TY - JOUR
T1 - Spinning in circles? A systematic review on the role of theory in social vulnerability, resilience and adaptation research
AU - Kuhlicke, Christian
AU - Madruga de Brito, Mariana
AU - Bartkowski, Bartosz
AU - Botzen, Wouter
AU - Doğulu, Canay
AU - Han, Sungju
AU - Hudson, Paul
AU - Nuray Karanci, Ayse
AU - Klassert, Christian J.
AU - Otto, Danny
AU - Scolobig, Anna
AU - Moreno Soares, Thais
AU - Rufat, Samuel
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023
PY - 2023/5/1
Y1 - 2023/5/1
N2 - An increasing number of publications focus on social vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation (SVRA) towards natural hazards and climate change. Despite this proliferation of research, a systematic understanding of how these studies are theoretically grounded is lacking. Here, we systematically reviewed 4432 articles that address SVRA in various disciplinary fields (e.g. psychology, sociology, geography, mathematics) for various hazards, including floods, droughts, landslides, storm surges, wildfires, tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcano eruptions. We focus on the extent to which these studies explicate the frameworks, theoretical constructs or theories they rely on. Surprisingly, we found that about 90% of the reviewed studies do not explicitly refer to a theoretical underpinning. Overall, theories focusing on individuals’ SVRA were more frequently used than those focusing on systems, society, groups, and networks. Moreover, the uptake of theories varied according to the hazard investigated and field of knowledge, being more frequent in wildfire and flood studies and articles published in social science journals. Based on our analysis, we propose a reflexive handling of theories to foster more transparent, comparable, and robust empirical research on SVRA.
AB - An increasing number of publications focus on social vulnerability, resilience, and adaptation (SVRA) towards natural hazards and climate change. Despite this proliferation of research, a systematic understanding of how these studies are theoretically grounded is lacking. Here, we systematically reviewed 4432 articles that address SVRA in various disciplinary fields (e.g. psychology, sociology, geography, mathematics) for various hazards, including floods, droughts, landslides, storm surges, wildfires, tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcano eruptions. We focus on the extent to which these studies explicate the frameworks, theoretical constructs or theories they rely on. Surprisingly, we found that about 90% of the reviewed studies do not explicitly refer to a theoretical underpinning. Overall, theories focusing on individuals’ SVRA were more frequently used than those focusing on systems, society, groups, and networks. Moreover, the uptake of theories varied according to the hazard investigated and field of knowledge, being more frequent in wildfire and flood studies and articles published in social science journals. Based on our analysis, we propose a reflexive handling of theories to foster more transparent, comparable, and robust empirical research on SVRA.
KW - Adaptive behaviour
KW - Coping
KW - Deductive research
KW - Inductive research
KW - Natural hazards
KW - Preparedness
KW - Theorising
U2 - 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102672
DO - 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102672
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85153796638
SN - 0959-3780
VL - 80
JO - Global Environmental Change
JF - Global Environmental Change
M1 - 102672
ER -