ReviewNatural hazards (Dordrecht, Netherlands)2026
How trust shapes individual resilience to natural hazards: a systematic review.
Review in Natural hazards (Dordrecht, Netherlands), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trust is recognised as a critical element of disaster risk reduction; it shapes how people perceive risks, mobilise resources, and respond to hazards. Here, trust is defined as an individual's confidence in the ability and/ or intention of a system to act in their best interest. Importantly, many studies do not distinguish between ability- and intention-trust or acknowledge that such a distinction exists. Here, we present a systematic review of 100 articles and book chapters published between 2000 and 2025 which reveals that trust can both strengthen and weaken resilience to hazard events, depending on geographical factors, cultural context, hazard type, and the parties in whom trust is placed (e.g., government, community, scientific institutions, or personal beliefs). From the 100 studies, we identified 209 relationships between trust and individuals' resilience to natural hazards. We find that in the majority of case studies, trust is associated with increased resilience (58%), compared with trust being associated with decreased resilience (33%), or no change to resilience (10%). Our findings highlight the need for clarity when defining or theorising trust, and recognise the dynamic and context-dependent nature of trust when seeking to improve resilience to support effective disaster risk reduction. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11069-025-07816-w.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.