Evidence-based disaster risk management: A scoping review focusing on risk, resilience and vulnerability assessment

IF 2.6 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Henrik Tehler , Alexander Cedergren , Mathilde de Goër de Herve , Johanna Gustavsson , Henrik Hassel , Hanna Lindbom , Lars Nyberg , Misse Wester
{"title":"Evidence-based disaster risk management: A scoping review focusing on risk, resilience and vulnerability assessment","authors":"Henrik Tehler ,&nbsp;Alexander Cedergren ,&nbsp;Mathilde de Goër de Herve ,&nbsp;Johanna Gustavsson ,&nbsp;Henrik Hassel ,&nbsp;Hanna Lindbom ,&nbsp;Lars Nyberg ,&nbsp;Misse Wester","doi":"10.1016/j.pdisas.2024.100335","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A plethora of methods exist to aid decision-making in mitigating disaster risk, many of which fall into the categories of risk, vulnerability and/or resilience assessment methods. The objective of the present study is to provide an overview of these methods, with a particular focus on evidence that supports their practical implementation. A scoping study of scientific literature reveal 97 distinct methods. Despite the growing interest in publishing new methods, there seems to be a lack of focus on demonstrating their effectiveness in practice. The few contributions that do include some forms of evaluation typically do so by comparing the method's output with disaster data, by contrasting it with the output of other methods, by having experts evaluate the structure of the method, or by testing the method in practice and evaluating its usage. To further strengthen the relevance of research on this topic, increased attention should be paid to this matter. A good starting point would be to use the ways of evaluation identified in this study and systematically present evidence regarding the practical usefulness of methods for risk, vulnerability and/or resilience assessment.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":52341,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Disaster Science","volume":"23 ","pages":"Article 100335"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590061724000255/pdfft?md5=b1c54f2fdfebfffeabb8d67492fd43b3&pid=1-s2.0-S2590061724000255-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Disaster Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590061724000255","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A plethora of methods exist to aid decision-making in mitigating disaster risk, many of which fall into the categories of risk, vulnerability and/or resilience assessment methods. The objective of the present study is to provide an overview of these methods, with a particular focus on evidence that supports their practical implementation. A scoping study of scientific literature reveal 97 distinct methods. Despite the growing interest in publishing new methods, there seems to be a lack of focus on demonstrating their effectiveness in practice. The few contributions that do include some forms of evaluation typically do so by comparing the method's output with disaster data, by contrasting it with the output of other methods, by having experts evaluate the structure of the method, or by testing the method in practice and evaluating its usage. To further strengthen the relevance of research on this topic, increased attention should be paid to this matter. A good starting point would be to use the ways of evaluation identified in this study and systematically present evidence regarding the practical usefulness of methods for risk, vulnerability and/or resilience assessment.

循证灾害风险管理:以风险、复原力和脆弱性评估为重点的范围审查
目前有大量方法可以帮助决策层降低灾害风险,其中许多属于风险、脆弱性和/或复原力评估方法。本研究的目的是概述这些方法,并特别关注支持其实际应用的证据。对科学文献进行的范围研究发现了 97 种不同的方法。尽管人们对发表新方法的兴趣与日俱增,但似乎对证明这些方法在实践中的有效性缺乏关注。少数包含某种形式评估的文献通常是通过将方法的输出结果与灾害数据进行比较、与其他方法的输出结果进行对比、让专家对方法的结构进行评估,或在实践中对方法进行测试并评估其使用情况。为进一步加强该主题研究的相关性,应加强对这一问题的关注。一个好的起点是利用本研究中确定的评估方式,系统地提出有关风险、脆弱性和/或复原力评估方法的实用性的证据。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Progress in Disaster Science
Progress in Disaster Science Social Sciences-Safety Research
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
3.20%
发文量
51
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Progress in Disaster Science is a Gold Open Access journal focusing on integrating research and policy in disaster research, and publishes original research papers and invited viewpoint articles on disaster risk reduction; response; emergency management and recovery. A key part of the Journal's Publication output will see key experts invited to assess and comment on the current trends in disaster research, as well as highlight key papers.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信