Can we detect trends in natural disaster management with artificial intelligence? A review of modeling practices

Abstract

There has been an unsettling rise in the intensity and frequency of natural disasters due to climate change and anthropogenic activities. Artificial intelligence (AI) models have shown remarkable success and superiority to handle huge and nonlinear data owing to their higher accuracy and efficiency, making them perfect tools for disaster monitoring and management. Accordingly, natural disaster management (NDM) with the usage of AI models has received increasing attention in recent years, but there has been no systematic review so far. This paper presents a systematic review on how AI models are applied in different NDM stages based on 278 studies retrieved from Elsevier Science, Springer LINK and Web of Science. The review: (1) enables increased visibility into various disaster types in different NDM stages from the methodological and content perspective, (2) obtains many general results including the practicality and gaps of extant studies and (3) provides several recommendations to develop innovative AI models and improve the quality of modeling. Overall, a comprehensive assessment and evaluation for the reviewed studies are performed, which tracked all stages of NDM research with the applications of AI models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig.5

References

  1. Ahmadi M, Seifi A, Tootooni B (2015) A humanitarian logistics model for disaster relief operation considering network failure and standard relief time: a case study on San Francisco district. Transp Res Pt e-Logist Transp Rev 75:145–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alam F, Ofli F, Imran M (2019) Descriptive and visual summaries of disaster events using artificial intelligence techniques: case studies of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. Behav Inf Technol 1:1–31

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amailef K, Lu J (2013) Ontology-supported case-based reasoning approach for intelligent m-Government emergency response services. Decis Support Syst 55(1):79–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anaya-Arenas AM, Renaud J, Ruiz A (2014) Relief distribution networks: a systematic review. Ann Oper Res 223(1):53–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Badrzadeh H, Sarukkalige R, Jayawardena AW (2015) Hourly runoff forecasting for flood risk management: Application of various computational intelligence models. J Hydrol 529:1633–1643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bai Y, Mas E, Koshimura S (2018) Towards operational satellite-based damage-mapping using U-Net convolutional network: a case study of 2011 Tohoku Earthquake-Tsunami. Remote Sens 10(10):1626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Blitch JG (1996) Artificial intelligence technologies for robot assisted urban search and rescue. Expert Syst Appl 11(2):109–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Budiharto W (2015) Intelligent surveillance robot with obstacle avoidance capabilities using neural network. Comput Intell Neurosci 3:1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carreno ML, Cardona OD, Barbat AH (2010) Computational tool for post-earthquake evaluation of damage in buildings. Earthq Spectra 26(1):63–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Caunhye AM, Nie X, Pokharel S (2012) Optimization models in emergency logistics: a literature review. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 46(1):4–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chang FJ, Tseng KY, Chaves P (2007) Shared near neighbours neural network model: a debris flow warning system. Hydrol Process 21(14):1968–1976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chatterjee R, Matsuno F (2005) Robot description ontology and disaster scene description ontology: analysis of necessity and scope in rescue infrastructure context. Adv Robot 19(8):839–859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chau KW, Wu CL, Li YS (2005) Comparison of several flood forecasting models in Yangtze river. J Hydrol Eng 10(6):485–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen CS, Cheng MY, Wu YW (2012) Seismic assessment of school buildings in Taiwan using the evolutionary support vector machine inference system. Expert Syst Appl 39(4):4102–4110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chen W, Pourghasemi HR, Kornejady A, Zhang N (2017) Landslide spatial modeling: Introducing new ensembles of ANN, MaxEnt, and SVM machine learning techniques. Geoderma 305:314–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cheng MY, Hoang ND (2016) Slope collapse prediction using bayesian framework with K-Nearest neighbor density estimation: case study in Taiwan. J Comput Civil Eng 30(1):04014116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Choi C, Kim J, Kim J, Kim D, Bae Y, Kim HS (2018) Development of heavy rain damage prediction model using machine learning based on big data. Adv Meteorol. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5024930

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chou CH, Zahedi FM, Zhao H (2011) Ontology for developing web sites for natural disaster management: methodology and implementation. Ieee Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part a-Systems and Humans 41(1):50–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chou CH, Zahedi FM, Zhao H (2014) Ontology-based evaluation of natural disaster management websites: a multistakeholder perspective. MIS Q 38(4):997–1016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Darabi H, Choubin B, Rahmati O, Haghighi AT, Pradhan B, Klove B (2019) Urban flood risk mapping using the GARP and QUEST models: a comparative study of machine learning techniques. J Hydrol 569:142–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dawson CW, Brown MR, Wilby RL (2000) Inductive learning approaches to rainfall-runoff modelling. Int J Neural Syst 10(1):43–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dwivedi YK, Hughes L, Ismagilova E, Aarts G, Coombs C, Crick T, Duan Y, Dwivedi R, Edwards J, Eirug A, Galanos V, Ilavarasan PV, Janssen M, Jones P, Kar AK, Kizgin H, Kronemann B, Lal B, Williams MD (2019) Artificial intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. Int J Inf Manage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. EM-DAT (2019) Natural disasters 2018. The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database. Universite´ Catholique de Louvain, Brussels

  24. Fan C, Mostafavi A (2019) Metanetwork framework for performance analysis of disaster management system-of-Systems. IEEE Syst J 14:1265–1276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Feng Q, Liu J, Gong J (2015) Urban Flood mapping based on unmanned aerial vehicle remote sensing and random forest classifier-a case of Yuyao. China Water 7(4):1437–1455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Feng Y, Sester M (2018) Extraction of pluvial flood relevant volunteered geographic information (VGI) by deep learning from user generated texts and photos. ISPRS Int Geo-Inf 7(2):39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gelernter J, Balaji S (2013) An algorithm for local geoparsing of microtext. Geoinformatica 17(4):635–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Geng M, Xu K, Zhou X, Ding B, Wang H, Zhang L (2019) Learning to cooperate via an attention-based communication neural network in decentralized multi-robot exploration dagger. Entropy 21:294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gizaw MS, Gan TY (2016) Regional flood frequency analysis using support vector regression under historical and future climate. J Hydrol 538:387–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hadi SJ, Tombul M (2018) Monthly streamflow forecasting using continuous wavelet and multi-gene genetic programming combination. J Hydrol 561:674–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hallegatte S (2008) An adaptive regional input-output model and its application to the assessment of the economic cost of Katrina. Risk Anal 28(3):779–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Han Y, Deng Y (2018) An enhanced fuzzy evidential DEMATEL method with its application to identify critical success factors. Soft Comput 22(15):5073–5090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hanna AM, Ural D, Saygili G (2007) Neural network model for liquefaction potential in soil deposits using Turkey and Taiwan earthquake data. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27(6):521–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hart E, Sim K, Kamimura K, Meredieu C, Guyon D, Gardiner B (2019) Use of machine learning techniques to model wind damage to forests. Agric For Meteorol 265:16–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hoang ND, Pham AD (2016) Hybrid artificial intelligence approach based on metaheuristic and machine learning for slope stability assessment: a multinational data analysis. Expert Syst Appl 46:60–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hsu NS, Huang CL, Wei CC (2013) Intelligent real-time operation of a pumping station for an urban drainage system. J Hydrol 489:85–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Huang L, Li J, Hao H, Li X (2018) Micro-seismic event detection and location in underground mines by using convolutional neural networks (CNN) and deep learning. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 81:265–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Huang Z, Zhou J, Song L, Lu Y, Zhang Y (2010) Flood disaster loss comprehensive evaluation model based on optimization support vector machine. Expert Syst Appl 37(5):3810–3814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Innocente MS, Grasso P (2019) Self-organising swarms of firefighting drones: Harnessing the power of collective intelligence in decentralised multi-robot systems. J Comput Sci 34:80–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jaafari A, Zenner EK, Panahi M, Shahabi H (2019) Hybrid artificial intelligence models based on a neuro-fuzzy system and metaheuristic optimization algorithms for spatial prediction of wildfire probability. Agric For Meteorol 266–267:198–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Jalalkamali A, Moradi M, Moradi N (2015) Application of several artificial intelligence models and ARIMAX model for forecasting drought using the Standardized Precipitation Index. Int J Environ Sci Technol 12(4):1201–1210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Jiang J, Liu J, Qin CZ, Wang D (2018) Extraction of urban waterlogging depth from video images using transfer learning. Water 10(10):1485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jiao G, Guo T, Ding Y (2016) A new hybrid forecasting approach applied to hydrological data: a case study on precipitation in northwestern China. Water 8(9):367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kalantari Z, Ferreira CSS, Koutsouris AJ, Ahlmer AK, Cerdà A, Destouni G (2019) Assessing flood probability for transportation infrastructure based on catchment characteristics, sediment connectivity and remotely sensed soil moisture. Sci Total Environ 661:393–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kang B, Choo H (2016) A deep-learning-based emergency alert system. ICT Express 2(2):67–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kaplan AM, Haenlein M (2019) Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Bus Horiz 62(1):15–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Khosravi K, Pham BT, Chapi K, Shirzadi A, Shahabi H, Revhaug I, Prakash I, Bui DT (2018) A comparative assessment of decision trees algorithms for flash flood susceptibility modeling at Haraz watershed, northern Iran. Sci Total Environ 627:744–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kojima H, Obayashi S (2006) An inverse analysis of unobserved trigger factor for slope stability evaluation. Comput Geosci 32(8):1069–1078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kou G, Ergu D, Shi Y (2014) An integrated expert system for fast disaster assessment. Comput Oper Res 42:95–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kumar R, Kumar D (2016) Hybrid swarm intelligence energy efficient clustered routing algorithm for wireless sensor networks. J Sens 3:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Li P, Zhao N, Zhou D, Cao M, Li J, Shi X (2014) Multivariable time series prediction for the icing process on overhead power transmission line. Sci World J. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/256815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Li TZ, Li YX, Xl Y (2017) Rock burst prediction based on genetic algorithms and extreme learning machine. J Cent South Univ 24(9):2105–2113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Liu J, Xie K (2017) Emergency materials transportation model in disasters based on dynamic programming and ant colony optimization. Kybernetes 46(4):656–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Liu S, Xu J, Zhao J, Xie X, Zhang W (2014) Efficiency enhancement of a process-based rainfall-runoff model using a new modified AdaBoost.RT technique. Appl Soft Comput 23:521–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Liu W, Hu G, Li J (2012) Emergency resources demand prediction using case-based reasoning. Saf Sci 50(3):530–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Liu Y, Nejat G (2016) Multirobot cooperative learning for semiautonomous control in urban search and rescue applications. J Field Robot 33(4):512–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Manley M, Kim YS, Christensen K, Chen A (2016) Airport emergency evacuation planning: an agent-based simulation study of dirty bomb scenarios. Ieee Transactions on Systems Man Cybernetics-Systems 46(10):1390–1403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Mashi SA, Oghenejabor OD, Inkani AI (2019) Disaster risks and management policies and practices in Nigeria: a critical appraisal of the national emergency management agency act. J Disaster Risk Reduction 33:253–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Miller-Hooks E, Krauthammer T (2007) An intelligent evacuation, rescue and recovery concept. Fire Technol 43(2):107–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Mitsopoulos I, Mallinis G (2017) A data-driven approach to assess large fire size generation in Greece. Nat Hazards 88(3):1591–1607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Miyasato GH, Dong W, Levitt RE, Boissonnade AC (1986) Implementation of a knowledge based seismic risk evaluation system on microcomputers. Artif Intell Eng 1(1):29–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Murphy RR, Steimle E, Griffin C, Cullins C, Hall M, Pratt K (2008) Cooperative use of unmanned sea surface and micro aerial vehicles at Hurricane Wilma. J Field Robot 25(3):164–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Nayak MA, Ghosh S (2013) Prediction of extreme rainfall event using weather pattern recognition and support vector machine classifier. Theor Appl Climatol 114(3–4):583–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Nejat A, Damnjanovic I (2012) Agent-based modeling of behavioral housing recovery following disasters. Comput Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng 27(10):748–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Nweke HF, Teh YW, Mujtaba G, Al-Garadi MA (2019) Data fusion and multiple classifier systems for human activity detection and health monitoring: review and open research directions. Inf Fusion 46:147–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Ofli F, Meier P, Imran M, Castillo C, Tuia D, Rey N, Briant J, Millet P, Reinhard F, Parkan M, Joost S (2016) Combining human computing and machine learning to make sense of big (aerial) data for disaster response. Big Data 4(1):47–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Pai PF, Li LL, Hung WZ, Lin KP (2014) Using adaboost and rough set theory for predicting debris flow disaster. Water Resour Manag 28(4):1143–1155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Perumal M, Tayfur G, Rao CM, Gurarslan G (2017) Evaluation of a physically based quasi-linear and a conceptually based nonlinear Muskingum methods. J Hydrol 546:437–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Pi Y, Nath ND, Behzadan AH (2020) Convolutional neural networks for object detection in aerial imagery for disaster response and recovery. Adv Eng Inform 43:101009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Poblet M, García-Cuesta E, Casanovas P (2018) Crowdsourcing roles, methods and tools for data-intensive disaster management. Inf Syst Front 20(6):1363–1379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Poole DL, Mackworth AK (2010) Artificial intelligence: Foundations of computational agents. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  72. Pozdnoukhov A, Foresti L, Kanevski M (2009) Data-driven topo-climatic mapping with machine learning methods. Nat Hazards 50(3):497–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Pramanik N, Panda RK (2009) Application of neural network and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems for river flow prediction. Hydrol Sci J-J Sci Hydrol 54(2):247–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Ragettli S, Zhou J, Wang H, Liu C, Guo L (2017) Modeling flash floods in ungauged mountain catchments of China: a decision tree learning approach for parameter regionalization. J Hydrol 555:330–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Rahimi S, Roodposhti MS, Abbaspour RA (2014) Using combined AHP-genetic algorithm in artificial groundwater recharge site selection of Gareh Bygone Plain. Iran Environ Earth Sci 72(6):1979–1992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Rajaee T, Ebrahimi H, Nourani V (2019) A review of the artificial intelligence methods in groundwater level modeling. J Hydrol 572:336–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Ramchurn SD, Wu F, Jiang W, Fischer JE, Reece S, Roberts S, Rodden T, Greenhalgh C, Jennings NR (2016) Human-agent collaboration for disaster response. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 30(1):82–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Rodriguez JT, Vitoriano B, Montero J, Kecman V (2011) A disaster-severity assessment DSS comparative analysis. OR Spectrum 33(3):451–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Rolland E, Patterson RA, Ward K, Dodin B (2010) Decision support for disaster management. Oper Manag Res 3:68–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Rose A (2004) Defining and measuring economic resilience to disasters. Disaster Prev Manag 13(4):307–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Rose A, Liao SY (2005) Modeling regional economic resilience to disasters: a computable general equilibrium analysis of water service disruptions. J Reg Sci 45(1):75–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Russell SJ, Norvig P (2016) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. Pearson Education Limited, Malaysia

    Google Scholar 

  83. Sahebjamnia N, Torabi SA, Mansouri SA (2015) Integrated business continuity and disaster recovery planning: towards organizational resilience. Eur J Oper Res 242(1):261–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Sdao F, Lioi DS, Pascale S, Caniani D, Mancini IM (2013) Landslide susceptibility assessment by using a neuro-fuzzy model: a case study in the Rupestrian heritage rich area of Matera. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13(2):395–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Seo Y, Kim S, Kisi O, Singh VP (2015) Daily water level forecasting using wavelet decomposition and artificial intelligence techniques. J Hydrol 520:224–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Shan S, Zhao F, Wei Y, Liu M (2019) Disaster management 2.0: A real-time disaster damage assessment model based on mobile social media data—A case study of Weibo (Chinese Twitter). Saf Sci 115:393–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Sharma S, Ogunlana K, Scribner D, Grynovicki J (2018) Modeling human behavior during emergency evacuation using intelligent agents: a multi-agent simulation approach. Inf Syst Front 20(4):741–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Singh N (2007) Expert system prototype of food aid distribution. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 16:116–121

    Google Scholar 

  89. Soh YW, Koo CH, Huang YF, Fung KF (2018) Application of artificial intelligence models for the prediction of standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) at Langat River Basin, Malaysia. Comput Electron Agric 144:164–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Song X, Shibasaki R, Yuan NJ, Xie X, Li T, Adachi R (2017) DeepMob: learning deep knowledge of human emergency behavior and mobility from big and heterogeneous data. ACM Trans Inf Syst 35(4):1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Steger S, Brenning A, Bell R, Petschko H, Glade T (2016) Exploring discrepancies between quantitative validation results and the geomorphic plausibility of statistical landslide susceptibility maps. Geomorphology 262:8–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Stieglitz S, Mirbabaie M, Ross B, Neuberger C (2018) Social media analytics – challenges in topic discovery, data collection, and data preparation. Int J Inf Manage 39:156–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Stumpf A, Kerle N (2011) Object-oriented mapping of landslides using Random Forests. Remote Sens Environ 115(10):2564–2577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Sublime J, Kalinicheva E (2019) Automatic post-disaster damage mapping using deep-learning techniques for change detection: case study of the Tohoku Tsunami. Remote Sens 11(9):1123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Thomas S, Pillai GN, Pal K, Jagtap P (2016) Prediction of ground motion parameters using randomized ANFIS (RANFIS). Appl Soft Comput 40:624–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Tissera PC, Printista AM, Luque E (2012) A hybrid simulation model to test behaviour designs in an emergency evacuation. Procedia Comput Sci 9:266–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Tizhoosh HR, Pantanowitz L (2018) Artificial intelligence and digital pathology: challenges and opportunities. J Pathol Inform 9:38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Wang W, Peng W, Tong L, Tan X, Xin T (2019) Study on sustainable development of power transmission system under ice disaster based on a new security early warning model. J Clean Prod 228:175–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Wang Z, Lai C, Chen X, Yang B, Zhao S, Bai X (2015) Flood hazard risk assessment model based on random forest. J Hydrol 527:1130–1141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Tayfur G, Singh VP, Moramarco T, Barbetta S (2018) Flood hydrograph prediction using machine learning methods. Water 10(8):968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Wex F, Schryen G, Feuerriegel S, Neumann D (2014) Emergency response in natural disaster management: Allocation and scheduling of rescue units. Eur J Oper Res 235(3):697–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Wu D, Cui Y (2018) Disaster early warning and damage assessment analysis using social media data and geo-location information. Decis Support Syst 111:48–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Xia M, Liu W, Shi B, Weng L, Liu J (2019) Cloud/snow recognition for multispectral satellite imagery based on a multidimensional deep residual network. Int J Remote Sens 40(1):156–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Xie W, Rose A, Li S, He J, Li N, Ali T (2018) Dynamic economic resilience and economic recovery from disasters: A quantitative assessment. Risk Anal 38(6):1306–1318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Xu Z, Wu L, Zhang Z (2018) Use of active learning for earthquake damage mapping from UAV photogrammetric point clouds. Int J Remote Sens 39(15–16):5568–5595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Yang T, Xie J, Li G, Mou N, Li Z, Tian C, Zhao J (2019) Social media big data mining and spatio-temporal analysis on public emotions for disaster mitigation. ISPRS Int Geo-Inf 8(1):29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Zhao K, He T, Wu S, Wang S, Dai B, Yang Q, Lei Y (2018) Application research of image recognition technology based on CNN in image location of environmental monitoring UAV. EURASIP J Image Video Process. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13640-018-0391-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Zheng X, Sun A (2019) Collecting event-related tweets from twitter stream. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech 70(2):176–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Zhou Y, Guo S, Chang FJ (2019) Explore an evolutionary recurrent ANFIS for modelling multi-step-ahead flood forecasts. J Hydrol 570:343–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by: National Social and Scientific Fund Program (16ZDA047, 18ZDA052, 17BGL142); The Natural Science Foundation of China (91546117, 71373131).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ling Tan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tan, L., Guo, J., Mohanarajah, S. et al. Can we detect trends in natural disaster management with artificial intelligence? A review of modeling practices. Nat Hazards (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04429-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Natural disaster management
  • Artificial intelligence
  • Stage analysis