Content uploaded by Lina María Carreño
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lina María Carreño on Nov 21, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102354
Available online 12 September 2023
0160-791X/© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Review: technological resources for vulnerable communities
Francisco Javier Serrano-Bosquet
a
, Lina María Carre˜
no Correa
b
, Emanuele Giorgi
b
,
*
a
Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Humanities and Education, Mexico
b
Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Architecture, Art and Design, Mexico
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Design for vulnerable
Indicators
Technology challenge
Technological resources
Technology
Technological transference
Vulnerable communities
ABSTRACT
Several socio-environmental conditions (economic, ecological, geopolitical, institutional, psychological, or en-
gineering vulnerability, among many others) are putting at risk and violating numerous communities. In this
panorama, technology is assuming more and more the potentiality to become (1) one of the main drivers for
change or (2) a creator of greater and deeper socio-environmental gaps. Moreover, technology adaptation is a
process which takes difculties, risks, and complexities that must be considered and addressed by all the actors,
who participate in those processes of sustainable transformation. To take into account the challenges and op-
portunities that the processes of transfer and adaptation may have in vulnerable communities, this paper con-
ducts a systematic review of the main existing scientic and academic literature on the role of technological
resources in vulnerable communities (impacts, benets, risks, etc.). In order to achieve this purpose, a biblio-
graphic study is carried out in the most important bibliographic databases under the methodological proposal
Scoping Review. A rst analysis focuses on: annual behavior, disciplines, main addressed issues, institutions, and
countries funding and supporting research on these topics. The research analyses also the main dimensions of
vulnerabilities considered by academic literature and the technological resources, which usually these research
projects refer to. The research conclusions aim to guide future research on the technological implications in
vulnerable communities and to identify research opportunities, with a particular focus on design and architecture
studies.
1. Introduction
The effects and implications of climate change, the aftermath of
Covid-19 and the international tension originated around the war in
Ukraine, as a reection of a new Cold War [1–3], are contributing
—together with other contextual factors, such as the different rates of
interregional population growth, or the increase in Racial and Xeno-
phobic discrimination on account of the use of digital technologies [4])
— to which basic development indicators —such as the percentage of
the Latin American population in a situation of extreme poverty [5]—,
and the sum of violations of fundamental rights —such as the privacy of
migrants and refugees in Europe— are reecting numbers very close to
those at the beginning of the 21st century. This is causing the number of
vulnerable people and communities to remain extremely high and has
even grown in recent years in different regions of the world.
The understanding of the new factors, contexts, modes, and degrees
of vulnerability observed, as well as the approach of new ad hoc stra-
tegies, requires, among other efforts, an analysis, classication and
understanding of the research carried out to date. In this sense, a rst
approach to the existing scientic literature allows us to observe that the
study of vulnerability has been carried out from different approaches:
analytical approaches (social, physical, ecological, among others);
multiple disciplines; qualitative and quantitative methods; conceptual
frameworks and empirical applications; and multiple temporal, spatial,
and decision scales [6–9]. Vulnerability is generated by the interaction
of multiple factors that can be: endogenous, exogenous, punctual, or
continuous [10]. Vulnerability analysis requires a shift from a static
perspective to a dynamic view [7]. Vulnerability can be dened as the
degree of susceptibility of people, communities, or systems-subsystems
(human, ecological, or coupled) to a damage or impact from exposure
to stressors or physical, social, economic, and environmental processes
[6,11,12]. The state of vulnerability depends on the ability to adapt [6]
and/or coping ability [12]. In turn, vulnerability is the product of pro-
ductive, distributive, organizational, technological and territorial
transformation processes [13].
Recently, among the most studied elds of vulnerability is the one
* Corresponding author. Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Architecture, Art and Design, Av. H. Colegio Militar 4700, Nombre de Dios, 31300 Chihuahua, Chih,
Mexico.
E-mail addresses: fjavierserrano@tec.mx (F.J. Serrano-Bosquet), lina.carreno@tec.mx (L.M. Carre˜
no Correa), egiorgi@tec.mx (E. Giorgi).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Technology in Society
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102354
Received 28 June 2023; Received in revised form 18 August 2023; Accepted 9 September 2023
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102354
2
related to climate change effects, which of course considers other
stressing elements such as environmental degradation, inadequate pol-
icies, or unfavorable trade conditions [14–18]. Other elds studied in
relation with the broader concept of “vulnerabilities” are those of
disaster risk [7], natural disasters, global environmental change, and
human-environmental coupling [8,19]. In fact, this diversity is neces-
sary to understand and address the complexity of the concept of
vulnerability [8]. Moreover, the vulnerability analysis is contextual,
specic and begins with the determination of the basic conditions of the
community [20–22]. Likewise, vulnerability is a fundamental charac-
teristic of a specic community that is generated in unstable conditions
and imbalance between its basic factors [23,24].
According to Marin-Ferrer, a “vulnerable group” can be dened as a
“population within a country that has specic characteristics that make it at a
higher risk of needing humanitarian assistance than others or being excluded
from nancial and social services. In a crisis such groups would need extra
assistance, which appeals for additional measures, i.e. extra capacity, as a
part of the emergency phase of disaster management” [25]. In addition, the
vulnerable group lives in a dened and constant state of vulnerability.
On the other hand, a vulnerable community is a group of people with
different needs and realities that experience discontinuous limitations in
time to face these present or future needs [21]. According to the fact that
vulnerabilities are contextual, different social and environmental situ-
ations can put at risk and exacerbate the state of vulnerability (eco-
nomic, ecological, geopolitical, institutional, psychological, or
engineering, among many others) of numerous communities, generating
that these vulnerable communities face several challenges at the spatial,
political, socio-economic, geographical, cultural, demographic, institu-
tional and physical environment levels [22,26].
Faced with these and other situations, technology is becoming one of
the main drivers for strategies of action to deal with individual, com-
munity, or system vulnerabilities. In fact, technology is recognized as an
interdisciplinary solution that facilitates the reduction of vulnerabilities
in weak communities [24]. However, technology transfer and adoption
do not happen without difculties, risks, and complexities that must be
considered and addressed by all actors who could participate in the
processes of vulnerabilities reduction. There are no doubts that the link
between technological development and its favorable or unfavorable
impacts on vulnerable communities requires innovative and sustainable
designs and solutions that meet local needs and are based on the par-
ticularities of the context [27]. In these creative and participative pro-
cesses of transfer, technology adoption and implementation, local
knowledge must be incorporated so to promote community empower-
ment and to succeed and ensure the continuity of the process [24].
Starting from these considerations that the authors consider extremely
important to analyze the link and risks between technology and
vulnerability from two perspectives: (1) technology as a system itself
and (2) the environments where it is applied, as well as those it creates
[28].
Within the research project “Design for Vulnerables – Technology
Challenge”, performed in the state of Chihauhua (Mexico), and based on
these concerns about the possible impact of technology on vulnerable
communities [29], the goal of the analysis presented in this manuscript
is to systematically review the existing scientic and academic literature
on the implications of technological resources in vulnerable commu-
nities. This analysis allows to identify and select relevant publications by
describing literature, considering: the thematic area, geographical place
of study, institutions, and organizations. The manuscript is organized as
follows: the rst section shows the research method for the systematic
review of the literature, in the second section the authors present the
main ndings through the answer given to 7 key questions that arose
after the analysis of the selected articles and, in the third section, the
conclusions, reections suggestion for future work are presented.
1.1. Design for vulnerables research project
The uncertainty about the role of technology in contemporary soci-
ety and all the doubts that technological development raises about its
impact on society imply a deep reection on the role and responsibility
that urban-architectural practice holds in designing in more vulnerable
contexts. This is the goal of the research project “Design for Vulnerables
– Technology Challenged” started in 2023 and focused with eld ac-
tivities in four vulnerable communities of the Mexican state of
Chihuahua (in the northern part of the country). The project arises from
previous researches, which underlined the role of design in shaping
vulnerable-conditions. In this particular research project, the team is
going to analyze the context and the possible technology applications
according to six main areas of focusing (mobility, gender, climate
change, resources optimization, health and local business), which, ac-
cording to previous projects, emerged as the main relevant focuses in
these particular contexts. In order to reach the goal of the research
project, to understand the best methodology to be applied in vulnerable
communities to reach technology adaptation, a systematic review of the
existing academic literature review is needed. In particular, this need to
count with an initial literature review is related to the willing to sensi-
bilize all the participants (academic and not) of the research project.
2. Research methodology
Documentary research was carried out following the methodology of
Scoping Review proposed by Arksey and O’Malley [30], the main rec-
ommendations of Levac et al. [31] and the incorporation of methodo-
logical innovations based on previous experiences. From all this, the
organization and structuring of the literature review occur in six key
phases: (1) identication of most timely keywords and databases, (2)
search and eligibility criteria, (3) identication of relevant studies, (4)
identication of top research questions and analysis variables, (5) data
analysis and (6) compilation, synthesis, and presentation of results.
2.1. Data collection and selection
2.1.1. Identication of the timeliest keywords and databases
The rst step consisted of a general review of the most signicant
scientic literature, so to identify the most appropriate keywords to
carry out systematic bibliographic searches taking into account the pre-
established objectives and the electronic databases with which the
analysis would be performed: (1) Web of Science (Core Collection and
Scielo Citation Index) and (2) Scopus. Initially, this selection has been
performed open to the whole timescale allowed by both database and,
just subsequentially, the selection has been shorted to a timescale from
2013 to 2023 (march), mainly for the temporal and thematic distance
from the most recent articles (2013–2023 period). This selection was
made based on its academic and scientic relevance, as well as to
conduct an exhaustive search for information covering a wide range of
products. Authors are aware of the potential existence of other relevant
works for the topic that now concerns us and that, not being included in
these search engines, could be left out, the authors are conducting
parallel searches through other methodologies that will be considered in
later phases. After this examination, the main keywords identied were:
Design for Vulnerable, Indicators, Technology Challenge, Technological
resources, Technology, technological transfer, and Vulnerable
Communities.
2.1.2. Search and eligibility criteria
After carrying out several systematic searches in these databases
based on the keywords mentioned above, it was seen how the optimal, in
the light of the objectives set for this work, were "technology" and
"vulnerable communities". Although a completely standardized query
was attempted, it was adapted to the specic requirements of each of the
databases selected in Scopus and the criteria has been (KEY
F.J. Serrano-Bosquet et al.
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102354
3
(Technology) AND KEY ("Vulnerable Communities")), while in Web of
Science the criteria has been (Topic (Technology) AND Topic ("Vulner-
able Communities")). This search considered all the typologies of doc-
uments presented in these databases (all kind of articles, book chapters
and conferences). In resume, the path used for this search has been:
- Keywords combinations: (Technology) and (“Vulnerable
Communities”);
- Applied to: “KEY” in Scopus and “Topic” in Web of Science;
- Temporal delimitation: no temporal limitation at the beginning and,
after the rst reduction, the documents older than 2012 have been
removed;
- Kinds of works: no limitation have been applied.
2.1.3. Identication of publications for analysis
The selection and identication process of the publications is dis-
played in Fig. 1.
The rst search yielded a total of 138 titles: 107 in Web of Science
(WoS) and 31 in Scopus. Subsequently, the authors limited the list to
those texts published between 2013 and 2023 (base updated on March
31, 2023), and all the repeated articles were discarded, so 112 remained.
Based on this new list of 112 articles, a review of the title and abstract of
each entry was carried out to ensure that the list of references included,
only, those publications that would identify the different roles and im-
plications that technological resources could have in vulnerable com-
munities. Likewise, theoretical works and different previous
bibliographic reviews that could shed light on this topic were included.
Finally, a total of 91 publications was dened, supporting sufcient
information and data to continue with the analysis (Table 1).
2.2. Data analysis
In the analysis of the selected articles, the authros pose a series of
questions to have an overview of the implications of technological re-
sources in vulnerable communities.
1) What is the annual behavior of the publications?
2) What are the thematic areas or scientic disciplines from which
technology and social vulnerability are analyzed?
3) What are the main themes that emerge from keywords?
4) What are the main organizations or institutions that are funding this
type of research?
5) From which countries is research on technology and vulnerability
carried out?
6) What are the main types of vulnerabilities referred to?
7) What technologies are being developed or implemented? What is
meant by that?
3. Findings
3.1. What is the annual behavior of the publications?
The progress in the research has been signicant. Not only because of
the accumulated numbers, but mainly because of the trend of this
research paradigm, whose practical results are, as the same results show,
evident. Moreover, considering the obtained data, can be observed in
Fig. 2 how the number of publications on this type of topics has been
increasing in database, from 2013 to 2023, where a total of 91 publi-
cations related to the keywords Technology and Vulnerable Communities
were identied.
3.2. What are the thematic areas or scientic disciplines from which
technology and social vulnerability are analyzed?
It is possible to perceive an increase in the number of publications, as
well as views and perspectives, focused in understanding how technol-
ogy can help to address different types of community vulnerability, as
shown in Fig. 3. If is looked closely at the three documents published in
2013 [79,82,113], is possible to see that all of them nally address the
relationship between technology and improvements in governance
practices: specically, how to improve the current and future relation-
ship between different public administrations and citizens, whether to
promote development, improve health care in contexts of vulnerability
or respond better to potential natural disasters. Now, without losing
sight of this government-citizenship relationship at almost any time, the
panorama has been opening in multiple directions. There is a clear
concern, and not only naïve optimism or pessimism, about the risks and
opportunities of the use of technology, mainly ICTs, in governance issues
[34,82]; but also, and especially signicantly, in the access of vulnerable
communities to basic goods such as energy [33,40,59], water [45,87,89,
93,98], health care, sanitation [41], and hygiene [81,111]. Likewise,
special attention is paid to the economic areas most linked to different
types of vulnerability, such as agriculture and livestock [16,33,77].
Architectural and urban design and development, both rural and urban,
have been gaining greater attention over the years, especially in those
areas with high risks of natural disasters [70,95,109], mainly oods [68,
87,98,100]. The approach to injustice, the relevance of taking techno-
logical measures that help eradicate discrimination, poverty and
Fig. 1. Methodological scheme.
F.J. Serrano-Bosquet et al.
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102354
4
violence and, at the same time, a progressive attention to cultural
preservation and diversity, have also been appearing.
3.3. What are the main addressed issues?
From the analysis of the articles, categorization and systematization
of the main topics addressed in each of them (Fig. 4), can be observed
that the topics that are most addressed by the scientic literature are
—beyond the areas or disciplines reported— those issues related to
health [81,111,113] (equity, justice, opportunities, pandemics (specic
or general), etc.). In particular, clear relevance is associated to topics
such as COVID [36,50], food quality [37,112], or obesity [104]. Sec-
ondly, as would be expected, there are related issues with the impact of
technology on society (appropriation, adoption, dissemination, uses,
etc.). Thirdly, the authors know and learn where it is worth highlighting
the extraordinary importance of overcoming the epistemic reductionism
of the sciences and recovering, as well as including local, indigenous,
native, and community knowledge; the recognition that there are
different ways and ways of interpreting and acting in the face of different
types of vulnerability, mainly natural. This is consistent with the fourth
theme, community and citizenship, public interest, and participation.
At the same level, the issue of climate (change, justice, knowledge,
risks and management related to climate change) [15,16,18,19,38,110]
and the possibility or quality of access to energy [32,33,40,59], as well
as the alternatives that, related to climate change and socioeconomic
conditions, are occurring or could be developed. At the same level, is-
sues related to social eld come out (education, ownership, impact,
justice, development, resilience …) [20,26,47,106].
Moreover, the support, the bases and the guidance for sustainable
Table 1
Publications considered for analysis.
No. Quote
1 Afokpe et al., 2022 [15]
2 Ahmad et al., 2022 [32]
3 Alexander & Block, 2022 [33]
4 Altermark & Nilsson, 2018 [34]
5 Amadu et al., 2021 [16]
6 Astudillo et al., 2019 [35]
7 Atcero & Ayikoru, 2022 [36]
8 Bahta & Musara, 2022 [37]
9 Bera et al., 2021 [38]
10 Bernal-Hernandez et al., 2021 [39]
11 Bustos & Watts, 2017 [40]
12 Calixto et al., 2020 [41]
13 Castillo et al., 2019 [42]
14 Catalani et al., 2014 [43]
15 Chavis, 2021 [44]
16 Coulson et al., 2021 [45]
17 Cunningham & Fairburn, 2019 [17]
18 Curtis et al., 2018 [46]
19 Duarte et al., 2018 [47]
20 Edizel-Tasci & Evans, 2021 [18]
21 Jimenez Garcia et al., 2022 [48]
22 Giorgi, 2022 [27]
23 Giraldo-Ramirez et al., 2017 [49]
24 Gonzales et al., 2022 [50]
25 Gonz´
alez-Nieto et al., 2020 [51]
26 Green et al., 2021 [52]
27 Grimley et al., 2018 [53]
28 Guberek et al., 2018 [54]
29 Hamidi et al., 2018 [55]
30 Herrera, 2018 [56]
31 Hills et al., 2018 [57]
32 Hippola et al., 2020 [58]
33 Hoody et al., 2021 [59]
34 Hsiao, 2021 [60]
35 Hughes & George, 2019 [61]
36 Hwang et al., 2022 [62]
37 Ismail et al., 2020 [63]
38 Rivera-July 2015 [64]
39 Kandpal, 2022 [65]
40 Kennedy et al., 2022 [66]
41 Kundu & Nawaz, 2019 [67]
42 Lagmay et al., 2017 [68]
43 Londo˜
no Chito et al., 2017 [69]
44 Lunga & Musarurwa, 2016 [70]
45 Muhammad et al., 2021 [71]
46 Marciano et al., 2016 [72]
47 Mason & Menard, 2022 [73]
48 Mathiyazhagan & Wang, 2021 [74]
49 Michael et al., 2014 [75]
50 Minestroni & Avio, 2020 [76]
51 Mossie & Wang, 2020 [23]
52 Mousannif & Zahir, 2019 [77]
53 Mu˜
noz Perez, 2019 [78]
54 Nesheiwat & Cross, 2013 [79]
55 Ni˜
no & Rodriguez, 2019 [80]
56 Ogojiaku et al., 2020 [81]
57 Ojo et al., 2013 [82]
58 Okoko et al., 2017 [83]
59 Olumide & Ojengbede, 2016 [84]
60 Ostos et al., 2019 [85]
61 Padr´
os, 2014 [86]
62 Pedro et al., 2020 [87]
63 Penarubia et al., 2022 [88]
64 Peralta & Arcila, 2015 [89]
65 Pinto et al., 2023 [90]
66 Porte et al., 2018 [91]
67 Putra et al., 2020 [92]
68 Rhodes-Dicker et al., 2022 [93]
69 Ribeiro & McMartin, 2019 [22]
70 Rivas-Aceves & Schmidt, 2022 [94]
71 Sagintayev & Collins, 2017 [95]
72 Salazar-Camacho et al., 2022 [96]
73 Saravia et al., 2021 [97]
74 Schismenos et al., 2022 [98]
(continued on next page)
Table 1 (continued )
No. Quote
75 Shelton et al., 2021 [99]
76 Shrestha et al., 2015 [100]
77 Sianipar et al., 2014 [24]
78 Sianipar et al., 2014b [101]
79 Sianipar et al.et al., 2015 [102]
80 Smith et al., 2022 [103]
81 Soltero et al., 2021 [104]
82 Southern et al., 2014 [105]
83 Spring et al., 2018 [106]
84 Tena-Meza et al., 2022 [107]
85 Thakkar et al., 2020 [108]
86 Unger et al., 2017 [109]
87 van den Homberg & McQuistan, 2019 [110]
88 van Wyk et al., 2019 [111]
89 Velez-Torres et al., 2021 [112]
90 Wawrzyniak et al., 2013 [113]
91 Zhang et al., 2018 [114]
Fig. 2. Number of publications from 2013 to 2023.
F.J. Serrano-Bosquet et al.
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102354
5
development programs occupy an important role in the existing litera-
ture: a similar number of works address risks, mitigation, management,
resilience, visualization, and education, mainly related to natural di-
sasters [34,54,68,82,95,98]. Education is indeed one of the main issues
addressed both in a direct and in a transversal way [106]. Finally, topics
related with policies and governance, as well as communication and
information, are also repeatedly addressed.
According to these results, a comparison with the six main areas of
focusing of the research project is more than appropriate. The issue of
“health” is without any doubt the most relevant one and it’s present in
our research project with a specic focus on the aspect of health related
to the quality of the built environment. Also the issues of “climate” and
“energy” are well represented in our research project as the main areas
of “climate change” and “resources optimization”. It’s interesting to see
that the other concepts of “gender”, “local business” and “mobility” are
not represented in this analyzed literature. Actually, these three di-
mensions are leading more and more the debate on the role of design in
vulnerable communities and could be interesting to analyze their pres-
ence in the coming years. Another observation coming from this com-
parison between literature review and our research project is related to
the relevance that issues like “knowledge”, “community”/“social” and
“education” have. Of course, this is a very interesting issue to be
considered in the evolution of the research project and which connect to
the very important concept of “consciousness” already emerged in the
previous works [29].
3.4. What are the main organizations or institutions that are funding this
type of research?
One of the most important elements when talking about research
projects on vulnerability and socio-environmental development, is the
nancing part. Of course, in the specic case of this research, the
important element related to nancing is related to the research projects
that aim to understand or to explore technological solutions. For this
reason, it is interesting to observe which institutions, and of what na-
ture; are funding this type of research. Although the indication of the
sources of funding of the projects from which the articles are developed
is more and more an important requirement of high-impact journals, is
still possible to observe a considerable number of manuscripts; we are
talking about 44% of the analyzed articles, where these data are not
reported, nor they are collected neither in the text itself nor in the cor-
responding le of Scopus or Wos. If we focus our attention on the
remaining 56%, we can observe in Table 2 the composition of the
Sources of Funding.
In light of these data, can be immediately noticed the large difference
Fig. 3. Thematic areas or scientic disciplines related with the searching about
“technology” and “vulnerable communities”.
Fig. 4. Main issues related with the ““technology” and “vulnerable
communities”.
Table 2
Technology and vulnerability research funders.
Descriptor Number of
articles
Percentage of
articles
Sources of funding NOT reported 43 48%
Sources of funding reported 48 52%
Public Governmental Institutions or
Organizations
18 20%
Public university 7 8%
Private industry or institution and
government
5 5%
University and Public Government 5 5%
European Union Programme 4 4%
Private university 4 4%
No funding 3 3%
International Organization 2 2%
Private Universities and Government
Institutions
2 2%
Private Universities and other Private
Organizations
1 1%
Public and Private Organizations 1 1%
Private institution 0 0%
F.J. Serrano-Bosquet et al.
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102354
6
between public and private nancing. This is consistent with the data
provided by different institutions and previous research for several
reasons. First, most scientic research is supported, as Yin et al. [115]
point out, by public investment. On the other hand, while the existing
gap between public and private funding is not, in general terms, so large
- for example, private investment in R&D was three times higher than
public investment in 2019 in the USA - it is in the eld of social sciences
and humanities. Especially when it comes to research and development
projects. In these cases it is mainly - as can be seen below - national and
international collaboration organizations that nance and take care of
these projects. This brings to the table a very important issue, which is
the importance not only of who carries out or executes these projects but
also of who nances them and how they are nanced. For example,
research such as that carried out by Jang & Feiock [116] shows that the
probability of social projects being carried out by non-prot
organizations supported mainly by private funding sources is less likely
to be successful than those with public funding.
This is not a minor issue. Especially after the COVID-19 pandemic,
one of the most important debates surrounding scientic activity is
precisely that of its nancing [115,117–120].
3.5. From which countries is technology and vulnerability research
conducted?
When analyzing the countries from which the research is carried out,
there seems to be, in principle, a clear prevalence of the most “developed
countries” over those that, being in the “process of development”, would
serve more as case studies and interventions, than as producers of
knowledge (Fig. 5A and B). However, if the manuscripts from US were
provisionally left out, we would observe that the two countries from
Fig. 5. Where is it being investigated and who is being investigated? (A) Countries conducting research; (B) Countries under investigation.
F.J. Serrano-Bosquet et al.
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102354
7
which it is published the most are Colombia and the United Kingdom,
followed by Australia and, very closely, the rest of the countries. That is,
it seems that the location of research centers is independent of consid-
erations related to levels of development or regions of the world. The
perception changes when, instead of talking about countries, we talk
about continents or regions of the world. Under this criterion, the studies
carried out in North America and Europe exceed 48%, Asia 20%, Central
and South America 14%, Africa 12%, and Oceania 7%.
The total number of research articles presented in the country
analysis (126) exceed the number of the 91 studied articles, as several
articles are reported as produced in more than one country. Although it
may seem trivial, it is interesting to know from which countries are the
studies that aim to understand how technology can contribute in solving
problems related to vulnerability in other regions of the world or, even
at a global level. Although intuition might make us think that these
studies are focused on local or national problems (understanding the
technology’s impact in the country from which the research is done), the
data indicate that this occurs only in the 55% of the cases. In the rest of
the cases, the authors found that articles refer to impacts just in other
countries (20%), or in the country itself and other countries (4%), or to
potential global impact (20%) (Table 3).
This should not surprise us, in light of the resources that annually,
are allocated to international collaboration, mainly to the promotion of
developing countries. Examples include the $82 billion the World Bank
contributed to the International Development Association (IDA) (https
://www.bancomundial.org/es/news/press-release/2019/12/13/glo
bal-community-renews-commitment-to-the-worlds-poorest-countries
-with-82-billion), or EU programs to promote good governance and
human and economic development, such as the ght against hunger and
the conservation of natural resources (https://european-union.europa.
eu/priorities-and-actions/actions-topic/development-and-cooperatio
n_es).
3.6. What are the main types of vulnerabilities referred to?
Although there are several criteria or categories under which to carry
out this analysis, this time the authors start from the six dimensions of
vulnerability dened in the project under which this research "Design
for the Vulnerable" is developed [121]: (1) Sustainable Mobility (SM);
(2) Climate Change and special exposure to natural disasters (CC); (3)
Accessibility to basic resources or optimization of resources (ROP); (5)
Local Businesses (LB); (6) Urban Health (UH). To these categories, the
authors add two categories more that emerged during the Scoping Review
[(Discrimination (D) and Participation in public affairs or
decision-making (PA)], and a series of subdimensions were distin-
guished that allow the analysis to be rened a little more (Fig. 6). Four of
the works analyzed were placed under the category "General or global
uncategorizable" when addressing vulnerability from a contextual or
general perspective in such a way that they make it irrelevant to include
them in any other.
The main type of vulnerability, addressed in the analyzed literature,
is that of discrimination: a type of transversal vulnerability that,
together with economic or social vulnerability, is present directly or
indirectly in most manuscripts. In fact, it is addressed in a clear and
evident way in the 25% of publications. It should be noted that the most
addressed forms of “discrimination” referred in the analyzed literature
are the racial, gender, and geographical ones. Under the “geographical”
meaning, the authors refer to “discrimination”, and therefore to
“vulnerability”, of those communities living in regions far from urban
centers or from more populated territories. The provision of services or
infrastructure development is reduced because of this distance or for the
presence of important geographical structures. Likewise, a strong
vulnerability is experienced by those groups that suffer discrimination
due to their origin (see the case of migrants), the work activity they carry
out, and, in a very special way, the suffering of some type of disease (see
the case of HIV or AIDS) or disability.
The second most addressed type of vulnerability, with 23% of
manuscripts, is related to climate change or exceptional exposure to
natural disasters. It should be noted in this regard that most of the work
refers to ooding in mainly coastal areas or with difcult to access
(either for geographical reasons or distance – see the relationship with
the previous point).
The analysis of the documents suggested that in the category of
resource optimization, the authors also include those investigations
where the vulnerability was related to defective access to basic re-
sources. These include safe and reliable access to water, food, health or
sanitation services, energy, or technology. Under this gaze, the authros
nd about 20% of the works.
In a transversal, almost omnipresent way, the authors nd an eco-
nomic or social vulnerability. However, as the main vulnerability, it is
addressed in about 13% of the works. Something relatively similar has
been observed around participation in public affairs or decision-making.
Many of the problems, mainly environmental, related to climate change
or exposure to natural disasters, relate on nding solutions that
contemplate the improvement of the relationship between different
government agencies and citizens. That is, they understand that part of
the technological solutions must come from the side of ICTs and, on the
other, with social technologies that, from one side and another, facilitate
eGovernment.
3.7. What technologies are being developed or implemented? What is
meant by that?
A fundamental element that is observed in the vast majority of the
works studied is a conception of technology that transcends the so-called
traditional conception of technology. That is, it is not seen as a mere
body of specialized knowledge—as dened or exemplied by Mitcham
[122] or Maxwell [123]—that derives from the application of science
Table 3
The coincidence between the places investigated and researchers.
Reading key Results
Absolute number %
1 Interested in impacts within the same country 51 55%
2 Interested in impacts within other country 18 20%
3 Global interest 18 20%
4 Of a country for himself and another 4 5%
TOTAL 91 100%
Fig. 6. Main types of vulnerability.
F.J. Serrano-Bosquet et al.
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102354
8
and have as its objective the construction and improvement of all kinds
of artifacts [124]. Nor is special attention paid to internal aspects [125,
126]. On the contrary, although there is glimpsed in most cases an
almost triumphalist, essentialist, and evolutionary vision of technology,
an image of this as a kind of accumulation of knowledge and artifacts,
and a progressive mastery of Nature, there is also a generalized aware-
ness of the close bidirectional interrelation between society, culture,
science, and technology. That is, there is a vision that transcends
"technological determinism"—how Ellul conceives it [127]—under
which all social change has, as its germ, a technological change, but not
vice versa.
On the contrary, technology is seen as a human activity, which takes
place in concrete socio-political contexts, as an inherently social process
or product in which non-technical elements play a decisive role, it is
conceived under the approach, previously dened, as appropriate
technology.
This image, not always conscious, becomes more evident when dis-
tinguishing – following in this case the proposal of Arnold Pacey [128] –
two aspects of technology. One refers focused on technical aspects
(knowledge, skills, tools, machines or resources), coinciding with the
traditional conception, and another incorporates organizational aspects
(economic and industrial activity, professional activity, users and con-
sumers) and cultural aspects (objectives, values, ethical codes, and
behavior). Taking into account this last dimension is essential to be able
to understand a large number of the works studied. And, on many oc-
casions, the technologies that are proposed are not artifacts in their
common sense. On the contrary, these are technologies from the social
and human sciences. That is, research technologies and human and so-
cial intervention that transcend the artefactual.
Now, not all technological proposals are artefactual, the authors also
nd them – in terms of Harro van Lente [129], intellectualists. That is,
on the one hand, we have artefactual or artefactual technologies, those
in which technologies are artifacts, physical products, manufactured;
and intellectualist technologies, that is, a type of knowledge, con-
sciousness, or intellectual product that allows the transformation of the
context, as is the subsequent development of artefactual technologies.
This is the case, for example, of those countries that have nuclear
technology. It requires both intellectual and artefactual technology. In
this sense, it is pertinent to highlight that the literature examined
highlights the development of technologies and protocols that facilitate
communication and more just, democratic, and inclusive
decision-making. Technologies, therefore, typical of the Social Sciences
and even of the Humanities whose main objective is the integration of
knowledge of all kinds, the development of methodological alternatives
that facilitate the research, application, intervention, administration,
and management of resources and goods of all kinds. In this regard, the
creation of policies that facilitate capacity development and research, as
well as its dissemination, climate justice, citizen participation, the
integration of indigenous and scientic knowledge, the administration
of land to disadvantaged communities, or the creation of development
indices. This distinction allows us to see how, beyond the existing
literature that points out the excess of decontextualized approaches, of
naïve transference approaches, there are, on the contrary, numerous
programs and projects predesigned and developed in the light of un-
derlying social practices and cultural values [128,130].
It is also worth noting the large number of works devoted to the
development and use of different techniques and technologies for edu-
cation, communication and dissemination. Approaches that are carried
out both from a traditional point of view of teaching and the improve-
ment of educational models, as well as communication, and literacy of
very different order and levels. Much of this is related to social
development.
The largest number of technological developments presented in
Fig. 7 are related to information and communication technologies,
articial intelligence, or computing (24 technological proposals, that is,
more than 25%) that respond to specic problems often related to
phenomena associated with climate change and disasters or natural
catastrophes (mainly oods). These technologies include those that try
to facilitate the monitoring and prediction of potential natural disasters,
such as Multi-Risk Early Warning Systems (MHEWS), smartphones,
surveillance drones, mapping or mapping tools such as Web-GIS or ICTs
that facilitate the creation and strengthening of social networks. Like-
wise, the authors nd a signicant number of efforts aimed at improving
health care through ICTs —development of telehealth platforms or
eHealth prototypes—, security —Police surveillance technologies and
development of predictive police software— and, especially, the devel-
opment and use of different techniques and technologies for education,
communication, and dissemination. Proposals that are carried out both
from a traditional point of view of teaching and the improvement of
educational models, as well as communication and literacy of very
different order and level – relying on interactive operating systems,
internet or mixed programs, and educational models such as STEM or
MOOC – in elds as varied as nance, agriculture or technology itself.
The authors also nd special attention to energy-related problems.
Mainly, the development of technologies, protocols, and programs that
facilitate the access and use of these (under sustainability schemes
mainly) in remote regions or vulnerable communities, either from the
economic or geographical point of view. From the point of view of their
production, they highlight the development and creation of independent
power generation cells from diesel, solar, or wind energy, as well as their
distribution, such as the design and creation of isolated energy micro-
grids, new distributed energy systems (DES) or energy reduction pro-
grams. Similarly, the authors nd technologies that facilitate the
production and treatment of food, such as hydroponics, biodegradable
urns, fruit drying, agriculture resilience to climate change, and water
treatment both through lters or natural products.
Likewise, the authors also nd proposals for the development of
agriculture in vulnerable regions. Although in all cases the plurality of
actors, values, goods, and interests is evident and complex, it is much
more evident in this productive sector. In it, the axiological plurality
becomes more noticeable when, beyond the Manichean gaze, the new
challenges that agriculture must face as a result of climate change and
natural disasters are addressed. On the other hand, the scarce presence
of works focused on architectural and urban planning aspects is
particularly striking Indubitably, the authors found several, many times
linked to vulnerability to natural disasters, mainly oods and earth-
quakes, or with the need to promote approaches to the so-called smart
cities, but honestly much less than was initially expected.
4. Conclusions
The scientic and academic literature reviewed on "technology" and
Fig. 7. Number of technological developments.
F.J. Serrano-Bosquet et al.
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102354
9
"vulnerable communities" and their implications, bet on science and
technology as one, if not the main, way to solve, or at least reduce, the
situation of vulnerability of many communities, the authors nd a
generalized perspective under which reference is also made, whether
consciously or not, to the risks involved and their limitations. In other
words, technology is considered a necessary but insufcient instrument
or tool for solving the problems addressed. On the contrary, it is
necessary, it is pointed out in a large number of texts, the participation of
different types of rationalities, including scientic and technological, as
well as wills and worldviews.
The Scoping Review methodology allows exploring from different
scales of analysis the conceptual and practical approaches of "technol-
ogy" as a solution or mitigation strategy to a vulnerability that has
multiple factors of origin.
The results show an increase in the development of studies since
2013. The most analyzed issues are those related to health sciences,
technology development, and teaching and learning processes. How-
ever, in the area of types of vulnerability, the most studied are
discrimination, climate change, or special exposure to natural disasters
and resource optimization; critical elements to achieve well-being and
sustainability with a view to the SDGs. These ndings are consistent
with previous studies.
Although the bibliographic exploration carried out is a rst step to
knowing the state of the question at the local and Latin American and
Caribbean levels, since the project where this work arises proposes
technology as a mechanism to reduce or mitigate vulnerability in four
heterogeneous communities in Chihuahua (Mexico), the results ob-
tained can guide future research on the implications of technology in
vulnerable communities. This perspective and the results obtained can
guide future research on the implications of technology in vulnerable
communities and identify research opportunities, such as in the area of
architecture and urban development.
One of the limitations of this work is the study of the impact of
technology in vulnerable communities, which has implications and
consequences on territories and spaces, both human, social, and natural.
However, it should be recalled again that the technologies that are
mainly being promoted are digital, especially those related to data
collection and management that allow forecasting the consequences of
climate change or natural disasters; information and communication
technologies, which improve communication and decision-making
among the different actors; and social technologies. As a result, space
changes are not initially physical.
These generally appear at a second stage, when it comes to intro-
ducing technologies that, in the light of the data, forecasts, and conse-
quences observed, seek to prevent or minimize environmental or human
impacts, improve relations and different productive areas. In such cases,
it will be observed important modications of space and landscape, both
physical and human.
The authors suggest that in future projects aimed at introducing
technologies to reduce the vulnerability of certain communities or
groups, the notions of space, whether personal, social, community, or
public, should be investigated and redened before carrying out any
type of technological intervention. This is due to the complexity and
specicity of vulnerability. In addition, is suggested taking into account
the two major types of technologies proposed by Harro van Lente [129]
as a guiding framework for both analysis and action. In this sense, it is
pertinent to highlight that the literature reviewed highlights the devel-
opment of technologies and protocols that facilitate communication and
fairer, more democratic, and inclusive decision-making.
Grant information
This work was funded by the Challenge Based Research Funding
Program 2022 [grant number E021-EAAD-GI01-B-T1-E]; of Tecnol´
ogico
de Monterrey, Monterrey, N.L, M´
exico; through the project “Design for
Vulnerables – Technology Challenge. New processes for technological
assimilation in vulnerable areas and territorial effects.”
Credit author statement
The authors contributed to this work in the following ways:
Conceptualization F.J.S., L.C., E.G; Data curation F.J.S., L.C.; Formal
analysis F.J.S., L.C; Funding acquisition E.G.; Investigation F.J.S.;
Methodology F.J.S.; Project administration F.J.S., L.C., E.G.; Supervision
F.J.S., L.C., E.G.; Validation L.C.; Visualization F.J.S., L.C.; Roles/
Writing - original draft; F.J.S., L.C.; Writing - review & editing F.J.S., L.
C., E.G.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the communities in Paso del Norte,
Nueva Delicias, La Regina, and Basaseachic for sharing their time, ex-
periences, and knowledge. Additionally, this research received support
from other members of the research project, in particular Rafael Camilo
Lozoya Gamez, Francisco Javier Valderrey Villar, Jos´
e Ignacio Huertas
Cardozo, Luis Ricardo Fern´
andez Carril, María Elena Martínez, Saman-
tha C. Winter, Ni Minqing, Tiziano Cattaneo, Alfredo Mauricio Flores
Herrera, and Virginia Aceves. Moreover, great support has been given by
deans and directors of Tecnol´
ogico de Monterrey: Roberto I˜
niguez
Flores, Alfredo Henry Hidalgo Rasmussen, and Pablo Hern´
andez
Qui˜
nones.
References
[1] S.F. Karabag, ¨
O. Imre, The global, regional, national, sectoral, economic, and
commercial impact of the Russo-Ukrainian War and the emerging second Cold
War, 2022, pp. 58–70, 12, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true
&db=bsu&AN=161021283&lang=es&site=eds-live&scope=site.
[2] M. Kalb, Imperial Gamble, Ukraine Putin, The New Cold War, Brookings
Institution Press, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt15hvrbc.
(Accessed 14 August 2023).
[3] I. Kusa, Russia-Ukraine war, Pol. Perspect. 19 (2022) 7–12. https://www.jstor.
org/stable/48676292. (Accessed 14 August 2023).
[4] Informes tem´
aticos anuales. Relator Especial sobre las formas contempor´
aneas de
racismo, (n.d.). https://www.ohchr.org/es/special-procedures/sr-racism/annu
al-thematic-reports (accessed August 11, 2023).
[5] Porcentaje del total de la poblaci´
on en cada ´
area geogr´
aca, CEPALSTAT Base
Datos Publicaciones Estad.(n.d.). https://statistics.cepal.org/portal/cepalstat/
dashboard.html?indicator_id=3328&area_id=930&lang=es.
[6] W.N. Adger, Vulnerability, Glob. Environ. Change. 16 (2006) 268–281, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006.
[7] M.C. de Ruiter, A.F. van Loon, The challenges of dynamic vulnerability and how
to assess it, iScience 25 (2022), 104720, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
isci.2022.104720.
[8] H. Eakin, A.L. Luers, Assessing the vulnerability of social-environmental systems,
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31 (2006) 365–394, https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.energy.30.050504.144352.
[9] M. Kok, M. Lüdeke, P. Lucas, T. Sterzel, C. Walther, P. Janssen, D. Sietz, I. de
Soysa, A new method for analysing socio-ecological patterns of vulnerability,
Reg. Environ. Change 16 (2016) 229–243, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-
0746-1.
[10] L.M. Berrouet, J. Machado, C. Villegas-Palacio, Vulnerability of socio—ecological
systems: a conceptual Framework, Ecol. Indicat. 84 (2018) 632–647, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.051.
[11] B.L. Turner, R.E. Kasperson, P.A. Matson, J.J. McCarthy, R.W. Corell,
L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J.X. Kasperson, A. Luers, M.L. Martello, C. Polsky,
A. Pulsipher, A. Schiller, A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability
science, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100 (2003) 8074–8079, https://doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.1231335100.
[12] UNDRR, Hazard Denition and Classication Review Technical Report, United
Nations Ofce for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), Geneva, 2020. https
://www.undrr.org/publication/hazard-denition-and-classication-review-tech
nical-report.
[13] P. Ceccarelli, P.M. Guerrieri, A pandemic of vulnerability: is design a painkiller or
a vaccine? in: E. Giorgi, T. Cattaneo, A.M. Flores Herrera, V.d.S. Aceves Tarango
(Eds.), Des. Vulnerable Communities Springer International Publishing, Cham,
2022, pp. 65–79, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96866-3_4.
F.J. Serrano-Bosquet et al.
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102354
10
[14] F. Facchini, S. Villamayor-Tomas, E. Corbera, F. Ravera, G. Pocull-Bell´
es, G.
L. Codina, Socio-ecological vulnerability in rural Spain: research gaps and policy
implications, Reg. Environ. Change 23 (2023) 26, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10113-022-01996-y.
[15] P.M.K. Afokpe, A.T. Phiri, A.A. Lamore, H.M.A.C. Toure, R. Traore, O. Kipkogei,
Progress in climate change adaptation and mitigation actions in sub-Saharan
Africa farming systems, Cah. Agric. 31 (2022) 4, https://doi.org/10.1051/cagri/
2021037.
[16] F.O. Amadu, P.E. McNamara, K.E. Davis, Soil health and grain yield impacts of
climate resilient agriculture projects: evidence from southern Malawi, Agric. Syst.
193 (2021), 103230, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103230.
[17] J.M.Z. Cunningham, S. Fairburn, Climate Anticipation: working towards a design
proposal for urban resilience and care, Des. J. 22 (2019) 1697–1714, https://doi.
org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1595002.
[18] O. Edizel-Tasci, G. Evans, Community engagement in climate change policy: the
case of three mills, east london, in: E. Peker, A. Ata¨
ov (Eds.), Gov. Clim.
Responsive Cities Explor. Cross-Scale Dyn., Springer International Publishing,
Cham, 2021, pp. 59–77, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73399-5_5.
[19] V. Gallina, S. Torresan, A. Critto, A. Sperotto, T. Glade, A. Marcomini, A review of
multi-risk methodologies for natural hazards: consequences and challenges for a
climate change impact assessment, J. Environ. Manag. 168 (2016) 123–132,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.011.
[20] T. Cattaneo, E. Giorgi, A.M.F. Herrera, V. del S. Aceves Tarango, Introduction on
design for vulnerable communities, in: E. Giorgi, T. Cattaneo, A.M. Flores
Herrera, V. del S. Aceves Tarango (Eds.), Des. Vulnerable Communities, Springer
International Publishing, Cham, 2022, pp. 1–17. https://link.springer.com/
10.1007/978-3-030-96866-3_1.
[21] E.P.M.L.M. de Cote, A.M. Flores Herrera, E. Giorgi, T. Cattaneo, Augmented
reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) as tools to empower vulnerable communities:
opportunities and challenges for designers, in: E. Giorgi, T. Cattaneo, A.M. Flores
Herrera, V. del S. Aceves Tarango (Eds.), Des. Vulnerable Communities, Springer
International Publishing, Cham, 2022, pp. 307–321, https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-030-96866-3_16.
[22] L.F.V. Ribeiro, D.W. McMartin, A methodological framework for sustainable
development with vulnerable communities, Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 11
(2019) 133–139, https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2018.1532629.
[23] Z. Mossie, J.-H. Wang, Vulnerable community identication using hate speech
detection on social media, Inf. Process. Manag. 57 (2020), 102087, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102087.
[24] C.P.M. Sianipar, K. Dowaki, G. Yudoko, Technological solution for vulnerable
communities: how does its approach matter? IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 58
(2014), 012022 https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/58/1/012022.
[25] M. Marin-Ferrer, L. Vernaccini, K. Poljanˇ
sek, Index for Risk Management.
INFORM Concept and Methodology Report - Version 2017, European Union,
2017. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/b1ef756c-5fbc-
11e7-954d-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.
[26] C. Kuhlicke, A. Scolobig, S. Tapsell, A. Steinführer, B. De Marchi, Contextualizing
social vulnerability: ndings from case studies across Europe, Nat. Hazards 58
(2011) 789–810, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9751-6.
[27] E. Giorgi, How technology devices can help or harm vulnerable communities in
technocene. Issues for designers, architects, and policy makers, in: E. V d S Giorgi,
T. Cattaneo, A.M. Flores Herrera, Aceves Tarango (Eds.), Des. Vulnerable
Communities, 2022, pp. 21–43, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96866-3_2.
Spri, Cham.
[28] B. Martin, Technological vulnerability, Technol. Soc. 18 (1996) 511–523, https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0160-791X(96)00029-2.
[29] E. Giorgi, Technocene, in: E. Giorgi (Ed.), Co-Hous. Phenom. Environ. Alliance
Times Chang., Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020, pp. 1–26, https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37097-8_1.
[30] H. Arksey, L. O’Malley, Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework,
Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8 (2005) 19–32, https://doi.org/10.1080/
1364557032000119616.
[31] D. Levac, H. Colquhoun, K. O’Brien, Scoping studies: advancing the methodology,
Implement. Sci. 5 (2010) 69, https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69.
[32] T. Ahmad, S. Ali, A. Basit, Distributed renewable energy systems for resilient and
sustainable development of remote and vulnerable communities, Philos. Trans. R.
Soc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 380 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2021.0143.
[33] S. Alexander, P. Block, Integration of seasonal precipitation forecast information
into local-level agricultural decision-making using an agent-based model to
support community adaptation, Clim. Risk Manag. 36 (2022), 100417, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2022.100417.
[34] N. Altermark, H. Nilsson, Crafting the “well-rounded citizen”: empowerment and
the government of counterradicalization, Int. Polit. Sociol. 12 (2018) 53–69,
https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olx028.
[35] G. Astudillo, A. Guerrero, M.F. Aguilar-Romero, V. Sanchez Padilla, E. Chancay,
M.J. Ramírez, Undergraduate Students as Active Contributors in the
Strengthening of Technical Skills in Vulnerable Communities of Ecuador – a Case
Study, INTED2019 Proc., Valencia, Spain, 2019, pp. 8927–8934, https://doi.org/
10.21125/inted.2019.2221.
[36] M. Atcero, M. Ayikoru, Digital and language inequalities in disseminating COVID-
19-related health campaigns in Uganda: the effects of connement and social
distancing strategies, in: Freedom Soc. Incl. Connect. World, 2022, pp. 310–331.
https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-031-19429-0_19.
[37] Y.T. Bahta, J.P. Musara, Quantifying the impact of COVID-19 relief vouchers
schemes on food security: empirical evidence insights from South Africa, Land 11
(2022) 1431, https://doi.org/10.3390/land11091431.
[38] A. Bera, A.K. Taloor, G. Meraj, S. Kanga, S.K. Singh, B. Đurin, S. Anand, Climate
vulnerability and economic determinants: linkages and risk reduction in Sagar
Island, India; A geospatial approach - ScienceDirect, Quat. Sci. Adv. 4 (2021),
100038, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qsa.2021.100038.
[39] P. Bernal-Hern´
andez, M. Ramirez, M. Mosquera-Montoya, Formal rules and its
role in centralised-diffusion systems: a study of small-scale producers of oil palm
in Colombia, J. Rural Stud. 83 (2021) 215–225, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2020.11.006.
[40] C. Bustos, D. Watts, Novel methodology for microgrids in isolated communities:
electricity cost-coverage trade-off with 3-stage technology mix, dispatch &
conguration optimizations, Appl. Energy 195 (2017) 204–221, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.02.024.
[41] K.G. Calixto, L.P. Sabogal-Paz, E. Pozzi, L.C. Campos, Ripening of household slow
sand lter by adding sh food, J. Water, Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 10 (2020) 76–85,
https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2020.143.
[42] J.G.D. Castillo, E.J.C. Cohernour, M.A.S. Escalante, I.del S.V. Carrillo, Reducing
the Digital Divide in Vulnerable Communities in Southeastern Mexico,
PUBLICACIONES, 2019, pp. 133–149, https://doi.org/10.30827/publicaciones.
v49i2.9305, 49.
[43] C. Catalani, E. Green, P. Owiti, A. Keny, L. Diero, A. Yeung, D. Israelski,
P. Biondich, A clinical decision support system for integrating tuberculosis and
HIV care in Kenya: a human-centered design approach, PLoS One 9 (2014),
e103205, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103205.
[44] K. Chavis, Transformative policing technologies: balancing public safety, privacy,
and community consent in vulnerable communities in the United States, polic,
J. Pol. Pract. 15 (2021) 425–439, https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paab004.
[45] A.B. Coulson, M.O. Rivett, R.M. Kalin, S.M.P. Fern´
andez, J.P. Truslove,
M. Nhlema, J. Maygoya, The cost of a sustainable water supply at network kiosks
in peri-urban blantyre, Malawi, Sustainability 13 (2021) 4685, https://doi.org/
10.3390/su13094685.
[46] J.W. Curtis, A. Curtis, S.A. Hemmerling, Revealing the invisible environments of
risk and resiliency in vulnerable communities through geospatial techniques, in:
Tsunamis Detect, Risk Assess. Crisis Manag., 2018, pp. 245–273. https://www.sc
opus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85058548367&partnerID=40&md5
=8e51414853e2c6cb80877b9904d00258.
[47] A.M.B. Duarte, N. Brendel, A. Degbelo, C. Kray, Participatory design and
participatory research: an HCI case study with young forced migrants, ACM
Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 25 (3) (2018) 1–3, https://doi.org/10.1145/
3145472.
[48] J. Jimenez Garcia, C. Castilla, J. Aguirre, J.P. Martinez, W. Liu, Experiences in the
design of localized eHealth tools for users facing inequality of access to
healthcare, in: M.M. Soares, E. Rosenzweig, A. Marcus (Eds.), Des. User Exp.
Usability Des. Emot. Well- Health Learn. Cult., Springer International Publishing,
Cham, 2022, pp. 130–148, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05900-1_8.
[49] M.E.G. Ramirez, O.S. García, J.A. Pedrozo, Software Development From A Social
Perspective: A Methodological Proposal for the Construction of Ciudadanía Con
Sentido Platform, Inted2017 Proc, 2017, pp. 7011–7016, https://doi.org/
10.21125/inted.2017.1627.
[50] L. Gonzales, R. Lewy, Ajiataz Cuevas, (Re)Designing technical documentation
about COVID-19 with and for indigenous communities in gainesville, Florida,
oaxaca de Ju´
arez, Mexico, and quetzaltenango, Guatemala, IEEE Trans. Prof.
Commun. 65 (2022) 34–49, https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2022.3140568.
[51] N.A. Gonz´
alez-Nieto, L.-W.C. Ching-Chiang, J.M. Fern´
andez-C´
ardenas, C.
G. Reynaga-Pe˜
na, D. Santamaría-Cid-de-Le´
on, A. Díaz-de-Le´
on-Lastras, A.
J. Cort´
es Capetillo, FabLabs in vulnerable communities: STEM education
opportunities for everyone, Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. IJIDeM. 14 (2020)
1535–1555, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-020-00744-y.
[52] M.A. Green, M. García-Fi˜
nana, B. Barr, G. Burnside, C.P. Cheyne, D. Hughes,
M. Ashton, S. Sheard, I.E. Buchan, Evaluating social and spatial inequalities of
large scale rapid lateral ow SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing in COVID-19
management: an observational study of Liverpool, UK (November 2020 to
January 2021), Lancet Reg. Health - Eur. 6 (2021), 100107, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100107.
[53] M. Grimley, T. Moss, E. Donaldson, E. Hogan, The voices of autism: using MOOC
technologies to meet the needs of vulnerable communities, in: 35th Int. Conf.
Innov. Pract. Res. Use Educ. Technol. Tert. Educ. ASCILITE 2018, 2018,
pp. 380–384. Geelong, Australia, http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp
=85071877964&partnerID=8YFLogxK. (Accessed 13 June 2023).
[54] T. Guberek, A. McDonald, S. Simioni, A.H. Mhaidli, K. Toyama, F. Schaub,
Keeping a low prole? Technology, risk and privacy among undocumented
immigrants, in: Proc. 2018 CHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst., Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2018, pp. 1–15, https://doi.org/
10.1145/3173574.3173688.
[55] F. Hamidi, M.K. Scheuerman, S.M. Branham, Gender recognition or gender
reductionism? The social implications of embedded gender recognition systems,
in: Proc. 2018 CHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst., Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2018, pp. 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1145/
3173574.3173582.
[56] H. Herrera, The value and meaning of experience in food system learning spaces:
reections from the activist and traditional community perspectives, ACME Int. J.
Crit. Geogr. 17 (2018) 1085–1094. https://acme-journal.org/index.php/acme/
article/view/1513.
[57] J.M. Hills, E. Мichalena, K.J. Chalvatzis, Innovative technology in the Pacic:
building resilience for vulnerable communities, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
129 (2018) 16–26, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.01.008.
F.J. Serrano-Bosquet et al.
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102354
11
[58] H.M.S.S. Hippola, E.M.S.D. Jayasooriya, G.P. Jayasiri, C. Randil, C. Perera, K.K.
K. Sylva, A.K. Kulathunga, C.S. Bandara, C.S.A. Siriwardena, P.B.R. Dissanayake,
Gap assessment of warning and dissemination process of early warning system in
coastal areas of Sri Lanka, in: R. Dissanayake, P. Mendis (Eds.), ICSBE 2018,
Springer, Singapore, 2020, pp. 36–44, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-
9749-3_4.
[59] J. Hoody, A. Galli Robertson, S. Richard, C. Frankowski, K. Hallinan, C. Owens,
B. Pohl, A review of behavioral energy reduction programs and implementation
of a pilot peer-to-peer led behavioral energy reduction program for a low-income
neighborhood, Energies 14 (2021) 4635, https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154635.
[60] H. Hsiao, ICT-mixed community participation model for development planning in
a vulnerable sandbank community: case study of the Eco Shezi Island Plan in
Taipei City, Taiwan, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduc. 58 (2021), 102218, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102218.
[61] C. Hughes, A. George, R.I.C.E. – Aiding coordinated resilience strategies for the
South atlantic bight, in: OCEANS 2018 MTSIEEE Charlest, 2018, pp. 1–4, https://
doi.org/10.1109/OCEANS.2018.8604702.
[62] L.-A. Hwang, S. Vaithilingam, M. Nair, J.W.J. Ng, Nurturing academic enthusiasm
and creativity among children from vulnerable communities: the role of
computers, Behav. Inf. Technol. 41 (2022) 2596–2615, https://doi.org/10.1080/
0144929X.2021.1938227.
[63] S. Ismail, S. Nassereldin, N.S.N.K. Baharin, Challenges faced by Palestinian
women in electrical, electronic and computer technology and engineering during
COVID-19 crisis, Int. Conf. Promis. Electron. Technol. ICPET (2020) 10–15,
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPET51420.2020.00011, 2020.
[64] Y.E. Rivera-Julio, Ubiquitous architecture for telemedicine based internet of
things for remote monitoring of diabetic people | Arquitectura ubicua para
telemedicina basada en el internet de las cosas para el monitoreo remoto de
personas diab´
etica, in: CISCI 2015 - Decima Cuarta Conf. Iberoam. En Sist.
Cibern. E Inform. Decimo Segundo Simp. Iberoam. En Educ. Cibern. E Inform,
EEUU, Orlando, FLorida, 2015, pp. 253–258, in: https://www.iiis.org/Proceedi
ngs/2015Proc/Contents/CISCI-p.pdf.
[65] V. Kandpal, Socio-economic development through self-help groups in rural India
– a qualitative study, Qual. Res. Financ. Mark. 14 (2022) 621–636, https://doi.
org/10.1108/QRFM-10-2021-0170.
[66] L. Kennedy, A. Sood, D. Chakraborty, R.M. Chitta, Interrogating data justice on
Hyderabad’s urban frontier: information politics and the internal differentiation
of vulnerable communities, Inf. Commun. Soc. 25 (2022) 1273–1292, https://doi.
org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1851388.
[67] S.N. Kundu, M. Nawaz, Geospatial risk communication and visualization of
natural hazards using augmented reality constructs, in: B. Pradhan (Ed.), GCEC
2017, Springer, Singapore, 2019, pp. 641–651, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
981-10-8016-6_49.
[68] A.M.F.A. Lagmay, B.A. Racoma, K.A. Aracan, J. Alconis-Ayco, I.L. Saddi,
Disseminating near-real-time hazards information and ood maps in the
Philippines through Web-GIS, J. Environ. Sci. 59 (2017) 13–23, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jes.2017.03.014.
[69] C.C. Londo˜
no Chito, L.F. Jojoa Quintero, A.F. Solano Alegría, in: A. Solano,
H. Ordo˜
nez (Eds.), Interactive System Implementation to Encourage Reading in
Vulnerable Community Children, Adv. Comput., Springer International
Publishing, Cham, 2017, pp. 543–556, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
66562-7_39.
[70] W. Lunga, C. Musarurwa, Exploiting indigenous knowledge commonwealth to
mitigate disasters: from the archives of vulnerable communities in Zimbabwe,
Indian J. Tradit. Knowl. 15 (2016) 22–29. https://www.webofscience.com/wo
s/woscc/full-record/WOS:000369555900003.
[71] M. Mahomed, A.D. Clulow, S. Strydom, M.J. Savage, T. Mabhaudhi, Lightning
monitoring and detection techniques: progress and challenges in South Africa,
South Afr, J. Sci. 117 (2021) 7020, https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2021/7020.
[72] J.J.S. Marciano, P. Rick Ramirez, P. Martinez, M. Claire Barela, Roger, Robust and
rapidly deployable GSM base station and backhaul for emergency response, in:
Proc. Sixth Ieee Glob. Humanit. Technol. Conf. Ghtc 2016, Ieee, New York, 2016,
pp. 128–135. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/
WOS:000406041000019.
[73] D. Mason, M. Menard, Accessibility of nonprot services: transportation network
companies and client mobility, Nonprof. Pol. Forum 13 (2022) 333–343, https://
doi.org/10.1515/npf-2021-0059.
[74] S. Mathiyazhagan, Z. Wang, N’KaNa-my dream: community action towards the
holistic child development in India, Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 122 (2021), 105924,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.105924.
[75] G. Michael McGrath, E. Wilson-Evered, E. More, Improving healthcare outreach
to a vulnerable community group: an agent-based decision support system, 2014.
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84905992047&partnerI
D=40&md5=2e4b8eec7b442bc090eaa64d5c30f9ab.
[76] L. Minestroni, E.E. Avio, WhatsApp and cell phones among sex workers in India:
the impact of ICT in the banaras red-light district, Am. Behav. Sci. 64 (2020)
1834–1849, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764220952110.
[77] H. Mousannif, J. Zahir, AgriFuture, A new theory of change approach to building
climate-resilient agriculture, Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 911 (2019) 88–97,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11878-5_10.
[78] L. Mu˜
noz P´
erez, Product Design for Sustainability: A Collaboration Example
between the Public, Private and Vulnerable Community, 2019, https://doi.org/
10.1088/1742-6596/1418/1/012020.
[79] J. Nesheiwat, J.S. Cross, Japan’s post-Fukushima reconstruction: a case study for
implementation of sustainable energy technologies, Energy Pol. 60 (2013)
509–519, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.065.
[80] V. Ni˜
no, O. Rodríguez, Navidad Fieeeliz”, 10 Years in Vulnerable Communities
“Breaking Paradigms, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1109/
GHTC46095.2019.9033065.
[81] C.N. Ogojiaku, J.C. Allen, R. Anson-Dwamena, K.S. Barnett, O. Adetona, W. Im, D.
B. Hood, The health opportunity Index: understanding the input to disparate
health outcomes in vulnerable and high-risk census tracts, Int. J. Environ. Res.
Publ. Health 17 (2020) 5767, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165767.
[82] A. Ojo, T. Janowski, J. Awotwi, Enabling development through governance and
mobile technology, Govern. Inf. Q. 30 (2013) S32–S45, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.giq.2012.10.004.
[83] A. Okoko, J. Reinhard, S.W. von Dach, R. Zah, B. Kiteme, S. Owuor,
A. Ehrensperger, The carbon footprints of alternative value chains for biomass
energy for cooking in Kenya and Tanzania, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments
22 (2017) 124–133, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2017.02.017.
[84] A.O. Olumide, O.A. Ojengbede, The media as a critical determinant of the sexual
and reproductive health of adolescents in Ibadan, Nigeria, Sex. Reprod. Healthc. 8
(2016) 63–74, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2016.02.006.
[85] I. Ostos, I. Ruiz, M. Gajic, W. Gomez, A. Bonilla, C. Collazos, A modied novel
blade conguration proposal for a more efcient VAWT using CFD tools, Energy
Convers. Manag. 180 (2019) 733–746, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2018.11.025.
[86] A. Padr´
os, E-Participation for equity in low-income neighborhoods: a conceptual
framework, in: Handb. Res. Adv. Ict Integr. Gov. Policy Model., Igi Global,
Hersey, 2014, pp. 405–431, https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6236-0.ch021.
[87] J.P.B. Pedro, C.A.S. Oliveira, S.C.R.B. de Lima, M. von Sperling, A review of
sanitation technologies for ood-prone areas, J. Water, Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 10
(2020) 397–412, https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2020.019.
[88] O. Penarubia, J. Toppe, M. Ahern, A. Ward, M. Grifn, How value addition by
utilization of tilapia processing by-products can improve human nutrition and
livelihood, Rev. Aquacult. 15 (2023) 32–40, https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12737.
[89] J.S. Peralta Jaramillo, H. Arcila Ramírez, Generating Sustainable Development
through the Alternative Treatment of Water for Human Consumption, Warsaw
University Press, Warsaw, 2015. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/fu
ll-record/WOS:000528480400007.
[90] F. Pinto, M.A. Macadar, G.V. Pereira, Pandemic sociomaterial bricolage: how
vulnerable communities used social media to tackle the COVID-19 crisis, Inf.
Technol. People (2023), https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-02-2021-0135.
[91] A.F. Porte, C.R. Rocha, M.M. Galarca, An independent power cell for energy
generation from residual frying oil, in: M. Peruzzini, M. Pellicciari, C. Bil,
J. Stjepandic, N. Wognum (Eds.), Transdiscipl. Eng. Methods Soc. Innov. Ind. 40,
Ios Press, Amsterdam, 2018, pp. 1165–1174, https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-
61499-898-3-1165.
[92] A.L. Putra, J. Martinez, J. Verplanke, Integrating climate service co-production
into spatial planning in Jakarta, Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 14 (2022) 225–241,
https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2020.1843043.
[93] L. Rhodes-Dicker, N.J. Brown, M. Currell, Unpacking intersecting complexities for
WASH in challenging contexts: a review, Water Res. 209 (2022), 117909, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117909.
[94] S. Rivas-Aceves, S. Schmidt, Sustainable gardening for economic inclusion,
poverty reduction, and culture preservation, Sustainability 14 (2022), 15743,
https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315743.
[95] Z. Sagintayev, N. Collins, Power to the People: disaster Resilience support with
advance energy storage systems, in: Mater. Today-Proc., Elsevier Science Bv,
Amsterdam, 2017, pp. 4555–4560, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matpr.2017.04.029.
[96] N.A. Salazar-Camacho, L.A. Sanchez-Echeverri, F.J. Fonseca, V. Falguera,
D. Castro-Bocanegra, N.J. Tovar-Perilla, Mango (mangifera indica L.) dehydration
as a women entrepreneurship alternative in vulnerable communities,
Sustainability 14 (2022) 1548, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031548.
[97] J.C. Saravia, C. Dreifuss-Serrano, P.C. Herrera, Pedagogical participatory
experiences to promote Public Interest Technology from volunteer work, in: Proc.
2020 Ieee Int. Symp. Technol, Soc. Istas, Ieee, New York, 2021, pp. 154–163,
https://doi.org/10.1109/ISTAS50296.2020.9462232.
[98] S. Schismenos, G.J. Stevens, D. Emmanouloudis, N. Georgeou, S. Shrestha, N.
D. Katopodes, N. Wali, Humanitarian engineering for renewable energy and ood
early warning in remote communities: a scoping review of enabling factors and
sustainability, J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst.-Jsdewes. 10 (2022),
1090406, https://doi.org/10.13044/j.sdewes.d9.0406.
[99] R.L. Shelton, M. Hall, S. Ford, R.L. Cosby, Telehealth in a Washington, DC african
American religious community at the onset of COVID-19: showcasing a virtual
health ministry project, Soc. Work. Health Care 60 (2021) 208–223, https://doi.
org/10.1080/00981389.2021.1904322.
[100] M.S. Shrestha, W.E. Grabs, V.R. Khadgi, Establishment of a regional ood
information system in the Hindu Kush Himalayas: challenges and opportunities,
Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 31 (2015) 238–252, https://doi.org/10.1080/
07900627.2015.1023891.
[101] C.P.M. Sianipar, G. Yudoko, A. Adhiutama, Technological solution for vulnerable
communities: reverse engineering below the radar, in: Adv. Sci. Lett., Amer
Scientic Publishers, Valencia, 2014, pp. 2282–2286, https://doi.org/10.1166/
asl.2014.5726.
[102] C.P.M. Sianipar, K. Dowaki, G. Yudoko, Technological solution for vulnerable
communities: questioning the sustainability of appropriate technology, in: IOP
Conf. Ser. Earth Environ, . Sci., 2015, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/23/1/
012008.
F.J. Serrano-Bosquet et al.
Technology in Society 75 (2023) 102354
12
[103] H. Smith, G.M. Medero, S.C. De Narvaez, W.C. Mera, Exploring the relevance of
“smart city” approaches to low-income communities in Medellin, Colombia,
Geojournal 88 (2023) 17–38, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-022-10574-y.
[104] E. Soltero, T. O’Connor, D. Thompson, G. Shaibi, Opportunities to address obesity
disparities among high-risk latino children and adolescents, Curr. Obes. Rep. 10
(2021) 332–341, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-021-00445-x.
[105] J. Southern, R. Ellis, M.A. Ferrario, R. McNally, R. Dillon, W. Simm, J. Whittle,
Imaginative labour and relationships of care: Co-designing prototypes with
vulnerable communities, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 84 (2014) 131–142,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.003.
[106] A. Spring, E. Thomson, L. Eagleson, Cameras crossing cultures: international
cooperation with digital media literacy, in: L.G. Chova, A.L. Martinez, I.C. Torres
(Eds.), 12th Int. Technol. Educ. Dev. Conf. Inted, Iated-Int Assoc Technology
Education & Development, Valenica, 2018, pp. 8658–8663. https://www.webo
fscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000448704003094.
[107] S. Tena-Meza, M. Suzara, A.J. Alvero, Coding with purpose: learning AI in rural
California, Acm Trans. Comput. Educ. 22 (2022) 24, https://doi.org/10.1145/
3513137.
[108] D. Thakkar, N. Kumar, N. Sambasivan, Towards an AI-powered future that works
for vocational workers, in: Proc. 2020 Chi Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst.
Chi20, Assoc Computing Machinery, New York, 2020, p. 545, https://doi.org/
10.1145/3313831.3376674.
[109] E.-M. Unger, J. Zevenbergen, R. Bennett, On the need for pro-poor land
administration in disaster risk management, Surv. Rev. 49 (2017) 437–448,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00396265.2016.1212160.
[110] M. van den Homberg, C. McQuistan, Technology for climate justice: a reporting
framework for loss and damage as part of key global agreements, in: R. Mechler,
L.M. Bouwer, T. Schinko, S. Surminski, J. LinneroothBayer (Eds.), Loss Damage
Clim. Change Concepts Methods Policy Options, Springer International Publishing
Ag, Cham, 2019, pp. 513–545, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72026-5_22.
[111] T. van Wyk, F. Mahomed-Asmail, D.W. Swanepoel, Supporting hearing health in
vulnerable populations through community care workers using mHealth
technologies, Int. J. Audiol. 58 (2019) 790–797, https://doi.org/10.1080/
14992027.2019.1649478.
[112] I. V´
elez-Torres, A.M. Torres, S. Bernal-Galeano, I. Muriel, H.F. Moreno, S. Alzate
Lozano, D. Bahamon-Pinzon, D.C. Vanegas, Afrocolombian struggles for food,
land, and culture: the case of el tiple, Environ. Eng. Sci. 38 (2021) 340–354,
https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2020.0282.
[113] A.J. Wawrzyniak, R.L. Ownby, K. Mccoy, D. Waldrop-Valverde, Health literacy:
impact on the health of HIV-infected individuals, Curr. HIV AIDS Rep. 10 (2013)
295–304, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11904-013-0178-4.
[114] X. Zhang, W. Tang, Y. Huang, Q. Zhang, C.F. Dufeld, J. Li, E. Wang,
Understanding the causes of vulnerabilities for enhancing social-physical
resilience: lessons from the Wenchuan earthquake, Environ. Hazards-Hum. Policy
Dimens. 17 (2018) 292–309, https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2018.1491383.
[115] Y. Yin, Y. Dong, K. Wang, D. Wang, B.F. Jones, Public use and public funding of
science, Nat. Human Behav. 6 (2022) 1344–1350, https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41562-022-01397-5.
[116] H.S. Jang, R.C. Feiock, Public versus private funding of nonprot organizations:
implications for collaboration, Publ. Perform. Manag. Rev. 31 (2007) 174–190,
https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576310202.
[117] C. Beaudry, S. Allaoui, Impact of public and private research funding on scientic
production: the case of nanotechnology, Res. Pol. 41 (2012) 1589–1606, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.022.
[118] M.-L. Cabon-Dhersin, R. Gibert, R&D cooperation, proximity and distribution of
public funding between public and private research sectors, Manch. Sch. 88
(2020) 773–800, https://doi.org/10.1111/manc.12340.
[119] A. Muresianu, Public and Private R&D Are Complements, Not Substitutes, Tax
Found, 2022. https://taxfoundation.org/blog/private-rd-public-rd-investment/.
(Accessed 16 August 2023).
[120] J. Leefmann, J. B¨
ottcher, M. Jungert, C. Merdes, S. Schuol, Editorial: public
research and private knowledge—science in times of diverse research funding,
Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 7 (2022). https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/f
rma.2022.1106343.
[121] E. Giorgi, Research project application form, in: Challenge-based Research
Funding Program, Tecnol´
ogico de Monterrey, 2022.
[122] C. Mitcham, Thinking through Technology: the Path between Engineering and
Philosophy, University of Chicago Press, 1994.
[123] N. Maxwell, From Knowledge to Wisdom: a Revolution in the Aims and Methods
of Science, 1984. Blackwell.
[124] A. Feenberg, Subversive rationalization: technology, power, and democracy, in:
A. Feenberg, A. Hannay (Eds.), Technol. Polit. Knowl., Indiana University Press,
Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1995, pp. 3–22.
[125] L. Winner, Tecnología aut´
onoma: La t´
ecnica incontrolada como objeto del
pensamiento político, Gustavo Gili, Barcelona, 1979. M´
exico.
[126] R. Williams, D. Edge, The social shaping of technology, Res. Pol. 25 (1996)
865–899, https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(96)00885-2.
[127] J. Ellul, The Technological Society, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. and Random House, Inc,
New York, 1964.
[128] A. Pacey, Meaning in Technology, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1999.
[129] H. van Lente, Promising Technology, The Dynamics of Expectations in
Technological Developments, Ph.D Thesis - Research UT, University of Twente,
graduation UT, 1993, https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/promisin
g-technology-the-dynamics-of-expectations-in-technologica. (Accessed 15 June
2023).
[130] A. Pacey, The Culture of Technology, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1986.
F.J. Serrano-Bosquet et al.
