Natural Hazards

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 211–228 | Cite as

How Accurate are Disaster Loss Data? The Case of U.S. Flood Damage

  • MARY W. DOWNTON
  • ROGER A. PIELKE
Article

Abstract

Policy makers need accurate disaster loss data for decisions about disaster assistance, policy evaluation, and scientific research priorities. But loss estimation is difficult in a disaster situation, and initial loss estimates are seldom evaluated in comparison with actual costs. This paper uses the example of historical flood damage data in the U.S. to evaluate disaster loss data. It evaluates the accuracy of historical flood damage estimates from two federal agencies. The U.S. National Weather Service (NWS) has compiled annual flood loss estimates for each state since 1955. Comparison of the NWS data with similar estimates from five state emergency management agencies reveals substantial disagreement between estimates from different sources. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) began in the 1990s to systematically collect damage estimates and cost data associated with its disaster assistance programs. Comparison of early damage estimates with actual expenditures in a California flood disaster reveals large errors in some estimates for individual counties, but no statistically significant tendency to underestimate or overestimate. Positive and negative errors tend to average out and the total damage estimate for the state approximates the final expenditures. Both comparisons indicate that damage estimates for small events or local jurisdictions often are extremely inaccurate. On the other hand, estimates aggregated over large areas or long time periods appear to be reasonably reliable; that is, this study finds that independent estimates for events with losses greater than $500 million disagree by less than 40. The paper suggests ways of interpreting and using such loss estimates to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation.

Keywords

disaster loss loss estimation flood damage cost estimates 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Changnon, S. D. 1996The Great Flood of 1993: Causes, Impacts, and ResponsibilitiesWestview PressBoulder,COGoogle Scholar
  2. Changnon, S. D. 2003Measures of economic impacts of weather extremes: Getting better but far from what is needed – A call for actionBull. AMS8412311235Google Scholar
  3. Downton, M. W., Pielke, R. A.,Jr. 2005Discretion without accountability: Politics, flood damage and climateNat. Hazards Rev.2157166Google Scholar
  4. Downton, M. W., Miller, J. Z. B., Pielke, R. A.,Jr. 2005A reanalysis of the U.S. National Weather Service flood loss databaseNat. Hazards Rev.61322Google Scholar
  5. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)1993Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team Report: WisconsinFEMA-994-DR-WI, Interagency Hazard Mitigation TeamMadison, WIGoogle Scholar
  6. FEMA: 1998, Federal Emergency Management Agency Public Assistance Program: Efficient, Effective, Consistent, Program Description. http://www.fema.gov/rrr/pa/padescp.shtm. [Accessed 1/28/04.]Google Scholar
  7. Guimaraes, P., Hefner, F., Woodward, D. 1993Wealth and income effects of natural disasters: An econometric analysis of hurricane HugoRev. Reg. Stud.297114Google Scholar
  8. Heinz Center:2000The Hidden Costs of Coastal Hazards: Implications for Risk Assessment and MitigationIsland PressWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Malnic, E.: 1997, El Niño to bring long, wet winter, top forecaster says, Los Angeles Times, 10/15/1997, p. A-1.Google Scholar
  10. Malnic, E.: 1998, Skepticism on El Niño washed away, Los Angeles Times, 2/25/1998, p. A-3.Google Scholar
  11. McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd.1998Statewide River Rehabilitation and Floodplain Management Needs InventoryColorado Water Conservation BoardDenver, COGoogle Scholar
  12. Meade, C., Abbott, M. 2003Assessing Federal Research and Development for Hazard Loss ReductionRANDSanta Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  13. Michigan Department of State Police: 1999, Riverine and Great Lakes flooding. Michigan Hazard Analysis, Emergency Management Division, Michigan Department of State Police.Google Scholar
  14. Montane, V. 1999Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Origins and Development: A Chronology, 1917–1999Governor’s Office of Emergency ServicesRancho Cordova, CAGoogle Scholar
  15. NRC (National Research Council):1999The Impacts of Natural Disasters: A Framework for Loss EstimationNational Academy PressWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. NWS (National Weather Service): 1950–1977 passim, Climatological Data National Summary, Asheville, NC (Years 1975, 1977).Google Scholar
  17. NWS: 2004, Flood Losses: Compilation of Flood Loss Statistics, http://nws.noaa.gov/oh/hic/flood_stats/Flood_loss_time_series.shtml. [Accessed 1/6/04.]Google Scholar
  18. Pielke, R. A.,Jr. 2000

    Policy responses to El Niño, 1997–1998: Implications for forecast value and the future of climate services

    Changnon, S. A. eds. El Niño, 1997–1998: The Climate Event of the CenturyOxford University PressNew York172196
    Google Scholar
  19. Pielke, R. A.,Jr., Downton, M. W. 2000Precipitation and damaging floods: Trends in the United States, 1932–1997J. Climate1336253637Google Scholar
  20. Pielke, R. A.,Jr., Pielke, R. A.,Sr. 1997Hurricanes: Their Nature and Impacts on SocietyWileyLondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Pielke, R. A. Jr., Downton, M. W. and Miller, J. Z. B.: 2002, Flood Damage in the United States, 1926–2000: A Reanalysis of National Weather Service Estimates, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO (http://www.flooddamagedata.org/full_report.html).Google Scholar
  22. USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)1983–2001passim, Army Corps of Engineers Annual Flood Damage Report to CongressU.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources1993The Floods of 1993: The Wisconsin Experience, Bureau of Water Regulation and ZoningWisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesMadison, WIGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • MARY W. DOWNTON
    • 1
  • ROGER A. PIELKE
    • 2
  1. 1.Environmental and Societal Impacts GroupNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Center for Science and Technology Policy ResearchUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations