ReviewNatural hazards (Dordrecht, Netherlands)2026
High impact low probability events: research landscape and future opportunities.
Review in Natural hazards (Dordrecht, Netherlands), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-impact, low-probability (HILP) events, characterised by their extreme consequences and inherent unpredictability, pose a growing challenge to disaster risk reduction in an era of systemic and cascading crises. Traditional risk assessment frameworks, which rely on probability-based models, often fail to capture the full scope of these events, leaving critical vulnerabilities unaddressed. This semi-systematic state-of-the-art review synthesizes current academic discourse on HILPs to identify their defining characteristics and implications for disaster preparedness and response. We analyse a dataset of 109 papers, highlighting the limitations of conventional planning tools and emphasising the need for adaptive, forward-looking strategies that integrate scenario planning, stress testing, and resilience assessment. The review finds that while HILPs are increasingly recognised in national risk registers and post-disaster response frameworks, their integration into preparedness, training, and governance systems remains limited. A key gap lies in translating theoretical insights into operational strategies that can be deployed before crises occur. The paper advocates for a hazard-agnostic, interdisciplinary approach that bridges risk and resilience thinking, enabling systems to anticipate, absorb, and adapt to a broad spectrum of threats. By advancing a research agenda beyond the Sendai Framework, this review contributes to a more robust understanding of HILPs and supports the development of more resilient and responsive disaster management systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.