the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Review article: Harnessing Machine Learning methods for climate multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment
Abstract. In recent years, interest in data-driven methods, such as machine learning and multivariate statistics for multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment has surged, due to their ability to integrate vast amounts of data in modelling complex non-linear relationships between hazard and risk factors. This review explores data-driven methods in climate multi-hazard and risk analysis, focusing on four themes: (i) data processing and collection; (ii) hazard identification, prediction and analysis; (iii) risk analysis; and (iv) future risk scenarios under climate change. Key findings highlight the extensive use of machine learning to combine Earth observations and climate data for downscaling and land use and land cover characterisation; the application of deep learning for hazard prediction; the use of ensemble methods for risk analysis; and the growing emphasis on explainable AI frameworks. Training of supervised machine learning approaches on past impacts to model future risk through climate projections also emerged as a significant area. Future research should prioritize multi-hazard interactions, particularly triggering and cascading effects, integrate dynamic vulnerability and exposure factors, and address uncertainties associated with using machine learning for extrapolation. Advancements in Earth observations and textual data integration, alongside the development of open-access disaster catalogues, will be crucial for improving multi-risk analyses and supporting AI-driven early warning systems tailored to regional needs.
- Preprint
(1879 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 17 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-670', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Mar 2025
reply
This manuscript reviews machine learning (ML) and statistical approaches for climate-related multi-hazard and multi-risk assessment. It is organized around four themes—data processing, hazard prediction, risk analysis, and future scenarios—and incorporates auxiliary methods such as explainable AI and copula modeling. While the topic is timely and relevant, the manuscript has issues in contribution, analytical depth, structural clarity, and language quality.
Major Concerns:
- Lack of Scientific Novelty or Conceptual Contribution: The paper lacks scientific novelty and conceptual contribution. It does not introduce new concepts, frameworks, or theoretical insights. Instead, it compiles existing literature without offering a critical synthesis or identifying research gaps. The review does not significantly advance the understanding of multi-hazard or multi-risk modeling compared to previous reviews, and its largely descriptive discussion limits its value as a synthesis resource.
- No PRISMA flow diagram is provided, and Search strings, filtering criteria, and quality assessment processes are not disclosed. Suggest including a PRISMA diagram and methodological appendix (even in supplementary materials) to ensure transparency.
- Poor Language Quality: The manuscript contains many grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and redundant or overly long sentences. The language undermines clarity and makes the manuscript difficult to read. Given its role as a review article, this significantly reduces its accessibility and utility to the scientific community. A full professional language revision is essential.
- Weak Structure and Inconsistent Framing: The manuscript shifts terminology from "machine learning methods"from the title to "data-driven methods" in the text, without clear justification. The manuscript includes a statistical method (copula), which is not a machine learning method. Poor coherence across sections: Overlap and redundancy between sections, and not clearly defined (e.g., 3.1.2 vs. 3.1.1 regarding satellite images observed soil moisture belongs to EO or climate data).
Additional Comments:
- Lines 30–35: “...can advance multi-hazard and multi-risk...” → vague and informal phrasing.
- Line 206: “his information…” → typo.
- Line 313: “even if...” → incorrect conjunction; use “although” or “even though.”
- Line 328: “images form...” → should be “images from.”
- Line 335: “3.1 Multi-hazard…3.2.1 Identify...” → unclear subsection formatting.
- Line 414: “With regards to” → incorrect phrase; use “With regard to.”
- Line 421: “...showing popular results...”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-670-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-670', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Apr 2025
reply
Major:
1, The manuscript outlines four key research questions, but their link to data-driven climate multi-hazard analysis is not clear. Please clarify how these questions address existing gaps, improve risk assessments, and contribute quantitatively or qualitatively to the field.2, Data assimilation is a critical component of modern climate analysis yet is missing from the discussion. Include recent developments that demonstrate its role in enhancing multi-hazard/risk assessments.
3, Uncertainty quantification in climate risk studies is necessary for the analysis of hazard/risk. However, they are not discussed.
4, The current focus is on pure data-driven models. Please discuss the emerging hybrid modeling that integrate physical laws, and compare their strengths and limitations.
5, Clarify the differences and complementarities between ML and copula techniques. Using practical examples if possible.
6, Reframe the discussion to emphasize how Earth observation data, combined with ML and copula techniques, leads to improved multi-hazard and risk assessments that benefit decision-makers. Try to rephrase from the perspective of assessments instead of technical comparisons.
Minor:
1, Ensure all citations (e.g., “Linkov et al., 2022” and “S. Yu & Ma, 2021”) are consistently and correctly formatted.2, ‘understand’ is a strong word for many data-driven models as they do not really capture the underlying generative process. Replace “understand” with “modeling,” “characterization,” or “representation” to better reflect the capabilities of data-driven models.
3, Some grammatical and stylistic edits are suggested for improved readability.
4, Correct the numbering so that the “Multi-hazard” subsection is labeled 3.2 instead of 3.1.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-670-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
190 | 49 | 3 | 242 | 2 | 2 |
- HTML: 190
- PDF: 49
- XML: 3
- Total: 242
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 65 | 27 |
China | 2 | 35 | 14 |
Germany | 3 | 18 | 7 |
France | 4 | 13 | 5 |
United Kingdom | 5 | 11 | 4 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 65