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.

IF 1.3 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Jamba-Journal of Disaster Risk Studies Pub Date : 2023-12-27 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.4102/jamba.v15i1.1486
Ali Jamshed, Irfan A Rana, Joern Birkmann, Joanna M McMillan, Stefan Kienberger
{"title":"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.","authors":"Ali Jamshed, Irfan A Rana, Joern Birkmann, Joanna M McMillan, Stefan Kienberger","doi":"10.4102/jamba.v15i1.1486","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p><p><strong>Contribution: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":51823,"journal":{"name":"Jamba-Journal of Disaster Risk Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10784246/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jamba-Journal of Disaster Risk Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v15i1.1486","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对欧洲脆弱性评估改进方法框架的文献计量和系统审查:欧洲脆弱性评估改进方法框架:进一步制定多灾害整体框架指南》。
概念框架对于确定评估自然灾害和气候变化脆弱性的相关组成部分、层面和指标至关重 要。鉴于脆弱性在不同学科和多种思想流派中的应用和使用,已经制定了多个概念框架来评估脆弱性并将其概念化。尽管这些框架在研究中被广泛引用,但很少有人探讨这些框架的应用范围、背景和使用情况。本文对 MOVE(欧洲脆弱性评估改进方法)框架进行了系统回顾。为了更好地了解其他研究人员对 MOVE 框架的使用情况和使用方式,我们进行了文献计量和系统分析。MOVE 框架在不同的研究领域被广泛引用。有几项研究直接使用该框架来评估脆弱性,包括脆弱性的各种因素和脆弱性的不同专题方面(如社会、物理、生态)。一些研究将其作为制定针对具体情况的脆弱性研究和风险评估框架的基础。最后,我们还讨论了对 MOVE 框架的批评,这些批评可以为未来的脆弱性评估提供方向:贡献:对 MOVE 框架的批评有助于进一步改进和发展多灾害综合框架,该框架应具有足够的灵活性,以支持灾害风险和气候变化论述中的多种理论观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Jamba-Journal of Disaster Risk Studies
Jamba-Journal of Disaster Risk Studies SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
37
审稿时长
37 weeks
期刊最新文献
Efundja as a risk driver and change agent for the Cuvelai-Etosha basin rural communities. Revealing the boon and bane of South Africa's disaster management legislation during COVID-19. A tool for the assessment of the risk drivers and public perception of WASH in South Africa. Statutory and policy-based eco-disaster risk reduction in SADC member states. Disaster risk from diarrhoeal diseases and WASH in South Africa and Botswana in MDG time.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1