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
{"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.