Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Operationalizing systemic multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment: Lessons from the MYRIAD-EU framework

  • Stefan Hochrainer-Stigler
  • , Robert Šakić Trogrlić*
  • , Karina Reiter
  • , Anne Sophie Daloz
  • , David Geurts
  • , Lin Ma
  • , Noemi Padrón-Fumero
  • , Sharon Tatman
  • , Silvia Torresan
  • , Carmen D. Álvarez-Albelo
  • , Veronica Casartelli
  • , Roxana Ciurean
  • , Maria Katherina Dal Barco
  • , Jaime Díaz-Pacheco
  • , Juan José Díaz-Hernández
  • , Pedro Dorta Antequera
  • , Melanie J. Duncan
  • , Davide Mauro Ferrario
  • , Sara García-González
  • , Stefania Gottardo
  • Raúl Hernández-Martín, Abel López-Díez, David Romero Manrique, Diep Ngoc Nguyen, Marleen C. de Ruiter, Nikita Strelkovskii, Philip J. Ward
*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to JournalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Multi-hazard and multi-risk contexts are increasingly recognized as central to disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation. While there is a recognized need to move beyond single-hazard and single-sector approaches, practical frameworks for systemic multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment remain scarce. In response, the Horizon 2020 Multi-hazard and sYstemic framework for enhancing Risk-Informed mAnagement and Decision-making in the E.U. (MYRIAD-EU) project developed a conceptual framework grounded in systemic risk research and structured around a six-step iterative process. This paper critically reflects on its implementation across five European pilot regions. Using project deliverables, a survey, and a focus group, we assess the framework's strengths and limitations and distil lessons learned from both its development and its practical application. These lessons learned are that the framework provides a valuable roadmap for structuring complexity, fostering dialogue with stakeholders, and distinguishing direct from indirect risks. However, challenges remain regarding data, capacity, tool integration, and communication. We conclude with recommendations for improving usability, institutionalization, and long-term uptake.

Original languageEnglish
Article number114935
Pages (from-to)1-12
Number of pages12
JournaliScience
Volume29
Issue number3
Early online date7 Feb 2026
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 20 Mar 2026

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2026 The Authors

Funding

The work was done as part of the HORIZON 2020 MYRIAD-EU Project, and the authors acknowledge funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, call H2020-LC-CLA-2018-2019-2020, under grant agreement no. 101003276. M.C.d.R. also received funding through the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (VENI; grant no. VI.Veni.222.169), while S.G.G. acknowledges funding from ACIISI, the Canary Islands Agency for Research. M.J.D. and R.C. publish with the permission of the Executive Director of the British Geological Survey (UK Research and Innovation, UKRI). The work was done as part of the HORIZON 2020 MYRIAD-EU Project, and the authors acknowledge funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, call H2020-LC-CLA-2018-2019-2020, under grant agreement no. 101003276 . M.C.d.R. also received funding through the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (VENI; grant no. VI.Veni.222.169 ), while S.G.G. acknowledges funding from ACIISI , the Canary Islands Agency for Research . M.J.D. and R.C. publish with the permission of the Executive Director of the British Geological Survey (UK Research and Innovation, UKRI).

Keywords

  • Earth sciences
  • Environmental issues
  • Environmental science

Cite this