Systematic review identifies human and socio-economic indicators for tsunami vulnerability assessment, suggesting improvements.
Preparations to minimize deaths and damage to coastal infrastructure, livelihoods, and resources have been realized by the entire country after the occurrence of several tsunami incidents. The scientific community at the international level is trying to develop and diversify methodologies for tsunami vulnerability assessment. Usually, the vulnerability of coastal communities is assessed based on reading previous literature, post-tsunami reports recorded in various places, and some are also based only on available data. Numerous studies have attempted to use various methods for vulnerability assessment focus on physical vulnerability assessment, but there is less research on socio-economic vulnerability assessment. Although many researchers who try to focus on the socio-economic aspect, but do not reach the level they should, especially on human indicators. Therefore, the aim of this research is to validate the indicators related to the human dimension based on previous studies and tsunami events that have occurred in different countries. The objective of this study is to summarize and assess the socio-economic indicators for tsunami vulnerability assessment and to scrutinize aspects of vulnerability that are less explored and can be improved based on previous findings. This review is the first to consolidate and validate human-focused socio-economic indicators for tsunami vulnerability assessment through a PRISMA-based systematic synthesis, providing a standardized classification of human indicators into four key dimensions which is exposure, warning capacity, evacuation and emergency capacity, and recovery capacity. This paper discusses the importance of these indicators based on previous research and suggests potential improvements for future studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Effendi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: