Ports are exposed to multiple climate hazards, including windstorms, floods, and intense rainfall. These hazards often occur simultaneously, thereby amplifying their overall effects. Here, we develop a compound risk assessment that incorporates the probabilities of the joint occurrence of climate hazards and their compound effects on port infrastructure systems. We evaluated the direct infrastructure damages, revenue losses due to disruptions, and operational downtime. Furthermore, we analysed the temporal dependence of climate hazards across multiple ports to understand how compound events trigger economic impacts at the continental scale, tracing the dependency structure from hazards to impacts. This methodology was applied to the European port system, where the results show the importance of considering compound effects when evaluating climate risks. Consideration of compound effects on a continental scale adds up to €360 million in additional direct damages (35% of the annual average direct damages) and €10 million due to loss of service (6% of annual average losses). Moreover, failure to account for the interactions between co-occurring impacts results in an underestimation of €100 million in expected annual losses across European ports.

Infrastructure systems are particularly vulnerable to climate hazards, such as flooding, wildfires, cyclones and temperature fluctuations. Responding to these threats in a proportionate and targeted way requires quantitative analysis of climate risks, which underpins infrastructure resilience and adaptation strategies. The aim of this paper is to review the recent developments in quantitative climate risk analysis for key infrastructure sectors, including water and wastewater, telecommunications, health and education, transport (seaports, airports, road, rail and inland waterways), and energy (generation, transmission and distribution). We identify several overarching research gaps, which include the (i) limited consideration of multi-hazard and multi-infrastructure interactions within a single modelling framework, (ii) scarcity of studies focusing on certain combinations of climate hazards and infrastructure types, (iii) difficulties in scaling-up climate risk analysis across geographies, (iv) increasing challenge of validating models, (v) untapped potential of further knowledge spillovers across sectors, (vi) need to embed equity considerations into modelling frameworks, and (vii) quantifying a wider set of impact metrics. We argue that a cross-sectoral systems approach enables knowledge sharing and a better integration of infrastructure interdependencies between multiple sectors.