Figures (4)  Tables (3)

    • Figure 1. 

      Contrasting grid models: On the left, the traditional centralized electricity grid; on the right, the evolving decentralized grid showcasing microgrids, nanogrids, and smart grids[80].

    • Figure 2. 

      Population exposed to lethal climatic conditions from extreme temperatures and humidity. The top panel depicts the historical era (1991–2005), while the bottom panel illustrates the RCP4.5 scenario (2041–2060) under 2 °C global warming. RCP (Representative Concentration Pathway) scenarios, utilized in conjunction with CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5)[11], offer insights into potential climate impacts on societies[90].

    • Figure 3. 

      Maps depicting CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6) median projections of extreme rainfall changes across AR6 (6th Assessment Report) land regions at varying global warming levels (GWLs) of 1.5, 2, and 4 °C. It provides insights into potential future precipitation patterns in response to different warming scenarios[91].

    • Figure 4. 

      Mapping future coastal flood risk (i.e., sea level rise): projected population vulnerability to a 100-year event, under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2−4.5, which represents a scenario where the world takes moderate mitigation and adaptation efforts. The 4.5 indicates radiative forcing levels by the year 2100, measured in Watts per square meter. This scenario is used in conjunction with CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6) climate models to explore potential climate outcomes and societal responses)[11,90].

    • CriteriaC1C2C3C4C5C6C7C8C9
      C1157753575
      C2$\dfrac{1}{5}$13532353
      C3$\dfrac{1}{7}$$\dfrac{1}{3}$1321332
      C4$\dfrac{1}{7}$$\dfrac{1}{5}$$\dfrac{1}{3}$131353
      C5$\dfrac{1}{5}$$\dfrac{1}{3}$$\dfrac{1}{2}$$\dfrac{1}{3}$11333
      C6$\dfrac{1}{3}$$\dfrac{1}{2}$1111332
      C7$\dfrac{1}{5}$$\dfrac{1}{3}$$\dfrac{1}{3}$$\dfrac{1}{3}$$\dfrac{1}{3}$$\dfrac{1}{3}$133
      C8$\dfrac{1}{7}$$\dfrac{1}{5}$$\dfrac{1}{3}$$\dfrac{1}{5}$$\dfrac{1}{3}$$\dfrac{1}{3}$$\dfrac{1}{5}$13
      C9$\dfrac{1}{5}$$\dfrac{1}{3}$$\dfrac{1}{2}$$\dfrac{1}{3}$$\dfrac{1}{3}$$\dfrac{1}{2}$$\dfrac{1}{3}$$\dfrac{1}{3}$1
      (C1) Effectiveness, resilience enhancement, and risk reduction; (C2) Scalability, flexibility, and long-term sustainability; (C3) Resource availability, cost-effectiveness, and ease of implementation; (C4) Integration with other existing or planned strategies; (C5) Community engagement and stakeholder acceptance; (C6) environmental impact; (C7) Technological maturity; (C8) Regulatory and policy compliance; (C9) education and training—when assessing strategies for mitigating and adapting to natural hazards in microgrids. We use a rating scale ranging from 1 to 9, where 1 indicates equal importance and 9 represents significantly greater importance. It's important to recognize that this assessment is subjective and may vary based on individual perspectives and preferences.

      Table 1. 

      Pairwise comparison matrix for criteria evaluation.

    • CriteriaRelative weights (RWs)
      Effectiveness, resilience enhancement, and risk reduction (C1)28.1%
      Scalability, flexibility, and long-term sustainability (C2)12.7%
      Resource availability, cost-effectiveness, and ease of implementation (C3)7.8%
      Integration with other strategies (C4)11.7%
      Community engagement (C5)10.2%
      Environmental impact (C6)6.0%
      Technological maturity (C7)13.9%
      Regulatory and policy compliance (C8)4.2%
      Education and training (C9)5.3%

      Table 2. 

      Criterion weights (CWs) delineate the relative importance assigned to each criterion in the evaluation of strategies aimed at mitigating and adapting to natural hazards within microgrids. These weights provide clarity on the respective significance of each criterion in influencing the overall effectiveness of the available options.

    • AlternativesWeighted sum
      Site selection1.935
      Redundancy1.776
      Hardening infrastructure1.999
      Emergency procedures1.732
      Vegetation management0.899
      Real-time monitoring1.738
      Flexible operations1.780
      Distributed generation2.102
      Battery storage1.740
      Demand response1.963
      Community engagement1.531
      Scenario planning1.802
      Collaboration1.677
      Climate-resilient technologies1.743
      Regular maintenance1.522
      Artificial intelligence1.978

      Table 3. 

      Combined weighted ratings for each alternative. Higher weighted sums indicate enhanced overall performance.