Skip to main content
Log in

Review of two Japan Typhoon catastrophe models for commercial and industrial properties

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Commercially available natural catastrophe (cat) models have significantly improved the decision-making processes utilized by the insurance industry to price and manage cat risk. However, lack of historical loss data, and the need to make a large number of assumptions during the course of development of such models can lead to material biases in their outputs. It is crucial that insurance companies identify these sources of biases and adequately adjust the model outputs. In this study, we present methods that can be utilized for performance evaluation of cat models independent of the underlying peril or region. We illustrate the application of the proposed tests by reviewing two commercially available Japan Typhoon cat models (referred as models A and B) and evaluating their performance in quantifying commercial and industrial property losses. We have identified important limitations in both models including not accounting for storm surge and model specification uncertainty. We observed significant differences between the modeled losses for commercial exposures and uncertainty estimates for the corresponding event losses. Performed sensitivity tests indicate potential inconsistencies in Model B’s assumptions related to the quantification of loss severities across geographic regions, the estimation of contents and business interruption losses, and modeling of inland flooding. Additionally, our comparisons indicate that Model B assumes typhoon landfall frequencies significantly lower than historically observed values. Conducting the proposed tests on Model A also suggests potential underestimation of the losses for both the strongest category of typhoons and typhoons with losses primarily driven by rain-induced flooding. While modeling companies recognize some of these potential limitations and plan to address them in their next updates, it is important that they continue providing increased flexibility in adjusting model parameters and allow insurance companies to develop their own views in management and pricing of cat risks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this manuscript, typhoons are categorized based on their central pressure instead of sustained wind speeds as currently done in Saffir-Simpson wind scale (NHC 2015). For example, category 3, 4, and 5 typhoons are defined as those with central pressures 964–945, 944–920, and <920 mb, respectively.

References

  • Aslani H, Miranda E (2005) Probabilistic earthquake loss estimation and loss disaggregation in buildings. In: Blume J (ed) Earthquake engineering center report no. 157, Stanford University, Stanford, CA

  • Baker JW, Cornell CA (2005) Vector-valued ground motion intensity measures for probabilistic seismic demand analysis. In: Blume A (ed) Earthquake engineering center report no. 150, Stanford University, Stanford, CA

  • Cole C, Macpherson D, McCullough K (2010) A comparison of hurricane loss models. J Insur Issues 33:31–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornell CA, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. Pac Earthq Eng Res Center (PEER) News 3(2):1–3

  • Digital Typhoon (2014) Digital typhoon: Typhoon images and information. http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typhoon/. Accessed 1 Aug 2014

  • Dumm RE, Johnson M, Simons M (2009) Inside the black box: evaluating and auditing hurricane loss models. J Insur Regul 27(2):41–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology (FCHLPM) (2013) 2013 Meeting materials. http://www.sbafla.com/methodology/Meetings/PreviousYears/2013MeetingMaterials/tabid/1696/Default.aspx. Accessed 30 Mar 2015

  • Grossi P, Kunreuther H, Windeler D (2005) Chapter 2: an introduction to catastrophe models and insurance. In: Kunreuther H, Grossi P (eds) Catastrophe modeling a new approach to managing risk. Springer, Berlin, pp 23–42

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haselton C, Deierlein G (2007) Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings. In: Blume J (ed) Earthquake engineering center report No. 156, Stanford University, Stanford, CA

  • Higaki M, Hayashibara H, Nozaki, F (2009) Outline of the storm surge prediction model at the Japan Meteorological Agency. RSMC Tokyo-Typhoon Center Technical Review, Tokyo

  • Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) (2014a) RSMC Tokyo: Typhoon Center best-track data. http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/jma-center/rsmc-hp-pub-eg/trackarchives.html. Accessed 1 Aug 2014

  • Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) (2014b) Ranking of typhoons by pressure at landfall. http://www.data.jma.go.jp/fcd/yoho/typhoon/statistics/ranking/air_pressure.html. Accessed 1 Aug 2014

  • Kircher CA, Reitherman RK, Whitman RV, Arnold C (1997) Estimation of earthquake losses to buildings. Earthq Spectra 13(4):703–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitamoto A (2014) Personal communication

  • Lin Y, Zhao M, Zhang M (2015) Tropical cyclone rainfall area controlled by relative sea surface temperature. Nat Commun 6:6591. doi:10.1038/ncomms7591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Hurricane Center (NHC) (2015) Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php. Accessed 18 Mar 2015

  • National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) (1997) HAZUS: earthquake loss estimation methodology, Washington, DC

  • Peduzzi P, Chatenoux B, Dao H, De Bono A, Herold C, Kossin J, Mouton F, Nordbeck O (2012) Global trends in tropical cyclone risk. Nat Clim Chang 2:289–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinelli J-P, Gurley KR, Subramanian CS, Hamid SS, Pita GL (2008) Validation of a probabilistic model for hurricane insurance loss projections in Florida. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93(12):1896–1905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons MM, Evans JL, Zadeh, MM (2013) Evaluation of hurricane catastrophe models used in South Carolina. http://www.doi.sc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7184. Accessed 30 Mar 2015

  • Zagrodik JP, Jiang H (2013) Comparison of TRMM precipitation radar and microwave imager rainfall retrievals in tropical cyclone inner cores and rainbands. J Geophys Res Atmos 118:29–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zareian F, Krawinkler H (2009) Simplified performance based earthquake engineering. In: Blume J (ed) Earthquake engineering center report no. 169, Stanford University, Stanford, CA

  • Zhe I, Jie B, Wen-Jun Z, Jun Y (2012) Analysis of tropical cyclone precipitation for different intensity class in Northwest Pacific with TRMM data. In: 2012 Asia Pacific conference on environmental science and technology (APEST 2012) 6:179–184

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erdem Karaca.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karaca, E., Aslani, H. Review of two Japan Typhoon catastrophe models for commercial and industrial properties. Nat Hazards 83, 19–40 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2340-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2340-y

Keywords

Navigation