Review article: Exploring methods capturing vulnerability dynamics in the context of flood hazard research (original) (raw)

Julius Schlumberger, Tristian R. Stolte, Helena M. Garcia, Antonia Sebastian, Wiebke Jäger, Philip J. Ward, Marleen C. de Ruiter, Robert Šakić Trogrlić, Annegien Tijssen, and Mariana Madruga de Brito

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.

Received: 14 Dec 2025

–

Discussion started: 08 Jan 2026

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.

Julius Schlumberger, Tristian R. Stolte, Helena M. Garcia, Antonia Sebastian, Wiebke Jäger, Philip J. Ward, Marleen C. de Ruiter, Robert Šakić Trogrlić, Annegien Tijssen, and Mariana Madruga de Brito

Status: final response (author comments only)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor |

: Report abuse

Julius Schlumberger, Tristian R. Stolte, Helena M. Garcia, Antonia Sebastian, Wiebke Jäger, Philip J. Ward, Marleen C. de Ruiter, Robert Šakić Trogrlić, Annegien Tijssen, and Mariana Madruga de Brito

Julius Schlumberger, Tristian R. Stolte, Helena M. Garcia, Antonia Sebastian, Wiebke Jäger, Philip J. Ward, Marleen C. de Ruiter, Robert Šakić Trogrlić, Annegien Tijssen, and Mariana Madruga de Brito

Viewed

Total article views: 3,305 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
1,905 1,290 110 3,305 89 130

Views and downloads (calculated since 08 Jan 2026)

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 08 Jan 2026)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 3,323 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)Thereof 3,323 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Total: 0
HTML: 0
PDF: 0
XML: 0

Cited

3 citations as recorded by crossref.

  1. Aligning Governance, Investment, Land Use, and Climate Resilience in Energy Transition Regions: Evidence from the Resilience–Investment–Land Nexus S. Pavlidou et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/en19051287
  2. Reducing risk together: moving towards a more holistic approach to multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment and management P. Ward et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-26-1325-2026
  3. Flood Risk Assessment Considering the Spatial and Temporal Characteristics of Disaster-Causing Factors S. Xu et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073646

Latest update: 10 Jun 2026