Previous research showed that disasters caused by humans are considered as worse than natural events resulting in the same outcome. We tested if this effect is due to differences in both cognitive and affective appraisal of these events. An online study was conducted in which participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (human vs. nature cause condition). In both conditions, participants read two different short scenarios about disasters either caused by humans (human cause condition n = 274) or nature (nature cause condition n = 257) and responded to several questions (e.g., about the triggered affect, perceived severity of the situation). Although the outcomes were identical, the human caused disasters were judged as more severe than the nature caused disasters. Moreover, the human vs. nature caused disasters led to more negative affect and simultaneously triggered a more negative cognitive appraisal (e.g., including perceived avoidability). Testing for indirect effects, we found that both cognitive and affective appraisal turned out to be the two most crucial determinants of the differences in the severity judgments of the disasters. We discuss the why negative affect plays a meaningful role above and beyond the cognitive assessment and we consider our findings in terms of other judgmental biases. • People judge disasters as more severe when caused by humans vs. nature. • Human caused disasters lead to more negative affect than natural disasters. • Human vs. nature caused disasters trigger more negative cognitive appraisal. • Human vs. nature caused disasters are rated as worse due to both affective & cognitive appraisal.

Southern Africa is a global hotspot for hydrometeorological risk, with intensifying droughts and floods increasingly disrupting livelihoods, ecosystems, and infrastructure. This study presents a systematic bibliometric and scientometric synthesis of 1481 peer-reviewed publications on drought and flood hazards published between 2000 and 2024 across the Southern African Development Community. Using a PRISMA-guided workflow, co-authorship, co-citation, and keyword co-occurrence analyses are combined with topic–method mapping and sensitivity testing to examine the structure and evolution of the regional research landscape. Annual publication output increased nearly tenfold, from fewer than 15 studies per year in the early 2000s to over 140 after 2020 , with distinct surges following the 2015–2016 El Niño drought and Cyclones Idai and Kenneth (2019). Co-word analysis identifies four interconnected research clusters spanning drought diagnostics, flood and catchment-scale hydrology, agriculture and food-security impacts, and risk and adaptation, reflecting a gradual shift toward decision-oriented risk analytics. Despite this progression, explicit compound-hazard analysis, treatment of non-stationarity, and integration of socio-economic and governance dimensions remain limited. Strong geographic asymmetries persist, with South African institutions dominating outputs and several hazard-exposed member states underrepresented. These findings highlight both advances and structural gaps with implications for anticipatory adaptation and regional risk governance. • Quantifies a tenfold increase in Southern African drought and flood research following major climate extremes. • Demonstrates a systematic shift from index-based hazard detection to decision-oriented risk analytics. • Reveals four dominant research clusters and their weak integration around compound and cascading hazards. • Shows that socio-economic and governance concepts are often invoked but rarely operationalised analytically. • Exposes persistent regional and institutional asymmetries shaping the Southern African risk knowledge base.