the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 08 Jan 2026
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.
Competing interests: The authors have the following competing interests: Antonia Sebastian, Marleen de Ruiter and Robert Šakić Trogrlić are editors of the Special Issue we are submitting this manuscript to. Also, Robert Šakić Trogrlić and Philip Ward are editors for NHESS.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(1508 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 19 Mar 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6132', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Feb 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6132', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Feb 2026
reply
This manuscript reviews 67 studies on capturing vulnerability dynamics in flood hazard research. While the topic is highly relevant and the classification of methods is useful, the manuscript requires significant methodological justification, better data visualization, and deeper synthesis before publication. So I suggest a major revision. The comments may helpful are as follows:
1. The authors are suggested to move Figure A1 from Appendix A to the main text. Add specific exclusion reasons at each step to improve methodological transparency.
2. The paper lacks an analysis of where and when these studies were conducted in Results section. Add charts showing publication years and geographic locations to address potential regional biases.
3. Lines 93-96: Vulnerability and exposure are often conflated in empirical studies. Include a conceptual diagram clearly delineating vulnerability, exposure, and hazard dynamics in this paper's specific context.
4. Tables 1 and 2 rely heavily on the sub-dimensions from Stolte et al. (2024). Discuss whether this specific framework perfectly fits all 67 reviewed papers or if any critical sub-dimensions had to be forced into ill-fitting categories.
5. The heatmap in Figure 2 is overly dense and difficult to read. Split this figure or use network/chord diagrams to better illustrate the connections between methods, foci, and data sources.
6. Lines 506-509: The Discussion rightly notes that most studies focus on correlation rather than causal mechanisms. Propose a conceptual framework or a set of guidelines for researchers to move toward causal inference.
7. The Conclusion recommends combining methods, such as linking statistical trends to simulation models. Provide 1-2 concrete examples or hypothetical scenarios demonstrating how this works in practice.
8. Section 4.1 highlights the lack of calibration data for curve-based approaches. Discuss how emerging global disaster loss databases or crowdsourcing could address this gap.
9. Section 4.2 notes data scarcity for parameterizing Agent-Based Models. Briefly explore using behavioral economics surveys or social media data to build more objective agent rules.
10. Standardize terms like "vulnerability change," "vulnerability shifts," and "dynamic vulnerability" early in the introduction to avoid confusion.
11. Section 6 is too narrative. Add 3-5 concise bullet points highlighting the "Key Takeaways" for practitioners.
12. Ensure all references and in-text citations strictly adhere to the journal's formatting guidelines.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6132-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 261 | 140 | 16 | 417 | 14 | 18 |
- HTML: 261
- PDF: 140
- XML: 16
- Total: 417
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
本文探討了一個重要且迫切的議題：洪水風險評估中動態脆弱性的方法論處理。文章對67篇研究進行了系統性的綜合分析，並提出了一個有用的方法分類系統。此議題對於推動風險研究超越靜態概念化具有重要意義。然而，在本文充分發揮其潛力並正式發表之前，仍有一些方面需要進一步闡明和完善。以下列出一些建議：