A systematic review of current progress in community based vulnerability assessments
Smith, Bethany, and Diedrich, Amy (2024) A systematic review of current progress in community based vulnerability assessments. Regional Environmental Change, 24. 21.
|
PDF (Published Version)
- Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (1MB) | Preview |
Abstract
This systematic literature review critically evaluates the extent to which community-based vulnerability assessments are progressing towards less siloed approaches that address spatial and temporal interactions and multiple exposures. The review focuses on studies that apply the most commonly operationalised frameworks in the livelihoods and climate change disciplines between 2014 and 2023, the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) (n = 72) and the IPCC AR4 Framework (AR4) (n = 101). This review found that a minimal number of studies are addressing limitations. This was most significant in relation to the inadequate consideration of spatial scale (SLF 1%; AR4 5%), future temporal scale (SLF 4%; AR4 7%), and exposure to multiple shocks and stressors (AR4 7%; SLF 8%) within studies. Progress was seen with respect to overcoming siloed perspectives, which had previously led to the exclusion of external shock and stressor events (SLF) or socioeconomic factors (AR4) within assessments. Despite this progress, AR4 based studies were found to exclude key components of adaptive capacity, particularly in relation to natural (28%), financial (57%) and components of social capital. Additionally, only 47% of SLF based studies measured exposure to shock and stressor events. To overcome limitations scholars must engage with i) less-siloed frameworks that combine perspectives from the livelihoods and climate change disciplines and ii) non-static approaches that assess vulnerability in the context of social-ecological systems or use ethnographic methods (e.g., scenario planning and participatory mapping) to contextualise outputs. By engaging with these limitations, scholars reduce the potential for assessments to produce ineffective, or maladaptive outcomes.
| Item ID: | 81715 |
|---|---|
| Item Type: | Article (Research - C1) |
| ISSN: | 1436-378X |
| Copyright Information: | This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
| Date Deposited: | 22 Feb 2024 01:34 |
| FoR Codes: | 41 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES > 4101 Climate change impacts and adaptation > 410103 Human impacts of climate change and human adaptation @ 100% |
| SEO Codes: | 19 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, CLIMATE CHANGE AND NATURAL HAZARDS > 1999 Other environmental policy, climate change and natural hazards > 199999 Other environmental policy, climate change and natural hazards not elsewhere classified @ 60% 18 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT > 1899 Other environmental management > 189999 Other environmental management not elsewhere classified @ 40% |
| Downloads: |
Total: 10 Last 12 Months: 10 |
| More Statistics |
Actions (Repository Staff Only)
 |
Item Control Page |