No abstract

In the mid‐2000s, several highly‐cited papers called for improving conceptual coherence and methodological transparency in vulnerability research to support greater policy relevance. As reducing vulnerability rises on political agendas, identifying empirically validated measures will become increasingly important in the design and evaluation of multi‐site and multi‐scale programmatic interventions. Using a systematic review methodology, we analyze the current range of conceptual frameworks, operationalizations and research methodologies as used in empirical studies of local‐level vulnerability in agricultural settings. Detailed analysis of theories and methods provides a platform for moving toward reporting that supports valid comparisons between disparate studies. This in turn, enables the design and implementation of empirically‐informed programmatic interventions. The results show that earlier concerns remain relevant. Even the best reported cases do not support aggregated analysis because conceptual ambiguity and methodological heterogeneity renders each study effectively unique. While conceptualization is broadly consolidating around the IPCC framework, declaration of that framework does not predict consistent operationalization. Furthermore, emerging alternative frameworks, especially Vulnerability as Expected Poverty, reveal important limitations of the IPCC framework. Findings also highlight that reporting practices in vulnerability research perpetuate problematic ambiguity. When designing and reporting research, we recommend addressing six key questions that can help specify the objectives of the study: (1) Is this system vulnerable? (2) To what is this system vulnerable? (3) How vulnerable is this system? (4)What is causing this system to be vulnerable? (5) How is vulnerability distributed within the system? (6) What is causing the observed distribution of vulnerability within the system? WIREs Clim Change 2017, 8:e464. doi: 10.1002/wcc.464 This article is categorized under: Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Learning from Cases and Analogies

No abstract

Since the early work on defining and analyzing resilience in domains such as engineering, ecology and psychology, the concept has gained significant traction in many fields of research and practice. It has also become a very powerful justification for various policy goals in the water sector, evident in terms like flood resilience, river resilience, and water resilience. At the same time, a substantial body of literature has developed that questions the resilience concept's systems ontology, natural science roots and alleged conservatism, and criticizes resilience thinking for not addressing power issues. In this study, we review these critiques with the aim to develop a framework for power‐sensitive resilience analysis. We build on the three faces of power to conceptualize the power to define resilience. We structure our discussion of the relevant literature into five questions that need to be reflected upon when applying the resilience concept to social–hydrological systems. These questions address: (a) resilience of what, (b) resilience at what scale, (c) resilience to what, (d) resilience for what purpose, and (e) resilience for whom; and the implications of the political choices involved in defining these parameters for resilience building or analysis. Explicitly considering these questions enables making political choices explicit in order to support negotiation or contestation on how resilience is defined and used. This article is categorized under: Human Water > Water Governance. Engineering Water > Planning Water.

No abstract

A conceptual framework was constructed for United Nations' complex Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Target 4.7 focusing on education for sustainable development (ESD), and used to analyse the usefulness and character of indicators produced from a values-based approach called ESDinds, compared to a UN process. The analysis shows that the latter generated very few indicators concerning the wider aspects of knowledge such as 'critical thinking' or 'learning to learn'. The values-based approach, created for a different purpose, produced complementary if not better coverage of Target 4.7, including finely-developed concepts for competencies and less tangible aspects. It is suggested that the UN process would benefit from ESDinds design elements such as intersubjective and slightly disruptive elements, purposeful contextualisation at group level, and a holistic and inductive consideration of values. The use of a reference 'fuzzy framework' of slightly generalised proto-indicators suited for deep contextualisation locally is recommended, rather than any rigid global-level indicator with unclear local value. It is recommended that ESD practitioners immediately develop localised interpretations of valid measures for whatever final Target 4.7 indicator is selected by the UN, as this localisation process will itself cause important learning towards local ESD achievements.

No abstract

Despite recognition that database search alone is inadequate even within the health sciences, it appears that reviewers in fields that have adopted systematic review are choosing to rely primarily, or only, on database search for information retrieval. This commentary reminds readers of factors that call into question the appropriateness of default reliance on database searches particularly as systematic review is adapted for use in new and lower consensus fields. It then discusses alternative methods for information retrieval that require development, formalisation, and evaluation. Our goals are to encourage reviewers to reflect critically and transparently on their choice of information retrieval methods and to encourage investment in research on alternatives.