Communities worldwide are experiencing increasingly severe impacts of flood, drought, rising atmospheric temperature and sea levels, compounded by threats of war, food scarcity, epidemics, and political upheaval, to name but a few. Vulnerability is a core notion in research and discourses of natural hazards, disaster risk, climate change adaptation, sustainability and environmental justice. Its understanding is pivotal to assess, reduce, anticipate, and adapt to adverse consequences of risks to socio-political, socio-economic and social-ecological systems. However vulnerability, both in its definition, semantics and experience, remains a blurred, often contested concept, and its discontinuous application across a multitude of fields has resulted in information silos and a prevailing lack of ontological clarity, which hinders the inter- and transdisciplinary research into risk communication and reduction. This paper contributes to the discussions on vulnerability by exposing, through an ontological and critical lens, a series of challenges focussing specifically on application to climate change, disaster risk and, more broadly, social-ecological systems research. These challenges encompass foundational, “wicked,” and delicate topics, more specifically: (i) intrinsic and extrinsic vulnerabilities, (ii) multi-dimensional manifestations of vulnerability and its complex and dynamic, spatio-temporal aspects, and (iii) the relationship between vulnerability and resilience. In the concluding remarks, we summarise the most salient issues in the form of preliminary suggestions organised in a checklist to assist the tasks of defining, representing, and evaluating climate change and disaster risk vulnerability concept.
The theoretical and practical relevance of the notion of vulnerability [
Semantic resources, such as ontologies, that include the notion of vulnerability can be found in cybersecurity and security engineering research (e.g. [5]), yet there is an overall lack of formalisation of the concept, in particular when situated within socio-ecological complexity of Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) fields. This semantic and ontological deficit results in blurred and approximate conceptualisations of vulnerability, and incomplete and imprecise understandings. This paper advances a discussion on several prominent challenges to the ontological formalisation and representation of climate change and disaster risk vulnerability, drawn from an interdisciplinary literature that encompasses ontological, observational, and critical dimensions, which include (i) the application of dispositional pluralism to vulnerability, (ii) its multi-dimensionality and dynamic complexities, and (iii) the contested relationships between vulnerability and another semantically fuzzy concept, resilience. Our analysis extends beyond highlighting ontological and modelling problems of vulnerability to provide possible fixes and initial suggestions for researchers and professionals working with knowledge engineering, ontologies, and conceptual models to () develop conceptualisations of climate change and disaster risk vulnerability and () evaluate extant artifacts.
The paper is organised as follows: Section 2 outlines relevant background on vulnerability, including a review of semantic and ontological resources; Section 3 elaborates the identified challenges around the notion of vulnerability; and Section 4 concludes the paper, including a recommendation checklist that summarises the points discussed in Section 3.
The multidisciplinary grounds from which the notion of vulnerability emerged has led to
diferent terminologies, definitions, approaches, and perspectives in practice. It can potentially
be advantageous to have such a wide variety of interpretations and assessments, as well as
disadvantageous due to the disciplinary compartmentalization and fuzzy meaning(s) [
Joakim et al. identify four diferent interpretations of vulnerability [ 10]: (i) as a threshold, a probability that a person, community and system will incur harm if the impact exceeds a certain level, as (ii) the exposure to harmful events, wherein physical hazards or disasters impact passive people and systems, as (iii) a pre-existing condition which is expressed during impactful events, or over the longer course of unfolding processes, wherein inherent capacities to resist and/or recover are hindered, and (iv) as an outcome, the result of impacts that remain after an adaptation. While definition (iii) may seem more broadly interdisciplinary and useful for disaster and climate change research, Eakin and Luers [4] stress that the diferent conceptualisations of vulnerability are complementary, each important to building a more complete understanding of the concept’s complexity.
The CCA and DRR research communities are concerned with the same risk-related notions of vulnerability, impacts, and uncertainty, among others [11], and have similar goals, i.e. to reduce vulnerability and adverse impacts [12], despite each having more specific disciplinary directions. CCA focuses on adjusting systems and practices to long-term climate change impacts, while DRR aims to minimize damage from short- to medium-term natural hazards and disasters.2 Those communities - linked to large institutional bodies, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Ofice for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) - propose agreements, frameworks, reports, and field-related vocabularies in support of the syntheses, actualisation, operationalisation, and shared understanding of risk and hazards concepts. As mentioned in Cian et al. [13], the IPCC with its Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) [14] began a process of harmonisation of definitions and conceptualisation among communities, an efort 1Note that other labels have been assigned to those “schools,” as reported in [6]. 2For discussion of similarities, diferences and historical development of CCA and DRR approaches see [11, 12].
The potential occurrence of a natural or human-induced physical event or trend that may cause loss of life, injury, or other health impacts, as well as damage and loss to property, infrastructure, livelihoods, service provision, ecosystems and environmental resources.
The presence of people; livelihoods; species
or ecosystems; environmental functions,
services, and resources; infrastructure; or
economic, social, or cultural assets in places
and settings that could be adversely afected.
[Adaptive capacity] The ability of systems,
institutions, humans and other organisms
to adjust to potential damage, to take
advantage of opportunities or to respond to
consequences [20].
[Coping capacity] The ability of people,
institutions, organisations and systems, using
available skills, values, beliefs, resources,
and opportunities, to address, manage and
overcome adverse conditions in the short to
medium term [
UNDRR Glossary & Sendai [16] The conditions determined by physical, social, economic and environmental factors or processes which increase the susceptibility of an individual, a community, assets or systems to the impacts of hazards [16]. Vulnerability is the human dimension of disasters and is the result of the range of economic, social, cultural, institutional, political and psychological factors that shape people’s lives and the environment that they live in.
A process, phenomenon or human activity that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation [16].
The situation of people, infrastructure, housing,
production capacities and other tangible human
assets located in hazard-prone areas [16].
[Capacity] The combination of all the strengths,
attributes and resources available within an
organization, community or society to manage and reduce
disaster risks and strengthen resilience.
[Capacity] The combination of all the strengths,
attributes and resources available within an
organization, community or society to manage and reduce
disaster risks and strengthen resilience.
that continues with the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) [15]. In this setting vulnerability is
defined as “The propensity or predisposition to be adversely afected, [...]” (see IPCC Glossary)
which corresponds to similar definitions proposed in the disaster risk literature, such as the
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction [16]. Note that identifying the “vulnerability of
whom” and “the vulnerability to what hazard” are pivotal in these frameworks.
is conceived as a propensity, predisposition, condition (without being too specific on what
those entities are), linked to multi-dimensional factors [17], e.g. physical and social, that
might lead to negative impacts. Vulnerability has since been further specified to include
internal/physical and external/contextual dimensions [
Several existing ontologies developed for (cyber)security and information systems (e.g. [
Those findable and accessible ontologies that include vulnerability as a class do not constitute
an extensive list, indeed many of those resources are lacking precision in terms of ontological
grounding of vulnerability. Only (4) ontologies were found that specify its superclass beyond the
generic “Thing;” these categorise vulnerability as a “Relational quality,” “Observable property,” or
“Disposition,” i.e. “Mode.” Note that two semantic sources in the list, COVER (Common Ontology
of Value and Risk) and ResiliOnt (Resilience Core Ontology), are both based on the same
toplevel ontology, the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO) [
The climate change and disaster risk literatures, and those of ontology and philosophy agree to
large extent on the (pre)dispositional, qualitative, nature of vulnerability. From a philosophical
point of view, vulnerability has often been conceived as a disposition (see Section 2.2), a widely
discussed notion (see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [
The scope of this work is not to elucidate on dispositions, as has previously been accomplished
in-depth, for example in BFO as realisable entities [
The analytical philosophy literature often describes and formalises dispositions as intrinsic
properties, the so-called Intrinsic Dispositions Thesis [39, 40, 41]. Yet many types of dispositions,
when subjected to scrutiny, can be considered extrinsic, such as recognisability, vulnerability,
and even weight [
Ontological proposals on pluralistic, causal, and extrinsic accounts of dispositions already
exist [
The discussion on intrinsic and extrinsic vulnerability overlaps with the challenge of its
multidimensionality, also mentioned in Füssel [
Similarly to analyses of multiple hazards, aggregate and compound risks [17], each of the aforementioned classes must be considered to provide a more holistic and interconnected understanding of vulnerability as one hazard might invoke vulnerabilities within several of those dimensions. For example, the impacts of a heatwave on a community can be assessed based on physical aspects of vulnerability, such as the frailty of aged individuals having greater susceptibility to heatstroke, and environmental aspects, such as with the presence/absence 3Consider that the notion of manifestation under certain circumstances is orthogonal to the intrinsic and extrinsic distinction as both types of dispositions/vulnerabilities can be manifested or not. of green spaces in their communities, on economic aspects, regarding the afordability and availability of air conditioning, and social aspects, for example the presence of family members to attend to elderly populations. Schneiderbauer et al. [17] and Thomas et al. [9] add further specialisations of vulnerability, such as: (5) Institutional/governance and (6) Cultural vulnerabilities. Institutional/governance vulnerability manifests for instance in the lack of appropriate action before, during and after a disaster. Cultural foci of vulnerability, can include the loss of cultural heritage, e.g. the destruction of historical sites due to armed conflict. These additional classes enrich the taxonomic structure of vulnerability as a system of categories, and provide further explanations and grounding, yet remain fraught with ontological challenges. Several of these classes (economic, social, institutional/governance and cultural) overlap without further specification. Therefore the incorporation of a vulnerability classification requires more sophisticated distinctions capturing fine-grained properties of social ontology [ 42], e.g. agency, intentionality, organisations, gender, money, norms, and so on. Another challenge regards source-target labelling of classes: while some are named after the afected sector (e.g. cultural), others are named after the afecting sector, i.e. the origin of the harm (e.g. institutional).
In addition to multi-dimensionality, vulnerabilities present complex spatio-temporal dynamics. Inspired by the framing in [43], we outline complex vulnerabilities interacting (see Figure 1) as (a) Aggregate: multiple independent vulnerabilities to a single or multiple hazards can manifest simultaneously, e.g. a coastal island community’s concurrent vulnerabilities to inundation from storm surge and flooding due to heavy precipitation during a hurricane; (b) Compound vulnerability: multiple interacting (not necessarily causal-like) vulnerabilities are exacerbated by a single, or multiple hazards, to increase negative impacts, e.g. environmental degradation compounded by social inequalities, economic instability as well as institutional weaknesses. (c) Cascading: a larger chain of interrelated, interacting vulnerabilities propagating disruption across interconnected systems, e.g. vulnerability to inundation from storm surge, resulting overflow of sewage treatment plants, leads to e. coli contamination of drinking- and coastal zone water with consequent public health crisis. Additionally vulnerabilities are subject to (d) Time evolution: change over time and can (e) Shift: passing between one entity and another due to maladaptation [44], e.g. installation of coastal protection at a harbour shifts vulnerability of coastal erosion to local beaches. The situation becomes more complicated when focussed on multi-risk, i.e. multiple hazards, exposures, and vulnerabilities, wherein vulnerabilities could increase over time and afect diferent entities, e.g. people, ecosystems, infrastructures [ 45, 43].
Representing these complex dynamics of vulnerability with ontologies requires a theory of dispositional vulnerability, both intrinsically and extrinsically grounded and explicitly aware of the type/token distinction, that in the very least () formalises its relations with hazards, considered as perdurants/occurrents [46], e.g. processes and events, also in complex forms such as one to many and many to many, () captures changes in objects manifesting vulnerabilities while ofering explanations 4 for those changes, also considering how complex vulnerabilities influence each other, and categorical properties that influence vulnerabilities; and ( ) provides a dedicated account for the aggregation and composition of vulnerabilities (i.e. mereology). Additionally, important aspects such a theory must encapsulate concern () the modelling of future perdurants/occurrents and vulnerabilities to capture evolutions over time and () uncertainty associated with complex vulnerability.
In applied ontology there are eforts in these directions, yet often not all at once and not all specific for dispositions. E.g. Toyoshima and Barton [ 47] explore the identity of processes and outline types of changes under the BFO perspective, i.e. changes as processes, also following a dispositional account. Another proposal advanced in Guarino et al. [48], while not including dispositions, presents an extensive ontological and semantic theory of qualitative changes in relation to events. Several articles of Galton and co-authors contribute to the understanding of temporal entities, e.g. [49] elucidates the causal relations among processes, states and events, and [49] examines the ontological dependence between objects and processes, also investigating the notion of change. Barton et al. [50] instead present a taxonomy of mereological relations for dispositions, including chain triggers. Specifically relevant to the ontological vulnerability discourse is the work of Lombard [51] that delves into the distinction between non-relational and relational changes, the latter sometimes called Cambridge changes, as it extends the reflections on intrinsic and extrinsic vulnerability and its multi-dimensionality by explaining how an entity can change because being in relation with another entity .5 Using the example of Lombard, Xantippe became a widow due to the death of Socrates, and considering a more domain appropriate example, an household become food insecure due to a change in family composition. Concerning future and ongoing perdurants/occurrents, while an ontological analysis and formalisation of future events and processes is recognised as complicated, Guarino [52] provides a tensed characterisation of future events as variable embodiments. Finally, a first attempt to provide a COVER-based ontological unpacking of uncertainty in the climate change risk context is ofered in [ 46], in which uncertainty can be interpreted as (i) a meta-belief, (ii) an an emergent quality, and/or (iii) an external aspect of a situation.
Another recurrent theme in vulnerability literature is its description as an antonym of resilience [53]. This reflects initial engineering perspectives, which proposed that every system has an optimal balance of functioning, an equilibrium, and resilience is a property of the system to “bounce back” after an impactful event. Vulnerabilities are seen as flaws in a system which 4Here we refer to explanation as a complementary concept to the heavy debated notion of causation. 5Note that relational changes need not be associated only to extrinsic vulnerabilities and that changes for Lombard are events, a commitment that we report for completeness. allow hazards to make a negative impact and reduce its resilience. That an object may be either resilient or vulnerable may hold true for intentionally-designed entities (i.e. artefacts, both material and conceptual) for which redesign can potentially control or mitigate vulnerabilities. Fortifying dykes, for example, can reduce vulnerability to rising floodwaters, as redirecting a river can potentially render an urban area more resilient. However the engineering perspective can be insuficient to describe ecological and social systems [ 54], as the relationships between resilience and vulnerability are more nuanced [55, 10]. Additionally an entity can exhibit resilience while remaining vulnerable, as research on the livelihoods and well-being of people living in extreme poverty elaborates [54]. Sustainability and climate change sciences further diferentiate an ecological resilience [ 56] pertaining to complex adaptive systems, which diverges from the dichotomous vulnerability/resilience viewpoint. In this case “bouncing back” from an impact is not always possible (or desirable) and an ecological system may transform as a result of impacts beyond a certain threshold, and enter a new configuration with an altered state of equilibrium [56]. The drying of coastal wetland ecosystem manifests the vulnerability of mangrove plants, for example, to hydro-geologic or human impacts, yet its evolution into a coastal forest ecosystem supersedes the initial system’s vulnerabilities.
From a social-ecological systems perspective, Gallopín [57] advances that resilience could be interpreted as a capacity of response, i.e. a disposition, which is a component of vulnerability. This reflects on Wisner’s extensive analysis of vulnerability [ 58] that includes in the concept a dependence on capacities to anticipate, cope, resist and recover from impacts. While the latter three are capacities inherent in ecological systems, anticipation, and learning are aspects of socialor community resilience [59], which also diverge from the engineering concept of equilibrium. From an adaptation perspective, for a coastal population impacted by storm surges, responses to a hurricane typically aim to build resilience, not to return to an initial state of vulnerability. Wisner, following Nussbaum [60], distinguishes between capacities as intentional dispositions of agents to respond to hazards, and capabilities, the interaction between those dispositions and political, social and economic environments, reminiscent of the aforementioned intrinsic and extrinsic vulnerabilities. Thus capacities are influenced by factors beyond a single agent’s control, and it is relevant to distinguish between these aspects for vulnerability assessment.
Of formal ontologies that address resilience, the literature provides few examples. A
UFObased core ontology of resilience, ResiliOnt, has been proposed [
This paper discusses some prominent challenges in the ontological representation and formalisation of climate change- and disaster risk vulnerability, drawn from pertinent literature and linked to possible solutions, existent in the state of the art, yet not fully articulated in a comprehensive theory. Table 3 summarises the paper’s major points as an initial guiding checklist for evaluating semantic resources and developing ontologies, models and frameworks that address vulnerability. In demonstration, two resources included in Table 2, selected due to their domain-specificity and scope of application, are assessed. In (i) beWARE, only B and C are explicitly formalised, and partially F, which might be explained by that ontology’s strong focus on crisis management. In contrast, (ii) the Disaster Risk Properties Ontology (in the Table “DRPO”), a broader DRR ontology, captures C and G explicitly, while I, and several others are partially modelled (see ± symbol), e.g. in H, only [adaptive]capacities are considered. Note that G and I are included as data properties.
Suggestion A □ consider both intrinsic and extrinsic vulnerabilities B □ address multi-dimensional vulnerability C □ formalise vulnerabilities’ relations with hazards (perdurants/occurents) D □ capture changes in objects and manifestations of vulnerabilities E □ account for the aggregation and composition of vulnerabilities F □ model future perdurants/occurrents and vulnerabilities G □ explicitly address uncertainty related to vulnerability H □ distinguish between capacities and capabilities I □ model vulnerability (and resilience) as scalar, not “on/of” J □ diferentiate between vulnerabilities that can be reduced and not beWARE ✓ ✓ ±
DRPO ✓ ± ± ✓ ± ✓
Future works will continue evaluating the checklist with domain experts, and its application to assess the vulnerability concept in domain-specific semantic artefacts. Additional research directions can include the investigation of the emergence of vulnerability in relation to its triggering by and manifestation with other dispositions.
Acknowledgments. We gratefully acknowledge the support of EG2401 “Fondo sviluppo e nuovi progetti,” the Italian PNRR MUR project PE0000013-FAIR, Future Artificial Intelligence Research, and iNEST funded by the European Union Next-GenerationEU, ECS_00000043 (PNRR). Declaration on Generative AI. Grammarly was used for grammar and spell-check, text was reviewed and the authors take full responsibility for the written content. [3] C. G. Boone, Environmental justice, sustainability and vulnerability, International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 2 (2010) 135–140. [4] H. Eakin, A. L. Luers, Assessing the vulnerability of social-environmental systems, Annu.
Rev. Environ. Resour. 31 (2006) 365–394. [5] Í. Oliveira, T. P. Sales, R. Baratella, M. Fumagalli, G. Guizzardi, An ontology of security from a risk treatment perspective, in: International conference on conceptual modeling, Springer, 2022, pp. 365–379. [6] G. Hufschmidt, A comparative analysis of several vulnerability concepts, Natural hazards 58 (2011) 621–643. [7] R. W. Kates, The interaction of climate and society, Climate impact assessment 3 (1985) 3–36. [8] A. Sen, Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation, Oxford university press, 1982. [9] K. Thomas, R. D. Hardy, H. Lazrus, M. Mendez, B. Orlove, I. Rivera-Collazo, J. T. Roberts, M. Rockman, B. P. Warner, R. Winthrop, Explaining diferential vulnerability to climate change: A social science review, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 10 (2019) e565. [10] E. P. Joakim, L. Mortsch, G. Oulahen, Using vulnerability and resilience concepts to advance climate change adaptation, in: Environmental hazards and resilience, Routledge, 2021, pp. 13–31. [11] U. N. O. for Disaster Risk Reduction, Promoting Synergy and Alignment Between Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction in the Context of National Adaptation Plans: A Supplement to the UNFCCC NAP Technical Guidelines, Technical Report, 2021. [12] E. L. F. Schipper, Meeting at the crossroads?: Exploring the linkages between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, Climate and Development 1 (2009) 16–30. [13] F. Cian, C. Giupponi, M. Marconcini, Integration of earth observation and census data for mapping a multi-temporal flood vulnerability index: A case study on northeast italy, Natural Hazards 106 (2021) 2163–2184. [14] IPCC, Special report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation (srex). a special report of working groups i and ii of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (2012). [15] H. Lee, K. Calvin, D. Dasgupta, G. Krinmer, A. Mukherji, P. Thorne, C. Trisos, J. Romero, P. Aldunce, K. Barret, et al., Synthesis report of the ipcc sixth assessment report (ar6), longer report. ipcc. (2023). [16] Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015-2030 (2015) 24 p. [17] S. Schneiderbauer, E. Calliari, U. Eidsvig, M. Hagenlocher, The most recent view of vulnerability, Joint Research Centre (European Commission), 2017. [18] J. Birkmann, A. Jamshed, J. M. McMillan, D. Feldmeyer, E. Totin, W. Solecki, Z. Z. Ibrahim, D. Roberts, R. B. Kerr, H.-O. Poertner, et al., Understanding human vulnerability to climate change: A global perspective on index validation for adaptation planning, Science of the Total Environment 803 (2022) 150065. [19] R. C. Estoque, A. Ishtiaque, J. Parajuli, D. Athukorala, Y. W. Rabby, M. Ooba, Has the ipcc’s revised vulnerability concept been well adopted?, Ambio 52 (2023) 376–389. [20] M. E. Assessment, Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends: findings [39] J. McKitrick, Dispositional pluralism, Oxford University Press, 2018. [40] J. McKitrick, A case for extrinsic dispositions, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81 (2003) 155–174. [41] G. Contessa, Do extrinsic dispositions need extrinsic causal bases?, Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research 84 (2012) 622–638. [42] B. Epstein, Social Ontology, in: E. N. Zalta, U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2024 ed., Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2024. [43] N. P. Simpson, K. J. Mach, A. Constable, J. Hess, R. Hogarth, M. Howden, J. Lawrence, R. J.
Lempert, V. Muccione, B. Mackey, et al., A framework for complex climate change risk assessment, One Earth 4 (2021) 489–501. [44] S. Juhola, E. Glaas, B.-O. Linnér, T.-S. Neset, Redefining maladaptation, Environmental
Science & Policy 55 (2016) 135–140. [45] J. C. Gill, M. Duncan, R. Ciurean, L. Smale, D. Stuparu, J. Schlumberger, M. de Ruiter, T. Tiggeloven, S. Torresan, S. Gottardo, et al., D1. 2 handbook of multi-hazard, multi-risk definitions and concepts (2022). [46] G. Adamo, A. Sperotto, M. Fumagalli, A. Mosca, T. P. Sales, G. Guizzardi, Unpacking the semantics of risk in climate change discourses, in: FOIS 2024, volume 394 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, IOS Press, 2024, pp. 163–177. [47] F. Toyoshima, A. Barton, Two approaches to the identity of processes in bfo, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15689 (2023). [48] N. Guarino, R. Baratella, G. Guizzardi, Events, their names, and their synchronic structure,
Applied Ontology 17 (2022) 249–283. [49] A. Galton, States, processes and events, and the ontology of causal relations, in: Formal ontology in information systems, IOS Press, 2012, pp. 279–292. [50] A. Barton, L. Jansen, J.-F. Ethier, A taxonomy of disposition-parthood, in: JOWO 2017, volume 2050, CEUR-WS: Workshop proceedings, 2017, pp. 1–10. [51] L. B. Lombard, Relational change and relational changes, Philosophical studies: An international journal for philosophy in the analytic tradition 34 (1978) 63–79. [52] N. Guarino, On the semantics of ongoing and future occurrence identifiers, in: ER 2017,
Springer, 2017, pp. 477–490. [53] P. Martin-Breen, J. M. Anderies, Resilience: A literature review, 2011. [54] W. N. Adger, Vulnerability, Global environmental change 16 (2006) 268–281. [55] F. Berkes, Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking, Natural hazards 41 (2007) 283–295. [56] L. Barbara, Resilience and the shift of paradigm in ecology: a new name for an old concept or a diferent explanatory tool?, History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 46 (2024) 2. [57] G. C. Gallopín, Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity, Global environmental change 16 (2006) 293–303. [58] B. Wisner, Vulnerability as concept, model, metric, and tool, in: Oxford research encyclopedia of natural hazard science, 2016. [59] W. N. Adger, Social and ecological resilience: are they related?, Progress in human geography 24 (2000) 347–364. [60] M. C. Nussbaum, Creating capabilities: The human development approach, Harvard University Press, 2011.