| 25 Nov 2025
Review article: Multi-Hazards and Household Preparedness Planning: Evidence, Gaps and Opportunities
Abstract. This paper presents a systematic analysis of peer-reviewed evidence on household preparedness and multi-hazard interrelationships, identifying what constitutes an effective preparedness plan and assessing how far current research integrates multi-hazard thinking. A systematic search of literature published since 2006 yielded 138 relevant studies, assessed by geographical focus, methodological approach, alignment with best practice, and engagement with multi-hazard perspectives. Fifty papers underwent in-depth qualitative analysis. Findings reveal a persistent Global North and quantitative bias in the evidence base: only 18 % of case studies originate from low- and middle-income countries, and 66 % employ solely quantitative methods. Current understandings of preparedness are therefore narrow, often excluding from low-resource contexts. From the in-depth analysis, we identify key elements of effective household preparedness planning in low-income settings, including shared assets and gender norms. We further show that 45 % of studies focus on a single hazard, with limited attention to hazard interrelationships; 62 % make no explicit reference to how multiple hazards interact to shape preparedness strategies. We conclude with recommendations for future household preparedness research that (a) adopts a broader definition of the term ‘household’, (b) considers gender, (c) considers the barriers to adoption of preparedness plans, (d) embraces qualitative and mixed-methods approaches and (e) considers multi-hazard interactions between hazards and preparedness strategies. The paper advances understanding of the limited maturity of multi-hazard preparedness research and highlights the need for evidence that links household-level practice with Priority 4 of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–30 and the mid-term call for inclusive, multi-hazard risk governance.
Also see attached file
Review Article: Multi-Hazards and Household Preparedness Planning: Evidence, Gaps and Opportunities
Reviewer comments:
General
In the manuscript “Multi-Hazards and Household Preparedness Planning: Evidence, Gaps and Opportunities” the authors perform a literature review to assess the extent to which multi-hazard thinking is integrated in to studies of household preparedness following the Principles of Preparedness, by Sutton and Tierney (2006). The authors find that there is a geographical bias towards the Global North in studies of household preparedness. They also find that the majority of the literature does not make explicit references to how multiple hazards interact to shape preparedness strategies.
I think this paper is well embedded in the literature of disaster preparedness and that it could be valuable contribution to this literature. However, some revisions are required for the article to be suitable for publication, see my points below.
Text:
Check line 201 “(See Figure 3.Fig.3.).” ‘
Check line 456 (space missing between “11but”
Methodology
The authors state that after analyzing 138 of the 587 papers the ‘the researchers reached the thematic repetition point of data saturation’. Could the authors elaborate on how these 138 papers were selected out of the 587 papers in total? A further elaboration on how these papers were selected (for example through random sampling) could for example strengthen the claim of geographical bias in these studies.
Results
The authors are inconsistent in stating the source of their results. I often read ‘Many papers (line 261)’, ‘Several studies (line 270). I think it would strengthen the claims made by the authors to explicitly state how many papers these findings are based.
To me it does not become clear on which information the y-axis of figure 6 is based. How is this resource intensity inferred? The link to ‘the literature’ can be made more explicit. I am also not sure whether this figure is correctly placed under the Result section of this paper, or whether it is a part of the theoretical framework as described in the introduction of the paper.
I think this paper addresses an often overlooked component of disaster preparedness in face of multiple hazards, and therefor addresses a relevant scientific question I the scope of NHESS.
The paper proposes clear research suggestions to further the field of disaster preparedness in the context of multi-hazards by making suggestions for further research. These suggestions could perhaps be made more explicit; would there also be examples of good practices in preparedness literature that could be named there? Particularly in the suggestion to broaden the definition of what constitutes a household.
I think the paper is up to international standards. However, the figures need to be improved for it to be eligible for publication (see comments under point 12).
The literature review is well embedded into theoretical frameworks of household preparedness in the multi-hazard context. The literature review follows a scientific method, although the selection of the 138 out of 587 papers could perhaps be better elaborated (see point under General).
I think the results are sufficient to support the interpretations and the conclusions. I do however think that the results can reported in a more consistent way, see comment under Results.
I think the authors reach substantial conclusions that are backed by their findings in the literature.
I think the methodology applied in the literature search on Web of Science is sufficiently documented.
I think the title well reflects the work done in the paper.
The main findings stated in the abstract deviate from the findings listed in the conclusion section of the paper. These could be better aligned.
The abstract and findings are easy to understand to a wide audience. It would perhaps be good to also explicitly state the “Priority 4 of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–30” to increase the comprehensibility of the abstract.
Not applicable.
The quality of the figures in this paper should be improved. For example, fonts in figure 3 and 4 appear to be stretched. The color coding in figure 4 is a bit confusing, maybe another color than a light shade of green could be used to indicate the principle was ignored included in the study. Figure 5 is a screenshot, the selection of the graph element is still visible. For consistency it would be better to in figure 2 and 4 either show the number of studies or the percentage.
Author contributions are clearly listed under line 585
Yes
Yes
Yes
I do not find the paper to be overtly lengthy, I would consider this length to be appropriate for a review article.
Yes, the English language is of sufficient quality.
I would encourage the authors to include a supplementary table that shows all literature reviewed with this article.