The challenge of wildfires is closely linked to social factors, processes, and actors. Research has recognized this nexus, incorporating institutional, cultural, and territorial considerations in the emerging field of wildfire risk management (WRM). However, how the social dimension of WRM is addressed in scientific reflection has not been systematically analyzed so far. Drawing on the case of Chile, a country that exemplifies the rise of a new wildfire regime, we conducted a systematic review of 53 publications on WRM to understand how “the social” is reflected in scientific reflection. We find clear patterns in how the social is mobilized depending on how research questions, scales of analysis, units of analysis, and methodological options are defined. Taken together, the results suggest that the integration of social aspects in WRM tends to follow two distinct and unconnected methodological-analytical paths: one led by the social sciences, focused on participation and governance, and favoring qualitative methods; another led by the agricultural, natural, and engineering sciences, focused on risk prediction, and based on quantitative techniques. The results also suggest that, irrespective of the path, the inclusion of social variables does not prevent a technocratic approach, with virtually no consideration of participatory, transdisciplinary, or collaborative methodologies in which local actors are included as active agents of research.
Urban resilience has become central to global urban policymaking as cities confront growing challenges from climate change, disasters, and socio-economic disruptions. However, research in this field spans multiple disciplines and perspectives, leaving insights fragmented across a vast body of literature. Here we provide the most comprehensive synthesis to date, analyzing over 1400 documents during 2000–2023 to trace its evolution, identify key themes, and highlight future research directions. We show that urban resilience research spans 96 countries, but over 60% comes from China, the USA, the UK, and the Netherlands. Priorities also vary due to differing development contexts. Developed countries emphasize ecological solutions and public services, backed by strong institutions and long-term climate adaptation strategies, while developing countries focus on infrastructure and technology to tackle immediate urbanization challenges. Urban resilience themes generally sit in four main frameworks: ecosystems and sustainable cities; climate change and urban governance; disaster vulnerability and community resilience; and regional and economic resilience. Key areas for future research include developing assessment methods that integrate the social benefits of ecosystem services, fostering interdisciplinary urban climate policies, examining the compounded effects of multiple disasters, exploring cross-regional and multi-scale collaboration, and investigating digital technology’s role in urban resilience.
Climate adaptation planning faces challenges due to deep uncertainty and complex socio-ecological systems, often resulting in fragmented and incremental responses. This study synthesizes experiences from 21 cities and regions across eight European Union-funded projects, employing diverse methodologies to develop adaptation pathways that sequence climate adaptation measures over time. Through a systematic approach answering research questions across 8 themes to reveal lessons learned, we find varied stakeholder engagement approaches, data limitations influencing pathway quantification, inconsistent use of adaptation tipping points, and challenges integrating pathways with spatial and urban planning frameworks. While adaptation pathways enhance long-term strategic thinking and stakeholder collaboration, their institutional embedding and operationalization remain challenging within projects. Two main directions for future pathways research and practice are derived: (1) Embedding adaptation-pathway thinking into governance and planning; and (2) Addressing data needs, robust monitoring and multidimensional uncertainties. The study underscores the importance of flexible, inclusive, and data-informed approaches to support dynamic adaptation under uncertainty. These insights inform future efforts to mainstream adaptation pathways into policy and practice, contributing to climate-resilient development in Europe and potentially other regions with similar governance and vulnerability contexts.
Despite major advances in hydrological science and water management technologies, regional /national water crises persist. This study argues that these challenges arise less from scientific limitations than from fragmented governance systems that hinder coordination across sectors, scales, and institutions. We develop a systems governance framework that operationalizes systems thinking by embedding it within institutional practice through four interdependent mechanisms: leadership, organizational coordination, education/institutional learning, and stakeholder platforms (LOEP). Drawing on comparative analysis of China’s River Chief System and the United Kingdom’s Yorkshire Integrated Catchment Solutions Programme, we illustrate how the LOEP governance framework enables coordinated decision-making, policy integration, and sustained implementation. The findings show that systems thinking becomes effective only when supported by institutional arrangements that align knowledge production with governance processes. By reframing systems thinking as an operational governance capacity, this study provides a structured and operational framework that extends beyond existing analytical approaches for policymakers and practitioners seeking to advance water security and sustainability transitions under complex socio-ecological systems.
