Figure 9

Inequality index of vulnerability in hazard-affected and non-hazard areas across urban and rural space. Here we only present the medium scenario (\(k\)=0.5) and the statistical summary of the inequality index on three levels of \(k\) (0.25, 0.5, and 0.75) is provided in Supplementary Table S14. For wildfire (Fig. 9A), the inequality index in the urban areas of all states are larger than that their rural counterparts, reflecting vulnerability in wildfire-affected areas tends to be less equally distributed in urban than rural areas. Across states, the inequality of vulnerability in wildfire-affected areas is more obvious in Northern Territory (− 10.634 in urban areas vs. − 7.927 in rural areas) than other states. For flood (Fig. 9B), the magnitudes of the inequality index in the urban areas are larger than that its rural counterparts in New South Wales (− 4.168 vs. − 1.634), Queensland (− 1.269 vs. − 1.141), Tasmania (− 1.594 vs. − 0.798), but smaller in West Australia (− 1.376 vs. − 2.664) and Northern Territory (− 1.619 vs. − 6.985). It means that the inequality of vulnerability in flood-affected areas in urban areas of New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania is more obvious than their rural counterparts. In particular, the inequality of vulnerability in flood-affected areas is more obvious in the rural areas of Northern Territory (− 6.985) and Sydney (− 4.168) than other regions (− 0.798 to − 3.387). For earthquake (Fig. 9C), the inequality of vulnerability in earthquake-affected areas in urban areas of all states is more obvious than their rural counterparts. In particular, the inequality of vulnerability in earthquake-affected areas in Adelaide (− 14.519), rural Queensland (− 6.533), and North Territory (− 7.903 vs. − 6.928) are more obvious than other regions.