Mixed-methods review uncovers interactions among 48 disaster risk factors in engineering projects, suggesting the need for integrated predictive resilience models.
Natural disasters pose significant risks to engineering projects, necessitating a systematic analysis of their risk factors. This study focuses on identifying and mapping these factors using a mixed-methods approach that integrates a qualitative literature review with scientometric analysis via Social Network Analysis (SNA). Through a meta-analysis of 81 peer-reviewed articles from Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect, the qualitative review establishes a comprehensive list and classification of 48 natural disaster risk factors, categorized into geological, climatic, hydrological, topographic, and biological groups, while providing a theoretical foundation. SNA complements this by quantifying co-occurrence frequencies, centrality metrics (degree, betweenness, and eigenvector), and network structures, revealing dynamic interactions, key influential factors, and research gaps—particularly in under-explored areas like hydrological hazards, extreme temperatures, lightning storms, and temperature variations—that qualitative methods alone might miss. This multi-perspective integration highlights discrepancies between theoretical discussions and practical applications, underscoring overlooked cascading effects. Findings emphasize the absence of an integrated model for all 48 factors, urging the development of a holistic predictive framework to bolster disaster resilience. Theoretically, the study offers a novel SNA-based quantification of factor importance and interrelations, addressing literature fragmentation. Practically, it guides project managers in prioritizing risks for optimized design, resource allocation, and prevention strategies. Future research should incorporate real-time data sources to refine this framework for enhanced risk management in engineering projects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: