Quantification of disaster impacts through household well-being losses

Abstract

Natural disaster risk assessments typically consider environmental hazard and physical damage, neglecting to quantify how asset losses affect households’ well-being. However, for a given asset loss, a wealthy household might quickly recover, while a poor household might suffer major, long-lasting impacts. This research proposes a methodology to quantify disaster impacts more equitably by integrating the three pillars of sustainability: environmental (hazard and asset damage), economic (macro-economic changes in production and employment) and social (disaster recovery at the household level). The model innovates by assessing the impacts of disasters on people’s consumption, considering asset losses and changes in income, among other factors. We apply the model to a hypothetical earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area, considering the differential impact of consumption loss on households of varying wealth. The analysis reveals that poorer households suffer 19% of the asset losses but 41% of the well-being losses. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the effectiveness of specific policies varies across cities (depending on their built environment and social and economic profiles) and income groups.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Schematic of the household postdisaster consumption model.
Fig. 2: The consequences of a potential earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area on the largest cities.
Fig. 3: Spatial distribution of average losses per capita.
Fig. 4: Existing and potential future risk-reduction strategies.
Fig. 5: Comparison of three risk-reduction strategies.
Fig. 6: Effect of risk-reduction strategies on the Bay Area’s ten largest cities (ordered by population).

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Several input datasets that support the findings of this study are available from different platforms and sources (as described in Data sources section) and restrictions may apply to the availability of such data. Input data can be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission from the relevant data owners.

Code availability

All code used to conduct this analysis is freely available at https://github.com/mary-mark/well-being_model.

References

  1. 1.

    Terminology of Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR, 2017); https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology

  2. 2.

    Technical Guidance for Monitoring and Reporting on Progress in Achieving the Global Targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR, 2017).

  3. 3.

    Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (UN, 2015).

  4. 4.

    Sawada, Y. & Shimizutani, S. How do people cope with natural disasters? Evidence from the Great Hanshin-Awaji (Kobe) earthquake in 1995. J. Money Credit Bank. 40, 463–488 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Belasen, A. R. & Polachek, S. W. International Handbook on the Economics of Migration (Edward Elgar, 2013).

  6. 6.

    Jacques, C. C. et al. Resilience of the Canterbury hospital system to the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Earthq. Spectra 30, 533–554 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Potter, S., Becker, J., Johnston, D. & Rossiter, K. An overview of the impacts of the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 14, 6–14 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN, 2015).

  9. 9.

    Carter, M. R., Little, P. D., Mogues, T. & Negatu, W. Poverty traps and natural disasters in Ethiopia and Honduras. World Dev. 35, 835–856 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Howell, J. & Elliott, J. R. As disaster costs rise, so does inequality. Socius 4, 1–3 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Peacock, W. G., Van Zandt, S., Zhang, Y. & Highfield, W. E. Inequities in long-term housing recovery after disasters. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 80, 356–371 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Davidson, T. M., Price, M., McCauley, J. L. & Ruggiero, K. J. Disaster impact across cultural groups: comparison of Whites, African Americans, and Latinos. Am. J. Community Psychol. 52, 97–105 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Donner, W. & Rodríguez, H. Population composition, migration and inequality: the influence of demographic changes on disaster risk and vulnerability. Social Forces 87, 1089–1114 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Masozera, M., Bailey, M. & Kerchner, C. Distribution of impacts of natural disasters across income groups: a case study of New Orleans. Ecol. Econ. 63, 299–306 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Fothergill, A. & Peek, L. A. Poverty and disasters in the United States: a review of recent sociological findings. Nat. Hazards 32, 89–110 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Hallegatte, S., Vogt-Schilb, A., Bangalore, M. & Rozenberg, J. Unbreakable: Building the Resilience of the Poor in the Face of Natural Disasters (World Bank, 2016).

  17. 17.

    Behrman, J. R. The impact of health and nutrition on education. World Bank Res. Obs. 11, 23–37 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Glewwe, P., Jacoby, H. G. & King, E. M. Early childhood nutrition and academic achievement: a longitudinal analysis. J. Public Econ. 81, 345–368 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Hallegatte, S. Modeling the role of inventories and heterogeneity in the assessment of the economic costs of natural disasters. Risk Anal. 34, 152–167 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Walsh, B. & Hallegatte, S. Measuring Natural Risks in the Philippines: Socioeconomic Resilience and Wellbeing Losses Policy Research Working Paper (World Bank, 2019).

  21. 21.

    Chang, S. E. & Shinozuka, M. Measuring improvements in the disaster resilience of communities. Earthq. Spectra 20, 739–755 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Grossi, P. Catastrophe Modeling: A New Approach to Managing Risk Vol. 25 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2005).

  23. 23.

    Rose, A. & Liao, S.-Y. Modeling regional economic resilience to disasters: a computable general equilibrium analysis of water service disruptions. J. Reg. Sci. 45, 75–112 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Dawson, R. J., Peppe, R. & Wang, M. An agent-based model for risk-based flood incident management. Nat. Hazards 59, 167–189 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Alexander, D. E. Principles of Emergency Planning and Management (Oxford Univ. Press on Demand, 2002).

  26. 26.

    Abrahamson, N. A., Silva, W. J. & Kamai, R. Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthq. Spectra 30, 1025–1055 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Markhvida, M., Ceferino, L. & Baker, J. W. Modeling spatially correlated spectral accelerations at multiple periods using principal component analysis and geostatistics. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 47, 1107–1123 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    HAZUS MH-2.1 Earthquake Model Technical Manual (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2015).

  29. 29.

    Hallegatte, S. An adaptive regional input–output model and its application to the assessment of the economic cost of Katrina. Risk Anal. 28, 779–799 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Bay Area Economic Profile: Continuing Growth and Unparalleled Innovation Technical Report 10 (Bay Area Council Economic Institute, 2018).

  31. 31.

    Terplan, E. et al. Economic Prosperity Strategy: Improving Economic Opportunity for the Bay Area’s Low- and Moderate-wage Workers Technical Report (San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association, 2014).

  32. 32.

    Metcalf, G. et al. Four future scenarios for the San Francisco Bay Area. The Urbanist (22 August 2018); https://go.nature.com/2TZRcNM

  33. 33.

    Field, E. H. & 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities UCERF3: A New Earthquake Forecast for California’s Complex Fault System Technical Report (US Geological Survey, 2015).

  34. 34.

    Fuller, T. In quake-prone California, alarm at scant insurance coverage. New York Times (31 August 2018); https://go.nature.com/396VNlv

  35. 35.

    Detweiler, S. T. & Wein, A. M. (eds) The Haywired Earthquake Scenario—Engineering Implications Scientific Investigations Report 2017-5013 (USGS, 2018); https://go.nature.com/3dcoLE8

  36. 36.

    Petak, W. J. & Elahi, S. The Northridge earthquake, USA and its economic and social impacts. In Proc. EuroConference on Global Change and Catastrophe Risk Management 1–28 (IIASA, 2000).

  37. 37.

    Ordinance No. 66–13: Building Code—Mandatory Seismic Retrofit Program—Wood-frame Buildings; Optional Evaluation Form Fee (San Francisco Board of Supervisors, 2013); https://go.nature.com/3a1pkhS

  38. 38.

    A Guide to Benefits and Employment Services Technical Report DE 1275A Rev. 49 (State of California Employment Development Department, 2012).

  39. 39.

    California Pollution Control Financing Authority California Capital Access Program (CalCAP): Seismic Safety Financing Program (California State Treasurer, 2019); https://go.nature.com/2UiRI8B

  40. 40.

    Ordinance No. 183893 (Los Angeles City Council, 2015); https://go.nature.com/2WsNIoW

  41. 41.

    Berkeley Municipal Code Ch. 19.39 (City of Berkeley, 2005).

  42. 42.

    Murlidharan, T. Economic Consequences of Catastrophes Triggered by Natural Hazards. PhD thesis, Stanford Univ. (2003).

  43. 43.

    Howe, C. W. & Cochrane, H. C. Guidelines for the Uniform Definition, Identification, and Measurement of Economic Damages from Natural Hazard Events: With Comments on Historical Assets, Human Capital, and Natural Capital (Univ. Colorado, 1993); https://go.nature.com/2x5i466

  44. 44.

    Rose, A. in Modeling Spatial and Economic Impacts of Disasters (eds Okuyama, Y. & Chang, S. E.) 13–36 (Springer, 2004).

  45. 45.

    Ewing, B. T., Kruse, J. B. & Thompson, M. A. Twister! Employment responses to the 3 May 1999 Oklahoma City tornado. Appl. Econ. 41, 691–702 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Cohen, O., Goldberg, A., Lahad, M. & Aharonson-Daniel, L. Building resilience: the relationship between information provided by municipal authorities during emergency situations and community resilience. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 121, 119–125 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Imperiale, A. J. & Vanclay, F. Experiencing local community resilience in action: learning from post-disaster communities. J. Rural Stud. 47, 204–219 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Mechler, R. Managing unnatural disaster risk from climate extremes. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 235 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Field, E. H. et al. Uniform California earthquake rupture forecast, version 2 (UCERF 2). Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 99, 2053–2107 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Wu, J. Regional indirect economic impact evaluation of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Environ. Earth Sci. 65, 161–172 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Feenstra, R. C., Inklaar, R. & Timmer, M. P. The next generation of the Penn World Table. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 3150–3182 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Dormady, N., Roa-Henriquez, A. & Rose, A. Economic resilience of the firm: a production theory approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 208, 446–460 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Coffman, M. & Noy, I. Hurricane Iniki: measuring the long-term economic impact of a natural disaster using synthetic control. Environ. Dev. Econ. 17, 187–205 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Olsen, A. H. & Porter, K. A. What we know about demand surge: brief summary. Nat. Hazards Rev. 12, 62–71 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Hallegatte, S. & Ghil, M. Endogenous Business Cycles and the Economic Response to Exogenous Shocks FEEM Working Paper No. 20.2007 (SSRN, 2007); http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=968378

  56. 56.

    Hermes, K. & Poulsen, M. A review of current methods to generate synthetic spatial microdata using reweighting and future directions. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 36, 281–290 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    HAZUS MH-2.1 Earthquake Model User Manual (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2015).

  58. 58.

    Census Data 2016 (SimplyAnalytics, accessed 14 January 2019); https://simplyanalytics.com/

  59. 59.

    EASI/MRI Consumer Expenditure Data 2016 (SimplyAnalytics, accessed 14 January 2019); https://simplyanalytics.com/

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for this work was provided in part by the UPS Endowment Fund at Stanford University.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

S.H. and B.W. conceived the well-being metric and the basic household model. M.M., S.H. and B.W. further developed the household model, including explicit representation of loss of labour income. M.M. and J.B. developed an integrated framework that includes regional seismic risk analysis and M.M. wrote the simulation scripts. S.H. provided further guidance on economic and well-being modelling. M.M. drafted the manuscript with contributions and editing from all the authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maryia Markhvida.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary notes, Figs. 1–5, Tables 1 and 2 and ref. 1.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Markhvida, M., Walsh, B., Hallegatte, S. et al. Quantification of disaster impacts through household well-being losses. Nat Sustain 3, 538–547 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0508-7

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing