Communities increasingly face multiple hazards simultaneously. However, connections between multiple hazards and urban planning processes remain underexplored. To address this gap, we reviewed the existing literature on multi-hazard assessment in urban planning. We began with 1473 articles and used topic modeling, a technique within Natural Language Processing, to refine the selection to 414 articles that were most aligned with our research focus. After manually reviewing these abstracts, we conducted a systematic review of 64 articles on multi-hazard research. Our findings reveal the predominant types of hazards assessed (e.g., flooding, wildfire), common research methods, the focus on policy—acknowledged in 67% of the articles but rarely accompanied by detailed policy analysis—and various social dimensions, including social vulnerability. We highlight the importance of considering social dimensions in multi-hazard assessments and the need for effective policy translation. To bridge the research-policy gap and improve community resilience, the study proposes a Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Multi-hazards methodology to identify conflicts and gaps and guide coordinated actions to strengthen resilience against multiple hazards. Connecting multi-hazard assessment and modeling with urban planning and policy is necessary to more effectively translate knowledge into practice and strengthen community resilience.
扫码关注我们
求助内容:
应助结果提醒方式:
