literature review on equity investments

The economics of private equity: A critical review

51 Pages Posted: 15 Feb 2024

Alexander Ljungqvist

Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR); Swedish House of Finance; European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)

Date Written: February 12, 2024

Over the past half century, private equity has grown into a $3 trillion asset class. In this review, I critically synthesize the main insights of the academic literature on private equity, with a special focus on the performance of private equity as an asset class and its track record of value creation. I also review key aspects of investing in private equity that are of relevance and concern to investors when forming and managing a portfolio of private equity funds.

Keywords: Private equity, value creation, investor returns

JEL Classification: G23, G24, G32, G11

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Alexander Ljungqvist (Contact Author)

Centre for economic policy research (cepr).

London United Kingdom

Swedish House of Finance ( email )

Drottninggatan 98 111 60 Stockholm Sweden

European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)

c/o the Royal Academies of Belgium Rue Ducale 1 Hertogsstraat 1000 Brussels Belgium

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, entrepreneurship & finance ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Econometric Modeling: Corporate Finance & Governance eJournal

Investing ejournal.

Factors Influencing Performance of Private Equity Investment Funds Exit Through Mergers and Acquisitions

Conference paper
First Online: 31 July 2021
Cite this conference paper

Pengxue Fu 8 ,
Yihang Zhang 8 ,
Meng Zeng 9 ,
Liying Zhou 8 &
Valerie Lynette Wang 10

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies ((LNDECT,volume 79))

Included in the following conference series:

International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management

Using data from 2009 to 2019, this article examines exits through mergers and acquisitions (M&A) of Chinese private equity to explore factors affecting the return of M&A exit. The result suggests a U-shaped relationship between investment duration and M&A exit performance. Additionally, M&A exit performance is significantly higher in high-tech industry, with PE showing higher performance than VC. Regionally, investing in economically developed areas significantly improves M&A performance. To analyze factors affecting M&A exit performance, such as duration, region, and industry, we develop an empirical research and provides suggestions on improving exit efficiency and supporting M&A exit.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Do initial financial conditions determine the exit routes of start-up firms?

Cash Holdings and M &A Performance: Evidence from China’s GEM Market

Effect of Bank Mergers on Cost of Capital: Evidence from India

Bei, Z., Qin, Y., et al.: An empirical study on the effectiveness of venture capital exit through the new third board. Financ. Econ. 4 , 66–69 (2016). (in Chinese)

Google Scholar

Black, B.S., Gilson, R.J.: Venture capital and the structure of capital markets: banks versus stock markets. J. Financ. Econ. 47 (3), 243–277 (1998)

Article Google Scholar

Bonacchi, M., Marra, A., Zarowin, P.: Organizational structure and earnings quality of private and public firms. Rev. Acc. Stud. 24 (3), 1066–1113 (2019)

Cotei, C., Farhat, J.: The M&A exit outcome of high-tech startups. Multinatl. Finan. J. 24 (3–4), 183–209 (2020)

Cotter, J.F., Peck, S.W.: The structure of debt and active equity investors: the case of the buyout specialist. J. Financ. Econ. 59 (1), 101–147 (2001)

Cumming, D., Fleming, G., Schwienbacher, A.: Legality and venture capital exits. J. Corp. Finan. 12 (2), 214–245 (2006)

Cumming, D.J., MacIntosh, J.G.: Venture capital investment duration in Canada and the united states. J. Multinatl. Financ. Manag. 11 (4–5), 445–463 (2001)

Cumming, D.J., MacIntosh, J.G.: A cross-country comparison of full and partial venture capital exits. J. Bank. Finan. 27 (3), 511–548 (2003)

Dong, Q., Slovin, M.B., Sushka, M.E.: Private equity exits after IPOs. J. Corp. Finan. 64 (101), 696 (2020)

Du, Y.: How to improve the exit mechanism of private equity funds. People’s Forum 22 , 110–111 (2017). (in Chinese)

Fang, H., Fu, J.: The choice of exit methods for venture capital and private equity funds in my country and its motivations. Invest. Res. 033 (001), 105–118 (2014). (in Chinese)

Gompers, P.A.: Optimal investment, monitoring, and the staging of venture capital. J. Financ. 50 (5), 1461–1489 (1995)

Hertzel, M., Smith, R.L.: Market discounts and shareholder gains for placing equity privately. J. Financ. 48 (2), 459–485 (1993)

Ippolito, R.: Private equity in China and India. J. Private Equity 10 (4), 36–41 (2007)

Jeng, L.A., Wells, P.C.: The determinants of venture capital funding: evidence across countries. J. Corp. Finan. 6 (3), 241–289 (2000)

Kaplan, S.: Management buyouts: evidence on taxes as a source of value. J. Financ. 44 (3), 611–632 (1989)

Kaplan, S.N., Strömberg, P.E.: Characteristics, contracts, and actions: evidence from venture capitalist analyses. J. Financ. 59 (5), 2177–2210 (2004)

Khan, M.Z., Khan, Z.U., Hameed, A.: Institutions, digitization, innovation and venture capital: evidence from Europe and the Asia-pacific. J. Appl. Econ. Bus. Stud. 4 (2), 41–74 (2020)

Lee, P.M., Wahal, S.: Grandstanding, certification and the underpricing of venture capital backed IPOs. J. Financ. Econ. 73 (2), 375–407 (2004)

Link, A.N., Ruhm, C.J., Siegel, D.S.: Private equity and the innovation strategies of entrepreneurial firms: empirical evidence from the small business innovation research program. Manag. Decis. Econ. 35 (2), 103–113 (2014)

Martin, K.J.: The method of payment in corporate acquisitions, investment opportunities, and management ownership. J. Financ. 51 (4), 1227–1246 (1996)

Metrick, A., Yasuda, A.: The economics of private equity funds. Rev. Financ. Stud. 23 (6), 2303–2341 (2010)

Morsfield, S.G., Tan, C.E.: Do venture capitalists influence the decision to manage earnings in initial public offerings? Account. Rev. 81 (5), 1119–1150 (2006)

Pereira, T.P., Sousa, M.: Is there still a berlin wall in the post-issue operating performance of European IPOs? Int. J. Finan. Econ. 22 (2), 139–158 (2017)

Popov, A., Roosenboom, P.: Venture capital and patented innovation: evidence from Europe. Econ. Policy 27 (71), 447–482 (2012)

Yang, J., Zhang, L.: Research on the exit routes of Chinese private equity funds. Int. Bus. Res. 1 (3), 145–148 (2008)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Business, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610065, People’s Republic of China

Pengxue Fu, Yihang Zhang & Liying Zhou

School of Economics, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610065, People’s Republic of China

College of Business and Public Management, West Chester University, West Chester, PA, 19383, USA

Valerie Lynette Wang

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liying Zhou .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

University of Castilla-La Mancha (UCLM), Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, Spain

Fausto Pedro García Márquez

World Academy of Sciences, Trieste, Italy

Mohamed Hag Ali Hassan

Academy of Sciences of Moldova, Chisinau, Moldova

Gheorghe Duca

Institute of Systems Control, Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences, Baku, Azerbaijan

Asaf Hajiyev

Department of Industrial Engineering, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

Fulya Altiparmak

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Fu, P., Zhang, Y., Zeng, M., Zhou, L., Wang, V.L. (2021). Factors Influencing Performance of Private Equity Investment Funds Exit Through Mergers and Acquisitions. In: Xu, J., García Márquez, F.P., Ali Hassan, M.H., Duca, G., Hajiyev, A., Altiparmak, F. (eds) Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management. ICMSEM 2021. Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies, vol 79. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79206-0_38

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79206-0_38

Published : 31 July 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-79205-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-79206-0

eBook Packages : Intelligent Technologies and Robotics Intelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

and

, 2023, vol. 27, issue 5, 567-581

Global private equity (PE) investments continue to increase at unprecedented levels over the last two decades, as investors are increasingly thriving over the potential of funded firms. The purpose of this study is to provide an understanding of determining factors that guide the flow of private equity investment in target firms. The existing academic research concerning selection determinants of private equity investment is restrictive and unstructured. These determinants are diverse and observe inconclusive results in extant literature. To identify the firm-level determinants of private equity investment, understand the current gaps in the literature and direct the future scope of work, the authors conduct a systematic literature review of empirical private equity investment studies. The results pointed out the open issues in private equity literature focusing on drivers of investment decisions and extracted the most frequently observed selection determinants of private equity investments along with their causal relationship. The review also acknowledges that there exists a coherence among private equity and M&A investment decisions and thus, expands the scope of research by including empirical studies on M&A determinants. The study creates a comprehensive database and identifies shortcomings in the relevant literature addressing private equity.

; ; ; ; ; (search for similar items in EconPapers)
2023

(external link)
(text/html)

This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: for items with the same title.

BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

for this article

in Vision
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ( ).

Information

Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

Active Journals
Find a Journal
Proceedings Series
For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Librarians
For Publishers
For Societies
For Conference Organizers
Open Access Policy
Institutional Open Access Program
Special Issues Guidelines
Editorial Process
Research and Publication Ethics
Article Processing Charges
Testimonials
Preprints.org
SciProfiles
Encyclopedia

Article Menu

Subscribe SciFeed
Recommended Articles
Google Scholar
on Google Scholar
Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Investment intention and decision making: a systematic literature review and future research agenda.

1. Introduction

2. methodology, 2.1. the review protocol—prisma, 2.2. formulation of research questions, 2.3. systematic searching strategies, 2.3.1. identification, 2.3.2. screening, 2.3.3. eligibility, 2.4. data extraction, 3. results and discussion, 3.1. bibliometric analysis, 3.2. weight analysis, 3.3. content analysis, 3.3.1. personal factors, 3.3.2. social factors, 3.3.3. market information, 3.3.4. firm-specific factors, 3.3.5. product-related factors, 3.3.6. other factors, 4. recommendations and future research agenda, 4.1. theory, 4.2. context, 4.3. constructs, 4.4. method, 5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, conflicts of interest.

Lim, K.L.; Soutar, G.N.; Lee, J.A. Factors Affecting Investment Intentions: A Consumer Behaviour Perspective. J. Financ. Serv. Mark. 2013 , 18 , 301–315. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kishan, K.; Alfan, E. Financial Statement Literacy of Individual Investors in China. Int. J. China Stud. 2018 , 9 , 3–28. [ Google Scholar ]
Divanoğlu, S.U.; Bağci, H. Determining the Factors Affecting Individual Investors’ Behaviours. Int. J. Organ. Leadersh. 2018 , 7 , 284–299. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Yang, M.; Al Mamun, A.; Mohiuddin, M.; Al-Shami, S.S.A.; Zainol, N.R. Predicting Stock Market Investment Intention and Behavior among Malaysian Working Adults Using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. Mathematics 2021 , 9 , 873. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Shehata, S.M.; Abdeljawad, A.M.; Mazouz, L.A.; Aldossary, L.Y.K.; Alsaeed, M.Y.; Sayed, M.N. The Moderating Role of Perceived Risks in the Relationship between Financial Knowledge and the Intention to Invest in the Saudi Arabian Stock Market. Int. J. Financ. Stud. 2021 , 9 , 9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Raut, R.K.; Kumar, R.; Das, N. Individual Investors’ Intention towards SRI in India: An Implementation of the Theory of Reasoned Action. Soc. Responsib. J. 2020 . ahead-of-print . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Raut, R.K. Past Behaviour, Financial Literacy and Investment Decision-Making Process of Individual Investors. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 2020 , 15 , 1243–1263. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Akhtar, F.; Das, N. Predictors of Investment Intention in Indian Stock Markets. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2019 , 37 , 97–119. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Lai, C.-P.P. Personality Traits and Stock Investment of Individuals. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 5474. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Çal, B.; Lambkin, M. Stock Exchange Brands as an Influence on Investor Behavior. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2017 , 35 , 391–410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Raut, R.K.; Das, N. Individual Investors’ Attitude towards Online Stock Trading: Some Evidence from a Developing Country. Int. J. Econ. Bus. Res. 2017 , 14 , 254. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Sivaramakrishnan, S.; Srivastava, M.; Rastogi, A. Attitudinal Factors, Financial Literacy, and Stock Market Participation. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2017 , 35 , 818–841. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Cao, M.M.; Nguyen, N.T.; Tran, T.T. Behavioral Factors on Individual Investors’ Decision Making and Investment Performance: A Survey from the Vietnam Stock Market. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2021 , 8 , 845–853. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Khawaja, M.J.; Alharbi, Z.N. Factors Influencing Investor Behavior: An Empirical Study of Saudi Stock Market. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2021 , 48 , 587–601. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Raut, R.K.; Das, N.; Mishra, R. Behaviour of Individual Investors in Stock Market Trading: Evidence from India. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2020 , 21 , 818–833. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Moueed, A.; Hunjra, A.I. Use Anger to Guide Your Stock Market Decision-Making: Results from Pakistan. Cogent Econ. Financ. 2020 , 8 , 1733279. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Qasim, M.; Hussain, R.Y.; Mehboob, I.; Arshad, M. Impact of Herding Behavior and Overconfidence Bias on Investors’ Decision-Making in Pakistan. Accounting 2019 , 5 , 81–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Rasheed, M.H.; Rafique, A.; Zahid, T.; Akhtar, M.W. Factors Influencing Investor’s Decision Making in Pakistan: Moderating the Role of Locus of Control. Rev. Behav. Financ. 2018 , 10 , 70–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Shah, S.Z.A.; Ahmad, M.; Mahmood, F. Heuristic Biases in Investment Decision-Making and Perceived Market Efficiency: A Survey at the Pakistan Stock Exchange. Qual. Res. Financ. Mark. 2018 , 10 , 85–110. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mak, M.K.Y.; Ip, W. An Exploratory Study of Investment Behaviour of Investors. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2017 , 9 , 184797901771152. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Sumiati, A.; Widyastuti, U.; Takidah, E. Suherman The Millennials Generation’s Intention to Invest: A Modified Model of the Theory of Reasoned Action. Int. J. Entrep. 2021 , 25 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ]
Mahdzan, N.S.; Zainudin, R.; Yoong, S.C. Investment Literacy, Risk Tolerance and Mutual Fund Investments: An Exploratory Study of Working Adults in Kuala Lumpur. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2020 , 21 , 111–133. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Annamalah, S.; Raman, M.; Marthandan, G.; Logeswaran, A.K. An Empirical Study on the Determinants of an Investor’s Decision in Unit Trust Investment. Economies 2019 , 7 , 80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Alhorani, A. Factors Affecting the Financial Investors’ Decision in the Adoption of Mutual Funds. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2019 , 9 , 2269–2276. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Paliwal, S.; Bhadauria, S.; Singh, S.P. Determinants of Mutual Funds Investment Intentions: Big Five Personality Dimension. Purushartha - A J. Manag. Ethics Spiritual. 2018 , 11 , 39–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kaur, I.; Kaushik, K.P.P. Determinants of Investment Behaviour of Investors towards Mutual Funds. J. Indian Bus. Res. 2016 , 8 , 19–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ashidiqi, C.; Arundina, T. Indonesia Students’s Intention to Invest in Sukuk: Theory of Planned Behaviour Approach. Int. J. Econ. Res. 2017 , 14 , 395–407. [ Google Scholar ]
Dewi, M.K.; Tamara, D. The Intention to Invest in Retail Bonds in Indonesia. Acad. J. Interdiscip. Stud. 2020 , 9 , 188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Duqi, A.; Al-Tamimi, H. Factors Affecting Investors’ Decision Regarding Investment in Islamic Sukuk. Qual. Res. Financ. Mark. 2019 , 11 , 60–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Khan, S.U.; Khan, I.I.U.; Khan, I.I.U.; Din, S.U.; Khan, A.U. Evaluating ṣukūk Investment Intentions in Pakistan from a Social Cognitive Perspective. ISRA Int. J. Islam. Financ. 2020 , 12 , 347–365. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bongini, P.; Cucinelli, D. University Students and Retirement Planning: Never Too Early. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2019 , 37 , 775–797. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991 , 50 , 179–211. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mohamed Shaffril, H.A.; Ahmad, N.; Samsuddin, S.F.; Samah, A.A.; Hamdan, M.E. Systematic Literature Review on Adaptation towards Climate Change Impacts among Indigenous People in the Asia Pacific Regions. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 258 , 120595. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Xiao, Y.; Watson, M. Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2019 , 39 , 93–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kumar, S.; Goyal, N. Behavioural Biases in Investment Decision Making – a Systematic Literature Review. Qual. Res. Financ. Mark. 2015 , 7 , 88–108. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Barroso, J.S.S.; Araújo, E.A. Socially Responsible Investments (SRIs) – Mapping the Research Field. Soc. Responsib. J. 2020 , 17 , 508–523. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Popescul, D.; Radu, L.D.; Păvăloaia, V.D.; Georgescu, M.R. Psychological Determinants of Investor Motivation in Social Media-Based Crowdfunding Projects: A Systematic Review. Front. Psychol. 2020 , 11 , 1–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ballis, A.; Verousis, T. Behavioural Finance and Cryptocurrencies. Rev. Behav. Financ. 2022 , 14 , 545–562. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zahera, S.A.; Bansal, R. Do Investors Exhibit Behavioral Biases in Investment Decision Making? A Systematic Review. Qual. Res. Financ. Mark. 2018 , 10 , 210–251. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Ferrati, F.; Muffatto, M. Reviewing Equity Investors’ Funding Criteria: A Comprehensive Classification and Research Agenda. Ventur. Cap. 2021 , 23 , 157–178. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hassan, M.K.; Aliyu, S.; Paltrinieri, A.; Khan, A. A Review of Islamic Investment Literature. Econ. Pap. A J. Appl. Econ. policy 2019 , 38 , 345–380. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Altman, D.; Antes, G.; Atkins, D.; Barbour, V.; Barrowman, N.; Berlin, J.A.; et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009 , 6 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Sierra-Correa, P.C.; Cantera Kintz, J.R. Ecosystem-Based Adaptation for Improving Coastal Planning for Sea-Level Rise: A Systematic Review for Mangrove Coasts. Mar. Policy 2015 , 51 , 385–393. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Glass, G.V. Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research. Educ. Res. 1976 , 5 , 3–8. [ Google Scholar ]
Zamore, S.; Ohene Djan, K.; Alon, I.; Hobdari, B. Credit Risk Research: Review and Agenda. Emerg. Mark. Financ. Trade 2018 , 54 , 811–835. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Hussain, W.M.H.W.; Aziz, N.A. Mobile Marketing in Business Sustainability: A Bibliometric Analysis. TEM J. 2022 , 11 , 111–119. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bui, T.D.; Ali, M.H.; Tsai, F.M.; Iranmanesh, M.; Tseng, M.-L.; Lim, M.K. Challenges and Trends in Sustainable Corporate Finance: A Bibliometric Systematic Review. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2020 , 13 , 264. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Shamsuddin, S.N.; Ismail, N.; Roslan, N.F. What We Know about Research on Life Insurance Lapse: A Bibliometric Analysis. Risks 2022 , 10 , 97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Tsai, F.M.; Bui, T.D.; Tseng, M.L.; Lim, M.K.; Hu, J. Municipal Solid Waste Management in a Circular Economy: A Data-Driven Bibliometric Analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 275 , 124132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Bahar, N.; Mustaffa, Z.S.; Ahmad, N.D. Portfolio Management: A Bibliometric Review of 20 Years Publication. 2021 Int. Conf. Data Anal. Bus. Ind. ICDABI 2021 2021 , 230–234. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Pranckutė, R. Web of Science (Wos) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World. Publications 2021 , 9 , 12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Dima, A.; Bugheanu, A.M.; Boghian, R.; Madsen, D.Ø. Mapping Knowledge Area Analysis in E-Learning Systems Based on Cloud Computing. Electronics 2023 , 12 , 62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Dima, A.; Bugheanu, A.M.; Dinulescu, R.; Potcovaru, A.M.; Stefanescu, C.A.; Marin, I. Exploring the Research Regarding Frugal Innovation and Business Sustainability through Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 1326. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Birkle, C.; Pendlebury, D.A.; Schnell, J.; Adams, J. Web of Science as a Data Source for Research on Scientific and Scholarly Activity. Quant. Sci. Stud. 2020 , 1 , 363–376. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zhu, J. A Tale of Two Databases: The Use of Web of Science and Scopus in Academic Papers Forthcoming in Scientometrics. arXiv 2020 , 1–34. [ Google Scholar ]
Harzing, A.W.; Alakangas, S. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A Longitudinal and Cross-Disciplinary Comparison. Scientometrics 2016 , 106 , 787–804. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Lockwood, C.; Munn, Z.; Porritt, K. Qualitative Research Synthesis. Int. J. Evid. Based. Healthc. 2015 , 13 , 179–187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Okoli, C. A Guide to Conducting a Standalone Systematic Literature Review. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2015 , 37 , 879–910. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Shaffril, H.A.M.; Samah, A.A.; Kamarudin, S. Speaking of the Devil: A Systematic Literature Review on Community Preparedness for Earthquakes. Nat. Hazards 2021 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006 , 3 , 77–101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping. Scientometrics 2010 , 84 , 523–538. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Jeyaraj, A.; Rottman, J.W.; Lacity, M.C. A Review of the Predictors, Linkages, and Biases in IT Innovation Adoption Research. J. Inf. Technol. 2006 , 21 , 1–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Alkhowaiter, W.A. Digital Payment and Banking Adoption Research in Gulf Countries: A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020 , 53 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Naranjo Zolotov, M.; Oliveira, T.; Casteleyn, S. E-Participation Adoption Models Research in the Last 17 Years: A Weight and Meta-Analytical Review. Comput. Human Behav. 2018 , 81 , 350–365. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Elhajjar, S.; Ouaida, F. An Analysis of Factors Affecting Mobile Banking Adoption. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2020 , 38 , 352–367. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Sreejesh, S.; Anusree, M.R.; Mitra, A. Effect of Information Content and Form on Customers’ Attitude and Transaction Intention in Mobile Banking. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2016 , 34 , 1092–1113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Miranda, F.J.; Chamorro-Mera, A.; Rubio, S. Academic Entrepreneurship in Spanish Universities: An Analysis of the Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intention. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2017 , 23 , 113–122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Shah, N.; Soomro, B.A. Investigating Entrepreneurial Intention among Public Sector University Students of Pakistan. Educ. Train. 2017 , 59 , 841–855. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Imani, B.; Allahyari, M.S.; Bondori, A.; Surujlal, J.; Sawicka, B. Determinants of Organic Food Purchases Intention: The Application of an Extended Theory of Planned Behaviour. Futur. Food J. Food, Agric. Soc. 2021 , 9 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Rogers, C.J.; Forster, M.; Bahr, K.; Benjamin, S.M. A Cross-Sectional Study Using Health Behavior Theory to Predict Rapid Compliance with Campus Emergency Notifications among College Students. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 2021 , 15 , 198–207. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Lissitsa, S.; Kol, O. Four Generational Cohorts and Hedonic M-Shopping: Association between Personality Traits and Purchase Intention. Electron. Commer. Res. 2019 , 21 , 545–570. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kan, M.P.H.; Fabrigar, L.R.; Fishbein, M. Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Encycl. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2020 , 1–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Sarwar, A.; Afaf, G. A Comparison between Psychological and Economic Factors Affecting Individual Investor’s Decision-Making Behavior. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2016 , 3 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Gigerenzer, G.; Gaissmaier, W. Heuristic Decision Making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2011 , 62 , 451–482. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
Khan, M.N.; Rothwell, D.W.; Cherney, K.; Sussman, T. Understanding the Financial Knowledge Gap: A New Dimension of Inequality in Later Life. J. Gerontol. Soc. Work 2017 , 60 , 487–503. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
Lee, J.M.; Park, N.; Heo, W. Importance of Subjective Financial Knowledge and Perceived Credit Score in Payday Loan Use. Int. J. Financ. Stud. 2019 , 7 , 53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Banerjee, S.; Kang, H.; Bagchi-Sen, S.; Rao, H.R. Gender Divide in the Use of Internet Applications. Int. J. E-Bus. Res. 2005 , 1 , 24–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Waweru, N.M.; Munyoki, E.; Uliana, E. The Effects of Behavioural Factors in Investment Decision-Making: A Survey of Institutional Investors Operating at the Nairobi Stock Exchange. Int. J. Bus. Emerg. Mark. 2008 , 1 , 24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Savor, P.; Wilson, M. How Much Do Investors Care about Macroeconomic Risk? Evidence from Scheduled Economic Announcements. J. Financ. Quant. Anal. 2013 , 48 , 343–375. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Chen, Y.; Mandler, T.; Meyer-Waarden, L. Three Decades of Research on Loyalty Programs: A Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. J. Bus. Res. 2021 , 124 , 179–197. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Haddoud, M.Y.; Onjewu, A.K.E.; Nowiński, W.; Jones, P. The Determinants of SMEs’ Export Entry: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J. Bus. Res. 2021 , 125 , 262–278. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Paul, J.; Rosado-Serrano, A. Gradual Internationalization vs Born-Global/International New Venture Models: A Review and Research Agenda. Int. Mark. Rev. 2019 , 36 , 830–858. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Liao, S.; Sui, J.; Zhang, H. Switchable Ultra-Broadband Absorption and Polarization Conversion Metastructure Controlled by Light. Opt. Express 2022 , 30 , 34172–34187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Huang, Y.M.; Lou, S.J.; Huang, T.C.; Jeng, Y.L. Middle-Aged Adults’ Attitudes toward Health App Usage: A Comparison with the Cognitive-Affective-Conative Model. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 2019 , 18 , 927–938. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Fishbein, M.; Azjen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research ; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1975. [ Google Scholar ]
Kim, Y.H.; Kim, D.J.; Wachter, K. A Study of Mobile User Engagement (MoEN): Engagement Motivations, Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Continued Engagement Intention. Decis. Support Syst. 2013 , 56 , 361–370. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Berry, L.L. Cultivating Service Brand Equity. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2000 , 28 , 128–137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Davcik, N.S.; Sharma, P. Impact of Product Differentiation, Marketing Investments and Brand Equity on Pricing Strategies: A Brand Level Investigation. Eur. J. Mark. 2015 , 49 , 760–781. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kim, H.B.; Kim, W.G.; An, J.A. The Effect of Consumer-Based Brand Equity on Firms’ Financial Performance. J. Consum. Mark. 2003 , 20 , 335–351. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Kalandides, A.; Jacobsen, B.P. Investor/based Place Brand Equity: A Theoretical Framework. J. Place Manag. Dev. 2009 , 2 , 70–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Eid, R. Integrating Muslim Customer Perceived Value, Satisfaction, Loyalty and Retention in the Tourism Industry: An Empirical Study. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2015 , 17 , 249–260. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mansori, S.; Sambasivan, M.; Md-Sidin, S. Acceptance of Novel Products: The Role of Religiosity, Ethnicity and Values. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2015 , 33 , 39–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Elseidi, R.I. Determinants of Halal Purchasing Intentions: Evidences from UK. J. Islam. Mark. 2018 , 9 , 167–190. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Hair, J.F. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling with R ; 2017; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; Volume 21, ISSN 9783319055428. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Database

Search Strings

TS = ((“intention to invest” OR “investment intention” OR “investor * intention” OR “investor * decision” OR “investor * behavio *”) AND (“invesment” OR “islamic investment” OR “unit trust” OR “islamic unit trust” OR "mutual fund” OR “islamic mutual fund *” OR “bond” OR “islamic bond” OR “sukuk” OR “stock market” OR “islamic stock market”))

TITLE-ABS-KEY((“intention to invest” OR “investment intention” OR “investor * intention” OR “investor * decision” OR “investor * behavio *”) AND (“invesment” OR “islamic investment” OR “unit trust” OR “islamic unit trust” OR “mutual fund” OR “islamic mutual fund *” OR “bond” OR “islamic bond” OR “sukuk” OR “stock market” OR “islamic stock market”))

Criteria	Eligibility	Exclusion
Literature type	Indexed journal (research articles with empirical data)	Non-indexed journals, systematic literature review journals, chapters in books, conference proceedings, conceptual papers
Language	English	Non-English
Timeline	2016–May 2021	<2016
Unit of analysis	Individual or retail investor	Institutional investor

Theory	Frequency
Theory of Planned Behavior	12
Theory of Reasoned Action	2
Social Cognitive Theory	1
Portfolio Theory	1
Prospect Theory	1

Industry	Frequency	Country	Frequency
Stock market	17	India	8
Mutual fund *	6	Pakistan	5
Bond **	4	Malaysia	3
Retirement planning	1	Indonesia	3
		Saudi Arabia	2
		Vietnam	2
		Italy	1
		Taiwan	1
		UAE	1
		Turkey and Ireland	1
		Hong Kong and China	1

Method of Analysis	Total
Structural Equation Model	12
Partial Least Square Structural Equation Model	5
Ordinary Least Squares	5
Logistic Regression analysis	2
Factor Analysis	2

Independent Variable	Dependent Variable						Total No. of Significant Results	Frequency of Use	Weight
	Intention to Invest		Behavior		Decision Making		Total No. of Significant Results	Frequency of Use	Weight
	No. of Significant Results	No. of Nonsignificant Results	No. of Significant Results	No. of Nonsignificant Results	No. of Significant Results	No. of Nonsignificant Results
Attitude	9	1	1	0	1	0	11	12	0.92
SN	11	1	1	0	2	0	15	16	0.94
PBC	6	1	0	1	0	0	6	7	0.86
Moral Norms	2	0	0	0	0	0	2	2	1
Personality Traits	5	2	2	0	0	0	7	9	0.78
Past Behavior	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	2	0.5
Compatibility	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1
Heuristic	0	0	2	0	9	0	11	11	1
Emotion	0	0	0	0	5	0	5	5	1
Financial Literacy	10	2	1	0	0	0	11	13	0.85
Religiosity	3	0	1	0	0	0	4	4	1
Herding Behavior	0	0	0	0	4	0	4	4	1
Overconfidence Bias	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
Financial Well-Being	1	2	0	0	0	0	1	3	0.33
Environmental Concern	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
Brand Equity	3	0	0	0	0	0	3	0	1
Reputation	3	0	1	1	0	0	4	5	0.80
Product Features	0	0	11	0	0	0	11	11	1
Financial Status	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	1
Demographic	0	0	11	0	0	0	11	11	1
Information	0	0	4	0	0	0	4	4	1
	DV = Subjective Norms
Personality Traits	5	0					5	5	1
	DV = Attitude
Personality Traits	5	0					5	5	1
Financial Literacy	1	0					1	1	1
Religious Factor	1	0					1	1	1
Financial Performance	1	0					1	1	1
Reputation	1	0					1	1	1
Subjective Norms	0	1					0	1	0
	DV = Perceived Behavioral Control
Personality Traits	5	0					5	5	1
	DV = Behavior/Adoption/Participation
Intention			5	0			5	5	1

No.	Author, Year	Personal Factors									Social Factors		Market	Firm-Specific Factors	Product-Related Factors			Others
		Psychological								Cognitive	Social Factors		Market	Firm-Specific Factors	Product-Related Factors			Others
		A	PBC	MN	PT	PB	C	H	E		SI	RF	I	R	RR	BE	PF	D
1	Yang et al., 2021 [ ]
2	Shehata et al., 2021 [ ]
3	Khawaja and Alharbi, 2021 [ ]
4	Sumiati et al., 2021 [ ]
5	Raut et al., 2020 [ ]
6	Raut, 2020 [ ]
7	Khan et al., 2020 [ ]
8	Mahdzan et al., 2020 [ ]
9	Dewi and Tamara, 2020 [ ]
10	Bongini and Cucinelli, 2019 [ ]
11	Akhtar and Das, 2019 [ ]
12	Lai, 2019 [ ]
13	Annamalah et al., 2019 [ ]
14	Alharoni, 2019 [ ]
15	Duqi and al-Tamimi, 2019 [ ]
16	Rasheed et al., 2018 [ ]
17	Paliwal et al., 2018 [ ]
18	Cal and Lambkin, 2017 [ ]
19	Mak and Ip, 2017 [ ]
20	Ashidiqi and Arundina, 2017 [ ]
21	Raut and Das, 2017 [ ]
22	Sivaramakrishnan et al., 2017 [ ]
23	Kaur and Kaushik, 2016 [ ]
24	Cao et al., 2021 [ ]
25	Raut et al., 2020 [ ]
26	Moueed and Hunjra, 2020 [ ]
27	Qasim et al., 2019 [ ]
28	Shah et al., 2018 [ ]

			Mediating Variable			Moderating Variable
No	Author, Year	Instrument	Attitude	FSE	PR	RA	LoS	FSE	PR	Gender	Age	Experience
1	Shehata et al., 2021	Stock market							#
2	Raut, 2020	Stock market	◊
3	Khan et al., 2020	Sukuk				◊
4	Akhtar and Das, 2019	Stock market	◊	◊				◊
5	Lai, 2019	Stock market								◊	◊	◊
6	Cal and Lambkin, 2017	Stock market			◊◊
7	Rasheed et al., 2018	Stock market					#
8	Moueed and Hunjra, 2020	Stock market			◊

The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

Che Hassan, N.; Abdul-Rahman, A.; Mohd Amin, S.I.; Ab Hamid, S.N. Investment Intention and Decision Making: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 3949. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15053949

Che Hassan N, Abdul-Rahman A, Mohd Amin SI, Ab Hamid SN. Investment Intention and Decision Making: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. Sustainability . 2023; 15(5):3949. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15053949

Che Hassan, Norhazimah, Aisyah Abdul-Rahman, Syajarul Imna Mohd Amin, and Siti Ngayesah Ab Hamid. 2023. "Investment Intention and Decision Making: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda" Sustainability 15, no. 5: 3949. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15053949

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, strategic approaches to value investing: a systematic literature review of international studies.

Review of International Business and Strategy

ISSN : 2059-6014

Article publication date: 23 August 2019

Issue publication date: 10 September 2019

This paper aims to present a systematic literature review (SRL) on the topic of value investing (VI) in the international studies. The purpose of this study is twofold: to highlight the strategic approaches followed in recent contributions in the field of finance connected to the main approaches of the pioneering authors (Graham and Dodd, 1934; Fisher, 1958; Fama and French, 1992; Lakonishok, Shleifer and Vishny, 1994) who have investigated VI; and to analyse whether scholars follow a qualitative approach in studying VI that enables companies to achieve greater competitive advantage..

Design/methodology/approach

From a SLR of peer-reviewed papers covering the period 2007-2017, 45 papers were identified and analysed to present a better understanding of the adopted approaches and methodologies compared to the pioneering contributions on the topic.

This search found that 24 out of 45 papers specifically analyse VI. In particular, this work highlights 20 out of 24 papers that directly or indirectly, follow the approaches of “Graham and Dodd” or “Lakonishok, Shleifer and Vishny”/“Fama and French”, and 4 out of 24 that do not follow one of the main approaches identified. After the descriptive findings of the review, this paper highlights that none of the contributions takes into account qualitative analysis of a company to define whether the firm itself does or does not have a sustainable competitive advantage.

Practical implications

This paper suggests to international investors who intend to invest in one or more markets to revise the basic principles of VI, while also considering qualitative elements related to strategic aspects and behavioural finance. In particular, this study suggests that the investor introduce a qualitative analysis to allocate equity in value firms with a lasting competitive advantage.

Originality/value

This study contributes to advance the knowledge of VI from a theoretical point of view. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, it is the first study that systematises the international literature on this topic by highlighting the main contributions written in the period 2007-2017, analysing the development of the pioneering strategic approaches and examining their method of assessing firms.

Systematic literature review
Value investing
International studies
Capital allocation
Lasting competitive advantage
Strategic approaches
International investors
Corporate finance

Battisti, E. , Miglietta, N. , Salvi, A. and Creta, F. (2019), "Strategic approaches to value investing: a systematic literature review of international studies", Review of International Business and Strategy , Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 253-266. https://doi.org/10.1108/RIBS-01-2019-0011

Emerald Publishing Limited

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

Corpus ID: 190450578

Private Equity Investments: A Literature Review

Neerza , Vanita Tripathi
Published 2014
Business, Economics

One Citation

Venture capital: an analysis of investment and exit patterns of indian firms, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Private Equity Investments: A Literature Review

Related Papers

Maria A Madi , Barbosa Goncalves

In the last two decades, the private equity buyouts as an alternative investment reveal the strategies that have been adopted to guarantee high returns founded on market mechanisms. The leveraged buyout business model of the private equity firms, as the main agent for mergers, has both evolved from and fed a broader process of increased financialisation of corporate behavior and economic activity. This paper presents an analysis of the labor challenges as a result of the private equity firms´management model focused on financial engineering. After a brief overview of the private equity buyout investments, we discuss the labor challenges in order to highlight the growing inequality between the worsening working conditions compared to the enrichment of the private equity partners.

Venture Capital

Rasmeet Kohli

IJAR Indexing

The Venture Capital Industry in India has grown significantly since last few years. The Venture capital sector is the most vibrant industry in the financial market today. Venture capitalists are professional investors who specialize in funding to companies and building young, innovative enterprises to support business expansion with strategically. Venture capitalists are long-term investors who take a hands-on approach with all of their investments and actively work with entrepreneurial management teams in order to build great companies which will have the potential to develop into significant economic contributors. The duration for entry and exit such venture capitalist for 5-7 years to maximize their profit and return back. Venture capital is an important source of equity for start-up companies. Venture capitalists are people or companies who pool financial resources from high net worth individuals, pension funds, corporate insurance companies, etc. to invest in high risk - high return ventures that are unable to source funds from regular channels like banks and capital markets. The venture capital industry in India has really taken off in and it unbelievable role in Indian Economy. Venture capitalists not only provide monetary resources but also help the entrepreneur with guidance in formalizing his ideas into a viable business venture with existing resources or import new technology.

Interal Res journa Managt Sci Tech

Journal of Corporate Finance

Hany Shawky

CeoDave Kojo Adainoo-Mensah

Maria A Madi

Yuting Chen

Abhinay Huchche

Private Equity (PE) firms have long invested in Western firms using a leveraged buyout (LBO) model, whereby they acquire a company that they can grow with the ultimate goal of either selling it to a strategic buyer or taking it public. Unable to undertake the traditional LBO model in India, PE investors in Indian firms have developed a new model. Under this Indian PE Model, PE firms typically acquire minority interests in controlled companies using a structure that is both hybridized from other Western investment models and customized for India's complex legal environment. As minority shareholders in controlled firms, PE investors in India have developed several strategies to address their governance concerns. In particular, PE investors in India have focused on solutions to address local problems through the use of agreements that govern (i) the structuring of minority investments, (ii) investor control rights, and (iii) exit strategies. Nevertheless, recent governance and regulatory difficulties highlight the continuing uncertainty surrounding the Indian PE model.

European Financial …

Sofia Johan

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

Weaving equity into infrastructure resilience research: a decadal review and future directions

Natalie Coleman 1 ,
Xiangpeng Li 1 ,
Tina Comes 2 &
Ali Mostafavi 1

npj Natural Hazards volume 1 , Article number: 25 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Natural hazards
Sustainability

Infrastructure resilience plays an important role in mitigating the negative impacts of natural hazards by ensuring the continued accessibility and availability of resources. Increasingly, equity is recognized as essential for infrastructure resilience. Yet, after about a decade of research on equity in infrastructure resilience, what is missing is a systematic overview of the state of the art and a research agenda across different infrastructures and hazards. To address this gap, this paper presents a systematic review of equity literature on infrastructure resilience in relation to natural hazard events. In our systematic review of 99 studies, we followed an 8-dimensional assessment framework that recognizes 4 equity definitions including distributional-demographic, distributional-spatial, procedural, and capacity equity. Significant findings show that (1) the majority of studies found were located in the US, (2) interest in equity in infrastructure resilience has been exponentially rising, (3) most data collection methods used descriptive and open-data, particularly with none of the non-US studies using human mobility data, (4) limited quantitative studies used non-linear analysis such as agent-based modeling and gravity networks, (5) distributional equity is mostly studied through disruptions in power, water, and transportation caused by flooding and tropical cyclones, and (6) other equity aspects, such as procedural equity, remain understudied. We propose that future research directions could quantify the social costs of infrastructure resilience and advocate a better integration of equity into resilience decision-making. This study fills a critical gap in how equity considerations can be integrated into infrastructure resilience against natural hazards, providing a comprehensive overview of the field and developing future research directions to enhance societal outcomes during and after disasters. As such, this paper is meant to inform and inspire researchers, engineers, and community leaders to understand the equity implications of their work and to embed equity at the heart of infrastructure resilience plans.

Measuring accessibility to public services and infrastructure criticality for disasters risk management

Realizing resilience for decision-making

Exploring disaster impacts on adaptation actions in 549 cities worldwide

Introduction.

Infrastructures are the backbones of our societies, connecting people to essential resources and services. At the same time, infrastructure systems such as power, water, and transportation play a pivotal role in determining whether a natural hazard event escalates into a disaster 1 . Driven by the combination of accelerating climate hazards and increasing vulnerability, a 2022 Reuters report indicated that natural hazards caused infrastructure and building losses between $732 and $845 billion dollars internationally 2 . In another report by the World Bank (2019), the direct damage to power and transportation systems had an estimated cost of $18 billion annually 3 . Not only do infrastructure disruptions result in economic losses but they also lead to health issues and a decline in quality of life 4 . Since infrastructure systems secure the accessibility and availability of water, health, and electricity, among other critical services, disruptions of infrastructure exacerbate disasters. For example, the Nepal earthquake (2015) caused the collapse of 262 micro-hydropower plants and 104 hospitals, which further weakened the community’s ability to recover from the hazardous event 5 . Hurricane Maria (2017) in Puerto Rico led to year-long power disruptions which contributed to the 2975 estimated human fatalities 6 . Therefore, infrastructure resilience is becoming increasingly prominent in research, policy, and practice.

The National Infrastructure Advisory Council defined infrastructure resilience as the ability of infrastructure systems, to absorb, adapt, or recover from disruptive events such as natural hazards 7 , 8 . From an engineering viewpoint, infrastructure resilience ensures no significant degradation or loss of system performance in case of a shock (robustness), establishes multiple access channels to infrastructure services (redundancy), effectively mobilizes resources and adapts to new conditions (resourcefulness), and accomplishes these goals in a timely manner (rapidity) 9 . From these origins, infrastructure resilience has evolved to include the complex interactions of technology, policy, social, and governance structures 10 . The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction discusses the need to use transdisciplinary and systemic methods to guide infrastructure resilience 11 . In their Principles of Resilient Infrastructure report, the principles of infrastructure resilience are to develop understanding and insights (continual learning), prepare for current and future hazards (proactively protected), positively work with the natural environment (environmentally integrated), develop participation across all levels of society (socially engaged), share information and expertise for coordinated benefits (shared responsibility), and address changing needs in infrastructure operations (adaptively transforming) 12 .

Based on the argument of Schlor et al. 13 that “social equity is essential for an urban resilience concept,” we also argue that equity in infrastructure resilience will not only benefit vulnerable populations but also lead to more resilient communities. Equity, in a broad sense, refers to the impartial distribution and just accessibility of resources, opportunities, and outcomes, which strive for fairness regardless of location and social group 14 , 15 . Equity in infrastructure resilience ensures that everyone in the community, regardless of their demographic background, geographic location, level of community status, and internal capabilities, have access to and benefits from infrastructure services. It would also address the limitations of infrastructure resilience, which brings short-term benefits to a specific group of people but ultimately results in long-term disaster impacts 16 . A failure to recognize equity in infrastructure resilience could exacerbate the disaster impact and lock in recovery processes, which in turn, reduces future resilience and leads to a vicious cycle 17 .

Even though infrastructure resilience has important equity impacts, the traditional definition of infrastructure resilience is antithetical to equity. Socially vulnerable populations (such as lower income, minority, indigenous, or rural populations) have traditionally been excluded from the development, maintenance, and planning of infrastructure resilience 18 . For instance, resilience strategies do not conventionally consider the unique needs and vulnerabilities of different communities, leading to inadequate one-size-fits-all solutions 19 . Conventional approaches to restoring infrastructure after hazard events are based on the number of outages, the number of affected customers, and extent of damage within an area, depending on the company preferences, and rarely prioritize the inherent vulnerability of affected individuals and areas 20 . Thereby, those who are most dependent on infrastructure systems may also be most affected by their outages. Several reports, such as National Institute of Standards and Technology 21 , United Nations Office for Project Services 11 , United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction and Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure 22 , and the Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure 23 have recognized the importance of considering vulnerable populations in infrastructure resilience.

Furthermore, infrastructure resilience efforts often require significant investment at individual, community, and societal levels 24 . For instance, lower income households may not be able to afford power generators or water tanks to replace system losses 25 , 26 , which means they are more dependent on public infrastructure systems. Wealthier communities may receive more funding and resources for resilience projects due to better political representation and economic importance 27 . Improvements in infrastructure can also lead to gentrification and displacement, as an area perceived with increased safety may raise property values and push out underrepresented residents 28 . Infrastructure resilience may not be properly communicated or usable for all members of the community 29 . Research has also shown an association between vulnerable groups facing more intense losses and longer restoration periods of infrastructure disruptions due to planning biases, inadequate maintenance, and governance structures 18 . Due to the limited tools that translate equity considerations, infrastructure managers, owners, and operators are unlikely to recognize inequities in service provision 20 . Finally, resilience planning can prioritize rapid recovery which may not allow for sufficient time to address the underlying social inequities. This form of resilience planning overlooks the range of systematic disparities evident in infrastructure planning, management, operations, and maintenance in normal times and hazardous conditions 18 .

The field of equity in infrastructure resilience has sparked increasing interest over the last decade. First, researchers have distinguished equal and equitable treatment for infrastructure resilience. As stated by Kim and Sutley 30 , equality creates equivalence at the beginning of a process whereas equity seeks equivalence at the end. Second, the term has been interpreted through other social-economic concepts such as social justice 16 , sustainability 31 , vulnerability 32 , welfare 33 , 34 , and environmental justice 35 . Third, equitable infrastructure is frequently associated with pre-existing inequities such as demographic features 36 , 37 , spatial clusters 38 , 39 , 40 , and political processes 41 . Fourth, studies have proposed frameworks to analyze the relationship of equity in infrastructure resilience 42 , 43 , adapted quantitative and qualitative approaches 44 , 45 , and created decision-making tools for equity in infrastructure resilience 31 , 46 .

Despite a decade of increasing interest in integrating equity into infrastructure resilience, the research gap is to systematically evaluate collective research progress and fundamental knowledge. To address this gap, this paper presents a comprehensive systematic literature review of equity-related literature in the field of infrastructure resilience during natural hazards. The aim is to provide a thorough overview of the current state of art by synthesizing the growing body of literature of equitable thinking and academic research in infrastructure resilience. From there, we aim to identify gaps and establish a research agenda. This review focuses on the intersection of natural hazard events, infrastructure resilience, and equity to answer three overarching research questions. As such, this research is important because it explores the critical but often neglected integration of equity into infrastructure resilience against natural hazards. It provides a comprehensive overview and identifies future research opportunities to improve societal outcomes during and after disasters.

What are the prevailing concepts, foci, methods, and theories in assessing the inequities of infrastructure services in association with natural hazard events?

What are the similarities and differences in studying pathways of equity in infrastructure resilience?

What are the current gaps of knowledge and future challenges of studying equity in infrastructure resilience?

To answer the research questions, the authors reviewed 99 studies and developed an 8-dimensional assessment framework to understand in which contexts and via which methods equity is studied. To differentiate between different equity conceptualizations, the review distinguishes four definitions of equity: distributional-demographic (D), distributional-spatial (S), procedural (P), and capacity (C). In our study, “pathways” explores the formation, examination, and application of equity within an 8-dimensional framework. Following Meerow’s framework of resilience to what and of what? 47 , we then analyze for which infrastructures and hazards equity is studied. Infrastructures include power, water, transportation, communication, health, food, sanitation, stormwater, emergency, and general if a specific infrastructure is not mentioned. Green infrastructure, social infrastructure, building structures, and industrial structures were excluded. The hazards studied include flood, tropical cyclone, drought, earthquake, extreme temperature, pandemic, and general if there is no specific hazard.

The in-depth decadal review aims to bring insights into what aspects are fully known, partially understood, or completely missing in the conversation involving equity, infrastructure resilience, and disasters. The review will advance the academic understanding of equity in infrastructure resilience by highlighting understudied areas, recognizing the newest methodologies, and advising future research directions. Building on fundamental knowledge can influence practical applications. Engineers and utility managers can use these findings to better understand potential gaps in the current approaches and practices that may lead to inequitable outcomes. Community leaders and advocates could also leverage such evidence-based insights for advocacy and bring attention to equity concerns in infrastructure resilience policies and guidelines.

Infrastructure resilience in the broader resilience debate

To establish links across the resilience fields, this section embeds infrastructure resilience into the broader resilience debate including general systems resilience, ecological resilience, social resilience, physical infrastructure resilience, and equity in infrastructure resilience. From the variety of literature in different disciplines, we focus on the definitions of resilience and draw out the applicability to infrastructure systems.

Resilience has initially been explored in ecological systems. Holling 48 defines resilience as the ability of ecosystems to absorb changes and maintain their core functionality. This perspective recognizes that ecosystems do not necessarily return to a single equilibrium state, but can exist in multiple steady states, each with distinct thresholds and tipping points. Building on these concepts, Carpenter et al. 49 assesses the capacity of socioecological systems to withstand disturbances without transitioning to alternative states. The research compares resilience properties in lake districts and rangelands such as the dependence on slow-changing variables, self-organization capabilities, and adaptive capacity. These concepts enrich our understanding of infrastructure resilience by acknowledging the complex interdependencies between natural and built systems. It also points out the different temporal rhythms across fast-paced behavioral and slow-paced ecological and infrastructural change 50 .

Social resilience brings the human and behavioral dimension to the foreground. Aldrich and Meyer focuses on the concept of social capital in defining community resilience by emphasizing the role of social networks and relationships to enhance a community’s ability to withstand and recover from disasters 51 . Aldrich and Meyer argues that social infrastructure is as important as physical infrastructure in disaster resilience. Particularly, the depth and quality of social networks can provide crucial support in times of crisis, facilitate information sharing, expedite resource allocation, and coordinate recovery efforts. Resilience, in this context, is defined as the enhancement and utilization of its social infrastructure through social capital. It revolves around the collective capacity of communities to manage stressors and return to normalcy post-disaster through cooperative efforts.

Since community resilience relies on collaborative networks, which in turn are driven by accessibility, community and social resilience are intricately linked to functioning infrastructures 52 . To understand the relationships, we first examine the systems of systems approach thinking. Vitae Systems of Systems aims to holistically resolve complex environmental and societal challenges 53 . It emphasizes strategic, adaptive, and interconnected solutions crucial for long-term system resilience. Individual systems, each with their capabilities and purposes, are connected in ways such that they can achieve together what they cannot achieve alone. Additionally, Okada 54 also shows how the Vitae Systems of Systems can detect fundamental areas of concern and hotspots of vulnerability. It highlights principles of survivability (live through), vitality (live lively), and conviviality (live together) to build system capacity in the overall community. In the context of infrastructure resilience, these approaches bring context to the development of systems and their interdependencies, rather than focusing on the resilience of individual components in isolation.

Expanding on the notion of social and community resilience, Hay’s applies key concepts of being adaptable and capable of maintaining critical functionalities during disruptions to infrastructure 55 . This perspective introduces the concept of “safe-to-fail” systems, which suggests that planning for resilience should anticipate and accommodate the potential for system failures in a way that minimizes overall disruption and aids quick recovery.

As such, the literature agrees that social, infrastructural, and environmental systems handle unexpected disturbances and continue to provide essential services. While Aldrich’s contribution lies in underscoring the importance of social ties and community networks, Hay expands this into the realm of physical systems by considering access to facilities. Infrastructure systems traditionally adapt and change slowly, driven by rigid physical structures, high construction costs, and planning regulations. In contrast, behavioral patterns are relatively fast-changing, even though close social connections and trust also take time to build. Yet, infrastructures form the backbone that enables—or disrupts—social ties. By adopting resilience principles that enable adaptation across infrastructure and social systems, better preparedness, response, and recovery can be achieved.

Given the dynamic, complex nature of resilience, infrastructure resilience, by extension, should not just be considered through the effective engineering of the built environment. Rather, infrastructure resilience must be considered as an integral part of the multi-layered resilience landscape. Crucial questions that link infrastructure to the broader resilience debate include: How will it be used and by whom? How are infrastructure resilience decisions taken, and whose voices are prioritized? These critical questions necessitate the integration of equity perspectives into the infrastructure resilience discourse.

Equity in infrastructure resilience ensures all community members have equitable access to essential services and infrastructure. In her commentary paper, Cutter 56 examines disaster resilience and vulnerability, challenging the prevalent ambiguity in the definitions of resilience. The paper poses two fundamental questions of “resilience to what?” and “resilience to whom?” . Later, Meerow and Newell 47 expanded on these questions in the context of urban resilience, “for whom, what, where, and why?” . They also stress the need for “resilience politics,” which include understanding of how power dynamics shape resilience policies, creating winners and losers 47 .

In a nutshell, resilience strategies must proactively address systemic inequities. This can also be framed around the concept of Rawls’ Theory of Justice principles, such as equal basic rights and fair equality of opportunity 57 , 58 . Rawls advocates for structuring social and economic inequalities to benefit the least advantaged members of society. In the context of infrastructure resilience, the theory would ensure vulnerable communities, such as lower-income households, have priority in infrastructure restoration. Incorporating Walker’s Theory of Abundant Access, this could also mean prioritizing those most dependent on public transit. Access to public transit, especially in lower-income brackets, allows for greater freedom of movement and connection to other essential facilities in the community like water, food, and health 59 , 60 . At the same time, Casali et al. 61 show that access to infrastructures alone is not sufficient for urban resilience to emerge. Such perspectives integrate physical and social elements of a community to equitably distribute infrastructure resilience benefits. Table 1 summarizes the selected definitions of resilience.

Definitions of equity

Equity in infrastructure resilience ensures that individuals have the same opportunity and access to infrastructure services regardless of differing demographics, spatial regions, involvement in the community, and internal capacity. Equity is a multifaceted concept that requires precise definitions to thoroughly assess and address it within the scope of infrastructure resilience. Based on the literature, our systematic literature review proposes four definitions of equity for infrastructure resilience: distributional-demographic (D), distributional-spatial (S), procedural (P), and capacity (C). Distributional-demographic (D) equity represents accessibility to and functionality of infrastructure services considering the vulnerability of demographic groups 62 . Distributional-spatial (S) equity focuses on the equitable distribution of infrastructure services to all spatial regions 63 . Procedural (P) equity refers to inclusive participation and transparent planning with stakeholders and community members 31 . Capacity equity (C) connect the supporting infrastructure to the hierarchy of needs which recognizes the specific capacities of households 64 .

Distributional-demographic (D) addresses the systemic inequities in communities to ensure those of differing demographic status have equitable access to infrastructure services 37 . The purpose is to equitably distribute the burdens and benefits of services by reducing disparity for the most disadvantaged populations 42 . These groups may need greater support due to greater hardship to infrastructure losses, greater dependency on essential services, and disproportionate losses to infrastructure 43 , 65 , 66 . In addition, they may have differing abilities and need to mitigate service losses 33 . Our research bases distributional-demographic on age for young children and elderly, employment, education, ethnicity, people with disabilities, gender, income, tenure of residence, marginalized populations based on additional demographic characteristics, intergenerational, and general-social inequities 67 .

Distributional-spatial (S) recognizes that the operation and optimizations of the systems may leave certain areas in isolation 68 , 69 , 70 . For example, an equitable access to essential services (EAE) approach to spatial planning can identify these service deserts 46 . Urban and rural dynamics may also influence infrastructure inequities. Rural areas have deficient funding sources compared to urban areas 17 while urban areas may have greater vulnerability due to the interconnectedness of systems 71 . Our research labels distributional-spatial as spatial and urban-rural. Spatial involves spatial areas of extreme vulnerability through spatial regression models, spatial inequity hotspots, and specific mentions of vulnerable areas. Urban-rural references the struggles of urban-rural areas.

Procedural (P) equity ensures the inclusion of everyone in the decision-making process from the collection of data to the influence of policies. According to Rivera 72 , inequities in the disaster recovery and reconstruction process originate from procedural vulnerabilities associated with historical and ongoing power relations. The validity of local cultural identities is often overlooked in the participation process of designing infrastructure 73 . Governments and institutions may have excluded certain groups from the conversation to understand, plan, manage, and diminish risk in infrastructure 74 . As argued by Liévanos and Horne 20 , such utilitarian bureaucratic decision rules can limit the recognition of unequal services and the development of corrective actions. These biases can be present in governmental policies, maintenance orders, building codes, and distribution of funding 30 . Our research labels procedural equity as stakeholder input and stakeholder engagement. Stakeholder input goes beyond collecting responses from interviews and surveys. Rather, researchers will ask for specific feedback and validation on final research deliverables like models, results, and spatial maps, but they are not included in the research planning process. Stakeholder engagement are instances where participants took an active role in the research deliverables to change elements of their community.

Capacity (C) equity is the ability of individuals, groups, and communities to counteract or mitigate the effect of infrastructure loss. As mentioned by Parsons, et al. 75 , equity can be enhanced through a network of adaptive capacities at the household or community level. These adaptive capacities are viewed as an integral part of community resilience 76 . Regarding infrastructure, households can prepare for infrastructure losses and have service substitutes such as power generators or water storage tanks 77 , 78 . It may also include the household’s ability to tolerate disruptions and the ability to perceive risk to infrastructure losses 66 . However, capacity can be limited by people’s social connections, social standing, and access to financial resources and personal capital 79 . Our research categorizes capacity equity as adaptations, access, and susceptibility. Adaptations include preparedness strategies before a disaster as well as coping strategies during and after the disaster. Access includes a quantifiable metric in reaching critical resources which may include but is not limited to vehicles, public transportation, or walking. Susceptibility involves a household internal household capability such as tolerance, suffering, unhappiness, and willingness-to-pay models. Although an important aspect of capability, the research did not include social capital since it is outside the scope of research.

Methods of systematic literature review

Our systematic literature review used the Covidence software 80 , which is a production tool to make the process of conducting systematic reviews more efficient and streamlined 80 . As a web-based platform, it supports the collaborative management of uploaded journal references and processes journals through 4-step screening and analysis including title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data abstraction, and quality assessment. The software also follows the guidelines of PRIMSA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis), which provides a clear, transparent way for researchers to document their findings 81 . PRIMSA includes a 27-item checklist and 4-phase flow diagram of identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. Figure 1 summarizes the PRIMSA method we followed during our review process by showing the search criteria and final selected articles at each stage, including identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion.

The figure shows the 4-step screening process of identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion as well as the specific search criteria for each step. From the initial 2991 articles, 99 articles were selected.

Identification

The search covered Web of Science and Science Direct due to their comprehensive coverage and interdisciplinary sources. To cover a broad set of possible disasters and infrastructures, our search focused on the key areas of equity (“equit- OR fair- OR justice- OR and access-“), infrastructure (“AND infrastructure system- OR service-”), and disasters (“ AND hazard- OR, cris- OR, disaster- OR”). We limited our search to journal articles published in engineering, social sciences, and interdisciplinary journals during January 2010 to March 2023. Excluding duplicates, the combined results of the search engines resulted in 2991 articles.

The articles were screened on their title and abstract. These had to explicitly mention both an infrastructure system (water, transportation, communication, etc.) and natural hazards (tropical cyclone, earthquake, etc.) The specific criteria for infrastructure and natural hazard is found in the 8-dimension framework. This initial screening process yielded 398 articles for full-text review.

Eligibility

The articles were examined based on the extent of discussion in infrastructure, natural hazard, and equity dimension. Insufficient equity discussion means that the paper did not fall within the distributional-demographic, distributional-spatial, procedural, or capacity forms of equity (98). Studies were also excluded for not directly including equity analysis in the infrastructure system (19). Limited infrastructure focus means that the article may have focused on infrastructure outside the scope of the manuscript such as industrial, green, building, or social infrastructure (74). Limited disaster focus means that the article did not connect to the direct or indirect impacts of disasters on infrastructure systems (45). Wrong study design included literature reviews, opinion pieces, policy papers, and unable to access (56). This stage yielded 99 final articles.

Inclusion and assessment framework

To analyze the 99 articles, we designed an 8-dimensional assessment framework (see Fig. 2 ) to analyze the literature. In Fig. 2 , the visualization focuses on equity, infrastructure, and natural hazards since these are the 3 main dimensions of the systematic literature review. The icons on the bottom are the remaining 5 dimensions which add more analysis and context to the first 3 dimensions. Here, we refer to research question 1: what are the prevailing concepts, foci, methods, and theories, in assessing the inequities of disrupted infrastructure services? The framework distinguished the concepts (equity dimensions, infrastructure system, and natural hazard event), foci (geographical scale, geographic location, temporal scale), methods (nature of study and data collection), and theories (theoretical perspective) (Fig. 2 ). The following details each subquestion:

Equity dimensions, infrastructure type, and hazard event type are the main 3 dimensions while geographical location, geographic scale, temporal, nature of the study, and theoretical perspectives are the remaining 5 dimensions which add more information and context.

How is equity conceptualized and measured? First, we label equity into 4 definitions (DPSC). Second, it summarizes the equity conclusions.

Infrastructure type

Which infrastructure services were most and least commonly studied? This category is divided into power, water, transportation, communication, health, food, sanitation, stormwater, emergency, and general if a specific infrastructure is not mentioned. Studies can include more than one infrastructure service. Green infrastructure, social infrastructure, building structures, and industrial structures were excluded.

Hazard event type

Which hazard events are most or least frequently studied? This category includes flood, tropical cyclone, drought, earthquake, extreme temperature, pandemic, and general if there is no specific hazard. To clarify, tropical cyclones include hurricanes and typhoons while extreme temperatures are coldwaves and heatwaves. It determines which studies are specific to hazards and which can be applied to universal events.

Geographic location

Which countries have studied equity the most and least? This category is at the country scale such as the United States, Netherlands, China, and Australia, among others.

Geographic scale

What geographic unit of scale has been studied to represent equity? Smaller scales of study can reveal greater insights at the household level while larger scales of study can reveal comparative differences between regional communities. It ranges from individual, local, regional, and country as well as project. To clarify, ‘individual’ can include survey respondents, households, and stakeholder experts; ‘local’ is census block groups, census tracts, and ZIP codes equivalent scales; ‘regional’ is counties, municipalities, and cities equivalent; ‘project’ refers to studies that focused on specific infrastructure/ construction projects.

Temporal scale

When did themes and priority of equity first emerge? This category determines when equity in infrastructure research is published and whether these trends are increasing, decreasing, or constant.

Nature of the study

How is data for equity being collected and processed? This category analyzed data types used including conceptual, descriptive, open-data, location-intelligence, and simulation data. To clarify, conceptual refers to purely conceptual frameworks or hypothetical datasets; descriptive refers to surveys, questionnaires, interviews, or field observations performed by the researcher; open-data refers to any open-data source that is easily and freely attainable such as census and flood data; location-intelligence refers to social media, human mobility, satellite and aerial images, visit data, and GIS layers; and finally, simulation data can be developed through simulation models like numerical software, Monte-Carlo, or percolation methods. Second, the data can be processed through quantitative or qualitative methods. Quantitative methods may include correlation, principal component analysis, and spatial regression while qualitative methods may include validation, thematic coding, participatory rural appraisal, and citizen science. We focused on analysis explicitly mentioned in the manuscript. For example, it can be assumed that studies of linear regression discussed correlation analysis and other descriptive statistics in their data processing.

Theoretical perspective

Which theoretical frameworks have been created and used to evaluate equity? This category summarizes the reasoning behind the theoretical frameworks which may have informal or formal names such as a service-gap model, well-being approach, and capability approach.

Based on the 8-dimensional assessment framework, the research first examines the spatiotemporal patterns as well as data and methods to evaluate equity. Then, it investigates the definitions of equity to the intersections with infrastructure and hazards. It concludes with a discussion of theoretical frameworks. We use the term “pathways” to identify how equity is constructed, analyzed, and used in relation to the 8-dimensional framework. For instance, the connection between equity and infrastructure is considered a pathway. By defining specific “pathways,” we are essentially mapping out the routes through which equity interacts with various dimensions of a framework, such as infrastructure. The following analysis directly addresses research question 1 (prevailing concepts, focuses, methods, and theories, in assessing the inequities of disrupted infrastructure services) and research question 2 (similar and different pathways of equity). Supplementary Figures 1A – 12A provide additional context to the research findings and can be found in the Supplementary Information .

Spatiotemporal patterns of equity

Overall, there is an increasing number of publications about equity in infrastructure management (Fig. 3 ). A slight decrease observed in 2021 could be because of the focus on COVID-19 research. Spatially, by far the most studies focus on the US (69), followed by India (3), Ghana (3), and Bangladesh (3) (Fig. 5 ). This surprising distribution seems to contradict the intuition that equity and fairness in infrastructure resilience are certainly global phenonmena. Besides the exact phrasing of the search term, this result can be explained by the focus of this review on the intersection of infrastructure resilience and inequity. For infrastructure resilience, prominent reports, such as the CDRI’s 2023 Global Infrastructure Resilience Report 82 still fail to address it. Even though research has called for increasing consideration of equity and distributive justice in infrastructure and risk assessment, inequity is still all too often viewed as a social and economic risk 83 . At the same time, persistent imbalances in terms of data availability have been shown to shift research interest to the US, especially for data intense studies on urban infrastructures 84 . Finally, efforts to mainstream of equity and fairness across all infrastructures as a part of major transitions may explain why equity discussion is less pronounced in the context of crises. For instance, in Europe, according to the EU climate act (Article 9(1)) 85 , all sectors need to be enabled and empowered to make the transition to a climate-resilient society fair and equitable .

The bar graph shows an overall increasing from 2011 to 2023 in publications about equity in infrastructure resilience during natural hazard events. The pie chart shows that countries in the global north with United States (US), England, Australia, Germany, Taiwan, Norway, South Korea, and Japan and global south with Bangladesh, India, Ghana, Mexico, Mozambique, Brazil, Tanzania, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nigeria, Kenya, Nepal, Zimbabwe, Central Asia, and South Africa.

Data and methods to interpret equity

Our Sankey diagram (Fig. 4 ) sketches the distribution of data collection pathways which connects quantitative-qualitative data to data type to scale. Most studies start from quantitative data (120) with fewer using mixed (34) or qualitative (18) data. Quantitative studies use descriptive (58), open-data (50) location-intelligence (36), simulation (19), and conceptual (9). The most prominent spatial scale was local (66) which consisted of census tract, census block group, zip code, and equivalent spatial scale of analysis. This was followed by individual or household scale (64) which largely stems from descriptive data of interviews, surveys, and field observations. Within the context of infrastructure, equity, and hazards, non-US studies did not use human mobility data, a specific type of location-intelligence data. This could be due to limitations in data availability and different security restrictions to these researchers such as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation 86 . Increasingly, the application of location-intelligence data was used to supplement the understanding of service disruptions. For example, satellite information 87 , telemetry-based data 37 , and human mobility data 88 were used to evaluate the equitable restoration of power systems and access to critical facilities. Social media quantified public emotions to disruptions 89 , 90 .

The Sankey diagram shows the flow from studies containing quantitative, qualitative, or quantitative–qualitative data to the specific type of data of descriptive, open-data, location-intelligence, simulation, and conceptual to spatial scale of data of local, individual, regional, country, and project.

As shown in Fig. 5 , there are distinct quantitative and qualitative methods to interpret equity. Most quantitative methods were focused on descriptive analysis and linear models which can assume simple relationships within equity dimensions. Simple relationships would assume that dependent variables have a straightforward relationship with independent variables. Regarding quantitative analysis, descriptive statistics were correlation (12), chi-square (6), and analysis of variance (ANOVA) (5) means. Spatial analysis included geographic information system (GIS) (15), Moran’s-I spatial autocorrelation (6), and spatial-regression (5). Variables were also grouped together through principal component analysis (PCA) (9) and Index-Weighting (9). Logit models (13) and Monte-Carlo simulations (7) were used to analyze data. Thus, more complex models are needed to uncover the underlying mechanisms associated with equity in infrastructure. In analyzing quantitative data, most research has focused on using descriptive statistics, linear models, and Moran’s I statistic which have been effective in pinpointing areas with heightened physical and social vulnerability 25 , 91 , 92 .

The quantitative pie chart has geographic information system (GIS), logit model, correlation, index-weighting, principal component analysis (PCA), monte-carlo simulation, chi-square, Moran’s- I spatial autocorrelation, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and spatial regression. The qualitative pie chart has validation, thematic coding, citizen science, sentiment analysis, conceptual analysis, participatory rural appraisal, document analysis, participatory assessment, photovoice, and ethnographic.

However, there has been a less frequent yet insightful use of advanced techniques like machine learning, agent-based modeling, and simulation. For example, Esmalian, et al. 66 employed agent-based modeling to explore how social demographic characteristics impact responses to power outages during Hurricane Harvey. In a similar vein, Baeza, et al. 93 utilized agent-based modeling to evaluate the trade-offs among three distinct infrastructure investment policies: prioritizing high-social-pressure neighborhoods, creating new access in under-served areas, and refurbishing aged infrastructure. Simulation models have been instrumental in understanding access to critical services like water 43 , health care 92 , and transportation 33 . Beyond these practical models, conceptual studies have also contributed innovative methods. Notably, Clark, et al. 94 proposed gravity-weighted models, and Kim and Sutley 30 explored the use of genetic algorithms to measure the accessibility to critical resources. These diverse methodologies indicate a growing sophistication in the field, embracing a range of analytical tools to address the complexities of infrastructure resilience.

Regarding qualitative analysis, the methods included thematic coding (7), validation of stakeholders (9), sentiment (4), citizen science (5), conceptual analysis (3) participatory rural appraisal (2), document analysis (2), participatory assessment (1), photovoice (1), and ethnographic (1). Qualitative methods were used to capture diverse angles of equity, offering a depth and context not provided by quantitative data alone. These methods are effective in understanding capacity equity, such as unexpected strategies and coping mechanisms that would go otherwise unnoticed 95 . Qualitative research can also capture the perspectives and voices of stakeholders through procedural equity. Interviews and focus groups can validate and enhance research frameworks 96 . Working collaboratively with stakeholders, as shown with Masterson et al. 97 can lead to positive community changes in updated planning policies. Qualitative methods can narratively convey the personal hardships of infrastructure losses 98 . This approach recognizes that infrastructure issues are not just technical problems but also deeply intertwined with social, economic, and cultural dimensions.

Interlinkages of equity definitions

As shown in Fig. 6 , the frequency of type of equity was distributional-demographic (90), distributional-spatial (55), capacity (54), and procedural (16). It is notable to reflect on the intersections between the four definitions of equity. Between two linkages, the top three linkages between DC (20), DS (16), and DP (9), which all revealed a connection to distributional-demographic equity. There were comparatively fewer studies linking 3 dimensions except for DSC which had 25 connections. Only 3 studies had 4 connections.

Distributional-demographic had the highest number of studies and the greatest overlap with the remaining equity definitions of capacity, procedural, and distributional-spatial. Only 3 studies overlapped with the four equity definitions.

Distributional-demographic equity was the most studied equity definition. Table 2 shows how pathways of demographic equity relate to the different infrastructure systems and variables within distributional-demographic, including 728 unique pathways. As a reminder, pathways explore equity across an 8-dimensional framework. In this case, the distributional-demographic equity is connected to infrastructure, treating these connections as pathways Pathways with power (165), water (147), and transportation (112) were the most frequent while those with stormwater (23) and emergency (9) services were the least frequent. Referencing demographics, the most pathways were income (148), ethnicity (115), and age (122) while least studied were gender (63), employment (35), marginalized populations (5) and intergenerational (1). Note the abbreviations for Tables 2 and 3 are power (P), water (W), transportation (T), food (F), health (H), sanitation (ST), communication (C), stormwater (SW), emergency (E), and general (G). Regarding distributional-demographic, several research papers showed that lower income and minority households were most studied in comparison to the other demographic variables. Lower-income and minority households faced greater exposure, more hardship, and less tolerance to withstand power, water, transportation, and communication outages during Hurricane Harvey 99 . These findings were replicated in disasters such as Hurricane Florence, Hurricane Michael, COVID-19 pandemic, Winter Storm Uri, and Hurricane Hermine, respectively 65 , 91 , 100 , 101 . Several studies found that demographic vulnerabilities are interconnected and compounding, and often, distributional-demographic equity is a pre-existing inequality condition that is exacerbated by disaster impact 102 . For instance, Stough, et al. 98 identified that respondents with disabilities faced increased struggles due to a lack of resources to access proper healthcare and transportation after Hurricane Katrina. Women were often overburdened by infrastructure loss as they were expected to “pick up the pieces,” and substitute the missing service 103 , 104 . Fewer studies involved indigenous populations, young children, or considered future generations. Using citizen-science methods, Ahmed, et al. 105 studied the struggles and coping strategies of the Santal indigenous group to respond to water losses in drought conditions. Studies normally did not account for the direct infrastructure losses on children and instead concentrated on the impacts on their caretakers 106 ; however, this is likely due to restrictions surrounding research with children. Lee and Ellingwood 107 discussed how, “intergenerational discounting makes it possible to allocate costs and benefits more equitably between the current and future generations” (pg.51) A slight difference in discounting rate can lead to vastly different consequences and benefits for future generations. For example, the study found that insufficient investments in design and planning will only increase the cost and burden of infrastructure maintenance and replacement.

Distributional-spatial equity was the second most studied aspect, which includes spatial grouping and urban-rural designation, particularly given the rise of open-data and location-intelligence data with spatial information. Table 3 shows the pathways of spatial equity connected to different infrastructures and variables. In total, 109 unique pathways were found with spatial (83) and urban-rural (26) characteristics. Power (27), transportation (22), water (16), and health (15) systems were the most frequent pathways with stormwater (4), emergency (2), and communication (3) the least frequent. Urban-rural studies on communication and emergency services are entirely missing. Distributional-spatial equity studies, including spatial inequities and urban-rural dynamics, were often linked with distributional-demographic equity. For example, Logan and Guikema 46 defined “access rich” and “access poor” to measure different sociodemographic populations’ access to essential facilities. White populations had less distance to travel to open supermarkets and service stations in North Carolina 46 . Esmalian et al. 108 found that higher income areas had a lower number of stores in their areas, but they still had better access to grocery stores in Harris County, Texas. This could be because higher income areas live in residential areas, but they have the capability to travel further distances and visit more stores. Vulnerable communities could even be indirectly impacted by spatial spillover effects from neighboring areas 26 . Regarding urban-rural struggles, Pandey et al. 17 argued that inequities emerge when urban infrastructure growth lags with respect to the urban population while rural areas face infrastructure deficits. Rural municipalities had fewer resources, longer restoration times, and less institutional support to mitigate infrastructure losses 95 , 109 , 110 .

Capacity was the third most studied dimension and had 150 unique pathways to adaptations (54), access (43), and susceptibility (53). In connecting to infrastructure systems, power (29), water (27), transportation (25), and food (22) had the greatest number of pathways. There were interesting connections between different infrastructures and variables of capacity. Access was most connected to food (11), transportation (10), and health systems (10). Adaptations were most connected to water (15) and power (12) systems. This highlights how capacity equity is reflected differently to infrastructure losses. Capacity equity was often connected with distributional-equity since different sociodemographic groups have varying adaptations to infrastructure losses 78 . For example, Chakalian, et al. 106 found that white respondents were 2.5 more likely to own a power generator while Kohlitz et al. 95 found that poorer households could not afford rainwater harvesting systems. These behaviors may also include tolerating infrastructure disruptions 111 , cutting back on current resources 112 , or having an increased suffering 113 . The capabilities approach offers a valuable perspective on access to infrastructure services 94 . It recognizes the additional time and financial resources that certain groups may need to access the same level of services, especially if travel networks are disrupted 114 , 115 and travel time is extended 33 . In rural regions, women, children, and lower income households often reported traveling further distances for resources 105 , 116 . These disparities are often influenced by socioeconomic factors, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding on how different communities are affected by and respond to infrastructure losses. As such, building capacity is not just increasing the preparedness of households but also accommodating infrastructure systems to ensure equitable access, such as the optimization of facility locations 69 .

Procedural was the least studied equity definition with only 26 unique pathways, involving stakeholder input and stakeholder engagement. Pathways to communication and emergency systems were not available. The greatest number of pathways were water services to stakeholder input (7) and stormwater services to stakeholder engagement (4). Stakeholder input can assist researchers in validating and improving their research deliverables. This approach democratizes the decision-making process and enhances the quality and relevance of research and planning outcomes. For instance, the involvement of local experts and residents in Tanzania through a Delphi process led to the development of a more accurate and locally relevant social resilience measurement tool 117 . Stakeholder engagement, such as citizen science methods, can incorporate environmental justice communities into the planning process, educate engineers and scientists, and collect reliable data which can be actively incorporated back to the community 118 , 119 , 120 . Such participatory approaches, including citizen science, allow for a deeper understanding of community needs and challenges. In Houston, TX, the success of engaging high school students in assessing drainage infrastructure exemplified how community involvement can yield significant, practical data 119 . The data was approximately 74% accurate to trained inspectors, which were promising results for communities assessing their infrastructure resilience 119 . In a blend of research and practice, Masterson, et al. 97 illustrated the practical application of procedural equity. By interweaving equity in their policy planning, Rockport, TX planners added accessible services and upgrades to infrastructure for lower-income and racial-ethnic minority neighborhoods, directly benefiting underserved communities.

Pathways between equity, hazard, and infrastructure

For the hazards, tropical cyclones (34.6%) and floods (30.8%) make up over half of the studied hazards (Supplementary Figure 2A ) while power (21.2%), water (19.2%), transportation (15.4%), and health (12.0%) were the most frequently studied infrastructure services (Supplementary Figure 3A ). A pathway is used to connect equity to different dimensions of the framework, in this case, equity to infrastructure to hazard (Fig. 7 ). When considering these pathways, distributional-demographic (270) had the most pathways followed by capacity (175), distributional-spatial (140), and procedural (28). The most common pathway across all infrastructure services was a tropical cyclone and flooding with distributional-demographic equity (Supplementary Figures 6A – 8A ). As shown in Fig. 7 , tropical cyclone (229) and flood (192) had the most pathways while extreme temperatures (20) and pandemic (14) had the least. Although pandemic is seemingly the least studied, it is important to note that most of these studies were post COVID-19. Power (120), transportation (107), and water (104) had the most pathways whereas sanitation (33), communication (27), stormwater (21), and emergency (14) had the least pathways. The figure shows specific gaps in the literature. Whereas the other three equity definitions had connections to each hazard event, procedural equity only had connections to tropical cyclone, flood, general, and drought. There were only pathways from health infrastructure to tropical cyclone, flood, general, earthquake, and pandemic. There were 106 pathways connecting equity to general hazards, which may suggest the need to look at the impacts of specific hazards to equity in infrastructure resilience.

The Sankey diagram shows the flow from the different types of equity, or equity definitions, of distributional-demographic (D), capacity (C), distributional-spatial (S), and procedural (P) to hazard of tropical cyclone, flood, general, drought, earthquake, extreme temperature, and pandemic to infrastructure of power, transportation, water, health, food, communication, general, stormwater, emergency, and sanitation.

Research frameworks

Regarding research question 2, this research aims to understand frameworks of equity in infrastructure resilience. As an exploration of the frameworks. we found common focus areas of adaptations, access, vulnerability, validation, and welfare economics (Table 4 ). The full list of frameworks can be found in the online database that was uploaded in DesignSafe Data Depot. Supplementary Information .

Adaptations

Household adaptations included the ability to prepare before a disaster as well as coping strategies during and after the disaster. Esmalian et al. 111 developed a service gap model based on survey data of residents affected by Hurricane Harvey. Lower-income households were less likely to own power generators, which could lead to an inability to withstand power outages 111 . To understand household adaptations, Abbou et al. 78 asked residents of Los Angeles, California about their experiences in electrical and water losses. The study showed that when compared to men, women used more candles and flashlights. People with higher education, regardless of gender, were more likely to use power generators. In a Pressure and Release model, Daramola et al. 112 examined the level of preparedness to natural hazards in Nigeria. The study found that rural residents tended to use rechargeable lamps while urban areas used generators, likely due to the limited availability of electricity systems. Approximately 73% of participants relied on chemist shops to cope with constrained access to health facilities.

Other frameworks focused on the accessibility to resources. Clark et al. 94 developed the social burden concept which uses resources, conversion factors, capabilities, and functioning into a travel cost method to access critical resources. In an integrated physical-social vulnerability model, Dong et al. 92 calculated disrupted access to hospitals in Harris County, Texas. Logan and Guikema 46 integrated spatial planning, diverse vulnerabilities, and community needs into EAE services. In the case study of Willimgton, North Carolina, they showed how lower-income households had fewer access to grocery stores. In a predictive recovery monitoring spatial model, Patrascu and Mostafavi 26 found that the percentage of Black and Asian subpopulations were significant features to predict recovery of population activity, or the visits to essential services in a community.

Vulnerability

Several of the infrastructure resilience frameworks were grounded in social vulnerability assessments. For instance, Toland et al. 43 created a community vulnerability assessment based on an earthquake scenario that resulted in the need for emergency food and water resources. Using GIS, Oswald and Mohammed developed a transportation justice threshold index that integrated social vulnerability into transportation understanding 121 . In a Disruption Tolerance Index, Esmalian et al. 25 showed how demographic variables are connected with disproportionate losses in power and transportation losses.

Additional studies were based on stakeholder input and expert opinion. Atallah et al. 36 established an ABCD roadmap for health services which included acute life-saving services, basic institutional aspects for low-resource settings, community-driven health initiatives, and disease specific interventions. Health experts were instrumental in providing feedback for the ABCD roadmap. Another example is the development of the social resilience tool for water systems validated by experts and community residents by Sweya et al. 117 . To assess highway resilience, Hsieh and Feng had transportation experts score 9 factors including resident population, income, employment, connectivity, dependency ratio, distance to hospital, number of substitutive links, delay time in substitutions, and average degenerated level of services 122 .

Welfare economics

Willingness-to-pay (WTP) models reveal varied household investments in infrastructure resilience. Wang et al. 123 showed a wide WTP range, from $15 to $50 for those unaffected by disruptions to $120–$775 for affected, politically liberal individuals. Islam et al. 124 found households with limited access to safe drinking water were more inclined to pay for resilient water infrastructure. Stock et al. 125 observed that higher-income households showed greater WTP for power and transportation resilience, likely due to more disposable income and expectations for service quality. These findings highlight the need to consider economic constraints in WTP studies to avoid misinterpreting lower income as lower willingness to invest. Indeed, if a study does not adequately account for a person’s economic constraints, the findings may incorrectly interpret a lower ability to pay as a lower willingness to pay.

In terms of policy evaluation for infrastructure resilience, studies like Ulak et al. 126 prioritized equitable power system recovery for different ethnic groups, favoring network renewal over increasing response crews. Baeza et al. 93 noted that infrastructure decisions are often swayed by political factors rather than technical criteria. Furthermore, Lee and Ellingwood 107 introduced a method for intergenerational discounting in civil infrastructure, suggesting more conservative designs for longer service lives to benefit future generations. These studies underscore the complex factors influencing infrastructure resilience policy, including equity, political influence, and long-term planning.

This systematic review is the first to explore how equity is incorporated into infrastructure resilience against natural hazards. By systematically analyzing the existing literature and identifying key gaps, the paper enhances our understanding of equity in this field and outlines clear directions for future research. This study is crucial for understanding the fundamental knowledge that brings social equity to the forefront of infrastructure resilience. Table 5 summarizes the primary findings of this systematic review of equity in infrastructure resilience literature, including what the studies are currently focusing on and the research gaps and limitations.

Our findings show a great diversity of frameworks and methods depending on the context, in which equity is applied (Table 5 ). Moreover, we identify a lack of integrative formal and analytical tools. Therefore, a clear and standard framework is needed to operationalize inequity across infrastructures and hazards; what is missing are analytical tools and approaches to integrate equity assessment into decision-making.

Referring to question 3, we will further explore the current gaps of knowledge and future challenges of studying equity in infrastructure resilience. In elaborating on the gaps identified in our review, we propose that the next era of research questions and objectives should be (1) monitoring equity performance with improved data, (2) weaving equity in computational models, and (3) integrating equity into decision-making tools. Through principles of innovation, accountability, and knowledge, such objectives would be guided by moving beyond distributional equity, recognizing understudied gaps of equity, and inclusion of all geographic regions, and by extension stakeholders (Fig. 8 ).

The figure demonstrates that previous research has focused on detecting and finding evidence of disparity in infrastructure resilience in hazard events. It supports that the next phase of research will monitor equity performance with improved data, weave equity in computational models, and integrate equity in decision making tools in order to move beyond social and spatial distributions, recognize understudied gaps of equity, and include all geographic regions.

The first research direction is the monitoring equity performance with improved data at more granular scales and greater representation of impacted communities. Increased data availability provides researchers, stakeholders, and community residents with more detailed and accurate assessment of infrastructure losses. Many studies have used reliable, yet inherently approximate data sources, for infrastructure service outages. These sources include human mobility, satellite, points-of-interest visitation, and telemetry-based data (such as refs. 69 , 100 ). Private companies are often reluctant to share utility and outage data with researchers 127 . Thus, we encourage the shift towards transparent and open datasets from utility companies in normal times and outage events. This aligns with open-data initiatives such as Open Infrastructure Outage Data Initiative Nationwide (ODIN) 128 , Invest in Open Infrastructure 129 , and Implementing Act on a list of High-Value Datasets 130 . Transparency in data fosters an environment of accountability and innovation to uphold equity standards in infrastructure resilience 131 . An essential aspect of this transparency involves acknowledging and addressing biases that may render certain groups ‘invisible’ within datasets. These digitally invisible populations may well be among the most vulnerable, such as unhoused people that may not have a digital footprint yet are very vulnerable to extreme weather 132 . Gender serves as a poignant example of such invisibility. Historical biases and societal norms often result in gender disparities being perpetuated in various facets of infrastructure design and resilience planning 133 . Women are frequently placed in roles of caregiving responsibilities, such as traveling to reach water (as shown in refs. 105 , 116 , 134 ) or concern over the well-being of family members (as shown in refs. 103 , 135 ), which have been overlooked or marginalized in infrastructure planning processes.

If instances of social disparities are uncovered, researchers and practitioners could collaboratively cultivate evidence-based recommendations to manage infrastructure resilience. At the same time, approaches for responsible data management need to be developed that protect privacy of individuals, especially marginalized and vulnerable groups 136 . There is a trade-off between proper representation of demographic groups and ensuring the privacy of individuals 45 , 67 . Despite this, very few studies call into question the fairness of the data collection in capturing the multifaceted aspects of equity 137 , or the potential risks to communities as described in the EU’s forthcoming Artificial Intelligence Act 138 .

By extension, addressing the problem of digitally invisible populations and possible bias, Gharaibeh et al. 120 also emphasizes that equitable data should represent all communities in the study area. Choices about data collection and storage can directly impact the management of public services, by extension the management of critical information 139 . For example, a significant problem with location-intelligence data collection is properly representing digitally invisible populations as these groups are often marginalized in the digital space leading to gaps in data 132 , 140 . Human mobility data, a specific type of location-intelligence data derived from cell phone pinpoint data, illustrates this issue. Vulnerable groups may not afford or have frequent access to cell phones, resulting in a skewed understanding of population movements 141 . However, other studies have shown that digital platforms can be empowering for marginalized populations to express sentiments of cultural identity and tragedies through active sharing and communication 142 . Ultimately, Hendricks et al. 118 recommend a “triangulation of data sources,” to integrate quantitative and qualitative data, which would mitigate potential data misrepresentation and take advantage of the online information. Moving ahead, approaches need to be developed for fair, privacy-preserving, and unbiased data collection that empowers especially vulnerable communities. At the same time, realizing that data gaps especially in infrastructure-poor regions may not be easy to address, we also follow Casali et al. 84 in calling for synthetic approaches and models that work on sparse data.

Few studies, such as refs. 45 , 66 , have created computational models to capture equity-infrastructure-hazards interactions, which are initial attempts to quantify both the social impacts and the physical performance of infrastructure. This is echoed in the work of Soden et al. 143 which found only ~28% of studies undertake a quantitative evaluation of differential impacts experienced in disasters. To enhance analytical and computational methods in supporting equitable decision-making, it is imperative for future studies to comprehensively integrate social dimensions of infrastructure resilience. Therefore, the next research direction is the intentional weaving of equity in computational models. Where the majority of studies used descriptive statistics and non-linear modeling, complex computational models—such as agent-based simulations—offer the advantage of capturing the nonlinear interactions of equity in infrastructure systems. These tools also allow decision-makers to gain insights into the emergence of complex patterns over time. These simulation models can then be combined with specific metrics that measure infrastructural or social implications. Metrics might include susceptibility curves 144 , social burden costs estimates 94 , or social resilience assessment 76 . Novel metrics for assessing adaptive strategies, human behaviors, and disproportionate impacts (such as 113 ) could also be further quantified through empirical deprivation costs for infrastructure losses 145 . These metrics also are a stepping-stone for formalizing and integrating equity into decision-making tools.

Another research direction is the integration of equity into decision-making tools. Key performance indicators and monitoring systems are essential for clarifying equity processes and outcomes and creating tangible tools for infrastructure planners, managers, engineers, and policy-makers. In particular, the literature discussed the potential for using equity in infrastructure resilience to direct infrastructure investments (such as refs. 93 , 126 , 146 ). Infrastructure resilience requires significant upfront investment and resource allocations, which generally favors wealthier communities. Communities may hold social, cultural, and environmental values that are not properly quantified in infrastructure resilience 147 . Since traditional standards of cost-benefit analyses used by infrastructure managers and operators primarily focus on monetary gains or losses, they would not favorably support significant investments to mitigate the human impacts of infrastructure losses on those most vulnerable 148 . This limitation also delays investments and leads to inaction in infrastructure resilience, resulting in unnecessary loss of services and social harm, potentially amplifying inequities, and furthering societal fragmentation. To bridge this gap, we propose to measure the social costs of infrastructure service disruptions as a way to determine the broad benefits of resilience investments 147 .

As the literature review found, several studies are following a welfare economics approach to quantify social costs associated with infrastructure losses such as the evaluation of policies (such as ref. 93 ) and willingness-to-pay models (such as ref. 125 ). Such economic functions are preliminary steps in quantifying equity as a cost measure; however, these models must avoid misinterpreting lower income as a lower willingness to invest. Lee and Ellingwood 107 proposed using intergenerational discounting rate; however, it is important to recognize the flexibility of options for future generations 149 . Teodoro et al. 149 points to the challenges of using (fixed) discount rates and advocate for a procedural justice-based approach that maximizes flexibility and adaptability. Further research is needed to quantify the social costs of infrastructure disruptions and integrate them into infrastructure resilience assessments, such as calculating the deprivation costs of service losses for vulnerable populations.

Our review shows that certain demographic groups such as indigenous populations, persons with disabilities, and intergenerational equity issues have not been sufficiently studied 150 . This aligns with the conclusions of Seyedrezaei et al. 151 , who found that the majority of studies about equity in the built-environment focused on lower-income and minority households. Indigenous populations face significant geographical, cultural, and linguistic barriers that make their experiences with disrupted infrastructure services distinct from those of the broader population 152 .

Even though intergenerational justice issues have increasingly sparked attention on the climate change discussion, intergenerational equity issues in infrastructure resilience assessments have received limited attention. We argue that intergenerational equity warrants special attention as infrastructure systems have long life cycles that span across multiple generations, and ultimately the decisions on the finance, restoration, and new construction will have a significant impact on the ability of future generations to withstand the impact of stronger climate hazard events. Non-action may lead to tremendous costs in the long run 149 . It is the responsibility of current research to understand the long-term effects of equity in infrastructure management to mitigate future losses and maintain the flexibility of future generations. As a means of procedural justice, these generations should have the space to make choices, instead of being locked in by today’s decisions. Future studies should develop methods to measure and integrate intergenerational inequity in infrastructure resilience assessments.

Given the specific search criteria and focus on equity, infrastructure, and natural hazard, we found a major geographic focus on the United States. Large portions of the global north and global south were not included in the analysis. This could be due to the search criteria of the literature review; however, it is important to recognize potential geographic areas that are isolated from the academic studies on infrastructure resilience. Different infrastructure challenges (e.g., intermittent services) are present through data availability in the region. A dearth of studies on equitable infrastructure resilience could contribute to greater inequity in those regions due to the absence of empirical evidence and proper methodological solutions. This aligns with other findings on sustainable development goals and climate adaptation broadly 153 . Global research efforts, along with common data platforms, standards and methods (see above), that include international collaborations among researchers across the global north and global south regions can bridge this gap and expand the breadth of knowledge and solutions for equitable infrastructure resilience.

Finally, while significant attention has been paid to distributional demographic and spatial inequity issues 151 , there remain several underutilized definitions of equity. Procedural and capacity equity hold the greatest potential for people to feel more included in the infrastructure resilience process. Instead of depending directly on the infrastructure systems, individual households can adapt to disrupted periods through substituted services and alternative actions (such as ref. 78 ). To advance procedural equity in infrastructure resilience, citizen-science research or participatory studies can begin by empowering locals to understand and monitor their resilience (such as ref. 76 ) or failures in their infrastructure systems (such as ref. 120 ). As referenced by Masterson and Cooper 154 , the ladder of citizen power can serve as a framework for how to ethically engage with community partners for procedural equity. The ladder, originally developed by Arnstein 155 , includes non-participation, tokenism, and citizen power. Table 3 shows that most research falls into non-participation: survey data and information are extracted without any community guidance. Limited studies that have branched into community involvement still stay restricted in the tokenism step, such as models that are validated by stakeholders or receive expert opinions on their conceptual models. Future studies should expand inquiries regarding the procedural and capacity dimension of equity in infrastructure resilience assessments and management. For instance, research could map out where inequities occur in the decision-making process and targeted spatial regions as well as allocate of resources for infrastructure resilience. It could also continue pursuing inclusive methodologies such as participatory action research and co-design processes. It should investigate effective methods to genuinely integrate different stakeholders and community members from conception through evaluation of research.

Although the primary audience of the literature review is academic scholars and fellow researchers, the identified gaps are of importance for practitioners, governmental agencies, community organizations, and advocates. By harnessing the transformative power of equity, studies in infrastructure resilience can transcend its traditional role and develop equity-focused data, modeling, and decision-making tools which considers everyone in the community. The integration of equity aspects within the framework of infrastructure resilience not only enhances the resilience of infrastructure systems but also contributes to the creation of inclusive and resilient communities. Infrastructure resilience would not just be a shield against adversity but also a catalyst for positive social and environmental change.

Data availability

The created excel database which includes information on the key parts of the 8-dimensional equity framework will be uploaded to DesignSafe-CI.

Oh, E. H., Deshmukh, A. & Hastak, M. Criticality assessment of lifeline infrastructure for enhancing disaster response. Nat. Hazards Rev. 14 , 98–107 (2013).

Article Google Scholar

Tripathi, B., Thomson Reuters Foundation. in Reuters (2023).

Hallegatte, S., Rentschler, J. & Rozenberg, J. Lifelines: the resilience infrastructure opportunity (2019).

Scherzer, S., Lujala, P. & Rød, J. K. A community resilience index for Norway: an adaptation of the Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities (BRIC). Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 36 , 101107 (2019).

Platt, S., Gautam, D. & Rupakhety, R. Speed and quality of recovery after the Gorkha Earthquake 2015 Nepal. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 50 , 101689 (2020).

George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health & University of Puerto Rico Graduate School of Public Health. Ascertainment of the estimated excess mortality from hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico (2018).

National Infrastructure Advisory Council. Critical Infrastructure Resilience Final Report and Recommendations (2010).

Hosseini, S., Barker, K. & Ramirez-Marquez, J. E. A review of definitions and measures of system resilience. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 145 , 47–61 (2016).

Berkeley, A. & Wallace, M. A Framework for establishing critical infrastructure resilience goals final report and recommendations by the council (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, 2010).

Mehvar, S. et al. Towards resilient vital infrastructure systems–challenges, opportunities, and future research agenda. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 21 , 1383–1407 (2021).

United Nations Office for Project Services. Inclusive Infrastructure for Climate Action. (2022).

UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Principles for Resilient Infrastructure. (2022).

Schlör, H., Venghaus, S. & Hake, J.-F. The FEW-Nexus city index—measuring urban resilience. Appl. Energy 210 , 382–392 (2018).

Hart, D. K. Social equity, justice, and the equitable administrator. Public Adm. Rev. 34 , 3 (1974).

Cook, K. S. & Hegtvedt, K. A. Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 9 , 217–241 (1983).

Boakye, J., Guidotti, R., Gardoni, P. & Murphy, C. The role of transportation infrastructure on the impact of natural hazards on communities. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 219 , 108184 (2022).

Pandey, B., Brelsford, C. & Seto, K. C. Infrastructure inequality is a characteristic of urbanization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 119 , e2119890119 (2022).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Hendricks, M. D. & Van Zandt, S. Unequal protection revisited: planning for environmental justice, hazard vulnerability, and critical infrastructure in communities of color. Environ. Justice 14 , 87–97 (2021).

Ma, C., Qirui, C. & Lv, Y. “One community at a time”: promoting community resilience in the face of natural hazards and public health challenges. BMC Public Health 23 , 2510 (2023).

Liévanos, R. S. & Horne, C. Unequal resilience: the duration of electricity outages. Energy Policy 108 , 201–211 (2017).

National Institute of Standards and Technology. Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems (2020).

UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction & Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure. Global Methodology for Infrastructure Resilience Review (2023).

Robertson, I. et al. Natural Hazards Engineering Research Infrastructure, Science Plan, Multi-Hazard Research to Make a More Resilient World, Third Edition, < https://doi.org/10.17603/ds2-abbs-0966 > (2023).

Rathnayaka, B., Siriwardana, C., Robert, D., Amaratunga, D. & Setunge, S. Improving the resilience of critical infrastructures: Evidence-based insights from a systematic literature review. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 78 , 103123 (2022).

Esmalian, A. et al. Disruption Tolerance Index for determining household susceptibility to infrastructure service disruptions. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJDRR.2021.102347 (2021).

Patrascu, F. I. & Mostafavi, A. Spatial model for predictive recovery monitoring based on hazard, built environment, and population features and their spillover effects. Environ. Plan. B: Urban Anal. City Sci. 23998083231167433 https://doi.org/10.1177/23998083231167433 (2023).

Archer, D., Marome, W., Natakun, B., Mabangyang, P. & Phanthuwongpakdee, N. The role of collective and individual assets in building urban community resilience. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 12 , 169–186 (2020).

Anguelovski, I. et al. Equity impacts of urban land use planning for climate adaptation: critical perspectives from the Global North and South. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 36 , 333–348 (2016).

Hallegatte, S. & Li, J. Investing in resilience and making investments resilient. PLOS Clim. 1 , e0000077 (2022).

Kim, J. H. & Sutley, E. J. Implementation of social equity metrics in an engineering-based framework for distributing disaster resources. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 64 , 102485 (2021).

Seigerman, C. K. et al. Operationalizing equity for integrated water resources management. J. Am. Water Resourc. Assoc. 59 , 281–298 (2023).

Karakoc, D. B., Barker, K., Zobel, C. W. & Almoghathawi, Y. Social vulnerability and equity perspectives on interdependent infrastructure network component importance. Sustain. Cities Soc. 57 , 102072 (2020).

Silva-Lopez, R., Bhattacharjee, G., Poulos, A. & Baker, J. W. Commuter welfare-based probabilistic seismic risk assessment of regional road networks. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 227 , 108730 (2022).

Dhakal, S. & Zhang, L. A Social welfare-based infrastructure resilience assessment framework: toward equitable resilience for infrastructure development. Nat. Hazards Rev. 24 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000597 (2023).

Sotolongo, M., Kuhl, L. & Baker, S. H. Using environmental justice to inform disaster recovery: vulnerability and electricity restoration in Puerto Rico. Environ. Sci. Policy 122 , 59–71 (2021).

Atallah, D. G. et al. Developing equitable primary health care in conflict-affected settings: expert perspectives from the frontlines. Qual. Health Res. 28 , 98–111 (2018).

Coleman, N. et al. Energy inequality in climate hazards: empirical evidence of social and spatial disparities in managed and hazard-induced power outages. Sustain. Cities Soc. 92 , 104491 (2023).

Balomenos, G. P., Hu, Y. J., Padgett, J. E. & Shelton, K. Impact of coastal hazards on residents’ spatial accessibility to health services. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 25 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000509 (2019).

Wakhungu, M. J., Abdel-Mottaleb, N., Wells, E. C. & Zhang, Q. Geospatial vulnerability framework for identifying water infrastructure inequalities. J. Environ. Eng. 147 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001903 (2021).

Abdel-Mooty, M. N., Yosri, A., El-Dakhakhni, W. & Coulibaly, P. Community flood resilience categorization framework. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 61 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102349 (2021).

Millington, N. Producing water scarcity in São Paulo, Brazil: The 2014-2015 water crisis and the binding politics of infrastructure. Political Geogr. 65 , 26–34 (2018).

Clark, L. P. et al. A data framework for assessing social inequality and equity in multi-sector social, ecological, infrastructural urban systems: focus on fine-spatial scales. J. Ind. Ecol. 26 , 145–163 (2022).

Toland, J. C., Wein, A. M., Wu, A.-M. & Spearing, L. A. A conceptual framework for estimation of initial emergency food and water resource requirements in disasters. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 90 , 103661 (2023).

Zhai, W., Peng, Z. R. & Yuan, F. Examine the effects of neighborhood equity on disaster situational awareness: harness machine learning and geotagged Twitter data. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 48 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101611 (2020).

Yuan, F. et al. Smart flood resilience: harnessing community-scale big data for predictive flood risk monitoring, rapid impact assessment, and situational awareness. Environ. Res.: Infrastruct. Sustain. 2 , 025006 (2022).

Google Scholar

Logan, T. M. & Guikema, S. D. Reframing resilience: equitable access to essential services. Risk Anal. 40 , 1538–1553 (2020).

Meerow, S. & Newell, J. P. Urban resilience for whom, what, when, where, and why? Urban Geogr. 40 , 309–329 (2019).

Holling, C. S. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4 , 1–23 (1973).

Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M. & Abel, N. From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4 , 765–781 (2001).

Krishnan, S., Aydin, N. Y. & Comes, T. TIMEWISE: temporal dynamics for urban resilience—theoretical insights and empirical reflections from Amsterdam and Mumbai. npj Urban Sustain. 4 , 4 (2024).

Aldrich, D. P. & Meyer, M. A. Social capital and community resilience. Am. Behav. Sci. 59 , 254–269 (2014).

Choi, J., Deshmukh, A. & Hastak, M. Seven-layer classification of infrastructure to improve community resilience to disasters. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 25 , 04019012 (2019).

Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M. & Fang, L. Systems methodologies in vitae systems of systems. J. Nat. Disaster Sci. 32 , 63–77 (2011).

Okada, N. A scientific challenge for society under sustainability risks by addressing coping capacity, collective knowledge and action to change: a Vitae System perspective. J. Nat. Disaster Sci. 32 , 53–62 (2011).

Hay, A. Planning Resilient Infrastructure Systems 75–106 (2021).

Cutter, S. L. Resilience to what? Resilience for whom? Geogr. J. 182 , 110–113 (2016).

Wenar, L. John Rawls, < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/rawls/ > (2021).

Van Zandt, S. Engaged Research for Community Resilience to Climate Change (Elsevier, 2020).

Walker, G. Antipode . 4 edn.

Walker, J. “Abundant Access”: a map of a community’s transit choices, and a possible goal of transit , < https://humantransit.org/2013/03/abundant-access-a-map-of-the-key-transit-choices.html > (2013).

Casali, Y., Aydin, N. Y. & Comes, T. A data-driven approach to analyse the co-evolution of urban systems through a resilience lens: a Helsinki case study. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 0 , 1–18 (2024).

Beck, A. L. & Cha, E. Probabilistic disaster social impact assessment of infrastructure system nodes. Struct. Infrastruct Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2022.2097268 (2022).

Matin, N., Forrester, J. & Ensor, J. What is equitable resilience? World Dev. 109 , 197–205 (2018).

Clark, S., Seager, T. & Chester, M. A capabilities approach to the prioritization of critical infrastructure. Environ. Syst. Decis. 38 , 339–352 (2018).

Coleman, N., Esmalian, A. & Mostafavi, A. Anatomy of susceptibility for shelter-in-place households facing infrastructure service disruptions caused by natural hazards. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 50 , 101875 (2020).

Esmalian, A., Wang, W. & Mostafavi, A. Multi‐agent modeling of hazard–household–infrastructure nexus for equitable resilience assessment. Comput.‐Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 37 , 1491–1520 (2021).

Dhakal, S., Zhang, L. & Lv, X. Understanding infrastructure resilience, social equity, and their interrelationships: exploratory study using social media data in hurricane Michael. Nat. Hazards Rev. 22 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000512 (2021).

Adu-Gyamfi, B., Shaw, R. & Ofosu, B. Identifying exposures of health facilities to potential disasters in the Greater Accra Metropolitan Area of Ghana. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 54 , 102028 (2021).

Fan, C., Jiang, X., Lee, R. & Mostafavi, A. Equality of access and resilience in urban population-facility networks. npj Urban Sustain. 2 , 1–12 (2022).

Best, K. et al. Spatial regression identifies socioeconomic inequality in multi-stage power outage recovery after Hurricane Isaac. Nat. Hazards 117 , 1–23 (2023).

Chopra, S. S. & Khanna, V. Interconnectedness and interdependencies of critical infrastructures in the US economy: implications for resilience. Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl. 436 , 865–877 (2015).

Rivera, D. Z. Unincorporated and underserved: critical stormwater infrastructure challenges in South Texas Colonias. Environ. Justice https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2022.0062 (2022).

Rendon, C., Osman, K. K. & Faust, K. M. Path towards community resilience: examining stakeholders’ coordination at the intersection of the built, natural, and social systems. Sustain. Cities Soc. 68 , 102774 (2021).

Eghdami, S., Scheld, A. M. & Louis, G. Socioeconomic vulnerability and climate risk in coastal Virginia. Clim. Risk Manag. 39 , 100475 (2023).

Parsons, M. et al. Top-down assessment of disaster resilience: a conceptual framework using coping and adaptive capacities. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 19 , 1–11 (2016).

Champlin, C., Sirenko, M. & Comes, T. Measuring social resilience in cities: an exploratory spatio-temporal analysis of activity routines in urban spaces during Covid-19. Cities 135 , 104220 (2023).

Stock, A. et al. Household impacts of interruption to electric power and water services. Nat. Hazards https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-810057/v1 (2021).

Abbou, A. et al. Household adaptations to infrastructure system service interruptions. J. Infrastruct. Syst. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000715 (2022).

Völker, B. Disaster recovery via social capital. Nat. Sustain. 5 , 96–97 (2022).

Covidence. < https://www.covidence.org/ >

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. & Group, P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151 , 264–269 (2009).

CDRI. Global infrastructure resilience: capturing the resilience dividend—a biennial report from the coalition for disaster resilient infrastructure (2023).

Comes, M. et al. Strategic crisis management in the European Union: Evidence Review Report (2022).

Casali, Y., Yonca, N. A., Comes, T. & Casali, Y. Machine learning for spatial analyses in urban areas: a scoping review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 104050 (2022).

Regulation (Eu) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’) Office Journal of the European Union (2021).

Wolford, B. What is GDPR, the EU’s protection law? < https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/ >

Roman, M. et al. Satellite-based assessment of electricity restoration efforts in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. PLoS One 14 , https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218883 (2019).

Lee, C.-C., Maron, M. & Mostafavi, A. Community-scale big data reveals disparate impacts of the Texas winter storm of 2021 and its managed power outage. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9 , 1–12 (2022).

Chen, Y. & Ji, W. Public demand urgency for equitable infrastructure restoration planning. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 64 , 102510 (2021).

Batouli, M. & Joshi, D. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2022: Infrastructure Sustainability and Resilience—Selected Papers from Construction Research Congress (2022).

Ulak, M. B., Kocatepe, A., Sriram, L. M. K., Ozguven, E. & Arghandeh, R. Assessment of the hurricane-induced power outages from a demographic, socioeconomic, and transportation perspective. Nat. Hazards 92 , 1489–1508 (2018).

Dong, S., Esmalian, A., Farahmand, H. & Mostafavi, A. An integrated physical-social analysis of disrupted access to critical facilities and community service-loss tolerance in urban flooding. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 80 , 101443 (2020).

Baeza, A., Bojorquez-Tapia, L. A., Janssen, M. A. & Eakin, H. Operationalizing the feedback between institutional decision-making, socio-political infrastructure, and environmental risk in urban vulnerability analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 241 , 407–417 (2019).

Clark, S. S., Peterson, S. K. E., Shelly, M. A. & Jeffers, R. F. Developing an equity-focused metric for quantifying the social burden of infrastructure disruptions. Sustain. Resilient Infrastruct. 8 , 356–369 (2023).

Kohlitz, J., Chong, J. & Willetts, J. Rural drinking water safety under climate change: the importance of addressing physical, social, and environmental dimensions. Resources 9 https://doi.org/10.3390/resources9060077 (2020).

Islam, M. A., Shetu, M. M. & Hakim, S. S. Possibilities of a gender-responsive infrastructure for livelihood-vulnerable women’s resilience in rural-coastal Bangladesh. Built Environ. Project Asset Manag. 12 , 447–466 (2022).

Masterson, J. et al. Plan integration and plan quality: combining assessment tools to align local infrastructure priorities to reduce hazard vulnerability. Sustain. Resilient Infrastruct. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2023.2165779 (2023).

Stough, L. M., Sharp, A. N., Resch, J. A., Decker, C. & Wilker, N. Barriers to the long-term recovery of individuals with disabilities following a disaster. Disasters 40 https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12161 (2016).

Coleman, N., Esmalian, A. & Mostafavi, A. Equitable resilience in infrastructure systems: empirical assessment of disparities in hardship experiences of vulnerable populations during service disruptions. Nat. Hazards Rev. 21 , 04020034 (2020).

Dargin, J. S., Li, Q. C., Jawer, G., Xiao, X. & Mostafavi, A. Compound hazards: an examination of how hurricane protective actions could increase transmission risk of COVID-19. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 65 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102560 (2021).

Lee, C.-C., Maron, M. & Mostafavi, A. Community-scale big data reveals disparate impacts of the Texas winter storm of 2021 and its managed power outage. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9 , https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01353-8 (2021).

Grineski, S. E., Collins, T. W. & Chakraborty, J. Cascading disasters and mental health inequities: Winter Storm Uri, COVID-19 and post-traumatic stress in Texas. Soc. Sci. Med. 315 , 115523 (2022).

Dominelli, L. Mind the gap: built infrastructures, sustainable caring relations, and resilient communities in extreme weather events. Aust. Social Work 66 https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2012.708764 (2013).

Sam, A. S. et al. Flood vulnerability and food security in eastern India: a threat to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 66 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102589 (2021).

Ahmed, B. et al. Indigenous people’s responses to drought in northwest Bangladesh. Environ. Dev. 29 , 55–66 (2019).

Chakalian, P. M., Kurtz, L. C. & Hondula, D. After the lights go out: household resilience to electrical grid failure following hurricane Irma. Nat. Hazards Rev. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000335 (2019).

Lee, J. Y. & Ellingwood, B. R. Ethical discounting for civil infrastructure decisions extending over multiple generations. Struct. Saf. 57 , 43–52 (2015).

Esmalian, A., Coleman, N., Yuan, F., Xiao, X. & Mostafavi, A. Characterizing equitable access to grocery stores during disasters using location-based data. Sci. Rep. 12 , https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-23532-y (2022).

Mitsova, D., Esnard, A. M., Sapat, A. & Lai, B. S. Socioeconomic vulnerability and electric power restoration timelines in Florida: the case of Hurricane Irma. Nat. Hazards 94 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3413-x (2018).

Hamlet, L. C., Kamui, M. M. & Kaminsky, J. Infrastructure for water security: coping with risks in rural Kenya. J. Water Sanitation Hygiene Dev. 10 , 481–489 (2020).

Esmalian, A., Dong, S., Coleman, N. & Mostafavi, A. Determinants of risk disparity due to infrastructure service losses in disasters: a household service gap model. Risk Anal. 41 , https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13738 (2021).

Daramola, A. Y., Oni, O. T., Ogundele, O. & Adesanya, A. Adaptive capacity and coping response strategies to natural disasters: a study in Nigeria. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 15 , 132–147 (2016).

Yang, Y., Tatano, H., Huang, Q., Wang, K. & Liu, H. Estimating the societal impact of water infrastructure disruptions: A novel model incorporating individuals’ activity choices. Sustain. Cities Soc. 75 , 103290 (2021).

Zhu, L., Gong, Y., Xu, Y. & Gu, J. Emergency relief routing models for injured victims considering equity and priority. Ann. Oper. Res. 283 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-3089-3 (2019).

Blondin, S. Let’s hit the road! Environmental hazards, materialities, and mobility justice: insights from Tajikistan’s Pamirs. J. Ethn Migr. Stud. 48 , 3416–3432 (2022).

Basu, M., Hoshino, S., Hashimoto, S. & DasGupta, R. Determinants of water consumption: a cross-sectional household study in drought-prone rural India. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 24 , 373–382 (2017).

Sweya, L. N., Wilkinson, S. & Kassenga, G. A social resilience measurement tool for Tanzania’s water supply systems. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 65 , 102558 (2021).

Hendricks, M. D. et al. The development of a participatory assessment technique for infrastructure: neighborhood-level monitoring towards sustainable infrastructure systems. Sustain. Cities Soc. 38 , 265–274 (2018).

Oti, I. C. et al. Validity and reliability of drainage infrastructure monitoring data obtained from citizen scientists. J. Infrastruct. Syst. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000495 (2019).

Gharaibeh, N., Oti, I., Meyer, M., Hendricks, M. & Van Zandt, S. Potential of citizen science for enhancing infrastructure monitoring data and decision-support models for local communities. Risk Anal. 41 , 1104–1110 (2021).

Oswald Beiler, M. & Mohammed, M. Exploring transportation equity: development and application of a transportation justice framework. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 47 , 285–298 (2016).

Hsieh, C.-H. & Feng, C.-M. The highway resilience and vulnerability in Taiwan. Transp. Policy 87 , 1–9 (2020).

Wang, C., Sun, J., Russell, R. & Daziano, R. A. Analyzing willingness to improve the resilience of New York City’s transportation system. Transp. Policy 69 , 10–19 (2018).

Islam, M. S. et al. Households’ willingness to pay for disaster resilient safe drinking water sources in southwestern coastal Bangladesh. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 10 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-019-00229-x (2019).

Stock, A. et al. Household impacts of interruption to electric power and water services. Nat. Hazards 115 , 1–28 (2022).

Ulak, M. B., Yazici, A. & Ozguven, E. A prescriptive model to assess the socio-demographics impacts of resilience improvements on power networks. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 51 , 101777 (2020).

Sapat, A. Lost in translation? Integrating interdisciplinary disaster research with policy praxis. Risk Anal. 41 , 1232–1239 (2021).

Ross, D., Wilson, T. & Irwin, C. A White House call for real-time, standardized, transparent power outage data , < https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/11/22/a-white-house-call-for-real-time-standardized-and-transparent-power-outage-data/ > (2022).

Invest in Open Infrastructure Steering Committee. IOI’s Strategic Plan for 2021–2024 , < https://investinopen.org/about/strategic-plan-2021-2024/ > (2024).

Nuthi, K. The EU’s Latest Proposal is Another Step Toward More Public Sector Open Data in Europe , < https://datainnovation.org/2022/06/the-eus-latest-proposal-is-another-step-toward-more-public-sector-open-data-in-europe/ > (2022).

Pine, K. & Mazmanian, M. Emerging insights on building infrastructure for data-driven transparency and accountability of organizations. iConference 2015 Proceedings (2015).

Longo, J., Kuras, E., Smith, H., Hondula, D. M. & Johnston, E. Technology use, exposure to natural hazards, and being digitally invisible: Implications for policy analytics. Policy Internet 9 , 76–108 (2017).

Criado-Perez, C. Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. 411 pages (Chatto & Windus, 2019).

Gbedemah, S. F., Eshun, F., Frimpong, L. K. & Okine, P. Domestic water accessibility during COVID-19: challenges and coping strategies in Somanya and its surrounding rural communities of Ghana. Urban Gov. 2 , 305–315 (2022).

Jacobsen, J. K. S., Leiren, M. D. & Saarinen, J. Natural hazard experiences and adaptations: a study of winter climate-induced road closures in Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Nor. J. Geogr. 70 , 292–305 (2016).

Comes, T. AI for crisis decisions. Ethics Inf. Technol. 26 , 1–14 (2024).

Future of Life Institute. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act , < https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/ >

Ruijer, E., Porumbescu, G., Porter, R. & Piotrowski, S. Social equity in the data era: a systematic literature review of data‐driven public service research. Public Adm. Rev. 83 , 316–332 (2023).

Sung, W. A Study on the effect of smartphones on the digital divide. In Proc of the 16th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research 276–282 (2015).

Blake, A., Hazel, A., Jakurama, J., Matundu, J. & Bharti, N. Disparities in mobile phone ownership reflect inequities in access to healthcare. PLOS Digit. Health 2 , e0000270 (2023).

Ortiz, J. et al. Giving voice to the voiceless: The use of digital technologies by marginalized groups. Communications of the Association for Information Systems (2019).

Soden, R. et al. The importance of accounting for equity in disaster risk models. Commun. Earth Environ. 4 , 386 (2023).

Esmalian, A., Dong, S. & Mostafavi, A. Susceptibility curves for humans: empirical survival models for determining household-level disturbances from hazards-induced infrastructure service disruptions. Sustain. Cities Soc. 66 , 102694 (2021).

Holguin-Veras, J., Perez, N., Jaller, M., Van Wassenhove, L. N. & Aros-Vera, F. On the appropriate objective function for post-disaster humanitarian logistics models. J. Oper. Manag. 31 , 262–280 (2013).

Khan, M. T. I., Anwar, S., Sarkodie, S. A., Yaseen, M. R. & Nadeem, A. M. Do natural disasters affect economic growth? The role of human capital, foreign direct investment, and infrastructure dynamics. Heliyon 9 , e12911 (2023).

Wise, R. M., Capon, T., Lin, B. B. & Stafford-Smith, M. Pragmatic cost–benefit analysis for infrastructure resilience. Nat. Clim. Change 12 , 881–883 (2022).

de Bruijn, K. M. et al. Flood risk management through a resilience lens. Commun. Earth Environ. 3 , 285 (2022).

Teodoro, J. D., Doorn, N., Kwakkel, J. & Comes, T. Flexibility for intergenerational justice in climate resilience decision-making: an application on sea-level rise in the Netherlands. Sustain. Sci. 18 , 1355–1365 (2023).

Clements, R., Alizadeh, T., Kamruzzaman, L., Searle, G. & Legacy, C. A systematic literature review of infrastructure governance: cross-sectoral lessons for transformative governance approaches. J. Plan. Lit. 38 , 70–87 (2022).

Seyedrezaei, M., Becerik-Gerber, B., Awada, M., Contreras, S. & Boeing, G. Equity in the built environment: a systematic review. Build. Environ. 245 , 110827 (2023).

Oelz, M., Dhir, R. K. & Harsdorff, M. Indigenous peoples and climate change: from victims to change agents through decent work. International Labour Office, Gender, Equality and Diversity Branch , 1–56 (2017).

Berrang-Ford, L. et al. A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 11 , 989–1000 (2021).

Masterson, J. & Cooper, J. Engaged Research for Community Resilience to Climate Change (Elsevier, 2020).

Arnstein, S. R. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 35 , 216–224 (1969).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based in part upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant CMMI-1846069 (CAREER) and the support of the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. We would like to thank the contributions of our undergraduate students: Nhat Bui, Shweta Kumaran, Colton Singh, and Samuel Baez.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Zachry Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Urban Resilience.AI Lab, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

Natalie Coleman, Xiangpeng Li & Ali Mostafavi

TPM Resilience Lab, TU Delft, Delft, South Holland, the Netherlands

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors critically revised the manuscript, gave final approval for publication, and agree to be held accountable for the work performed therein. N.C. was the lead Ph.D. student researcher and first author, who was responsible for guiding data collection, performing the main part of the analysis, interpreting the significant results, and writing most of the manuscript. X.L. was responsible for guiding data collection, figure creations, and assisting in the manuscript. T.C. and A.M. were the faculty advisors for the project and provided critical feedback on the literature review development, analysis and manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalie Coleman .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Coleman, N., Li, X., Comes, T. et al. Weaving equity into infrastructure resilience research: a decadal review and future directions. npj Nat. Hazards 1 , 25 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-024-00022-x

Download citation

Received : 10 November 2023

Accepted : 29 May 2024

Published : 02 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s44304-024-00022-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Investment Intention and Decision Making: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda

February 2023
Sustainability 15(5):3949

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Abstract and Figures

Flow diagram of the study (adapted by Moher et al. [42]).

Discover the world's research

25+ million members
160+ million publication pages
2.3+ billion citations
Leni Prasetianingsih
Ayudia Sokarina
Adeel Shahid
Ghulam Mujtaba Ahmad Khan
Ch Abid Bin Shakir
Paula Liugita
Syafira Salsabilla
Meythi Meythi
Mohamad Bastomi

Ibna Kamilia Fiel Afroh

Siti Maghfiroh
Irman Firmansyah
J Venugopal, M. Ramesh Naik, Nagamani. N, Dr. K. Chezhiyan

Mehjbeen Qamar
Nazish Bibi
Dr. S. Vidya
Ifra Fathima. I
Eman Ismail

Mahmoud H. Abd Elaal

Alexandru-Mihai Bugheanu

OPT EXPRESS
Siyuan Liao
Junyang Sui

Siti Nurasyikin Shamsuddin

Nur Firyal Roslan
Wan Mohd Hirwani Wan Hussain

Irinel Marin
NAT HAZARDS
Hayrol Azril Mohamed Shaffril

N.-T. Nguyen

Thanos Verousis

Zamil Syah Mustaffa

Ati Sumiati
Universitas Negeri

Jakarta Suherman
Recruit researchers
Join for free
Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience. This includes personalizing content and advertising. To learn more, click here . By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy and Terms of Service .

New to Zacks? Get started here.

Member Sign In

Don't Know Your Password?

Zacks #1 Rank
Zacks Industry Rank
Zacks Sector Rank
Equity Research
Mutual Funds
Mutual Fund Screener
ETF Screener
Earnings Calendar
Earnings Releases
Earnings ESP
Earnings ESP Filter
Stock Screener
Premium Screens
Basic Screens
Thematic Screens
Research Wizard
Personal Finance
Money Management
Retirement Planning
Tax Information
My Portfolio
Create Portfolio
Style Scores
Testimonials
Zacks.com Tutorial

Services Overview

Zacks Ultimate
Zacks Investor Collection
Zacks Premium

Investor Services

ETF Investor
Home Run Investor
Income Investor
Stocks Under $10
Value Investor
Top 10 Stocks

Other Services

Method for Trading
Zacks Confidential

Trading Services

Black Box Trader
Counterstrike
Headline Trader
Insider Trader
Large-Cap Trader
Options Trader
Short Sell List
Surprise Trader
Alternative Energy

You are being directed to ZacksTrade, a division of LBMZ Securities and licensed broker-dealer. ZacksTrade and Zacks.com are separate companies. The web link between the two companies is not a solicitation or offer to invest in a particular security or type of security. ZacksTrade does not endorse or adopt any particular investment strategy, any analyst opinion/rating/report or any approach to evaluating individual securities.

If you wish to go to ZacksTrade, click OK . If you do not, click Cancel.

Image: Bigstock

Is Schwab MarketTrack Allocation Equity Portfolio (SWEGX) a Strong Mutual Fund Pick Right Now?

If you have been looking for Allocation Balanced funds, a place to start could be Schwab MarketTrack Allocation Equity Portfolio ( SWEGX Quick Quote SWEGX - Free Report ) . SWEGX has a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank of 1 (Strong Buy), which is based on various forecasting factors like size, cost, and past performance.

The world of Zacks' Allocation Balanced funds is an area filled with options, such as SWEGX. These funds like to invest in a variety of asset types, finding a balance between stocks, bonds, cash, and sometimes even precious metals and commodities; they are mostly categorized by their respective asset allocation. For investors, Allocation Balanced funds can provide an entry point into diversified mutual funds, and present core holding options for a portfolio of funds.

History of Fund/Manager

SWEGX finds itself in the Schwab Funds family, based out of San Francisco, CA. The Schwab MarketTrack Allocation Equity Portfolio made its debut in May of 1998 and SWEGX has managed to accumulate roughly $915.37 million in assets, as of the most recently available information. The fund is currently managed by a team of investment professionals.

Performance

Of course, investors look for strong performance in funds. This fund has delivered a 5-year annualized total return of 10.54%, and it sits in the top third among its category peers. If you're interested in shorter time frames, do not dismiss looking at the fund's 3 -year annualized total return of 5.61%, which places it in the top third during this time-frame.

It is important to note that the product's returns may not reflect all its expenses. Any fees not reflected would lower the returns. Total returns do not reflect the fund's [%] sale charge. If sales charges were included, total returns would have been lower.

When looking at a fund's performance, it is also important to note the standard deviation of the returns. The lower the standard deviation, the less volatility the fund experiences. SWEGX's standard deviation over the past three years is 16.74% compared to the category average of 22%. The standard deviation of the fund over the past 5 years is 18.22% compared to the category average of -53%. This makes the fund more volatile than its peers over the past half-decade.

Risk Factors

Investors should note that the fund has a 5-year beta of 0.97, so it is likely going to be as volatile as the market at large. Because alpha represents a portfolio's performance on a risk-adjusted basis relative to a benchmark, which is the S&P 500 in this case, one should pay attention to this metric as well. Over the past 5 years, the fund has a negative alpha of -3.51. This means that managers in this portfolio find it difficult to pick securities that generate better-than-benchmark returns.

As competition heats up in the mutual fund market, costs become increasingly important. Compared to its otherwise identical counterpart, a low-cost product will be an outperformer, all other things being equal. Thus, taking a closer look at cost-related metrics is vital for investors. In terms of fees, SWEGX is a no load fund. It has an expense ratio of 0.38% compared to the category average of 0%. From a cost perspective, SWEGX is actually more expensive than its peers.

Investors need to be aware that with this product, the minimum initial investment is $0; each subsequent investment has no minimum amount.

Fees charged by investment advisors have not been taken into considiration. Returns would be less if those were included.

Bottom Line

Overall, even with its comparatively strong performance, worse downside risk, and higher fees, Schwab MarketTrack Allocation Equity Portfolio ( SWEGX ) has a high Zacks Mutual Fund rank, and therefore looks a good potential choice for investors right now.

Want even more information about SWEGX? Then go over to Zacks.com and check out our mutual fund comparison tool, and all of the other great features that we have to help you with your mutual fund analysis for additional information. Zacks provides a full suite of tools to help you analyze your portfolio - both funds and stocks - in the most efficient way possible.

See More Zacks Research for These Tickers

Normally $25 each - click below to receive one report free:.

Schwab MarketTrack All Equity Port (SWEGX) - free report >>

Published in

This file is used for Yahoo remarketing pixel add

Due to inactivity, you will be signed out in approximately:

COMMENTS

PDF Literature Review THE CURRENT STATE OF QUANTITATIVE EQUITY INVESTING
finition of the cost of capital and a workable theory of investment. This article develops a theory of the efect of financial struc-ture on m. rket valuation and its implication for the cost-of-capital prob-lem. The theory shows that the cutof point for investment in the company will be complet. ly unafected by th.
Systematic Literature Review of Private Equity Determinants: Status
The review also acknowledges that there exists a coherence among private equity and M&A investment decisions and thus, expands the scope of research by including empirical studies on M&A determinants. The study creates a comprehensive database and identifies shortcomings in the relevant literature addressing private equity.
Private Equity Performance: A Literature Review
The main focus of this The first reviews the literature on PE article is to review the literature related to PE performance. The second part talks about performance. performance persistence, and the third part PE performance is a prominent area discusses factors driving PE returns. The in the field of PE research.
Reviewing equity investors' funding criteria: a comprehensive
Complete list of the selected articles for the literature review (chronological order) These references are numbered for use within the tables in Appendix (available upon request from the authors). ... (1996). Equity investment decisions for technology based ventures. International Journal of Technology Management, 12(7-8), 787-795. Muzyka D ...
PDF The Equity Risk Premium: a Contextual Literature Review
The equity risk premium (ERP), or equity premium, is the difference in expected or realized return between an equity index and a reference asset,1 where the latter is usually a bond or bill portfolio considered to be "riskless."2 In the modern literature and in investment management practice, ERP usu-
Risk Perception in Respect of Equity Shares: A Literature Review and
The purpose of this paper is to systematically review the literature published on various aspects of risk perception about equity investment. It also aims to raise specific questions for future ...
The economics of private equity: A critical review
Abstract. Over the past half century, private equity has grown into a $3 trillion asset class. In this review, I critically synthesize the main insights of the academic literature on private equity, with a special focus on the performance of private equity as an asset class and its track record of value creation.
Selection determinants and value creation in private equity investment
Purpose. This paper aims to review, systematize and map the extant literature on private equity (PE) and study the underlying research agenda for investment selection and value creation in portfolio firms of PE investors.
Factors Influencing Performance of Private Equity Investment ...
2 Literature Review. Private equity fund is a non-public pooled investment vehicle acquiring unlisted companies and exit at a higher value mainly through IPOs, M&A, MBO, or over-the-counter market equity transfers. ... Cotei C et al. (2020) found private equity investment institutions investing in high-tech industry have better exit performance ...
Systematic Literature Review of Private Equity ...
The review also acknowledges that there exists a coherence among private equity and M&A investment decisions and thus, expands the scope of research by including empirical studies on M&A determinants. The study creates a comprehensive database and identifies shortcomings in the relevant literature addressing private equity.
(PDF) A Systematic Literature Review of the Assessment ...
This paper is a systematic literature review of the research about the. assessment criteria used by equity investors (venture c apital and angel investors) during their investment decision mak ing ...
Private equity and family firms: A systematic review and categorization
This study reviews academic literature on private equity and family firms. Based on a systematic search process, we identify 50 relevant studies published in the fields of management, finance, and economics between 1990 and 2017. Besides providing a nuanced overview of the current state of research, we develop a framework to categorize the ...
PDF Success Factors in Private Equity Investments a literature review
fraction - albeit a significant one - of the entire industry. In a recent 2020 study, McKinsey (the consultancy) stated that the buyout's share of the PE market has dropped by a third from 2010 to 2020 (from 75% to 50%. , as a result of the faster growth of venture and growth capital. Consequently, it see.
Signaling in the context of early-stage equity financing: review and
Signaling theory has proven to be widely applicable in the field of entrepreneurial financing. It has been used to study various forms of equity and debt financing of ventures ranging widely in their life-cycle (Connelly et al. Citation 2011).In particular, in early-stage equity investing, entrepreneurs or firms (signalers) convey information about underlying, unobservable qualities and ...
Investment Intention and Decision Making: A Systematic Literature
The expansion of financial markets has enabled individuals to invest in a variety of securities and financial instruments. Consequently, behavioral finance has shed light on the characteristics and psychological processes that influence the investment intentions and decisions of investors. We performed a systematic review of the recent literature on the key elements that influence the ...
Private Equity Financing and Financial Performance: A Critical Review
February Vol 1 No.2, 2022 PP 95-103 ISSN 2522-3186. 95. Private Equity Financing and Financial Performance: A Critical Review of the Literature. By: James M. Gatauwa (PhD) 1. Abstract. Private ...
Strategic approaches to value investing: a systematic literature review
Purpose. This paper aims to present a systematic literature review (SRL) on the topic of value investing (VI) in the international studies. The purpose of this study is twofold: to highlight the strategic approaches followed in recent contributions in the field of finance connected to the main approaches of the pioneering authors (Graham and Dodd, 1934; Fisher, 1958; Fama and French, 1992 ...
Private Equity Investments: A Literature Review
This article reviews investment and exit patterns in the Indian venture capital (VC) segment. In the last few years, the Indian economy has experienced a massive inflow of investment via the venture…. What Is Semantic Scholar? Semantic Scholar is a free, AI-powered research tool for scientific literature, based at Ai2.
PDF Memorandum
This memorandum draws on several recent literature surveys of private equity performance. First, (Kaplan & Sensoy, 2015) review the academic literature on the performance of private equity investments that focuses on their performance relative to the public equity market, including a limited discussion of risk-adjusting private equity returns.
Investor'S Behaviour and Attitude Towards Equity Portfolio Investment
investment in mutual funds is less risky than that of direct investment in equity. But after 2011, various researches are undertaken starting from investor's preference to their lifestyle.
Academic Literature Review
ies (equity investment). To identify relevant literature on this topic, we followed the recommended steps by. Webster and Watson (2002). First, we did a keyword search using available academic databases, such as Business Source Complete, ScienceDirect, Wiley Online, Emerald and Taylor &.
Private Equity Investments: A Literature Review
Volume 5 Issue 1 IRJMST Online ISSN 2250 - 1959 Private Equity Investments: A Literature Review Authored by: Neerza, (Research Scholar, M.Phil.) Department of Commerce, Faculty of Business and Commerce, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, Dr. Vanita Tripathi (Assistant Professor) Department of Commerce, Faculty of Business and Commerce, Delhi School of Economics, University of ...
Weaving equity into infrastructure resilience research: a decadal
Based on the literature, our systematic literature review proposes four definitions of equity for infrastructure resilience: distributional-demographic (D), distributional-spatial (S), procedural ...
Investment Intention and Decision Making: A Systematic Literature
A systematic literature review process requires a prior procedure or plan. SLR is a well-organized and transparent system in which the search is performed through various reputable databases.
Is Schwab MarketTrack Allocation Equity Portfolio (SWEGX) a Strong
The Schwab MarketTrack Allocation Equity Portfolio made its debut in May of 1998 and SWEGX has managed to accumulate roughly $915.37 million in assets, as of the most recently available information.

The economics of private equity: A critical review

Alexander Ljungqvist

Alexander Ljungqvist (Contact Author)

Swedish House of Finance ( email )

European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Econometric Modeling: Corporate Finance & Governance eJournal

Factors Influencing Performance of Private Equity Investment Funds Exit Through Mergers and Acquisitions

Access this chapter

Similar content being viewed by others

Do initial financial conditions determine the exit routes of start-up firms?

Cash Holdings and M &A Performance: Evidence from China’s GEM Market

Effect of Bank Mergers on Cost of Capital: Evidence from India

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this paper

Download citation

Share this paper

Information

Initiatives

Article Menu

JSmol Viewer

1. Introduction

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Design/methodology/approach

Practical implications

Originality/value

Related articles

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Private Equity Investments: A Literature Review

One Citation

Private Equity Investments: A Literature Review

Related Papers

RELATED TOPICS

Weaving equity into infrastructure resilience research: a decadal review and future directions

Similar content being viewed by others

Measuring accessibility to public services and infrastructure criticality for disasters risk management

Realizing resilience for decision-making

Exploring disaster impacts on adaptation actions in 549 cities worldwide

Infrastructure resilience in the broader resilience debate

Definitions of equity

Methods of systematic literature review

Identification

Eligibility

Inclusion and assessment framework

Infrastructure type

Hazard event type

Geographic location

Geographic scale

Temporal scale

Nature of the study

Theoretical perspective

Spatiotemporal patterns of equity

Data and methods to interpret equity

Interlinkages of equity definitions

Pathways between equity, hazard, and infrastructure

Research frameworks

Adaptations

Vulnerability

Welfare economics

Data availability

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Supplementary information

About this article

Share this article

Quick links

Investment Intention and Decision Making: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda

Abstract and Figures

Member Sign In

Services Overview