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 |
|
| Publication status | Published - 2021 |
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
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Methodological issues in natural disaster loss normalisation studies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver