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.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Lauren McMillan
Gianluca Pescaroli
Mhari Gordon
Natural Hazards
University of Michigan
University of Cambridge
University College London
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
McMillan et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69e320af40886becb653fc8a — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-026-08107-8
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: