Starting with the end of the last century, vulnerability has gained traction as a predictable and modellable component in the risk equation. Today, its diverse interpretations and assessment frameworks reflect both the vitality of research in this area and the potential for confusion. This paper aims to enhance the understanding of vulnerability by reflecting on existing research and addressing its different nuances, ultimately guiding future vulnerability research. We provide a critical view on the evolution of vulnerability, tracing its shift from a static measure of an element's capacity to be harmed by hazards, to a multifaceted, dynamic concept. We explore various vulnerability definitions, cross-disciplinary approaches, models that integrate vulnerability, global patterns, and assessment tools. The drivers behind the shift of vulnerability from a static to a dynamic concept, together with the conceptual and operational frameworks necessary to achieve this transition, are also extensively discussed. This effort brings together snapshots of an ongoing and intricate approach to vulnerability and underscores the need for continued research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Armaș et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: