnerability have been developed. Even though these frameworks have been widely cited in research, the range and context of application and contextual use of such frameworks have rarely been explored. This paper provides a systematic review of the MOVE (Methods for the Improvement of Vulnerability Assessment in Europe) framework. Bibliometric and systematic analyses were performed to better understand who and how the MOVE framework has been taken up by other researchers. The MOVE framework has been widely cited in different research fields. Several studies directly used the framework for assessing vulnerability both in terms of its factors and the different thematic dimensions of vulnerability (e.g. social, physical, ecological). Some studies have used it as a basis for developing context-specific studies of vulnerability and risk assessment frameworks. Finally, we also discuss critiques of the MOVE framework that can provide direction for future vulnerability assessments. Contribution: Critique of the MOVE framework can be helpful in further improvement and development of a multi-hazard holistic framework that would be flexible enough to support multiple theoretical perspectives in disaster risk and climate change discourses.

Indexed as

bibliometric analysisclimate change adaptationdisaster riskframeworksIPCCvulnerability

Identifiers

PMID38223542
PMCPMC10784246

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.