Abstract for: System-Based Diagnosis of Compound Disaster Mechanisms and Policy Intervention Leverage Points

As climate change intensifies heatwaves, heavy rainfall, wildfires, and strong winds, disasters are increasingly unfolding as interconnected rather than isolated events. In Korea, wildfires in wildland–urban interface areas show how dry and windy conditions can amplify fire spread, while burned landscapes become more vulnerable to erosion, landslides, and heavy rainfall impacts. This study investigates how such compound disasters emerge through feedback structures and cross-scale dynamics, identifying key intervention points for more integrated disaster response. This study applied a four-step systems-thinking framework to compound disasters in Korea. Step 1 developed causal loop diagrams of social, ecological, and economic interactions. Step 2 interpreted these structures using Panarchy and the Press–Pulse disturbance concept. Step 3 identified key leverage points. Step 4 translated them into combination-specific Pressure–State–Response structures to derive differentiated institutional, societal, and spatial responses for each compound disaster type. Results showed that compound disaster risk in Korea is amplified less by hazard overlap than by degraded system states and delayed recovery. Nature-based area, ecosystem functioning, and preventive investment capacity emerged as key buffering variables. Core pathways included energy–climate amplification, urbanization–impervious flood reinforcement, warning–protective action buffering, and wildfire–soil/water quality–flood transfer. Combination-specific PSR structures further differentiated response priorities across institutional, societal, and spatial scales. These findings suggest that compound disasters should be understood not as isolated hazard events but as interacting processes embedded within social, ecological, and economic systems. Because different combinations of climatic drivers and disaster outcomes produce different pressure–state relationships, response priorities should be differentiated across institutional, societal, and spatial scales. As the study remains a qualitative systems diagnosis, future work should quantify key pathways and test intervention strategies empirically.