Abstract
While social vulnerability assessments (SVA) use spatial indicators and indices that have become state of the art, they also receive substantial critique. This article analyzes, by means of a literature review of 63 articles, if and in which aspects such an indicator approach is regarded as useful by scientific studies. The findings indicate a need for more research on the validation and justification of indicators. This article supports the conceptual development of SVA by adding to reflection about advancements and applications, but also shortcomings. The main advancement area discussed is validation and the demand for establishing benchmark criteria for vulnerability. Based on this, longitudinal monitoring of vulnerability and validation studies are conceivable based on existing SVA, but these efforts demand more conceptual development.
Highlights
While vulnerability assessments (VA) have become acknowledged state-of-the-art methods, for example, in recent strategy publications at the international level (United Nations 2015), but methodological debate and development is on-going (Ford et al 2010; Kuhlicke et al.2011a; Preston et al 2011; Gallina et al 2016)
Since the literature review found validation the aspect most mentioned, the following section will focus on this aspect, what can and needs to be amended and developed
A methodology is suggested in those studies to order the underlying values that exist in a civil protection agency, for example, to prioritize saving human lives over economic interests
Summary
While vulnerability assessments (VA) have become acknowledged state-of-the-art methods, for example, in recent strategy publications at the international level (United Nations 2015), but methodological debate and development is on-going Quite a number of review papers, have already covered overviews and comparisons of the state-of-the-art and of specific methodological traits These advances are notable for (social) vulnerability in specific hazard contexts such as climate change (Ford et al 2010; Preston et al 2011), floods (Rufat et al 2015; Terti et al 2015), and multi-risks (Gallina et al 2016), on validation methodology in general (Tate 2012) as well as social capacities (Kuhlicke et al 2011a). After completion of the literature review, conceptual considerations on validation criteria, benchmarks, and methodological advancements are used to integrate VA with other concepts, such as criticality assessment or risk management goals. These new potential directions are briefly outlined
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
