GAINING FROM LOSSES: USING DISASTER LOSS DATA AS A TOOL FOR APPRAISING NATURAL DISASTER POLICY by SHALINI MOHLEJI B.A., University of Virginia, 2000 M.S., Purdue University, 2002 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Environmental Studies Program 2011 This thesis entitled: Gaining from Losses: Using Disaster Loss Data as a Tool for Appraising Natural Disaster Policy written by Shalini Mohleji has been approved for the Environmental Studies Program Roger Pielke Jr. Sam Fitch Date 5/26/11 The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. IRB protocol #: 11-0029 iii Mohleji, Shalini (Ph.D., Environmental Studies) Gaining from Losses: Using Disaster Loss Data as a Tool for Appraising Natural Disaster Policy Thesis directed by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. ABSTRACT This dissertation capitalizes on an opportunity, untapped until now, to utilize data on disaster losses to appraise natural disaster policy. Through a set of three distinct studies, I use data on economic losses caused by natural disasters in order to analyze trends in disaster severity and answer important disaster policy questions. The first study reconciles the apparent disconnect between (a) claims that global disaster losses are increasing due to anthropogenic climate change and (b) studies that find regional losses are increasing due to socioeconomic factors. I assess climate change and global disaster severity through regional analyses derived by disaggregating global loss data into their regional components. Economic losses from North American, Asian, European, and Australian storms and floods contribute to 97% of the increase in global economic losses with each region‟s increasing losses attributed to socioeconomic factors. The second study evaluates the National Flood Insurance Program and the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program with respect to their legislated mandates to reduce economic losses. I evaluate these policies by utilizing a new metric which compares the trend in actual losses exhibited after the enactment of policy, to a projected trend based on losses from the pre-policy era. The trends in actual losses are either increasing at the same rate or a slightly iv larger rate as the projections from the period prior to the enactment of policy. This suggests there is no discernible evidence that the policies have an impact on reducing losses. The third study compares the degree to which U.S. federal funding levels for natural disaster research and development (R&D) correspond with the level of documented impact from individual disaster types. Storms cause the greatest human and economic losses in the U.S. however earthquake R&D receives the largest federal funding allocation with storm R&D receiving the second highest level of funding of all disaster types. This suggests there is some correspondence although not complete correspondence between federal funding levels and level of impact from individual disaster types. v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1 1.1 WHY NATURAL DISASTERS MATTER ...................................................... 7 1.2 DISASTER DATA ................................................................................... 12 1.3 CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH DISASTER DATABASES ...................... 14 1.4 DETERMINING DATABASE ROBUSTNESS ............................................... 20 1.5 THE DATABASES .................................................................................. 24 1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF DISASTER DATA ....................................................... 31 CHAPTER 2: RECONCILING THE APPARENT DISCONNECT BETWEEN CLAIMS ON GLOBAL DISASTER-CAUSED ECONOMIC LOSSES AND REGIONAL LOSSES ................................ 34 2.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 34 2.2 CONFLICTING CLAIMS ......................................................................... 35 2.3 DETECTION AND ATTRIBUTION ............................................................ 40 2.4 DATA AND METHODOLOGIES .............................................................. 44 2.4.1 DATA OVERVIEW.......................................................................... 44 2.4.2 METHODOLOGIES ......................................................................... 48 2.4.2 .1 STEP 1 - ANALYZING THE TREND IN GLOBAL LOSSES................ 50 2.4.2.2 STEP 2 - DISAGGREGATING AND QUANTIFYING THE GLOBAL TREND INTO REGIONAL COMPONENTS ..……………………… 51 2.4.2.3 STEP 3 - ATTRIBUTING REGIONAL LOSSES TO DOCUMENTED FACTORS ..…………………………………………………....55 2.5 RESULTS ........................................................................................... ...55 2.5.1 STEP 1 - ANALYZING THE TREND IN GLOBAL LOSSES .................... 55 2.5.2 STEP 2 - DISAGGREGATING AND QUANTIFYING THE GLOBAL TREND INTO REGIONAL COMPONENTS……………………………56 2.5.2.1 NORTH AMERICA ……………………………………………60 2.5.2.2 ASIA …………………………………………………………66 2.5.2.3 EUROPE ……………………………………………………...71 2.5.2.4 AUSTRALIA ………………………………………………… 76 2.5.2.5 SOUTH AMERICA …………………………………………… 79 2.5.2.6 AFRICA ………………………………………………………83 2.6 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................... 86 2.6.1 STEP 3 - ATTRIBUTING REGIONAL LOSSES TO DOCUMENTED FACTORS ………………………………………………………….89 2.7 CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………… 92 CHAPTER 3: A NEW METRIC FOR GAUGING SUCCESS OF THE NFIP AND NEHRP: COMPARING PROJECTIONS OF PRE-POLICY LOSSES TO ACTUAL LOSSES .............. 98 3.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 98 3.2 METHODOLOGIES .............................................................................. 101 vi 3.3 NFIP ................................................................................................. 111 3.3.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................ 111 3.3.2 DATA .......................................................................................... 120 3.3.3 RESULTS ……………………………………………………….124 3.4 NEHRP ............................................................................................. 134 3.4.1 BACKGROUND ………………………………………………….. 134 3.4.2 DATA …………………………………………………………… 140 3.4.3 RESULTS ………………………………………………………... 142 3.5 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 152 3.6 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 156 CHAPTER 4: AN ASSESSMENT OF FEDERAL R&D FOR NATURAL DISASTERS ...... 159 4.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 159 4.2 DATA AND METHODOLOGIES ............................................................ 165 4.2.1 DATA .......................................................................................... 165 4.2.2 METHODOLOGIES ....................................................................... 170 4.3 RESULTS ............................................................................................ 175 4.3.1 ANALYSES OF ECONOMIC AND HUMAN LOSSES ........................... 175 4.3.2 BUDGET SNAPSHOT ..................................................................... 184 4.3.3 INTERVIEWS ................................................................................ 185 4.4 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 195 4.5 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 198 CHAPTER 4 APPENDIX ……………………………………………...201 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 204 5.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 204 5.2 STUDY #1: THE RECONCILIATION STUDY .......................................... 207 5.2.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY ............................................................. 208 5.2.2 CHALLENGES TO THE STUDY ....................................................... 211 5.2.3 FUTURE WORK ............................................................................ 212 5.3 STUDY #2: THE EVALUATION STUDY ................................................ 213 5.3.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY ............................................................. 215 5.3.2 CHALLENGES TO THE STUDY ....................................................... 217 5.3.3 FUTURE WORK ............................................................................ 218 5.4 STUDY #3: THE CORRESPONDENCE STUDY ....................................... 219 5.4.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY ............................................................. 219 5.4.2 CHALLENGES TO THE STUDY ....................................................... 221 5.4.3 FUTURE WORK ............................................................................ 223 5.5 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 224 REFERENCES ..……… .............................................................................................. 225 vii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 2.1: EXAMPLE SOURCES AND CAUSAL FACTORS ............................