Methodological issues in natural disaster loss normalisation studies

W. J.Wouter Botzen; Francisco Estrada; Richard S.J. Tol

doi:10.1080/17477891.2020.1830744

Methodological issues in natural disaster loss normalisation studies

W. J.Wouter Botzen^*
, Francisco Estrada
, Richard S.J. Tol

^*Corresponding author for this work

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
University of Sussex
Erasmus University Rotterdam
ifo Institute – Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich
Colorado School of Mines

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/Letter to the editor › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

The mixed results in Pielke (2020) for natural disaster loss normalisation studies are due to methodological differences. Flaws exist in commonly used normalisation approaches that assume unitary elasticities between exposure indicators and losses. We refute Pielke’s arguments that statistical studies estimating these relationships are biased. We conclude with an agenda for future research.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	112-115
Number of pages	4
Journal	Environmental Hazards
Volume	20
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2020.1830744
Publication status	Published - 15 Mar 2021

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 13 Climate Action

Keywords

Climate change
extreme weather
loss normalization
natural disaster
statistical analysis

Access to Document

10.1080/17477891.2020.1830744Licence: CC BY-NC-ND

17477891.2020Final published version, 804 KBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND

Cite this

@article{376ef376f7cb4026a97465c69e2f13c3,

title = "Methodological issues in natural disaster loss normalisation studies",

abstract = "The mixed results in Pielke (2020) for natural disaster loss normalisation studies are due to methodological differences. Flaws exist in commonly used normalisation approaches that assume unitary elasticities between exposure indicators and losses. We refute Pielke{\textquoteright}s arguments that statistical studies estimating these relationships are biased. We conclude with an agenda for future research.",

keywords = "Climate change, extreme weather, loss normalization, natural disaster, statistical analysis",

author = "Botzen, \{W. J.Wouter\} and Francisco Estrada and Tol, \{Richard S.J.\}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor \& Francis Group.",

year = "2021",

month = mar,

day = "15",

doi = "10.1080/17477891.2020.1830744",

language = "English",

volume = "20",

pages = "112--115",

journal = "Environmental Hazards",

issn = "1747-7891",

publisher = "Taylor \& Francis",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Methodological issues in natural disaster loss normalisation studies

AU - Botzen, W. J.Wouter

AU - Estrada, Francisco

AU - Tol, Richard S.J.

PY - 2021/3/15

Y1 - 2021/3/15

N2 - The mixed results in Pielke (2020) for natural disaster loss normalisation studies are due to methodological differences. Flaws exist in commonly used normalisation approaches that assume unitary elasticities between exposure indicators and losses. We refute Pielke’s arguments that statistical studies estimating these relationships are biased. We conclude with an agenda for future research.

AB - The mixed results in Pielke (2020) for natural disaster loss normalisation studies are due to methodological differences. Flaws exist in commonly used normalisation approaches that assume unitary elasticities between exposure indicators and losses. We refute Pielke’s arguments that statistical studies estimating these relationships are biased. We conclude with an agenda for future research.

KW - Climate change

KW - extreme weather

KW - loss normalization

KW - natural disaster

KW - statistical analysis

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85092447094

U2 - 10.1080/17477891.2020.1830744

DO - 10.1080/17477891.2020.1830744

M3 - Comment/Letter to the editor

AN - SCOPUS:85092447094

SN - 1747-7891

VL - 20

SP - 112

EP - 115

JO - Environmental Hazards

JF - Environmental Hazards

IS - 2

ER -

Methodological issues in natural disaster loss normalisation studies

Abstract

Bibliographical note

UN SDGs

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this