2 Theoretical Foundations 2.1 Disaster System Theory Disaster system theory, grounded in systems science, conceptualizes disasters as complex, dynamic entities characterized by integrality and systematicity (Shi et al., 2020). This study adopts the Environment (E) - Hazard (H) - Subject (S) model (Fig. 2a), which identifies disaster events as the synergistic outcome of interactions between natural environmental conditions, physical hazards, and the affected subjects (Wang et al., 2024b). Historically, the evaluation of disaster risk has relied upon the HEV (Hazard-Exposure-Vulnerablility) model (Fig. 2b). In this context, hazard characterizes the intrinsic properties of the climate event, such as frequency and intensity. Exposure reflects the degree to which populations and assets are situated in hazard-prone regions. Vulnerability denotes the susceptibility to damage shaped by socioeconomic fragilities (D'Ambrosio et al., 2023; Rising et al., 2022). A pivotal advancement in recent risk management scholarship is the extension of this model into the HEVR (Four-element) framework, which introduces response capacity as a critical fourth dimension (Fig. 2c) (Ayanlade et al., 2023; Simpson et al., 2021). Fig.2 Disaster system theory: (a) disaster formation model, (b) three elements of risk and (c) four elements of risk. 2.2 Disaster Risk Management Building upon the HEVR theory, this study proposes a comprehensive governance framework that facilitates a paradigm shift from static risk description to mechanism-oriented explanation (Ayanlade et al., 2023). This framework operates across two synergistic dimensions: spatial and temporal. For the spatial dimension, this study introduces a typological zoning approach to move beyond conventional risk mapping (Fig.3 a). By transitioning from basic risk assessment to the classification of regions into distinct risk-dominant types, the framework pinpoints the specific structural weaknesses of different areas, thereby enabling the formulation of targeted, precision-based interventions. Temporally, the governance of climate risk is conceptualized through a continuous disaster full-cycle management framework (Fig. 3b). This dynamic, closed-loop system spans the entire disaster timeline through four interdependent phases: Prevent and Prepare (pre-disaster), Response (mid-disaster), and Recover (post-disaster). Post-disaster recovery efforts continuously inform and enhance proactive prevention and preparedness, systematically reshaping the future risk landscape. By integrating this dual-dimensional framework with interpretable machine learning, this study contributes a scalable theoretical foundation for systematic risk governance. It transforms abstract climate variables into actionable parameters, empowering policymakers to optimize resource allocation and strengthen long-term resilience against the escalating threats of extreme heat. Fig.3 Disaster risk management framework: (a) risk assessment and typological zoning and (b) disaster full-cycle framework.
07
Hero
2 Theoretical Foundations 2.1 Disaster System Theory Disaster system theory, grounded in systems science, conceptualizes disasters as complex, dynamic entities characterized by integrality and systematicity (Shi et al., 2020). This study adopts the Environment (E) - Hazard (H) - Subject (S) model (Fig. 2a), which identifies disaster events as the synergistic outcome of interactions between natural environmental conditions, physical hazards, and the affected subjects (Wang et al., 2024b). Historically, the evaluation of disaster risk has relied upon the HEV (Hazard-Exposure-Vulnerablility) model (Fig. 2b). In this context, hazard characterizes the intrinsic properties of the climate event, such as frequency and intensity. Exposure reflects the degree to which populations and assets are situated in hazard-prone regions. Vulnerability denotes the susceptibility to damage shaped by socioeconomic fragilities (D'Ambrosio et al., 2023; Rising et al., 2022). A pivotal advancement in recent risk management scholarship is the extension of this model into the HEVR (Four-element) framework, which introduces response capacity as a critical fourth dimension (Fig. 2c) (Ayanlade et al., 2023; Simpson et al., 2021). Fig.2 Disaster system theory: (a) disaster formation model, (b) three elements of risk and (c) four elements of risk. 2.2 Disaster Risk Management Building upon the HEVR theory, this study proposes a comprehensive governance framework that facilitates a paradigm shift from static risk description to mechanism-oriented explanation (Ayanlade et al., 2023). This framework operates across two synergistic dimensions: spatial and temporal. For the spatial dimension, this study introduces a typological zoning approach to move beyond conventional risk mapping (Fig.3 a). By transitioning from basic risk assessment to the classification of regions into distinct risk-dominant types, the framework pinpoints the specific structural weaknesses of different areas, thereby enabling the formulation of targeted, precision-based interventions. Temporally, the governance of climate risk is conceptualized through a continuous disaster full-cycle management framework (Fig. 3b). This dynamic, closed-loop system spans the entire disaster timeline through four interdependent phases: Prevent and Prepare (pre-disaster), Response (mid-disaster), and Recover (post-disaster). Post-disaster recovery efforts continuously inform and enhance proactive prevention and preparedness, systematically reshaping the future risk landscape. By integrating this dual-dimensional framework with interpretable machine learning, this study contributes a scalable theoretical foundation for systematic risk governance. It transforms abstract climate variables into actionable parameters, empowering policymakers to optimize resource allocation and strengthen long-term resilience against the escalating threats of extreme heat. Fig.3 Disaster risk management framework: (a) risk assessment and typological zoning and (b) disaster full-cycle framework.
07
Hero
2 Theoretical Foundations 2.1 Disaster System Theory Disaster system theory, grounded in systems science, conceptualizes disasters as complex, dynamic entities characterized by integrality and systematicity (Shi et al., 2020). This study adopts the Environment (E) - Hazard (H) - Subject (S) model (Fig. 2a), which identifies disaster events as the synergistic outcome of interactions between natural environmental conditions, physical hazards, and the affected subjects (Wang et al., 2024b). Historically, the evaluation of disaster risk has relied upon the HEV (Hazard-Exposure-Vulnerablility) model (Fig. 2b). In this context, hazard characterizes the intrinsic properties of the climate event, such as frequency and intensity. Exposure reflects the degree to which populations and assets are situated in hazard-prone regions. Vulnerability denotes the susceptibility to damage shaped by socioeconomic fragilities (D'Ambrosio et al., 2023; Rising et al., 2022). A pivotal advancement in recent risk management scholarship is the extension of this model into the HEVR (Four-element) framework, which introduces response capacity as a critical fourth dimension (Fig. 2c) (Ayanlade et al., 2023; Simpson et al., 2021). Fig.2 Disaster system theory: (a) disaster formation model, (b) three elements of risk and (c) four elements of risk. 2.2 Disaster Risk Management Building upon the HEVR theory, this study proposes a comprehensive governance framework that facilitates a paradigm shift from static risk description to mechanism-oriented explanation (Ayanlade et al., 2023). This framework operates across two synergistic dimensions: spatial and temporal. For the spatial dimension, this study introduces a typological zoning approach to move beyond conventional risk mapping (Fig.3 a). By transitioning from basic risk assessment to the classification of regions into distinct risk-dominant types, the framework pinpoints the specific structural weaknesses of different areas, thereby enabling the formulation of targeted, precision-based interventions. Temporally, the governance of climate risk is conceptualized through a continuous disaster full-cycle management framework (Fig. 3b). This dynamic, closed-loop system spans the entire disaster timeline through four interdependent phases: Prevent and Prepare (pre-disaster), Response (mid-disaster), and Recover (post-disaster). Post-disaster recovery efforts continuously inform and enhance proactive prevention and preparedness, systematically reshaping the future risk landscape. By integrating this dual-dimensional framework with interpretable machine learning, this study contributes a scalable theoretical foundation for systematic risk governance. It transforms abstract climate variables into actionable parameters, empowering policymakers to optimize resource allocation and strengthen long-term resilience against the escalating threats of extreme heat. Fig.3 Disaster risk management framework: (a) risk assessment and typological zoning and (b) disaster full-cycle framework.
07
Hero
2 Theoretical Foundations 2.1 Disaster System Theory Disaster system theory, grounded in systems science, conceptualizes disasters as complex, dynamic entities characterized by integrality and systematicity (Shi et al., 2020). This study adopts the Environment (E) - Hazard (H) - Subject (S) model (Fig. 2a), which identifies disaster events as the synergistic outcome of interactions between natural environmental conditions, physical hazards, and the affected subjects (Wang et al., 2024b). Historically, the evaluation of disaster risk has relied upon the HEV (Hazard-Exposure-Vulnerablility) model (Fig. 2b). In this context, hazard characterizes the intrinsic properties of the climate event, such as frequency and intensity. Exposure reflects the degree to which populations and assets are situated in hazard-prone regions. Vulnerability denotes the susceptibility to damage shaped by socioeconomic fragilities (D'Ambrosio et al., 2023; Rising et al., 2022). A pivotal advancement in recent risk management scholarship is the extension of this model into the HEVR (Four-element) framework, which introduces response capacity as a critical fourth dimension (Fig. 2c) (Ayanlade et al., 2023; Simpson et al., 2021). Fig.2 Disaster system theory: (a) disaster formation model, (b) three elements of risk and (c) four elements of risk. 2.2 Disaster Risk Management Building upon the HEVR theory, this study proposes a comprehensive governance framework that facilitates a paradigm shift from static risk description to mechanism-oriented explanation (Ayanlade et al., 2023). This framework operates across two synergistic dimensions: spatial and temporal. For the spatial dimension, this study introduces a typological zoning approach to move beyond conventional risk mapping (Fig.3 a). By transitioning from basic risk assessment to the classification of regions into distinct risk-dominant types, the framework pinpoints the specific structural weaknesses of different areas, thereby enabling the formulation of targeted, precision-based interventions. Temporally, the governance of climate risk is conceptualized through a continuous disaster full-cycle management framework (Fig. 3b). This dynamic, closed-loop system spans the entire disaster timeline through four interdependent phases: Prevent and Prepare (pre-disaster), Response (mid-disaster), and Recover (post-disaster). Post-disaster recovery efforts continuously inform and enhance proactive prevention and preparedness, systematically reshaping the future risk landscape. By integrating this dual-dimensional framework with interpretable machine learning, this study contributes a scalable theoretical foundation for systematic risk governance. It transforms abstract climate variables into actionable parameters, empowering policymakers to optimize resource allocation and strengthen long-term resilience against the escalating threats of extreme heat. Fig.3 Disaster risk management framework: (a) risk assessment and typological zoning and (b) disaster full-cycle framework.
07
Hero
2 Theoretical Foundations 2.1 Disaster System Theory Disaster system theory, grounded in systems science, conceptualizes disasters as complex, dynamic entities characterized by integrality and systematicity (Shi et al., 2020). This study adopts the Environment (E) - Hazard (H) - Subject (S) model (Fig. 2a), which identifies disaster events as the synergistic outcome of interactions between natural environmental conditions, physical hazards, and the affected subjects (Wang et al., 2024b). Historically, the evaluation of disaster risk has relied upon the HEV (Hazard-Exposure-Vulnerablility) model (Fig. 2b). In this context, hazard characterizes the intrinsic properties of the climate event, such as frequency and intensity. Exposure reflects the degree to which populations and assets are situated in hazard-prone regions. Vulnerability denotes the susceptibility to damage shaped by socioeconomic fragilities (D'Ambrosio et al., 2023; Rising et al., 2022). A pivotal advancement in recent risk management scholarship is the extension of this model into the HEVR (Four-element) framework, which introduces response capacity as a critical fourth dimension (Fig. 2c) (Ayanlade et al., 2023; Simpson et al., 2021). Fig.2 Disaster system theory: (a) disaster formation model, (b) three elements of risk and (c) four elements of risk. 2.2 Disaster Risk Management Building upon the HEVR theory, this study proposes a comprehensive governance framework that facilitates a paradigm shift from static risk description to mechanism-oriented explanation (Ayanlade et al., 2023). This framework operates across two synergistic dimensions: spatial and temporal. For the spatial dimension, this study introduces a typological zoning approach to move beyond conventional risk mapping (Fig.3 a). By transitioning from basic risk assessment to the classification of regions into distinct risk-dominant types, the framework pinpoints the specific structural weaknesses of different areas, thereby enabling the formulation of targeted, precision-based interventions. Temporally, the governance of climate risk is conceptualized through a continuous disaster full-cycle management framework (Fig. 3b). This dynamic, closed-loop system spans the entire disaster timeline through four interdependent phases: Prevent and Prepare (pre-disaster), Response (mid-disaster), and Recover (post-disaster). Post-disaster recovery efforts continuously inform and enhance proactive prevention and preparedness, systematically reshaping the future risk landscape. By integrating this dual-dimensional framework with interpretable machine learning, this study contributes a scalable theoretical foundation for systematic risk governance. It transforms abstract climate variables into actionable parameters, empowering policymakers to optimize resource allocation and strengthen long-term resilience against the escalating threats of extreme heat. Fig.3 Disaster risk management framework: (a) risk assessment and typological zoning and (b) disaster full-cycle framework.
07
Hero
2 Theoretical Foundations 2.1 Disaster System Theory Disaster system theory, grounded in systems science, conceptualizes disasters as complex, dynamic entities characterized by integrality and systematicity (Shi et al., 2020). This study adopts the Environment (E) - Hazard (H) - Subject (S) model (Fig. 2a), which identifies disaster events as the synergistic outcome of interactions between natural environmental conditions, physical hazards, and the affected subjects (Wang et al., 2024b). Historically, the evaluation of disaster risk has relied upon the HEV (Hazard-Exposure-Vulnerablility) model (Fig. 2b). In this context, hazard characterizes the intrinsic properties of the climate event, such as frequency and intensity. Exposure reflects the degree to which populations and assets are situated in hazard-prone regions. Vulnerability denotes the susceptibility to damage shaped by socioeconomic fragilities (D'Ambrosio et al., 2023; Rising et al., 2022). A pivotal advancement in recent risk management scholarship is the extension of this model into the HEVR (Four-element) framework, which introduces response capacity as a critical fourth dimension (Fig. 2c) (Ayanlade et al., 2023; Simpson et al., 2021). Fig.2 Disaster system theory: (a) disaster formation model, (b) three elements of risk and (c) four elements of risk. 2.2 Disaster Risk Management Building upon the HEVR theory, this study proposes a comprehensive governance framework that facilitates a paradigm shift from static risk description to mechanism-oriented explanation (Ayanlade et al., 2023). This framework operates across two synergistic dimensions: spatial and temporal. For the spatial dimension, this study introduces a typological zoning approach to move beyond conventional risk mapping (Fig.3 a). By transitioning from basic risk assessment to the classification of regions into distinct risk-dominant types, the framework pinpoints the specific structural weaknesses of different areas, thereby enabling the formulation of targeted, precision-based interventions. Temporally, the governance of climate risk is conceptualized through a continuous disaster full-cycle management framework (Fig. 3b). This dynamic, closed-loop system spans the entire disaster timeline through four interdependent phases: Prevent and Prepare (pre-disaster), Response (mid-disaster), and Recover (post-disaster). Post-disaster recovery efforts continuously inform and enhance proactive prevention and preparedness, systematically reshaping the future risk landscape. By integrating this dual-dimensional framework with interpretable machine learning, this study contributes a scalable theoretical foundation for systematic risk governance. It transforms abstract climate variables into actionable parameters, empowering policymakers to optimize resource allocation and strengthen long-term resilience against the escalating threats of extreme heat. Fig.3 Disaster risk management framework: (a) risk assessment and typological zoning and (b) disaster full-cycle framework.
07
Hero