Review article: Exploring methods capturing vulnerability dynamics in the context of flood hazard research

Abstract. Flood vulnerability is highly dynamic, shaped by evolving social, economic, physical, and environmental conditions. Yet, most flood risk assessments still treat vulnerability as static, overlooking how these characteristics evolve and interact with one another. Here, we investigate how dynamic vulnerability in the context of flood risk is considered in 67 studies that use (a) indicator-based, (b) curve-based, (c) dynamic simulation models, (d) qualitative analysis, or (e) statistical analysis of sub-dimensions of vulnerability. Specifically, we examine the conceptual focus (ex-post, during the event, ex-ante), the type of dynamics (event-related, underlying, or complexity-caused), the dimensions of vulnerability captured, and the sources of data used. We find that curve-based approaches were used to address all types of dynamics and conceptual foci, but often in connection with quantitative impact modelling. Dynamic simulation models offered the richest representations of dynamics due to behavioural and systemic complexity but required significant data and computational resources, and faced challenges of model calibration and validation. Indicator-based approaches were effective in capturing underlying socio-economic and environmental changes, though often at coarse temporal resolution. Qualitative methods provided deep insights into the processes and contexts shaping vulnerability. Statistical analyses overlapped conceptually with indicator approaches but tended to focus more narrowly on event-related processes and specific sub-dimensions of vulnerability. Based on our review, we identify three priorities for advancing dynamic flood vulnerability research: leveraging scenarios to explore future change, improving causal inference, and improving data availability and resolution. Additionally, we encourage the flood risk research community to look to other hazard communities or research disciplines that work on systemic or dynamic processes, which might offer inspiration or novel approaches to assessing flood vulnerability dynamics.