Simulation models of multi-sector systems are increasingly used to understand societal resilience to climate and economic shocks and change. However, multi-sector systems are also subject to numerous uncertainties that prevent the direct application of simulation models for prediction and planning, particularly when extrapolating past behavior to a nonstationary future. Recent studies have developed a combination of methods to characterize, attribute, and quantify these uncertainties for both single- and multi-sector systems. Here we review challenges and complications to the idealized goal of fully quantifying all uncertainties in a multi-sector model and their interactions with policy design as they emerge at different stages of analysis: (1) inference and model calibration; (2) projecting future outcomes; and (3) scenario discovery and identification of risk regimes. We also identify potential methods and research opportunities to help navigate the tradeoffs inherent in uncertainty analyses for complex systems. During this discussion, we provide a classification of uncertainty types and discuss model coupling frameworks to support interdisciplinary collaboration on multi-sector dynamics (MSD) research. Finally, we conclude with recommendations for best practices to ensure that MSD research can be properly contextualized with respect to the underlying uncertainties.

Floods drive dynamic and deeply uncertain risks for people and infrastructures. Uncertainty characterization is a crucial step in improving the predictive understanding of multi-sector dynamics and the design of risk-management strategies. Current approaches to estimate flood hazards often sample only a relatively small subset of the known unknowns, for example the uncertainties surrounding the model parameters. This approach neglects the impacts of key uncertainties on hazards and system dynamics. Here we mainstream a recently developed method for Bayesian inference to calibrate a computationally expensive distributed hydrologic model. We compare three different calibration approaches: (1) stepwise line search, (2) precalibration or screening, and (3) the new Fast Model Calibrations (FaMoS) approach. FaMoS deploys a particle-based approach that takes advantage of the massive parallelization afforded by modern high-performance computing systems. We quantify how neglecting parametric uncertainty and data discrepancy can drastically underestimate extreme flood events and risks. Precalibration improves prediction skill score over a stepwise line search. The Bayesian calibration improves the uncertainty characterization of model parameters and flood risk projections.

This article is composed of one integrated commentary about the state of ICON principles (Goldman et al., 2021) in natural hazards and a discussion on the opportunities and challenges of adopting them. Natural hazards pose risks to society, infrastructure, and the environment. Hazard interactions and their cascading phenomena in space and time can further intensify the impacts. Natural hazards’ risks are expected to increase in the future due to environmental, demographic, and socioeconomic changes. It is important to quantify and effectively communicate risks to inform the design and implementation of risk mitigation and adaptation strategies. Multihazard multisector risk management poses several nontrivial challenges, including: i) integrated risk assessment, ii) Earth system data-model fusion, iii) uncertainty quantification and communication, and iv) crossing traditional disciplinary boundaries. Here, we review these challenges, highlight current research and operational endeavors, and underscore diverse research opportunities. We emphasize the need for integrated approaches, coordinated processes, open science, and networked efforts (ICON) for multihazard multisector risk management.