Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e38025

ISSN: 0430-5027

doi: 10.18055/Finis38025

Artigo

URBAN MULTI-HAZARD RESEARCH ANALYSIS AND VISUALIZATION:

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW  

SARA GUERRA FARDIN

TATIANA SUSSEL GONÇALVES MENDES

SILVIO JORGE COELHO SIMÕES

JOSÉ LUÍS ZÊZERE

3,4

ABSTRACT – This study investigates the development of multi-hazard research in urban areas, examining its

historical trajectory, links with international agendas, and the increasing recognition of the need for integrated risk

assessment. Through a bibliometric analysis of publications from 1997 to 2025 using VOSviewer and Bibliometrix, we

identify key trends in the field. The results show a marked rise in multi-hazard studies after 2020, alongside limited

collaboration among authors from different institutions and countries. The analysis highlights vulnerability and

resilience in urban environments as predominant research themes, with floods, landslides, and earthquakes emerging

as the most extensively studied hazards. Our findings point to a wide range of methodological approaches to multi-risk

integration, particularly stressing context-specific equations adapted to different hazard types and local conditions.

These results emphasise the urgent need to develop more adaptable and standardised methodologies in multi-hazard

research.

Keywords: Disaster risk reduction; urbanisation; risk understanding.

RESUMO – ANÁLISE E VISUALIZAÇÃO DE MULTI-PERIGOS EM ÁREAS URBANAS: UMA REVISÃO SISTEMÁTICA.

Este estudo investiga o desenvolvimento da investigação sobre perigos múltiplos em áreas urbanas, analisando a sua

trajectória histórica, as ligações com agendas internacionais e o reconhecimento crescente da necessidade de avaliações

integradas do risco. Através de uma análise bibliométrica de publicações entre 1997 e 2025, recorrendo às ferramentas

VOSviewer e Bibliometrix, identificam-se as principais tendências nesta área. Os resultados evidenciam um aumento

significativo dos estudos sobre perigos múltiplos após 2020, a par de uma reduzida colaboração entre autores de

diferentes instituições e países. A análise salienta a vulnerabilidade e a resiliência em ambientes urbanos como temas

de investigação predominantes, sendo as cheias, os movimentos de vertente e os sismos os perigos mais amplamente

estudados. As conclusões apontam para uma diversidade de abordagens metodológicas na integração de riscos

múltiplos, destacando-se, em particular, equações específicas de contexto adaptadas a diferentes tipos de perigos e

condições locais. Estes resultados reforçam a necessidade urgente de desenvolver metodologias mais adaptáveis e

normalizadas na investigação sobre perigos múltiplos.

Palavras-chave: Redução do risco de desastres; urbanização; entendimento do risco.

HIGHLIGHTS

• The three most studied threats in multi-hazard scenarios are urban floods, landslides and

earthquakes.

• Collaboration between institutions and authors remains limited, indicating the need to

Recebido: 03/10/2024. Aceite: 09/07/2025. Publicado: 1/10/2025.

Departamento de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental, Instituto Federal do Espírito Santo, Av. Vitória, 1729 - Jucutuquara, 29040-780,

Vitória, Brasil. E-mail:

scsguerra@gmail.com

Instituto de Ciência e Tecnologia, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brasil. E-mail:

tatiana.mendes@unesp.br, silvio.simoes@unesp.br

Centro de Estudos Geográficos, Instituto de Geografia e Ordenamento do Território (IGOT), Universidade de Lisboa (ULisboa), Lisboa,

Portugal. E-mail: zezere@edu.ulisboa.pt

Laboratório Terra, Instituto de Geografia e Ordenamento do Território (IGOT), Universidade de Lisboa (ULisboa), Lisboa, Portugal.

Fardin, S. G., Mendes, T. S. G., Simões, S. J. C., Zêzere, J. L, A. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e38025

strengthen research efforts.

• The most cited authors identified three research areas: i) multi-hazard; ii) risk management

and vulnerabilities; and iii) processes and methodologies related to hazard assessment.

• Studies addressing urban vulnerability and complex relationships in urban environments in

relation to hazard assessment and its consequences were considered hot topics.

1. INTRODUCTION

The use of the term multi-hazard and its variations is not new, having appeared in Agenda 21

for sustainable development with a call to include multi-hazard research into human settlement

planning (United Nations [UN], 1992). As the international agenda evolves, the use of the term ‘multi-

hazard’ has also changed. In 2002, it appeared in the Johannesburg Plan as an approach to address

hazards in all forms. The document called for actions to strengthen institutional capacities and

promote international research on an integrated multi-hazard approach (UN, 2002).

Over the years, awareness of the importance of addressing multiple hazards in urban

environments continued to grow, driven by, among other aspects, increasing migration to urban

centers and the rising number of people living at risk, both physically and socially. When hazards

manifest in urban contexts, they typically result in significantly greater losses than in rural areas, due

to the higher densities of population and infrastructure (S. Wang et al., 2022).

Despite the existing connection between disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategies and the

mitigation of vulnerability, there is a lack of integration of DRR measures into the urban planning

process in areas experiencing rapid urbanization, particularly in terms of actions effectively oriented

towards addressing multi-hazard scenarios (Kalaycıoğlu et al., 2023).

Given the close relationship between DRR and multiple hazard scenarios, the Sendai Framework

for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) (UN, 2015) emphasizes the importance of a multi-hazard and

multisectoral approach to effectively reduce disaster risk. It also underscores the need to understand

risk through, among other means, multi-hazard and solution-driven research.

Embedding multi-hazard analysis into urban planning includes not only DRR but also the

comprehension about how to integrate the existing hazards. Since urbanization modifies living

patterns, hazard damage potential can be amplified by human activity. According to the Global

Assessment Report of 2022, the outcome of a hazard event depends on how the elements of the

affected systems interact with each other (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction [UNDRR],

2022).

In this context, this study conducted a systematic review of urban multi-hazard research that

has been published in the last years using bibliometric analysis. Our goal is to provide an overview of

the main characteristics of urban multi-hazard research, focusing on the understanding of how

multiple hazards are being integrated into a single product and the processes involved in that

integration, in order to provide insights to further researchers. It is important to highlight that while

there is an extensive number of documents publicized about individual hazards, the number of

publications about multi-hazard is limited, especially those related specifically to urban areas. In this

context, it is worth mentioning that the focus of the present research is not on identifying individual

methodologies for assessing single hazards but rather on understanding how multiple hazards have

been integrated into a single product and the processes involved in that integration.

2. METHOD

The bibliometric search was preceded by the application of two guiding protocols: the Preferred

Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Page et al., 2021) and a guide

for cleaning bibliometric data (Lim et al., 2024). PRISMA protocol basically defines four steps for

systematic reviews that consist in identification, selection, appraisal and inclusion. The workflow

adopted in this review is schematized in figure 1.

Fardin, S. G., Mendes, T. S. G., Simões, S. J. C., Zêzere, J. L, A. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e38025

Fig. 1 – Flowchart of the documentation extraction process and data analysis.

Fig. 1 – Fluxograma do processo de extração da documentação e análise de dados.

Source: Authors’ elaboration

2.1. Description of data retrieved

This article conducted a bibliometric analysis to explore the current landscape of multi hazard

research worldwide. For this, up-to-date data from Web of Science (WoS) database was retrieved. The

platform is one of the most complete international catalogues for bibliometric analyses and literature

reviews, allowing comparison of publications and identifying trends (Leydesdorff, 2012).

The primary characteristic of the search is the query used. That said, the search was conducted

in April 2025, on the Web of Science database. The field tag used was TS=Topic, which extends the

search in the fields Title, Abstract, Keywords and Keywords Plus. The search query was: TS=((multi

hazard OR multihazard OR multiple hazard OR multi risk) AND (disaster OR catastrophe OR crisis OR

failure) AND (urban* OR cit* OR metropolitan OR town* OR settlement* OR built-up)).

Fardin, S. G., Mendes, T. S. G., Simões, S. J. C., Zêzere, J. L, A. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e38025

The initial search resulted in 2285 documents. The cleaning phase involved excluding irrelevant

documents and enhancing the overall quality of the final dataset. The inclusion and exclusion criteria

for document selection were conducted in two stages. The first involved a semi-automatic process

comprising: (a) the exclusion of WOS Categories (and their associated articles) listed in the search

panel that have low adherence to the theme. For instance, a study may reference multi-hazard topics

but focus primarily on Medicine (Dermatology category) or another unrelated subject. In such cases,

the category and its documents should be excluded due to their limited relevance to the actual research

objective; (b) the inclusion of documents classified as Articles, Proceedings Papers, and Review

Articles; (c) the exclusion of documents published in other languages than English. The second stage

consisted of an individual analysis including: (d) the exclusion of documents whose titles and/or

abstract clearly indicated a focus on single hazard analysis or did not address urban multi hazard

contexts.

Based on the above-mentioned screening criteria, 2045 documents were excluded. The

remaining documents (240) were exported in plain text format, preserving full records and referenced

citations.

2.2. Bibliometric analysis and the main parameters analysed

The second part of the analysis was conducted using VosViewer (van Eck & Waltman, 2010) and

Bibliometrix (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017), both open-source software tools for bibliometric analysis to

identify clusters and interconnections within the dataset. VOSviewer and Bibliometrix offer a range of

analytical techniques, making it essential to carefully select those most aligned with the research

objectives. To identify patterns in urban multi-hazard research, the following variables were selected:

a) Author Keywords: as the name implies, are the keywords used to identify and provide a

broader context for the document. Combined, they can give an idea of the most relevant research areas.

b) Co-authorship network: refers to documents published by two or more researchers, either

with joint responsibility for a single document or multiple documents. This is a key metric to

understand the existence of collaborative efforts and may indicate sustained partnerships between

authors when a significant volume of co-authored publications is observed (Ponomariov & Boardman,

2016).

c) Country collaboration: to understand international research partnerships, the analysis

examined the most frequent country collaborations, the presence of single- and multiple-country

contributions in each document, and the most cited countries. These insights help identify which

countries play a significant role in the research field.

d) Authors co-citation: the analysis is conducted using the reference list and measures how

frequently an author is cited across multiple documents. A high co-citation frequency indicates the

author's significance as a key reference in both past and future research.

The final part of the analysis focused on a detailed review of selected multi-hazard studies. To

better understand how authors integrate multiple hazards into a single product, papers with more

than 30 citations were selected for an in-depth analysis. The goal was to identify key aspects that

illustrate how the multi-hazard approach is being applied in current research.

The review sought to determine which hazards are commonly studied together. To achieve this,

hazards were normalized based on definitions and classifications outlined in the SFDRR (UNDRR,

2020). Other parameters to be evaluated were whether cascading effects are considered, whether

historical events were incorporated, the approaches used to assess the hazards, and the methods used

to integrate multiple hazards.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Increasing trend of multi-hazard publications

The initial search retrieved 2285 documents, including books, with the earliest publication

mentioning multi-hazard found in the WOS core collection dating back to 1991. Despite this, filtered

documents started to address multiple hazards in 1997. The annual scientific production, in terms of

number of documents per year (fig. 2), experienced minimal activity between 2007 and 2013, with the

number of published documents falling between zero and five. However, it was only in 2014 that multi-

Fardin, S. G., Mendes, T. S. G., Simões, S. J. C., Zêzere, J. L, A. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e38025

hazard research began to gain noticeable traction in academic publications. Between 2014 and 2019,

the production ranged between seven and 11, but the most meaningful increase occurred in the last

five years, between 2020 and 2025, with more than 15 documents per year. Although the concept of

“comprehensive multi-hazard research” was introduced as part of the Agenda 21 recommendations

for disaster risk reduction (UN, 1992), significant growth in this research area began after the Sendai

Framework's publication in 2015. The framework emphasized the importance of a multi-hazard

approach as one of its guiding principles (UNDRR, 2025), which may have contributed to increased

interest in this thematic area among researchers, as also suggested by Owolabi and Sajjad (2023).

Fig. 2 – Number of multi-hazard publications between 1997 and 2025.

Fig. 2 – Número de publicações sobre multi-perigos entre 1997 e 2025.

Source: Authors’ elaboration

3.2. Clustering analysis

3.2.1. Authors Keywords

Initially, 1210 keywords were retrieved. Since authors often use varying keywords to describe

the same topic – such as disaster risk and disaster risk assessment, or even risk assessment and risk

assessment model – the keywords list was exported to Excel for manual review semantic similarities

and plural forms. This process was used to generate a thesaurus file to be used on keywords mapping.

After the cleaning process, 839 keywords remained. Among them, 26 keywords appeared at least four

times and were ranked by their average number of publications per year (fig. 3).

Although the most used author keywords were risk assessment, multi-hazard, GIS, vulnerability,

and earthquake, it is important to consider the temporal analysis highlighted in figure 3. It indicates a

shift from the processes related to hazard assessment or impact analysis (which include terms such as

landslide, earthquake, tsunamis, and GIS) to a people-centred perspective, with terms like

vulnerability, resilience, critical infrastructure and urban resilience being appearing most recently.

Some researchers suggests that COVID-19 pandemic has made changes on multi-hazard research field,

posing vulnerability as a key component in the risk analysis, since it has an important role to

individuals, communities, and societies (Albulescu & Armas, 2024; Rogers et al., 2020). On the other

hand, Rezvani et al. (2023) suggests that disasters caused by climate change, such as rainfall and sea-

level rise, poses significant threat to urban area. Therefore, the intersection of resilience, disaster risk

assessment, and climate change has become a major focus of scholarly discussion.

Fardin, S. G., Mendes, T. S. G., Simões, S. J. C., Zêzere, J. L, A. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e38025

Fig. 3 – Keywords co-occurrence analysis of multi-hazard publications. Colour figure available online.

Fig. 3 – Análise da co-ocorrência de palavras-chave sobre publicações multi-perigo. Figura a cores disponível online.

Source: Authors’ elaboration

3.2.2. Authorship and collaborative network

Co-authorship network analysis created clusters among 1087 authors, considering a minimum

of two occurrences, returning 58 authors and 21 clusters (fig. 4). Among the leading contributors,

considering the number of published documents, are Enrico Quagliarini, Guofang Zhai, Gabriele

Bernardini and Elena Cantatore. Enrico Quagliarini and Guofang Zhai published the greatest number

of documents, totalling five each. The authorship clusters indicate a strong relation within different

clusters, the only exception being two clusters, both formed by Italian researchers (highlighted circle).

Fig. 4 – Co-authorship analysis of multi-hazard publications. Colour figure available online.

Fig. 4 – Análise de co-autoria das publicações multi-perigos. Figura a cores disponivel online.

Source: Authors’ elaboration

Fardin, S. G., Mendes, T. S. G., Simões, S. J. C., Zêzere, J. L, A. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e38025

The strongest author connections were found in the Enrico Quagliarini cluster, a group

extensively engaged in research on multi-hazard issues in urban areas. This research group sometimes

publishes as a cohesive unit (Cremen et al., 2023; Jenkins et al., 2023), and at other times in smaller

sub-groups (Gentile et al., 2022). These collaboration patterns align with the insights derived from the

bibliometric data.

The collaboration analysis showed that there are few multi-hazard research groups strongly

established, with low collaborative practice among different research groups, indicating a need to

strengthen multi-hazard research efforts. Owolabi and Sajjad (2023) also found limited collaboration

among authors in the broader field of multi-hazard risk assessment, suggesting that research co-

production would benefit not only different research groups, but the whole multi-hazard research

field.

It is evident that many research groups still publish independently or with limited collaboration,

highlighting the need for stronger collaborative research efforts. The Countries Collaboration World

Map (fig. 5A) reinforces that limited cooperation, with few/no collaboration in South America, the

Caribbean, and Africa, although African countries are the most affected by disasters in number of

people (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, 2023). The countries that most

frequently collaborate with others on urban multi-hazard research are Italy, United States, and United

Kingdom. The strongest bilateral collaborations are observed between Germany and Netherlands,

which has resulted in four joint publications. China-Netherlands/United Kingdom/United States, and

Italy-Portugal/United Kingdom/United States granted three publications each.

To understand the degree of collaboration between countries, each document was associated to

a single country, based on the affiliation of the corresponding author, with the 20 most productive

countries being represented on figure 5B. The figure also indicates the number of single-country

publications (SCP) and multiple-country publications (MCP). The analysis indicates that, from the most

productive country, only Bangladesh is publishing lonely, but from the entire list, there is several

others, such as Turkey, Romania, Singapore and Belgium. Although China and Italy produce the largest

volume of publications, the United Kingdom demonstrates the highest level of collaboration, with eight

out of its ten publications involving co-authorship. This result emphasizes the value of establishing

partnerships between countries and institutions. According to Hemingway and Gunawan (2018), such

efforts helped reduce hazard risk in the United Kingdom. Countries like Brazil, Colombia, Denmark,

Malta, Nepal, and Switzerland, while each producing only one publication, did so in partnership with

researchers from other countries.

The most cited countries (fig. 5C) were the United States, China, and Italy, which is consistent

with their high volume of publications. In contrast, Australia and Sweden had the lowest citation

counts. Among the most cited countries, Greece stands out – ranking fourth overall and holding the

highest average citations per publication. This is primarily due to the highly cited paper by Skilodimou

et al. (2019), which alone accounts for 215 citations.

Despite the limited collaborative efforts observed, only 16 out of 8714 authors cited in the

reference list received 20 or more citations (fig. 6). This suggests that while researchers may not be

collaborating extensively across groups, they are consistently referencing and building upon the work

of a common set of influential authors. The clusters generated highlight three major research areas.

The central cluster (green), which includes authors such as Joel C. Gill, Michael S. Kappes, and Valentina

Gallina, is distinguished by its focus on multi-hazard research. These authors are recognized for

developing innovative concepts and methodologies that advance the understanding and integration of

multiple hazards.

The right-hand cluster (red) consists of Omar-Dario Cardona, Joern Birkmann, Maxx Dilley,

Susan L. Cutter, and the UNDRR (formerly UNISDR - United Nations International Strategy for Disaster

Reduction, before 2019). This cluster is primarily associated with research on vulnerability mapping,

climate change, and risk management. In addition to UNDRR's institutional presence, these authors

are frequently affiliated with or collaborate with United Nations initiatives – an organization

recognized for its extensive focus on vulnerable populations.

Notably, Susan L. Cutter's contributions have been foundational to the development of the social

vulnerability to environmental hazards concept (Cutter et al., 2003). The left-hand cluster comprises

Mohammad Ali Pourghasemi, Hariklia Skilodimou, George Bathrellos, and Thomas Saaty. This group

is primarily associated with methodological approaches for assessing natural hazards, including the

use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP).

Fardin, S. G., Mendes, T. S. G., Simões, S. J. C., Zêzere, J. L, A. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e38025

Fig. 5 – Collaboration world map. (A) Country collaboration map. (B) Document associated to a single country, based

on the affiliation of the corresponding author. (C) Most cited countries. Colour figure available online.

Fig. 5 – Mapa mundial da colaboração. (A) Mapa de colaboração entre países. (B) Documentos associados a cada país,

baseado na afiliação do autor correspondente. (C) Países mais citados. Figura a cores disponível online.

Source: Authors’ elaboration

Fardin, S. G., Mendes, T. S. G., Simões, S. J. C., Zêzere, J. L, A. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e38025

Fig. 6 – Co-citation of authors from reference list. Colour figure available online.

Fig. 6 – Co-citação da lista de referências. Figura a cores disponível online.

Source: Authors’ elaboration

Fig. 7 – Main publication sources (A) and publication sources based on the citation number (B). Colour figure available

online.

Fig. 7 – Principais fontes de publicação (A) e fontes de publicação por número de citações (B). Figura a cores disponível

online.

Source: Authors’ elaboration

Fardin, S. G., Mendes, T. S. G., Simões, S. J. C., Zêzere, J. L, A. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e38025

3.2.3. Source Distribution of Publications

Analysing the main publication sources is essential for identifying the core journals in the field

of multi-hazard research. This information is particularly valuable for researchers aiming to contribute

to or publish within this area. Natural Hazards is the journal with the highest number of publications,

followed by International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (fig. 7A). These two journals also occupy

the top two positions among the most cited sources (fig. 7B), highlighting their importance as

references among urban multi-hazard research thematic field.

3.2.4. Trending topics on urban multi-hazard research

The bibliometric analysis also provided insights into the temporal evolution of urban multi-

hazard research and the emergence of key trends. The analysis was conducted by evaluating document

abstracts, using a minimum frequency threshold of three occurrences in total and at least three per

year. Similar terms were consolidated through a thesaurus file (fig. 8). The term “risk assessment” was

the most frequently used, appearing 124 times between 2018 and 2023, followed by “disaster risk”,

which appeared 120 times between 2019 and 2023, although, both are generic terms. The topic of

“social vulnerability” was the most enduring, spanning a 10-year period, reinforcing its relevance. The

tendency of the vulnerability research observed during the previous analysis is also confirmed here,

with the most recent terms being related to urban resilience and complex systems. The integrated

development of vulnerability assessment in urban environments, considering multi-risk

interrelationships and cascading effects have been considered current hot topics by this research.

Fig. 8 – Trend topics in urban multi-hazard research: Abstracts. Colour figure available online.

Fig. 8 – Tendências em pesquisas multi-perigos urbanos: resumos. Figura a cores disponível online.

Source: Authors’ elaboration

The thematic evolution of research titles was analysed by dividing the dataset into two time

slices, using the years of 2015 and 2020 as dividing points. The primary objective was to identify

emerging trends and shifts in urban multi-hazard research over the past ten years, considering the

periods 2015-2019 (fig. 9A) and 2020-2025 (fig. 9B). The analysis divides topics into four quadrants,

grouping them by relevance and development degree. The upper-right quadrant represents the most

relevant and recent themes, while the bottom left quadrant is about emerging or declining themes.

During the former time slice, base themes were assessment method and multi-hazard, with

climate change and geospatial analysis being rising themes (fig. 9A). In the period corresponding to

the latter time slice, climate change shifted to the lower-right quadrant (fig. 9B), a region typically

occupied by well-developed and central themes, thereby reinforcing its significance within the

Fardin, S. G., Mendes, T. S. G., Simões, S. J. C., Zêzere, J. L, A. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e38025

research field. Base themes also changed, with the appearance of themes like built environment and

vulnerability assessment in more recent years (fig. 9B). On the left quadrant, the emerging theme is

machine learning. This topic is emerging as an important tool to model complex relationships in urban

multi-hazard, with the growing need assessing real-time scenarios of multiple hazards. Following the

previous analysis, resilience also appears as a central theme, while vulnerability is considered a basic

theme.

Fig. 9 – Thematic evolution through title analysis between 2015-2019 (A) and 2020-2025 (B). Colour figure available

online.

Fig. 9 – Análise temática dos títulos das publicações ocorridas entre 2015-2019 (A) e 2020-2025 (B). Figura a cores

disponivel online.

Source: Authors’ elaboration

To explore research trends, an in-depth analysis was conducted to identify the most frequently

studied hazard types. This analysis was carried out manually rather than using automated software

tools. A sample of 37 documents were selected based on citation rate, each with 30 or more citations.

These documents are summarized in Table I and further discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.

Fardin, S. G., Mendes, T. S. G., Simões, S. J. C., Zêzere, J. L, A. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e38025

Table I – Main characteristics of most cited documents.

Tabela I – Principais características dos documentos mais citados.

TYPE OF HAZARD

INTEGRATION

HAZARD

MAPPING

CASCADING

HAZARDS

HISTORICAL

DATA

NUMBER OF

HAZARDS MAPPED

LOCATION

REFERENCE

Hazard overlaying

(Simple)

Individual

hazard

analysis

Yes

2, 3

Dakar/Sudan, Gulf of

Corinth/Greece, Hindu Kush

Himalaya

(Fall et al., 2006; Papatheodorou &

Ferentinos, 1997; Rusk et al., 2022)

Yes

Dharan/Nepal

(Aksha et al., 2020)

Hazard used to model

cascading consequences.

Individual

hazard

analysis

Yes

2, 3, 4

Baseu River/Romania, Greater

London/United Kingdom,

Hipothetical, Jinsha

river/Tibet/China, South America,

Thessaloniki/Greece, Wuhan

City/China, Xiaojinchuan

River/Sichuan/China

(Antonioni et al., 2009; Fan et al.,

2020; Ming et al., 2022; Pitilakis et

al., 2016; Urzică et al., 2021;

Vörösmarty et al., 2013; X. Wang et

al., 2022; Zhu et al., 2021)

Joint hazard analysis.

Indirect methodology.

Joint hazard

analysis

Yes

2, 4, 5

Fujian Delta/China, Panzhou/China,

Several

(Chang et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2021;

Moftakhari et al., 2017; Peng et al.,

2020)

Sum of all hazards

(Proper equation).

Individual

hazard

analysis

Yes

2, 3, 5

Afghanistan, Hipothetical,

Iloilo/Philippines,

Manizales/Colombia, Piedmont

region/Italy, Rome/Italy

(Anelli et al., 2022; Bernal et al.,

2017; Carpignano et al., 2009; Ruiter

et al., 2021; Lam & Lassa, 2017;

Sevieri et al., 2020)

Yes

2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Austin/United States, Bangladesh,

Donostia-San Sebastian/Spain,

Mediterranean, Peneus River

Basin/Greece, Rethymno/Greece,

Yangtze River Delta/China

(Barua et al., 2016; Bixler et al., 2021;

Gandini et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2013;

Ravankhah et al., 2019; Satta et al.,

2017; Skilodimou et al., 2019)

Theoretical consequences

of joint hazards or

cascading effects

Individual

hazard

analysis

Yes

2, 3, 6, 7

Beichuan/China, Genoa/Italy,

Gorkha/Nepal, Mengdong/China,

Sendai/Japan, Several

(Aubrecht et al., 2013; Faccini et al.,

2015; Koshimura & Shuto, 2015;

McNamara et al., 2017; Scheip &

Wegmann, 2021; Yang et al., 2020;

Zhang et al., 2014)

Yes

New York/United States

(Depietri & McPhearson, 2018)

Source: Authors’ elaboration

Fardin, S. G., Mendes, T. S. G., Simões, S. J. C., Zêzere, J. L, A. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e38025

The analysis of hazard types revealed that urban floods, earthquakes, and landslides were the

three most frequently studied, often examined either together or in conjunction with other hazards

(eight cases in total). When focusing specifically on hazard pairings (at least), the most common

combinations were urban flood and earthquake, and landslide and earthquake, each appearing

together in 11 papers. It is noteworthy that, despite the methodological differences and distinct

characteristics involved in assessing urban flood hazards, landslides, and earthquakes – and the

inherent complexity of modelling multi-hazard scenarios that include these events – they frequently

appear together in multi-hazard studies (Aksha et al., 2020; Carpignano et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2013;

Ravankhah et al., 2019; Skilodimou et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2014). Wang and Weng (2020) suggests

that hazards may interact by directly triggering one another or through more indirect relationships.

In either case, the overall severity of a multi-hazard event can be influenced by the number of hazards

involved, thereby increasing the complexity and difficulty of accurate prediction.

Results show that most of the documents focused on analysis that considered three (15

documents – 41%) or two (10 documents – 27%) hazard types, with only one document researching

the relation between seven hazards (Zhang et al., 2014).

Extensive work has been undertaken to understand hazards relationships and consequences to

the areas studied, and the types of hazards integrations were summarized as follows: a) hazard

overlaying (simple); b) hazard used to model cascading consequences; c) joint hazard analysis. As

indirect methodology: d) sum of all hazards (proper equation); and e) theoretical consequences of

joint hazards or cascading effects. The most used methodology was the application of a proper

equation to combine different hazards, followed by hazard assessment approaches used to model

cascading hazards. Some authors have sought to understand multi-hazard associations through

indirect methodologies that consider all relevant hazards from the beginning of the assessment

process. These approaches often incorporate shared influencing factors – such as rainfall – or apply

statistical techniques that can be linked to multiple hazards, such as Information Value and Weight of

Evidence (Chang et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2021; Moftakhari et al., 2017; Peng et al., 2020). Although multi-

hazard assessment is inherently complex, in many cases, the mere superimposition of individual

hazards can be overly simplistic and fail to capture the true nature of their interactions (Kappes et al.,

2012). These varying points of view may result from different definitions of multi-hazard, since one

considers independent hazards occurring in a multiple hazard environment, while the other considers

that hazards occurring at the same place can interact with each other (Angeli et al., 2022).

Despite employing different methodologies, all reviewed studies used historical or field data to

conduct multi-hazard analyses. This underscores the essential role of hazard records in understanding

not only the behaviour and impacts of individual hazards but also their interconnections with other

events. In this context, recognizing whether one hazard can trigger another or lead to cascading

consequences is particularly important. Among the 37 documents analysed, 75% (28 studies)

addressed cascading hazards – such as natural events causing structural collapse or heavy rainfall

triggering landslides – integrating both the initial hazard and its cascading effects into the multi-hazard

scenario.

4. CONCLUSIONS

Studies about multi-hazards in urban areas have been increasing significantly in recent years.

Our analyses provided information on how the topic has been evolving and highlighted the actual

trends:

a) the author’s most used keywords were Risk assessment, Multi-hazard, GIS, Vulnerability,

and Earthquake;

b) key journals publishing state-of-the-art research on urban multi-hazard are Natural

Hazards and International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction;

c) authors from different institutions show limited collaboration, as indicated by sparse co-

authorship links. This highlights the need to strengthen multi-hazard research efforts through

greater inter-institutional cooperation. Nevertheless, authors tend to cite similar references,

which cluster around three main thematic areas: (i) multi-hazard monographies; (ii) risk

management and vulnerabilities; and (iii) processes and methodologies related to hazard

assessment;

Fardin, S. G., Mendes, T. S. G., Simões, S. J. C., Zêzere, J. L, A. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e38025

d) trends indicate a growing interest in research related to vulnerability and resilience in

urban environments, particularly in connection with urban planning and exposure assessment.

These emerging areas suggest the development of a potential research hotspot.

The most frequently studied hazards were urban floods, landslides, and earthquakes. In most

cases, authors conducted individual hazard analyses before to composing a multi-hazard assessment.

Although the sequential analysis of single hazards followed by their integration – often through a

specific equation – was the most common method, there remains a notable lack of comparative studies

evaluating the different methodologies used in multi-hazard integration.

Finally, some limitations of this work should be mentioned. Firstly, the search was conducted

solely on the WoS platform. Although it is an extensive and reputable database, it does not encompass

all relevant publications, potentially omitting important contributions from other sources and works

published in languages other than English. Furthermore, the results obtained are conditioned by the

structure and scope of the search query, which may have excluded relevant studies due to keyword

selection or indexing inconsistencies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to the Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Espírito Santo (Ifes),

Vitória campus, for the financial support in developing the research. This study was financed in part by the

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001.

ORCID ID

Sara Guerra Fardin

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4313-8096

Tatiana Sussel Gonçalves Mendes https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0421-5311

Silvio Jorge Coelho Simões https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7761-0145

José Luis Zêzere https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3953-673X

AUTHOR`S CONTRIBUTION

Sara Guerra Fardin: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation,

Resources, Data curation, Writing – original draft preparation, Writing – review and editing, Visualization,

Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Tatiana Sussel Gonçalves Mendes: Writing –

review and editing, Supervision. Silvio Jorge Coelho Simões: Writing – review and editing, Supervision.

José Luis Zêzere: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Investigation, Writing – review and editing,

Visualization, Supervision.

REFERENCES

Aksha, S. K., Resler, L. M., Juran, L., & Carstensen, L. W. (2020). A geospatial analysis of multi-hazard risk in Dharan,

Nepal. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 11(1), 88–111.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2019.1710580

Albulescu, A.-C., & Armas, I. (2024). An impact-chain-based exploration of multi-hazard vulnerability dynamics: The

multi-hazard of floods and the COVID-19 pandemic in Romania. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences,

24(8), 2895–2922. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-2895-2024

Anelli, D., Tajani, F., & Ranieri, R. (2022). Urban resilience against natural disasters: Mapping the risk with an

innovative indicators-based assessment approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 371, e133496.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133496

Angeli, S. de, Malamud, B. D., Rossi, L., Taylor, F. E., Trasforini, E., & Rudari, R. (2022). A multi-hazard framework for

spatial-temporal impact analysis. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 73, 102829.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102829.

Antonioni, G., Bonvicini, S., Spadoni, G., & Cozzani, V. (2009). Development of a framework for the risk assessment of

Na-Tech accidental events. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 94(9), 1442–1450.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2009.02.026

Fardin, S. G., Mendes, T. S. G., Simões, S. J. C., Zêzere, J. L, A. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e38025

Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of

Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Aubrecht, C., Özceylan, D., Steinnocher, K., & Freire, S. (2013). Multi-level geospatial modeling of human exposure

patterns and vulnerability indicators. Natural Hazards, 68(1), 147–163.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-

0389-9

Barua, U., Akhter, M. S., & Ansary, M. A. (2016). District-wise multi-hazard zoning of Bangladesh. Natural Hazards,

82(3), 1895–1918.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2276-2

Bernal, G. A., Salgado-Gálvez, M. A., Zuloaga, D., Tristancho, J., González, D., & Cardona, O. D. (2017). Integration of

Probabilistic and Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment Within Urban Development Planning and Emergency

Preparedness and Response: Application to Manizales, Colombia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science,

8(3), 270–283.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-017-0135-8

Bixler, R. P., Yang, E., Richter, S. M., & Coudert, M. (2021). Boundary crossing for urban community resilience: A social

vulnerability and multi-hazard approach in Austin, Texas, USA. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,

66, 102613.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102613

Carpignano, A., Golia, E., Di Mauro, C., Bouchon, S., & Nordvik, J. P. (2009). A methodological approach for the

definition of multi-risk maps at regional level: First application. Journal of Risk Research, 12(3–4), 513–534.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870903050269

Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. (2023). 2022 Disasters in numbers. CRED.

https://reliefweb.int/report/world/2022-disasters-numbers

Chang, M., Dou, X., Tang, L., & Xu, H. (2022). Risk assessment of multi-disaster in Mining Area of Guizhou, China.

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 78, 103128.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103128

Cremen, G., Galasso, C., McCloskey, J., Barcena, A., Creed, M., Filippi, M. E., … & Trogrlić, R. Š. (2023). A state-of-the-art

decision-support environment for risk-sensitive and pro-poor urban planning and design in Tomorrow’s

cities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 85, 103400.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103400

Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science

Quarterly, 84(2), 242–261.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402002

Depietri, Y., & McPhearson, T. (2018). Changing urban risk: 140 years of climatic hazards in New York City. Climatic

Change, 148(1–2), 95–108.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2194-2

Faccini, F., Luino, F., Sacchini, A., Turconi, L., & De Graff, J. V. (2015). Geohydrological hazards and urban development

in the Mediterranean area: An example from Genoa (Liguria, Italy). Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences,

15(12), 2631–2652. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-15-2631-2015

Fall, M., Azzam, R., & Noubactep, C. (2006). A multi-method approach to study the stability of natural slopes and

landslide susceptibility mapping. Engineering Geology, 82(4), 241–263.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.11.007

Fan, X., Yang, F., Siva Subramanian, S., Xu, Q., Feng, Z., Mavrouli, O., … & Huang, R. (2020). Prediction of a multi-hazard

chain by an integrated numerical simulation approach: the Baige landslide, Jinsha River, China. Landslides,

17(1), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-019-01313-5

Gandini, A., Quesada, L., Prieto, I., & Garmendia, L. (2021). Climate change risk assessment: A holistic multi-

stakeholder methodology for the sustainable development of cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 65, 102641.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102641

Gentile, R., Cremen, G., Galasso, C., Jenkins, L. T., Manandhar, V., Menteşe, … & McCloskey, J. (2022). Scoring, selecting,

and developing physical impact models for multi-hazard risk assessment. International Journal of Disaster Risk

Reduction, 82, 103365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103365

Hemingway, R., & Gunawan, O. (2018). The Natural Hazards Partnership: A public-sector collaboration across the UK

for natural hazard disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 27, 499–511.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.11.014

Jenkins, L. T., Creed, M. J., Tarbali, K., Muthusamy, M., Trogrlić, R. Š., Phillips, J. C., … & McCloskey, J. (2023). Physics-

based simulations of multiple natural hazards for risk-sensitive planning and decision-making in expanding

urban regions. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 84, 103338.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103338

Kalaycıoğlu, M., Kalaycıoğlu, S., Çelik, K., Christie, R., & Filippi, M. E. (2023). An analysis of social vulnerability in a

multi-hazard urban context for improving disaster risk reduction policies: The case of Sancaktepe, İstanbul.

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 91, 103679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103679

Kappes, M. S., Keiler, M., von Elverfeldt, K., & Glade, T. (2012). Challenges of analyzing multi-hazard risk: A review.

Natural Hazards, 64(2), 1925–1958.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0294-2

Fardin, S. G., Mendes, T. S. G., Simões, S. J. C., Zêzere, J. L, A. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e38025

Koshimura, S., & Shuto, N. (2015). Response to the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami disaster.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 373(2053),

20140373.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0373

Lam, J. S. L., & Lassa, J. A. (2017). Risk assessment framework for exposure of cargo and ports to natural hazards and

climate extremes. Maritime Policy and Management, 44(1), 1–15.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2016.1245877

Leydesdorff, L. (2012). World shares of publications of the USA, EU-27, and China compared and predicted using the

new Web of Science interface versus Scopus. Profesional de la Informacion, 21(1), 43–49.

https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2012.ene.06

Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Donthu, N. (2024). How to combine and clean bibliometric data and use bibliometric tools

synergistically: Guidelines using metaverse research. Journal of Business Research, 182, 114760.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114760

Lin, J., Lin, M., Chen, W., Zhang, A., Qi, X., & Hou, H. (2021). Ecological risks of geological disasters and the patterns of

the urban agglomeration in the Fujian Delta region. Ecological Indicators, 125, 107475.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107475

Liu, B., Siu, Y. L., Mitchell, G., & Xu, W. (2013). Exceedance probability of multiple natural hazards: Risk assessment in

China’s Yangtze River Delta. Natural Hazards, 69(3), 2039–2055.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0794-

McNamara, D. E., Yeck, W. L., Barnhart, W. D., Schulte-Pelkum, V., Bergman, E., Adhikari, L. B., … & Earle, P. S. (2017).

Source modeling of the 2015 Mw 7.8 Nepal (Gorkha) earthquake sequence: Implications for geodynamics and

earthquake hazards. Tectonophysics, 714–715, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2016.08.004

Ming, X., Liang, Q., Dawson, R., Xia, X., & Hou, J. (2022). A quantitative multi-hazard risk assessment framework for

compound flooding considering hazard inter-dependencies and interactions. Journal of Hydrology, 607,

127477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127477

Moftakhari, H. R., Salvadori, G., AghaKouchak, A., Sanders, B. F., & Matthew, R. A. (2017). Compounding effects of sea

level rise and fluvial flooding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,

114(37), 9785–9790. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620325114

Owolabi, T. A., & Sajjad, M. (2023). A global outlook on multi-hazard risk analysis: A systematic and scientometric

review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 92, 103727.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103727

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA

2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 89.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

Papatheodorou, G., & Ferentinos, G. (1997). Submarine and coastal sediment failure triggered by the 1995, M, = 6.1 R

Aegion earthquake, Gulf of Corinth, Greece. Marine Geology, 137, 287–304.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-

3227(96)00089-8

Peng, L., Xia, J., Li, Z., Fang, C., & Deng, X. (2020). Spatio-temporal dynamics of water-related disaster risk in the

Yangtze River Economic Belt from 2000 to 2015. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 161, 10485.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104851

Pitilakis, K., Argyroudis, S., Kakderi, K., & Selva, J. (2016). Systemic Vulnerability and Risk Assessment of

Transportation Systems under Natural Hazards Towards More Resilient and Robust Infrastructures.

Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 1335–1344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.206

Ponomariov, B., & Boardman, C. (2016). What is co-authorship? Scientometrics, 109(3), 1939–1963.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2127-7

Ravankhah, M., de Wit, R., Argyriou, A. V., Chliaoutakis, A., Revez, M. J., Birkmann, J., … & Giapitsoglou, K. (2019).

Integrated Assessment of Natural Hazards, Including Climate Change’s Influences, for Cultural Heritage Sites:

The Case of the Historic Centre of Rethymno in Greece. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 10(3),

343–361.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-019-00235-z

Rezvani, S. M. H. S., Falcão, M. J., Komljenovic, D., & de Almeida, N. M. (2023). A Systematic Literature Review on Urban

Resilience Enabled with Asset and Disaster Risk Management Approaches and GIS-Based Decision Support

Tools. Applied Sciences, 13(4), 2223. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13042223

Rogers, D. P., Anderson-Berry, L., Bogdanova, A. M., Fleming, G., Gitay, H., Kahandawa, S., … & Wang, W. (2020). COVID-

19 and lessons from multi-hazard early warning systems. Advances in Science and Research, 17, 129–141.

https://doi.org/10.5194/asr-17-129-2020

Fardin, S. G., Mendes, T. S. G., Simões, S. J. C., Zêzere, J. L, A. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e38025

Ruiter, M. C. de, Bruijn, J. A. de, Englhardt, J., Daniell, J. E., de Moel, H., & Ward, P. J. (2021). The Asynergies of Structural

Disaster Risk Reduction Measures: Comparing Floods and Earthquakes. Earth’s Future, 9(1), e2020EF001531.

https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001531

Rusk, J., Maharjan, A., Tiwari, P., Chen, T. H. K., Shneiderman, S., Turin, M., & Seto, K. C. (2022). Multi-hazard

susceptibility and exposure assessment of the Hindu Kush Himalaya. Science of the Total Environment, 804,

150039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150039

Satta, A., Puddu, M., Venturini, S., & Giupponi, C. (2017). Assessment of coastal risks to climate change related impacts

at the regional scale: The case of the Mediterranean region. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 24,

284–296.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.06.018

Scheip, C. M., & Wegmann, K. W. (2021). HazMapper: A global open-source natural hazard mapping application in

Google Earth Engine. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 21(5), 1495–1511.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-1495-2021

Sevieri, G., Galasso, C., D’Ayala, D., De Jesus, R., Oreta, A., Grio, M. E. D. A., & Ibabao, R. (2020). A multi-hazard risk

prioritisation framework for cultural heritage assets. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 20(5), 1391–

1414. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-1391-2020

Skilodimou, H. D., Bathrellos, G. D., Chousianitis, K., Youssef, A. M., & Pradhan, B. (2019). Multi-hazard assessment

modeling via multi-criteria analysis and GIS: a case study. Environmental Earth Sciences, 78(2), 147.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-8003-4

United Nations. (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 Geneva: UNDRR.

https://www.undrr.org/publication/sendai-framework-disaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030

United Nations. (2002). Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 26

August-4 September 2002. UN.

United Nations. (1992). Agenda 21. Section I Social & Economic Dimension. Chapter 7. Promoting Sustainable Human

Settlement Development. UN.

https://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_07.shtml

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2025). Sendai framework monitor. UNDRR.

https://sendaimonitor.undrr.org/

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2022). Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2022:

Our World at Risk: Transforming Governance for a Resilient Future. UNDRR.

www.undrr.org/GAR2022

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2020). Hazard definition & Classification Review. Technical Report.

UNDRR.

https://www.undrr.org/publication/hazard-definition-and-classification-review-technical-

report#editors-recommendations

Urzică, A., Mihu-Pintilie, A., Stoleriu, C. C., Cîmpianu, C. I., Huţanu, E., Pricop, C. I., & Grozavu, A. (2021). Using 2D HEC-

RAS modeling and embankment dam break scenario for assessing the flood control capacity of a

multireservoir system (Ne Romania). Water (Switzerland), 13(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13010057

van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping.

Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Vörösmarty, C. J., De Guenni, L. B., Wollheim, W. M., Pellerin, B., Bjerklie, D., Cardoso, M., … & Colon, L. (2013). Extreme

rainfall, vulnerability and risk: A continental-scale assessment for South America. Philosophical Transactions of

the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371, 20120408.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0408

Wang, J., He, Z., & Weng, W. (2020). A review of the research into the relations between hazards in multi-hazard risk

analysis. Natural Hazards, 104(3), 2003–2026.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04259-3

Wang, S., Zhang, M., Huang, X., Hu, T., Sun, Q. C., Corcoran, J., & Liu, Y. (2022). Urban–rural disparity of social

vulnerability to natural hazards in Australia. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 13665.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17878-6

Wang, X., Xia, J., Zhou, M., Deng, S., & Li, Q. (2022). Assessment of the joint impact of rainfall and river water level on

urban flooding in Wuhan City, China. Journal of Hydrology, 613, 128419.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128419

Yang, H., Yang, T., Zhang, S., Zhao, F., Hu, K., & Jiang, Y. (2020). Rainfall-induced landslides and debris flows in

Mengdong Town, Yunnan Province, China. Landslides, 17(4), 931–941.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-019-

01336-y

Zhang, L. M., Zhang, S., & Huang, R. Q. (2014). Multi-hazard scenarios and consequences in Beichuan, China: The first

five years after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Engineering Geology, 180, 4–20.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.03.020

Fardin, S. G., Mendes, T. S. G., Simões, S. J. C., Zêzere, J. L, A. Finisterra, LX(130), 2025, e38025

Zhu, L., He, S., Qin, H., He, W., Zhang, H., Zhang, Y., … & Su, P. (2021). Analyzing the multi-hazard chain induced by a

debris flow in Xiaojinchuan River, Sichuan, China. Engineering Geology, 293, 106280.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2021.106280