Can communities classified as facing moderate disaster risk still experience a substantial cumulative burden from multiple hazards?
I am pleased to share our newly published open-access research article in Safety:
“Risk Intensity and Exposure-Weighted Burden of Multiple Hazards in Serbia: A Nationwide Secondary Analysis of Public Health Emergency Assessments”
Our nationwide study examines 161 local administrative units across Serbia, using data from the World Health Organization’s Strategic Toolkit for Assessing Risks (WHO STAR), advanced statistical analyses, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
Key research findings:
– 83.2% of local units were classified as moderate risk, compared with 11.2% low risk and 5.6% high risk.
– We developed complementary analytical measures: the Probability–Impact Product (PIP), Cumulative Hazard–Exposure Burden (CHEB), Exposure-Weighted PIP, Portfolio Risk Burden (PRB = PIP × CHEB), and a sample-relative 0–100 Integrated Portfolio Disaster Risk Index (IPDRI).
– National mean values were PIP = 8.18, CHEB = 2.78, exposure-weighted PIP = 2.08, PRB = 22.64, and IPDRI = 43.64.
– The IPDRI showed only a weak, non-significant relationship with the official WHO STAR risk category (Spearman’s ρ = 0.104, p = 0.187), indicating limited correspondence between categorical risk intensity and the constructed cumulative portfolio-burden measure.
– Significant regional differences were observed. Average IPDRI values were 48.31 in Central Serbia, 37.75 in Vojvodina, and 32.00 in Belgrade.
– Applying risk-matrix thresholds to aggregate probability–impact scores reproduced the supplied STAR categories in only 75.8% of local units, highlighting important aggregation-related methodological challenges.
– Exploratory cluster analysis identified three local assessment profiles, further illustrating the diversity of multi-hazard conditions.
– One particularly important finding: Odžaci and Niš had among the highest exposure-weighted portfolio-burden scores in the analysed sample, despite being classified as moderate risk under the supplied STAR assessment.
These findings demonstrate why disaster risk assessment should consider both the intensity of individual hazards and the cumulative exposure burden of multiple hazards.
The newly developed indicators are intended as transparent, exploratory analytical complements to WHO STAR, not as replacements for its official classifications or independently validated predictions of disaster losses.
The broader scientific message is clear: A single categorical risk score may not fully capture the complexity of multi-hazard exposure and preparedness needs.
I sincerely thank my co-authors Dejan Ivanović, Velibor Lalić, Luka Sabljic, Jasmina Bašić, Vanja D. Cvetković, and Tin Lukić for their valuable contributions to this interdisciplinary research.
Read the full open-access article:
https://lnkd.in/dvAsfE4f
Safety (2026), 12(6), 145.
