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

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Comment / Letter to the editor › Academic

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
Early online date	12 Oct 2020
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2020.1830744
Publication status	Published - 2021

Keywords

Climate change
extreme weather
loss normalization
natural disaster
statistical analysis

UN SDGs

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

Access to Document

10.1080/17477891.2020.1830744

Handle.net

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{4e5c2e176444448da813692f20b03a75,

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.}",

year = "2021",

doi = "10.1080/17477891.2020.1830744",

language = "English",

volume = "20",

pages = "112--115",

journal = "Environmental Hazards",

issn = "1747-7891",

publisher = "Elsevier BV",

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

Y1 - 2021

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 - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85092447094&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85092447094&partnerID=8YFLogxK

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

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Handle.net

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this