https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2906-9680
Figures
Abstract
Two calls by research and policy institutions internationally inform this paper. The first is a need to better accommodate local social-ecological conditions through more fine-grained data collection and analysis. The second is to increase the level of community engagement in studies of social resilience to climate change. In this paper, we assess progress towards these aspirations by examining and describing research that explore community resilience to climate-related hazards. More specifically, we critically appraise how this growing body of research engages with the communities and places that are the subject of these studies. Using the Web of Science Core Collection database, we conducted a scoping review of 647 articles that aim to understand lived-experiences of climate-related hazards through a place- or community-based focus. Our findings reveal that only 140 articles (21%) met our inclusion criteria by meaningfully engaging with the communities and places being studied, while also developing grounded strategies to improve social resilience to climate-related hazards. Key findings from the reviewed literature also highlight: the social attributes emphasised within the studies, the research methods most frequently employed, the scale the strategies are most often aimed at, and the diversity and frequency of proposed strategies to improve social resilience to climate-related hazards. Collectively, these findings highlight key trends, accomplishments and shortcomings in social resilience research on climate-related hazards. Two major recommendations from our review emerge. First is a need for more widespread grounded engagement during data collection phases with populations impacted by climate-related hazards to increase researcher sensitivity to the specific needs of at-risk communities. Second is the development of strategies within published research that are more tailored, and thus more locally beneficial and equitable, so that key insights can be applied in place-specific contexts and by a range of people across diverse social attributes and networks.
Citation: Eriksen C, Simon GL (2025) Social resilience research on climate-related hazards: Trends, accomplishments and shortcomings. PLOS Clim 4(4): e0000496. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000496
Editor: Thomas Thaler,, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria
Received: July 25, 2024; Accepted: February 25, 2025; Published: April 9, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Eriksen. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The data set reported on in this study is included as Supporting information S1 File.
Funding: This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (TMCG-1 213621 to CE). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
The aim of this paper is to review scholarly work that examines strategies for responding to climate-related hazards from a social resilience point of view. We analyse whether and, if so, how research on social resilience actually engages meaningfully with people and communities on the front lines of these hazards. By social resilience we refer to conditions that lead to increased capacity by communities to cope with the impact of climate-related hazards and adapt to future conditions [1]. We focus on the community scale because of place-specific characteristics, such as social networks, geography, and governance structures that result in groups sharing similar hazardous experiences despite diverse levels of social vulnerability. For our analysis, we use the definition of coping capacity provided by the UNDRR [2 p.12] as ‘the ability of people, organizations and systems, using available skills and resources, to manage adverse conditions, risk or disasters’.
We are motivated by two increasingly vocal calls from research and policy institutions internationally. The first call is to better accommodate local social-ecological conditions through more fine-grained data collection and analysis [3–6]. This means moving from regional assessments of climate impacts and resilience towards more focused engagement with particular places and populations, such as the WHO’s [7 p.10] recommendation to ‘implement multisectoral and community-based approaches to reduce vulnerabilities and address the mental health and psychosocial impacts of climate change’. Such focused engagement links to the second call, which is to increase the level of community engagement in studies of social resilience to climate change [8–10]. This is particularly important given historical research trends marked by disengaged, externally imposed, and extractive research approaches [11,12]. The call for more participatory social resilience scholarship aims to more directly engage key actors – including those contributing to decision-making in both informal and formal settings – in order to amplify the relevance and usefulness of findings for managers, practitioners, and impacted communities [13–15]. Both of these calls are reflected in the “high confidence” placed by the UNDRR [16] and the IPCC [17 p.32] in ‘meaningful participation and inclusive engagement processes – including Indigenous Knowledge, local knowledge, and scientific knowledge – [as it] facilitates climate resilient development, builds capacity and allows locally appropriate and socially acceptable solutions’.
With these calls in mind, we conducted a scoping review of published scholarship. Scoping reviews are useful tools for assessing ‘the scope of coverage of a body of literature on a given topic’ and for reporting on ‘the types of evidence that address and inform practice in the field and the way the research has been conducted.’ [18 p.2] Our research extends existing literature reviews [e.g., 19–21] by explicitly focusing on the nexus between social resilience research and the communities that are impacted by climate-related hazards. Specifically, our analysis focuses on the extent to which this work centres on the community scale through the development of place-specific strategies; and what such engagement looks like in terms of: a) the types of strategies recommended, b) the targeted audience groups, c) the social attributes under consideration, and d) the research methods used. In so doing, this paper suggests the need for more widespread grounded engagement with populations impacted by climate-related hazards, and the development of key insights within published research that lend themselves more easily to place-specific contexts.
Methodology
We follow the suggested purposes for conducting a scoping review provided by Munn et al. [18 p.7]. This included: i) identifying the types of available evidence on the topic of social resilience to climate-related hazards; ii) clarifying how the concept of social resilience in the literature can be illuminated using sub-themes related to its political, technical, financial, educational, etc. context; iii) examining how research is conducted on this topic in terms of the methods researchers use, the social attributes they tend to focus on, and the strategies they drawn from the research; iv) identifying key characteristics or factors that inform strategies to improve social resilience to climate-related hazards; v) describing the reviewed literature and identifying sub-themes that could be useful for a follow up and more thorough review (such as a systematic review); and vi) identifying and analysing knowledge gaps, particularly in relation to how research is conducted, communicated, and subsequently applied (or not).
Fig 1 outlines the flow of our methodological approach, including the search terms and analytical lenses. Using the Web of Science Core Collection database, we carried out a series of keyword searches to refine our search query (last searched 22.9.2022). Our goal was to hone in on articles that include research topics and methodologies that particularly aim to understand lived-experiences of climate-related hazards through a place- or community-based focus. Testing different search parameters resulted, for example, in us inserting ‘AND’ in the query between ‘resilien*’ and ‘social OR societ* OR communit*’ in order to exclude studies that exclusively focused on flora and fauna or ecological resilience. Furthermore, because the paper is written for a climate-focused journal, we included ‘AND’ before ‘climat* and natural hazard*’ in order to focus on climate-related hazards. Our definition of ‘lived experiences’ is broad both to include the before, during, and after stages of hazardous events, and also to include a range of research methods and data sources, such as census and historical planning data, vulnerability indices that also assess or contribute to understandings of social resilience, etc. Our scoping review did not aim to be representative of all academic literature published on social resilience [22], and responds to PLOS Climate’s emphasis on learning from collaborative, interdisciplinary, and multidisciplinary work that informs critical strategies for responding to climate change. Future studies could, for example, also draw on Scopus or other search engines to gather a more diverse range of publications, such as non-peer-reviewed academic articles.
Our search query resulted in 647 articles. The first 40 articles were reviewed by both authors to ensure consistency between reviewers; from there on each author reviewed a set of 50 articles at a time with an overlap of 5 articles; all articles were discussed and agreed upon in detail before moving on to the next set. The first round of analysis involved a manual scan of the titles and abstracts of 647 articles published between 1990 and 2022. Only articles published in English and with full-text versions online were included. From this list, articles that provided the answer ‘no’ to any of our four initial guiding questions were discarded, along with articles that purely draw on secondary literature or provide purely conceptual outputs. In the second round of analysis, we conducted an in-depth review of the remaining 266 articles. A concrete response to Question 1 in our second set of guiding questions was considered compulsory for the purpose of our review. If on a closer read, an article was found not to put forward one or more concrete, grounded strategies for responding or adapting to climate change, it was excluded from further analysis. This resulted in a final set of 140 articles. The final set of articles as well as the articles reviewed in both rounds of analysis are available as supplementary material (S1 Data).
Results and discussion of the reviewed literature
Key social attributes emphasised
Fig 2 reveals that officials (their background, actions, etc.) are rarely the subject or topic of study in the published articles in our sample (10%), even though the majority of strategies resulting from the research are aimed at officials – at municipal (81%), regional (84%) and national (51%) levels (see Fig 3) – who are then expected to enact them. This is noteworthy in the context of recent calls for reparative disaster processes [9,23], which highlight the problematic ways government officials and emergency professionals have often reproduced social and structural inequities through their activities; yet, as Fig 2 shows, few studies analyse the capacity of these officials to carry out the recommendations researchers provide them with. These findings suggest that research tends to only indirectly focus on the outcomes of official “efforts”, by articulating levels of vulnerability among community members. However, by largely ignoring the actions of hazard-related professionals, this leaves the official logics, decisions and practices that may create and reproduce vulnerability relatively understudied. We therefore suggest the need for officials, professionals and managers to be incorporated more explicitly into socially just climate adaptation strategies to enhance social resilience [see also, 24].
Fig 2 also reveals that surprisingly few papers focus on specific social attributes through, for example, targeted assessment of community sub-populations around age, gender, race, etc. These findings are noteworthy because it is well understood that targeted studies are better able to highlight and address the particular experiences, needs, and insights of a subpopulation when they are the primary focus of a study [25–27]. Instead, the plurality of papers (36%) explores a wide cross-section of demographic data. This approach results in population assessments that often lack sufficient depth in any one demographic category, making it difficult to develop targeted and meaningful strategies for specific vulnerable groups. It therefore falls short of responding to or advancing intersectional research, which emphasises that people who belong to more than one marginalised group are disproportionately more vulnerable in a disaster [28–30]. The overlapping and compounding nature of different social characteristics requires in-depth qualitative analysis in order to see ‘vulnerability as a material condition and social construct that acknowledges broader cultural, ecological, and economic conditions, which may offset, maintain or deepen true risk exposure’ [31 p. 294].
It is noteworthy that the social attributes that are usually emphasised in intersectional scholarship (gender, sexuality, age, race, ethnicity, disability, and education) consistently receive the least focus in our final set of articles, and sexuality was not the primary focus of any of the sampled literature. It shows how a narrowing of the analytical scope to one social attribute is far less popular than approaches taking a broad and diverse survey of vulnerable populations. This may be because fine-grained qualitative research is often more viscerally uncomfortable to undertake, more costly, more logistically demanding and more time consuming for the researcher [32–34]. This stands in contrast to research choices that prioritise studying a particular social dimension (e.g., gender) as a way of addressing both distinct and broad societal inequities. Financial capital (31%) receives more attention, though these attributes cut across different ages, genders and ethnic groups, and thus retain broad relevance within at-risk populations. The common focus on financial capital reflects a long-standing trend focusing on economic precarity in hazards, disaster, and climate change adaptation research, which often links community resilience to elevated financial security [31,35].
Level of society targeted by given strategies
As indicated above, the majority of articles focus their research and data collection activities on the household and community level. And yet, as Fig 3 demonstrates, the strategies resulting from this research are predominantly aimed at “officials” at city, regional and national scales. These research characteristics seem to reveal a mismatch between those who give their time and insights to the creation of empirical findings and those who receive the results and proposed strategies via various professional, academic, and other more intangible communication pathways. This finding suggests that post-study community engagement by researchers is attenuated through official agencies, who then get to decide whether strategies are implemented or not based on government or organisational values, budgets, political will, etc.
Developing strategies for professional rather than community consumption raises the following questions: Should researchers more intentionally and directly present, discuss, and direct their findings to the local participants who will likely be most affected by the proposed recommendations? Does this lack of engagement imply that not enough outreach and trust/relationship-building has occurred with local communities consistent with best practices in community-based research? There is an assumption that officials will use and apply research findings appropriately, which history shows is not always the case [36]. Our findings indicate that aiming strategies at officials entails either a huge leap of faith that researchers often seem comfortable taking or an indifference by researchers to the utility and impact their research might have [see also, 37].
Comparing this finding with the insights drawn in Fig 2 above regarding a lack of analysis of officials, reveals a somewhat startling and ironic assessment of the research landscape. On one hand, most studies do not collect data about, or analyse the norms, structures, and cultural capacity of official organisations to implement the research strategies provided to them. On the other hand, households and local communities that researchers collect substantial empirical information about are not given tangible strategies to work with in return. This implies a need by researchers to either a) develop strategies that more directly work with groups at the community level (i.e., those who stand to benefit from their implementation) to develop and adopt research strategies, or b) more rigorously develop research approaches that “study up” [38] to better understand the decision-making context of hazard mitigation bureaucracies, institutions and professionals.
Research methods used
We were interested in knowing what methods researchers used for examining social resilience and the results (Fig 4) show that most studies used interviews and surveys, which are the methods most social scientists are trained in. Seven of the 11 methods applied in the total set were used in 10% or more of the articles, indicating both the diversity of methods available for community engagement as well as the importance of mixed-methods approaches. However, the fact that only the two most broadly known social science methods are used in nearly half of the final set of articles (interviews 49%, surveys 46%), could possibly also indicate a need for more training in alternative methods (e.g. participatory mapping, observational techniques, knowledge co-production workshops) for understanding communities’ capacity to adapt and cope with climate-related hazards.
Key insights from strategies for enhancing social resilience
The authors of the 140 articles put forward a range of strategies for enhancing social resilience to climate-related hazards. We sorted these strategies into 11 subjective categories (Fig 5), which were identified through a content analysis performed by the authors of this paper. These 11 categories of strategies reflect both the dominant themes and the diversity of strategies put forward in the final set of reviewed literature. The 11 categories pool together various strategies that provide a similar place-specific application or recommendation, and that are relevant or tangible to a particular location or group of people. Some articles include several strategies, and some strategies fit into more than one category. All 140 articles and their categorisation are available in the supplementary material (S1 Data).
This diversity of strategies highlights that there are many facets of social resilience that need to be addressed in the context of climate-related hazards, ranging from data collection and communication to education and social justice. Our review also highlights that many researchers are rising to the task of analysing and understanding the many challenges and needs faced by communities. The frequency in which certain strategies are offered also sheds light on recent and ongoing trends across the broad landscape of research examining community resilience to climate-related hazards. However, the 11 categories of strategies also suggest room for improvement in terms of the research being conducted and the applicability of the results. The following points outline some of the trends, achievements and shortcomings of the research articles that were included in the final set of our scoping review.
A key finding from the review is that when researchers conduct community engaged research, it often becomes clear who needs to be included and, more importantly, why the experiences and concerns of particular individuals or groups should directly inform social resilience programs (Category 1). Forty-six percent of articles, the largest percentage garnered by any one strategy, offered recommendations for increasing and diversifying inclusion in resilience efforts. Engaging with community members during their research, appears to have increased the desire for greater precision and nuance amongst researchers as they sought to understand and respond to community needs.
Another finding from the review is that although many studies emphasise who should be included in resilience programs (Category 1), far fewer studies focus on justice as a justification or desired outcome of proposed strategies (Category 2). Only 14% of our final set of articles propose strategies that prioritise social justice by explaining why particular socially marginalised groups are missing or discriminated against in existing policies, practices, and datasets, and by outlining possible steps towards more justice-oriented outcomes. To us, as social scientists, this is a surprising result for studies that in our review have been filtered by their grounded attention to place, as these types of studies are arguably more likely to elicit the raw, lived experience of injustice and inequity. The limited focus on strategies that challenge or alleviate social and structural discrimination or marginalisation highlight notable room for improvement within climate change scholarship. These results also suggest that an ethical commitment to issues of injustice, not just a methodological engagement with grounded and place-based research, is a key ingredient of meaningful social justice research [see also, 39].
Our review also reveals the wide-ranging attention within the literature given to strategies that raise risk awareness (Category 4, 30%); education, training and skills development opportunities (Category 5, 26%); two-way communication (Category 6, 21%); and social networks and social cohesion (Category 7, 22%). These results likely reflect the ongoing emphasis in disaster risk reduction research and policy on preparedness and response capacity [40–42]. These findings also speak to the broad acknowledgement within the hazards research community that without social networks and social cohesion it is difficult to build resilience to climate-related hazards [43–45].
Nineteen percent of articles recommend clear guidelines or approaches for evaluating current programs, with the goal of improving how local knowledge (i.e., knowledge developed in a particular local community or place) is incorporated within them (Category 8). These include specific frameworks or techniques for assessing either existing operations or research methods. This strategy category reflects a perspective, held by many researchers, that local knowledge and skills are often not adequately incorporated into programs, resulting in poor and misguided practices that do not address local needs and vulnerabilities [46]. Research studies in our sample that fit into this category also suggest that closely and systematically scrutinising existing program-shortcomings (as it pertains to layers of local knowledge and social vulnerability) is a prerequisite for improving community resilience. These studies also indicate an understanding amongst some researchers that a failure to examine and address these embedded research norms and practices, will add to self-perpetuating cycles of low social resilience [47].
In our analysis, 31% of the papers provide strategies for improving data collection, data analysis, and the visualisation of results to support social resilience building (Category 9). This reflects acknowledgement within many articles that a) there is a need for data collection to take into account the changing nature of hazards due to climate change, and b) many marginalised groups are not represented in the current data because these populations have systematically been excluded in historical research efforts. There is also a recurring call in these articles for the results of data analysis to be made more readily available and/or represented in more understandable and accessible ways to enhance both public research engagements and eventual social resilience outcomes. Amongst these articles, there appears to be an understanding that many academic studies and government reports are difficult to access or apply in everyday contexts.
Given that climate-related hazards impact not just people but also the environmental systems within which they live and often depend, we had expected more papers would provide strategies focusing on how to improve Social-Ecological-System (SES) resilience. However, only 15% of our final set of articles focused on SES resilience, broadly defined (Category 10). This is explained, in large part, by our second round of analysis, which found that most SES-focused studies carefully described the complex and layered nature of social-ecological systems and associated vulnerabilities, while stopping short of providing tangible strategies.
Strategies for promoting financial and socioeconomic resilience were found in 29% of the articles (Category 11). These articles argue, either implicitly or explicitly, that access to resources and increased financial security can assist communities achieve higher levels of social resilience. However, it is important to emphasise here that strategies aiming to increase social resilience through financial security will be more effective when considered in the context of other layered and intersecting social characteristics, such as gender, disability, etc. [5]. On a general level, financial and socioeconomic resilience strategies are often premised on a widely held assumption that wealth in the form of money and resources greatly reduces social vulnerability to hazards at the individual, household and community level [48,49]. However, even affluent communities may be highly vulnerable due to a lack of local knowledge, social networks or other social characteristics [31]. Furthermore, strategies that build economic security through efforts such as micro-financing or government aid packages have historically created cycles of debt and dependency that can deepen social vulnerability over time [50–52]. Financial and socioeconomic resilience-based strategies may also ignore, or even undermine, existing social networks, local coping capacities, collaborative practices and local knowledge that less wealthy communities have developed over time to deal with hardship, including those linked to climate-related hazards [53–55].
Conclusion
The results of our scoping review underscore the diverse and valuable insights that are developed when working in-place with at-risk communities to understand the consequences of climate-related hazards. They stress how positive, actionable, and evidence-based steps towards social resilience can empower communities, policymakers, governments, industry and international organisations alike. For this reason, it is striking that of the initial 647 articles resulting from a search that was carefully crafted to elicit studies that focus on aspects of social or community resilience to climate-related hazards, only 266 engaged directly in their research methods with place- or community-based groups or individuals. It is furthermore striking that of these 266 articles, only 140 provide critical strategies that are detailed enough that they can be used to inform, guide or enable people to respond to climate-related hazards from a social resilience point of view. Consequently, a recommendation from our review is that both researchers and journal editors should strive towards strategies that are more tailored, and thus more locally beneficial and equitable, so that published research can be applied in place-specific contexts and by a diverse range of people. This requires that researchers start by asking: “what do communities need to increase social resilience and adapt to climate-related hazards?”, “how can research be designed to support these needs?”, and “in what format do research results become accessible, applicable, tangible, sustainable and empowering?”.
Another conclusion from our review is how research that provides detailed understandings of what it means to be at-risk is better able to contextualise grounded, diverse and individualized experiences and drivers of coping capacity than studies purely aiming to identify and index at-risk populations according to predefined categories of vulnerability. For this reason, it is important to highlight the difference between measuring social vulnerability and actually assessing the attributes and experiences of social risks and resilience. We appreciate that studies generating findings (e.g., social vulnerability indices) or analytical approaches (e.g., risk models) related to community resilience can, in their own way, and often indirectly, be used to assist various interest groups. However, most of the articles in our initial sample that developed or tested social vulnerability indices were excluded in our second round of analysis due to a one-sided focus on measuring levels of vulnerability, without providing any deeper level of engagement with the visceral qualities or everyday implications of being at-risk. As a consequence, they frequently fail to provide tangible and actionable strategies for how to eliminate enduring and self-perpetuating spirals of vulnerability. Another recommendation from our review is therefore to advocate for research outputs that better integrate index-type measurements of social vulnerability with practical assessments of social resilience that can inform place-based, community relevant, and policy compatible recommendations. This shift in focus will produce disaster risk reduction strategies that can mitigate the complex, socially-maintained structures and systemic social injustices, which heavily influence levels of social vulnerability and resilience [56–58].
Our own experience with place- and community-engaged research raised a curious set of final questions about the online mechanics of connecting academic and practitioner communities. Although our scoping review did not aim to be representative of all academic literature published on social resilience, as stated in the methodology section, we could not help but notice what our carefully chosen search criteria did not include, namely many relevant studies of our peers that we are familiar with, and even many of our own. What does it tell us that these publications, which do the type of work we are advocating for, were not picked up by our search? Does it point to an inconsistency in the terminology used in titles, abstracts and keywords in published literature? If so, are there strategies for responding to climate-related hazards available in published literature that people in-need will never find due to obscure language or inconsistent terminology? Or, does it point to a problem with ineffectual “matchmaking” algorithms in academic search engines? What might a scholarly search engine look like that caters to a community of practice and is linguistically consistent, easily searchable, and capable of aligning practitioner needs with research themes and outputs? We believe these and similar issues, like publisher paywalls, remain serious barriers to knowledge co-production, community engaged research, and the dissemination of strategies for responding to climate-related hazards.
References
- 1. Maguire B, Hagan P. Disasters and communities: understanding social resilience. Aust J Emerg Manag. 2007;22(2):16–20.
- 2.
UNDRR. Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction. Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. United Nations General Assembly; 2016. Available from: https://www.undrr.org/quick/11605
- 3. Berrang-Ford L, Siders A, Lesnikowski A, Fischer A, Callaghan M, Haddaway N. A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change. Nature Climate Change. 2021;11(11):989–1000.
- 4. Desai B, Bresch DN, Cazabat C, Hochrainer-Stigler S, Mechler R, Ponserre S, et al. Addressing the human cost in a changing climate. Science. 2021;372(6548):1284–7. pmid:34140380
- 5. Oliver-Smith A, Alcántara-Ayala I, Burton I, Lavell A. The social construction of disaster risk: Seeking root causes. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017;22:469–74.
- 6. Adger NW. Vulnerability. Global Environ Change. 2006;16(3):268–81.
- 7.
WHO. Mental Health and Climate Change: Policy Brief. World Health Organization; 2022.
- 8. Sou G. Reframing resilience as resistance: Situating disaster recovery within colonialism. Geographical Journal. 2021;188(1):14–27.
- 9.
Gaillard JC. The Invention of Disaster: Power and Knowledge in Discourses on Hazard and Vulnerability. Routledge; 2021.
- 10. Hügel S, Davies AR. Public participation, engagement, and climate change adaptation: a review of the research literature. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change. 2020;11(4):e645. pmid:35859618
- 11.
Smith LT. Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. 3rd ed. London: Zed Books, Bloomsbury Publishing; 2022.
- 12. Haverkamp J. Where’s the Love? Recentering Indigenous and Feminist Ethics of Care for Engaged Climate Research. Gateways. 2021;14(2):.
- 13.
Walsh E, Brown Wilson B. Learning from arnstein, meadows, boggs and lorde: propositions on building collective power for climate justice and resilience. In: Lauria M, Schively Slotterback C, editors. Learning from Arnstein’s Ladder: From Citizen Participation to Public Engagement. New York: Routledge; 2020.
- 14. Balazs CL, Morello-Frosch R. The three R’s: how community based participatory research strengthens the rigor, relevance and reach of science. Environmental Justice. 2013;6(1).
- 15. Gero A, Méheux K, Dominey-Howes D. Integrating community based disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: examples from the Pacific. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 2011;11(1):101–13.
- 16.
UNDRR. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction; 2015.
- 17.
IPCC. Sections. In: Core Writing Team, Lee H, Romero J, editors. Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC; 2023. p. 35–115. Available from: https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647
- 18. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143. pmid:30453902
- 19. Cutter SL, Emrich CT, Webb JJ, Morath D. Social vulnerability to climate variability hazards: A review of the literature. Final Report to Oxfam America. 2009;5:1–44.
- 20. Djalante R, Thomalla F. Community Resilience to Natural Hazards and Climate Change: A Review of Definitions and Operational Frameworks. Asian J Environ Disaster Management (AJEDM). 2011;03(03):339.
- 21. Saja AMA, Teo M, Goonetilleke A, Ziyath AM. A critical review of social resilience properties and pathways in disaster management. Int J Disaster Risk Sci. 2021;12(6):790–804.
- 22. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108. pmid:19490148
- 23. O’Grady N, Shaw D. Resilience, responsibility and state abandon: the changing role of the government in emergencies. Political Geography. 2023;100:102796.
- 24. Goldstein D, Kennedy EB. Mapping the ethical landscape of wildland fire management: setting an agendum for research and deliberation on the applied ethics of wildland fire. Int J Wildland Fire. 2022;31(10):911–7.
- 25. Whyte KP. Indigenous science (fiction) for the Anthropocene: Ancestral dystopias and fantasies of climate change crises. Environ Plann E Nat Space. 2018;1(1–2):224–42.
- 26. Brahinsky R, Sasser J, Minkoff-Zern L-A. Race, Space, and Nature: An Introduction and Critique. Antipode. 2014;46(5):1135–52.
- 27. Hawkins R, Ojeda D, Asher K, Baptiste B, Harris L, Mollett S, et al. A Discussion: Gender and environment: critical tradition and new challenges. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 2011;29(2):237–53.
- 28. Haworth BT, McKinnon S, Eriksen C. Advancing disaster geographies: From marginalisation to inclusion of gender and sexual minorities. Geography Compass. 2022;16(11):e12664.
- 29. Cundill G, Singh C, Adger WN, Safra de Campos R, Vincent K, Tebboth M, et al. Toward a climate mobilities research agenda: Intersectionality, immobility, and policy responses. Global Environmental Change. 2021;69102315.
- 30.
Fothergill A, Peek L. Children of Katrina. Austin: University of Texas Press; 2015.
- 31. Eriksen C, Simon G. The Affluence–Vulnerability Interface: Intersecting scales of risk, privilege and disaster. Environ Plan A. 2016;49(2):293–313.
- 32. Kiyimba N, O’Reilly M. The risk of secondary traumatic stress in the qualitative transcription process: a research note. Qualitative Research. 2015;16(4):468–76.
- 33. Reed SJ, Miller RL, Nnawulezi N, Valenti MT. Erecting closets and outing ourselves: uncomfortable reflexivity and community‐based research. J Community Psychol. 2011;40(1):11–26.
- 34.
Behar R. The vulnerable observer: anthropology that breaks your heart. Boston: Beacon Press; 1996.
- 35. Eriksen C, Simon GL, Roth F, Lakhina SJ, Wisner B, Adler C, et al. Rethinking the interplay between affluence and vulnerability to aid climate change adaptive capacity. Clim Change. 2020;162(1):25–39. pmid:33184523
- 36.
Klein N. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York: Picador; 2008.
- 37. Oliver K, Boaz A. Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations. Palgrave Commun. 2019;5(1):60.
- 38.
Nader L. Up the anthropologist—Perspectives gained from studying up. In: Hymes D, editor. Reinventing anthropology. New York: Vintage Books; 1974. p. 284–311.
- 39. Sultana F. Critical climate justice. Geographical J. 2021;188(1):118–24.
- 40.
Krüger F, Bankoff G, Cannon T, Orlowski B, Schipper ELF, editors. Cultures and Disasters: Understanding Cultural Framings in Disaster Risk Reduction. London and New York: Routledge; 2015.
- 41. Scolobig A, Prior T, Schröter D, Jörin J, Patt A. Towards people-centred approaches for effective disaster risk management: Balancing rhetoric with reality. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction. 2015;12202–12.
- 42. Gaillard JC, Mercer J. From knowledge to action. Progress in Human Geography. 2012;37(1):93–114.
- 43. Otero I, Castellnou M, González I, Arilla E, Castell L, Castellví J, et al. Democratizing wildfire strategies. Do you realize what it means? Insights from a participatory process in the Montseny region (Catalonia, Spain). PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0204806. pmid:30325926
- 44. Aldrich D, Meyer M. Social capital and community resilience. Am Behav Sci. 2015;59(2):254–69.
- 45. Prior T, Eriksen C. Wildfire preparedness, community cohesion and social–ecological systems. Global Environ Change. 2013;23(6):1575–86.
- 46.
Kemmis S, McTaggart R, Nixon R. The Action Research Planner: Doing Critical Participatory Action Research. Singapore: Springer; 2014.
- 47. Rumbach A, Makarewicz C, Németh J. The importance of place in early disaster recovery: a case study of the 2013 Colorado floods. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 2016;59(11):2045–63.
- 48. Wood E, Sanders M, Frazier T. The practical use of social vulnerability indicators in disaster management. Int J Disaster Risk Reduction. 2021;63102464.
- 49. Davis M. The case for letting Malibu burn. Capitalism Nature Socialism. 1995;6(1):1–36.
- 50.
Lustgarten A, Larsen E. The Barbados Rebellion. The New York Times Magazine; 27 July 2022.
- 51.
Navarro R. Climate Finance and Neo-colonialism: Exposing Hidden Dynamics. In: Cash C, Swatuk LA, editors. The Political Economy of Climate Finance: Lessons from International Development. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 179–203.
- 52.
Klein N. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York: Picador; 2008.
- 53. von Meding J, Prevatt D, Chmutina K. Risk rooted in colonial era weighs on Bahamas’ efforts to rebuild after Hurricane Dorian. The Conversation. 2019.
- 54.
Mika K. Disasters, Vulnerability, and Narratives: Writing Haiti’s Futures. Routledge; 2018.
- 55. Veland S, Howitt R, Dominey-Howes D, Thomalla F, Houston D. Procedural vulnerability: Understanding environmental change in a remote indigenous community. Global Environmental Change. 2013;23(1):314–26.
- 56. von Meding J, Chmutina K. From labelling weakness to liberatory praxis: a new theory of vulnerability for disaster studies. Disaster Prev Manag Int J. 2023;32(2):364–78.
- 57. Raju E, Boyd E, Otto F. Stop blaming the climate for disasters. Commun Earth Environ. 2022;3(1):1.
- 58. Chmutina K, von Meding J. A Dilemma of language: “Natural Disasters” in academic literature. Int J Disaster Risk Sci. 2019;10(3):283–92.