Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A systematic review of current progress in community based vulnerability assessments
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A systematic review of current progress in community based vulnerability assessments
Do you wish to request the book?
A systematic review of current progress in community based vulnerability assessments
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
A systematic review of current progress in community based vulnerability assessments
2024
Overview
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.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
Subject
