The objective of this Topic Area is to produce practical and actionable outputs from multi-sector dynamics modeling such as the following: 

• Risk assessments built on competing hypotheses of how compound hazards may unfold
• Ranges of plausible scenarios for use in serious-game training
• Bounding analyses of plausible future outcomes to inform decision makers
• Identification of critical data gaps and uncertainties that constrain robust analysis.  

 Efforts should prototype methods that reveal interdependencies among critical systems and, in addition to impacts of compounding hazards, also simulate the cascading, iterative impacts arising from multiple interacting hazards, enabling exploration of a wide spectrum of possible outcomes. Projects should aim to address one or more of the following objectives: 

• Apply and validate multi-hazard analysis and modeling frameworks suitable for assessing compound threats with clear uncertainty estimates and case study usability.
• Evaluate system failure and interdependencies under different hazard interaction scenarios.
• Develop technologies and/or training platforms depending on end-user needs that include outputs such as risk assessments, plausible future scenarios, and/or worst-case bounds for use by installations.
• Product should be built based on an appropriate fit with end-user workflows and allow for ease of access. 

Projects should consider use in training environments as a method of transferring the results to installation personnel. 

Funded efforts will result in critical insights to be incorporated into technologies and/or training environments. Expected outcomes include improved understanding of how compound environmental hazards affect interdependent systems critical to mission success at military installations. The insights and tools created should be capable of informing analyses of risk mitigation and adaptation including infrastructure investment, management and planning, emergency response, continuity of operations, and other strategies.  

Maintaining mission assurance under increasingly complex hazard environments is a critical concern for the military. Installations operate within a risk landscape shaped by a wide range of natural and environmental hazards, many of which can occur in compound, overlapping, or cascading ways. These include, but are not limited to, environmental hazards such as storm surge, coastal change, inland flooding, extreme heat, wildfires, and drought-flood cycles, and permafrost degradation; geological hazards such as earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, and associated tsunamis; and infrastructure hazards that include events affecting operations, such as infrastructure fires, cascading power outages, and dam/levee failures tied to natural triggers. 

Military installations are complex sociotechnical systems with deeply interwoven physical, environmental, and human subsystems. Critical base operations depend on lifeline systems (e.g., power, water, fuel), enabling systems (e.g., communications, IT), and mission delivery platforms (e.g., airfields, surveillance, logistics hubs). These systems are not isolated; they are interdependent in ways that create vulnerability to cascading failures when stressed by multiple hazards—such as power failure leading to loss of water pumping, communications blackout, and heat-related infrastructure failures. 

Validated methods that allow managers and operators to plan and prepare for interacting hazards are needed. This gap is particularly concerning in decision environments such as military installations, where rapid coordination, resource prioritization, and operational continuity are paramount and operating environments are complex, with overlapping command structures, constrained resources, uncertainty, and time pressures that exacerbate limitations. Methods and training environments developed through this effort should embrace this complexity while remaining usable by installation planners, emergency managers, or mission assurance teams. This call aims to deliver demonstrated, field-relevant capabilities that enhance the DoW’s ability to anticipate, withstand, and recover from compound natural and environmental hazards — ensuring mission continuity under increasingly uncertain conditions.  

Motivating questions may include:  

• How do combinations of hazards (i.e., vertical land motion, storm surge) disrupt system performance and mission execution in different environments (sandy coasts, estuarine environments, reef-dominated, etc.)?   
• What methods best capture cascading failures and their likelihood across infrastructure, cyber, and human systems?
• How can decision-makers plan for uncertainty in compound hazard timing and severity?   
• How can learnings be incorporated into serious games to prepare operators and installation personnel for these potential scenarios?
• What system designs can increase resilience to simultaneous and sequential hazards?