Methodological issues in natural disaster loss normalisation studies

IF 1.7 3区社会学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy Dimensions Pub Date : 2020-10-12 DOI:10.1080/17477891.2020.1830744

W. Botzen, F. Estrada, R. Tol

引用次数: 3

Abstract

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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

自然灾害损失归一化研究中的方法问题

Pielke(2020)关于自然灾害损失归一化研究的混合结果是由于方法上的差异。在通常使用的归一化方法中存在缺陷，这些方法假定暴露指标和损失之间具有统一的弹性。我们反驳Pielke的论点，即估计这些关系的统计研究是有偏见的。最后，我们提出了未来研究的议程。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Environmental Hazards-Human and Policy Dimensions ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-

CiteScore

9.20

自引率

5.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Environmental Hazards: Human and Policy Dimensions is an innovative, interdisciplinary and international research journal addressing the human and policy dimensions of hazards. The journal addresses the full range of hazardous events from extreme geological, hydrological, atmospheric and biological events, such as earthquakes, floods, storms and epidemics, to technological failures and malfunctions, such as industrial explosions, fires and toxic material releases. Environmental Hazards: Human and Policy Dimensions is the source of the new ideas in hazards and risk research.