| Popis: |
Vulnerability of places to natural hazards is a widely used concept with numerous definitions, yet not directly measurable. To operationalize this “latent variable”, a broad range of studies offers quantitative approaches through indexes. Their often-disclaimed aim is to be used as a planning decision-making tools by stakeholders, increasing areas’ adaptation capacities against natural hazards and climate change. Yet, there is stern contrast between indexes methodology developed in scientific publications and their actual impact in vulnerability reduction policies. This exploratory review uses a mixed approach to offer insights in methodological choices among the wide array of different practices. Based on an analysis grid, publications were tested statistically against a sample considered to be representative. Results were then crossed with qualitative analysis. It appears that i) despite the wording in fair share of abstracts, few publications actually set the creation of operational decision-making tool for stakeholders as their goal ; ii) applied indexes or those creating interest among stakeholders are focused in developed countries’ urban areas ; iii) potential end-users participation during indexes’ construction isn’t a necessary requirement to be seen as relevant by them, but does facilitate it in several ways ; iv) no specific methodological choice has systematic impact on an index’ relevance, which depends from the study’s and application area’s context ; v) mapping visualization is, a priori, the sole necessary requirement, which emphasizes the importance of communication between research team and planners. |
