93 citations as recorded by crossref.

1. Recent advances to address European Union Health Security from cross border chemical health threats R. Duarte-Davidson et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.01.003
2. Understanding Compound, Interconnected, Interacting, and Cascading Risks: A Holistic Framework G. Pescaroli & D. Alexander https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13128
3. Past, present and future of Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) and the incentive it obtained from Land-Use Planning (LUP) H. Pasman & G. Reniers https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2013.03.004
4. Release of hazardous substances in flood events: Damage model for atmospheric storage tanks G. Landucci et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2012.05.010
5. Current situation and needs in man-made and natech risks management using Earth Observation techniques S. Di Franco & R. Salvatori https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2015.06.004
6. Lessons learnt from the impact of hurricane Harvey on the chemical and process industry A. Misuri et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106521
7. Uncertainties and their treatment in the quantitative risk assessment of domino effects: Classification and review Y. Xu et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2023.02.082
8. System comprehensive risk assessment of urban rainstorm–induced flood-water pollution disasters S. Huang et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26762-3
9. Characterization of the expected seismic damage for a critical infrastructure: the case of the oil pipeline in Friuli Venezia Giulia (NE Italy) A. Tamaro et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0252-1
10. Performance Evaluation of Hazardous Substances using Measurement Vehicle of Field Mode through Emergency Response of Chemical Incidents Y. Lee et al. https://doi.org/10.5338/KJEA.2015.34.4.36
11. Using reasoned imagination to learn about cascading hazards: a pilot study A. Mignan et al. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-06-2015-0137
12. “Critical infrastructure multi-risk deployment: an innovative framework to support NaTech preparedness in industrial facilities” D. Castro Rodriguez et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2025.107736
13. Two decades of NaTech research: a multi-layered bibliometric exploration B. Türkcan et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2026.107130
14. Risk assessment: What is it worth? Shall we just do away with it, or can it do a better job? H. Pasman et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.01.011
15. Reframing safety barriers as socio-technical systems: a review of the hydrogen sector A. Subedi et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106995
16. A risk-based multi-level stress test methodology: application to six critical non-nuclear infrastructures in Europe S. Argyroudis et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03828-5
17. Seismic damage assessment of a crude oil hydrodesulphurisation unit. Part I: exposure and modelling C. Grajales-Ortiz et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105519
18. Hazard and vulnerability analysis of NaTech disasters induced by hydrological events to support probabilistic safety assessment in natural gas pipelines F. Viana et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2026.112381
19. Three cases in Japan occurred by natural hazards and lessons for Natech disaster management M. Kumasaki & M. King https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101855
20. Seismic vulnerability of gas and liquid buried pipelines G. Lanzano et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2013.03.010
21. Early Warning Systems: Feasibility and End-Users' Point of View C. Oliveira et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-014-0999-0
22. A qualitative investigation of the effect of natural hazards on industrial plants (with emphasis on oil and gas industries) and 's position in this field s. koohestani et al. https://doi.org/10.61186/jsaeh.10.4.183
23. Assessment of Community Risk from Seismic-Induced Damage to Hazardous Materials Storage Tanks in Marine Ports M. Nassar et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures11020049
24. Review on the need for inventories and management of reservoirs of POPs and other persistent, bioaccumulating and toxic substances (PBTs) in the face of climate change R. Weber et al. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-025-01060-6
25. Review of Process Industry Accidents Analysis towards Safety System Improvement and Sustainable Process Design M. Athar et al. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceat.201800215
26. Development of generic bow-tie diagrams of accidental scenarios triggered by flooding of industrial facilities (Natech) C. El Hajj et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2015.05.003
27. The classification of physical effects from natural hazards for Natech risk assessment based on a Japanese database M. Kumasaki et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2017.08.017
28. Texas LPG fire: Domino effects triggered by natural hazards M. Naderpour & N. Khakzad https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2018.03.008
29. Bolted flange joints equipped with FBG sensors in industrial piping systems subjected to seismic loads F. Paolacci et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104576
30. Management of risks in natural disasters: A systematic review of the literature on NATECH events K. Nascimento & M. Alencar https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2016.10.003
31. Implementation of best practices for emergency response and recovery at a large hospital: A fire emergency case study I. Bongiovanni et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.03.016
32. Disaster scenes as a foundation for emergency response planning J. Owen et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104795
33. Disaster Ergonomics: a Human Factors approach to address escalating challenges from disasters C. Son https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-023-00736-4
34. Performance-based earthquake evaluation of a full-scale petrochemical piping system O. Bursi et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2014.11.004
35. Problems and Perspectives in Seismic Quantitative Risk Analysis of Chemical Process Plants A. Caputo et al. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4040804
36. Thunderstorm charge structures favouring cloud-to-ground lightning A. Salvador et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2021.105577
37. Explicit and implicit inclusion of time in the definitions of risk and reliability J. Selvik & E. Abrahamsen https://doi.org/10.1080/09617353.2020.1858243
38. A probabilistic model for natural gas pipeline failure under climate-induced Natech hazards: Toward AI-based safety management G. Qin et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2025.105849
39. Wildfire Natech accidents in the wildland-industrial interface: Exposure pathways analysis S. Dossi et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2026.112771
40. Quantitative assessment of domino and NaTech scenarios in complex industrial areas V. Cozzani et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2013.07.009
41. The invisible risks of the trans-Ecuadorian oil pipeline system: An analysis of social preferences in Quito A. Salazar-Baño et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.105128
42. Quantitative risk assessment of Natech scenarios triggered by earthquakes involving pipelines F. Amaducci et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2024.109993
43. Quantitative risk assessment of domino effect in Natech scenarios triggered by lightning A. Misuri et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104095
44. Evaluating the structural priorities for the seismic vulnerability of civilian and industrial wastewater treatment plants A. Panico et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.12.030
45. Risk evaluation of oil and natural gas pipelines due to natural hazards using fuzzy fault tree analysis P. Badida et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2019.04.010
46. A peak acceleration threshold for soil liquefaction: lessons learned from the 2012 Emilia earthquake (Italy) F. Santucci de Magistris et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1229-x
47. RAPID-N: Rapid natech risk assessment and mapping framework S. Girgin & E. Krausmann https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2013.10.004
48. Operational status effect on the seismic risk assessment of oil refineries V. Melissianos et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104842
49. Quantitative assessment of risk due to NaTech scenarios caused by floods G. Antonioni et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.05.020
50. Flexibility analysis methodology for pipeline networks under occasional loads U. Zahid https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nhres.2023.01.003
51. Multi-hazard coupling vulnerability analysis for buckling failure of vertical storage tank: Floods and hurricanes M. Huang et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2022.03.037
52. Vulnerability assessment of process pipelines affected by flood events L. Rossi et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.108261
53. Potential loading damage to industrial storage tanks due to volcanic ash fallout M. Milazzo et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0518-5
54. Release of hazardous substances in flood events: Damage model for horizontal cylindrical vessels G. Landucci et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.07.016
55. Public awareness promoting new or emerging risks: Industrial accidents triggered by natural hazards (NaTech) E. Salzano et al. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2012.729529
56. The vulnerability of industrial equipment to tsunami A. Basco & . Ernesto Salzano https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2016.11.009
57. A thorough classification and discussion of approaches for modeling and managing domino effects in the process industries C. Chen et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104618
58. Geospatial and Temporal Patterns of Natural and Man-Made (Technological) Disasters (1900–2024): Insights from Different Socio-Economic and Demographic Perspectives V. Cvetković et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14188129
59. The quantification of low-probability–high-consequences events: part I. A generic multi-risk approach A. Mignan et al. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1178-4
60. The Flash Environmental Assessment Tool: Worldwide first aid for chemical accidents response, pro action, prevention and preparedness L. Posthuma et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.04.018
61. Computing resilience of process plants under Na-Tech events: Methodology and application to sesmic loading scenarios A. Caputo et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106685
62. Material Degradation and NaTech Risk: A Case Study to Discuss Bidirectional Vulnerability in Industrial Systems M. Vitale et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/app152111361
63. How to consider engineered nanomaterials in major accident regulations? B. Nowack et al. https://doi.org/10.1186/2190-4715-26-2
64. Modelling the vulnerability of vertical equipment exposed to flood in Natech scenarios F. Amaducci et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2026.108945
65. Risk propagation analysis of domino effect in chemical accident: An integrated approach with data mining and Bayesian networks X. Wang et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2025.105745
66. Historical analysis of U.S. onshore hazardous liquid pipeline accidents triggered by natural hazards S. Girgin & E. Krausmann https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2016.02.008
67. Seismic damage to pipelines in the framework of Na-Tech risk assessment G. Lanzano et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2014.12.006
68. CLASSIFICATION OF ECONOMIC SECTORS ACCORDING TO THE DEGREE OF THEIR TECHNOGENIC DANGER S. Badina et al. https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU0579-9414.5.78.3.1
69. Current and Emerging Disaster Risks Perceptions in Oceania: Key Stakeholders Recommendations for Disaster Management and Resilience Building J. Cuthbertson et al. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030460
70. Risks associated with volcanic ash fallout from Mt.Etna with reference to industrial filtration systems M. Milazzo et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.05.008
71. Dealing with cascading multi-hazard risks in national risk assessment: The case of Natech accidents S. Girgin et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101072
72. Systematic literature review and qualitative meta-analysis of Natech research in the past four decades M. Suarez-Paba et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.02.033
73. Disasters as Enablers of Negotiation for Sustainability Transition: A Case from Odaka, Fukushima M. Matsuura https://doi.org/10.3390/su14053101
74. Natech risk reduction in the European Union E. Krausmann & D. Baranzini https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2012.666761
75. Analysis of the impact of wildland-urban-interface fires on LPG domestic tanks G. Scarponi et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104588
76. An Approach to the Quantitative Assessment of Risk Due to Natech Events V. Cozzani https://doi.org/10.2478/v10281-012-0008-7
77. Seismic response mitigation of chemical plant components by passive control techniques F. Paolacci et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2013.03.003
78. Quantitative assessment of risk due to major accidents triggered by lightning A. Necci et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.05.009
79. Impact of the 11 March 2011, Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami on the chemical industry E. Krausmann & A. Cruz https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0607-0
80. Assessment of safety barrier performance in the mitigation of domino scenarios caused by Natech events A. Misuri et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2020.107278
81. Risk assessment of large-scale winter sports sites in the context of a natural disaster J. Wu et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnlssr.2022.03.006
82. Insuring catastrophes and the role of governments M. Boyer & C. Nyce https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-13-2053-2013
83. Simulating operational disruption in petrochemical facilities under natural hazard impact R. Oliva & E. Opabola https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2025.111481
84. NaTech-specific Inherent Safety Index (NISI): A quantitative framework for evaluating safety performance during extreme weather and geophysical hazards in hazardous industrial clusters S. Subburaj & K. S https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2025.111965
85. Risk analysis in Natech events: State of the art A. Mesa-Gómez et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104071
86. Climate change and temporal-spatial variation of tropical storm-related Natechs in the United States from 1990 to 2017: Is there a link? X. Luo et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102366
87. Definition of a shortcut methodology for assessing flood-related Na-Tech risk E. Marzo et al. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-3241-2012
88. Recognising na-tech events in Brazil: moving forward J. Xavier & W. de Sousa Junior https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2194-3
89. Seismic vulnerability of natural gas pipelines G. Lanzano et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.03.019
90. The ARGO Project: assessing NA-TECH risks on offshore oil platforms P. Capuano et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.08.148
91. Human health implications of cascading effects in chemical plants triggered by seismic NaTech events G. Gabbianelli et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2026.112455
92. Definition of a short-cut methodology for assessing the vulnerability of a territory in natural–technological risk estimation E. Marzo et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.07.026
93. Incorporating inherent safety during the conceptual process design stage: A literature review S. Park et al. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2019.104040