Review article: towards multi-hazard and multi-risk indicators – a review and recommendations for development and implementation

White, Christopher J.; Adnan, Mohammed Sarfaraz Gani ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7276-1891; Arosio, Marcello ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4845-8905; Buller, Stephanie; Cha, YoungHwa ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9677-3889; Ciurean, Roxana ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9660-5025; Crummy, Julia M.; Duncan, Melanie; Gill, Joel ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8721-863X; Kennedy, Claire; Nobile, Elisa; Smale, Lara; Ward, Philip J.. 2025 Review article: towards multi-hazard and multi-risk indicators – a review and recommendations for development and implementation. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 25 (11). 4263-4281. 10.5194/nhess-25-4263-2025

Before downloading, please read NORA policies.

Preview

Text (Open Access Paper) nhess-25-4263-2025.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Download (3MB) | Preview

Abstract/Summary

The development of indicators in disaster risk management has only recently started to explicitly include a multi-hazard and multi-risk approach. However, undertaking a natural hazard or risk assessment from a single hazard approach can be considered incomplete where the interactions between, and impacts from, multiple hazards and risks are not considered. Indicators contain observable and measurable characteristics to simplify information to understand the state of a concept or phenomenon, and/or to monitor it over time. To understand how indicators are being used in this context, using a systematic review, we identified 192 publications that mention indicators within either multi-hazard or multi-risk contexts, including hazards, vulnerability, and risk/impact. We found that most studies exploring indicators focused on multi-layer single hazards and risks, where multiple single hazards or risks within a given location were analysed individually and their outcomes presented in an overlaid format. The results also demonstrate a predominance of studies on hazard indicators (88 %) versus risk indicators, with a dominance of hydrometeorological indicators. Only 20 % of the studies integrated hazard, vulnerability and risk/impact. Based on the findings, we propose a set of actionable recommendations to enable the development and uptake of multi-hazard and multi-risk indicators.

Item Type:	Publication - Article
Digital Object Identifier (DOI):	10.5194/nhess-25-4263-2025
ISSN:	1684-9981
Date made live:	11 Nov 2025 14:13 +0 (UTC)
URI:	https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/540552

Actions (login required)

View Item

Document Downloads

More statistics for this item...