Uncertainty Reduction Through Data Management in the Development, Validation, Calibration, and Operation of a Hurricane Vulnerability Model

Abstract

Catastrophe models estimate risk at the intersection of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. Each of these areas requires diverse sources of data, which are very often incomplete, inconsistent, or missing altogether. The poor quality of the data is a source of epistemic uncertainty, which affects the vulnerability models as well as the output of the catastrophe models. This article identifies the different sources of epistemic uncertainty in the data, and elaborates on strategies to reduce this uncertainty, in particular through identification, augmentation, and integration of the different types of data. The challenges are illustrated through the Florida Public Hurricane Loss Model (FPHLM), which estimates insured losses on residential buildings caused by hurricane events in Florida. To define the input exposure, and for model development, calibration, and validation purposes, the FPHLM teams accessed three main sources of data: county tax appraiser databases, National Flood Insurance Protection (NFIP) portfolios, and wind insurance portfolios. The data from these different sources were reformatted and processed, and the insurance databases were separately cross-referenced at the county level with tax appraiser databases. The FPHLM hazard teams assigned estimates of natural hazard intensity measure to each insurance claim. These efforts produced an integrated and more complete set of building descriptors for each policy in the NFIP and wind portfolios. The article describes the impact of these uncertainty reductions on the development and validation of the vulnerability models, and suggests avenues for data improvement. Lessons learned should be of interest to professionals involved in disaster risk assessment and management.

Keywords

Catastrophe modeling / Data augmentation and integration / Florida Public Hurricane Loss Model (FPHLM) / Uncertainty reduction / Vulnerability model

References

[1] Baradaranshoraka, M., J.-P. Pinelli, K. Gurley, M. Zhao, X. Peng, and A. Paleo-Torres. 2019. Characterization of coastal flood damage states for residential buildings. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering 5(1): Article 04019001.

[2] Baradaranshoraka, M., J.-P. Pinelli, K. Gurley, X. Peng, and M. Zhao. 2017. Hurricane wind versus storm surge damage in the context of a risk prediction model. Journal of Structural Engineering 143(9): Article 04017103.

[3] Biasi G, Mohammed MS, Sanders DH. Earthquake damage estimations: ShakeCast case study on Nevada bridges. Earthquake Spectra, 2017, 33(1): 45-62

[4] Catbas FN, Kijewski-Correa T. Structural identification of constructed systems: Collective effort toward an integrated approach that reduces barriers to adoption. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2013, 139(10): 1648-1652

[5] Chian SC. A complementary engineering-based building damage estimation for earthquakes in catastrophe modeling. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2016, 7(1): 88-107

[6] Daly C, Halbleib M, Smith JI, Gibson WP, Doggett MK, Taylor GH, Curtis J, Pasteri PP. Physiographically sensitive mapping of climatological temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States. International Journal of Climatology, 2008, 28(15): 2031-2064

[7] Der Kiureghian AD, Ditlevsen O. Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter?. Structural Safety, 2009, 31(2): 105-112

[8] Dong W. Engineering models for catastrophe risk and their application to insurance. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2002, 1(1): 145-151

[9] FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). HAZUS-MH 2.1 Hurricane Model Technical Manual, 2015, Washington, DC: Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency

[10] FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2016. Geographic information systems data. https://www.fema.gov/geographic-information-systems-data. Accessed 11 Jul 2019.

[11] FLDEM (Florida Digital Elevation Model). 2013. Florida Digital Elevation Model (DEM) mosaic—5-meter cell size—Elevation units centimeters. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida GoPlan Center. https://www.fgdl.org/metadata/fgdl_html/flidar_mosaic_cm.htm. Accessed 24 Oct 2020.

[12] FPHLM (Florida Public Hurricane Loss Model). 2019. Florida public hurricane loss model 7.0. Miami, FL: Laboratory for Insurance, Financial, and Economic Research, Florida International University, International Hurricane Research Center (IHRC). https://www.sbafla.com/methodology/ModelerSubmissions/CurrentYearModelSubmissions.aspx. Accessed 24 Oct 2020.

[13] Goldberg, D.W., J.N. Swift, and J.P. Wilson. 2014. Address standardization. Technical report 12. Los Angeles, CA: GIS Research Laboratory, University of Southern California.

[14] Hamid S, Pinelli J-P, Cheng S-C, Gurley K. Catastrophe model based assessment of hurricane risk and estimates of potential insured losses for the State of Florida. Natural Hazard Review, 2011, 12(4): 171-183

[15] Harvey PS Jr Heinrich SK, Muraleetharan KK. A framework for post-earthquake response planning in emerging seismic regions: An Oklahoma case study. Earthquake Spectra, 2018, 34(2): 503-525

[16] Homer CG, Dewitz JA, Yang L, Jin S, Danielson P, Xian G, Coulston J, Herold ND Completion of the 2011 national land cover database for the conterminous United States—Representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 2015, 81(5): 345-354.

[17] Johnson, T., J.-P. Pinelli, T. Baheru, A.G. Chowdhury, J. Weekes, and K. Gurley. 2018. Simulation of rain penetration in buildings and associated damage within a hurricane vulnerability model. Natural Hazard Review 19(2): Article 04018004.

[18] Kaczmarska J, Jewson S, Bellone E. Quantifying the sources of simulation uncertainty in natural catastrophe models. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 2018, 32(3): 591-605

[19] Khanduri AC, Morrow GC. Vulnerability of buildings to windstorms and insurance loss estimation. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2003, 91(4): 455-467

[20] Kijewski-Correa T, Smith N, Taflanidis A, Kennedy A, Liu C, Krusche M, Vardeman C II CyberEye: Development of integrated cyber-infrastructure to support rapid hurricane risk assessment. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2014, 133: 211-224

[21] Koc, E., B. Cetiner, L. Soibelman, and E. Taciroglu. 2019. System-based vulnerability and resilience assessment in mega-scale transportation systems: Towards data and model-driven methodologies. In Computing in civil engineering 2019: Smart cities, sustainability, and resilience. Selected Papers from the ASCE International Conference on Computing in Civil Engineering 2019, 17–19 June 2019, Atlanta, GA, USA, ed. Y.K. Cho, F. Leite, A. Behzadan, and C. Wang, 444–450. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.

[22] Kohler MD, Cochran ES, Given D, Guiwits S, Neuhauser D, Henson I, Hartog R, Bodin P Earthquake early warning ShakeAlert system: West coast wide production prototype. Seismological Research Letters, 2017, 89(1): 99-107

[23] Massey TC, Anderson ME, McKee Smith J, Gomez J, Jones R. STWAVE: Steady-State Spectral Wave Model user’s manual for STWAVE, version 6.0, 2011, Washington, DC: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

[24] Michalski, J. 2016. Building exposure study in the State of Florida and application to the Florida Public Hurricane Loss Model. Master thesis. Melbourne, FL, USA: Florida Tech.

[25] Michel-Kerjan E, Hochrainer-Stigler S, Kunreuther H, Linnerooth-Bayer J, Mechler R, Muir-Wood R, Ranger N, Vaziri P, Young M. Catastrophe risk models for evaluating disaster risk reduction investments in developing countries. Risk Analysis, 2013, 33(6): 984-999

[26] Muir-Wood, R., and D. Stander. 2016. Resilience analytics and the public sector management of disasters. In Extended abstract collection. Vol. 2 of the Proceedings of the 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference: Integrative Risk Management—Towards Resilient Cities, IDRC Davos 2016, 28–31 August 2016, Davos, Switzerland, ed. M. Stal, D. Sigrist, S.Wahlen, J. Portmann, J. Glover, N. Bernabe, D. Moy de Vitry, and W.J. Ammann, 436–439. Davos: International Development Research Centre.

[27] National Hurricane Center. 2018. Best track data (HURDAT2). https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/#hurdat. Accessed 17 Nov 2019.

[28] NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program). 2013. Technical documentation of NFIP actuarial assumptions and methods. Supporting rates effective 1 October 2013. Washington, DC: FEMA.

[29] Nicholson JE, Clark K, Daraskevich G. The Florida insurance market: An analysis of vulnerabilities to future hurricane losses. Journal of Insurance Regulation, 2018, 37(3): 57-89.

[30] Pinelli J-P, Pita G, Gurley K, Torkian B, Hamid S, Subramanian C. Damage characterization: Application to Florida public hurricane loss model. Natural Hazard Review, 2011, 12(4): 190-195

[31] Pita G, Pinelli J-P, Cocke S, Gurley K, Mitrani-Reiser J, Weekes J, Hamid S. Assessment of hurricane-induced internal damage to low-rise buildings in the Florida Public Hurricane Loss Model. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics, 2012, 104–106: 76-87

[32] Pita G, Pinelli J-P, Gurley K, Hamid S. Hurricane vulnerability modeling: Evolution and future trends. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics, 2013, 114: 96-105

[33] Pita, G., J.-P. Pinelli, K. Gurley, and J. Mitrani-Reiser. 2014. State of the art of hurricane vulnerability estimation methods: A review. Natural Hazard Review 16(2): Article 04014022.

[34] Powell MD, Houston SH, Amat LR, Morisseau-Leroy N. The HRD real-time hurricane wind analysis system. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 1998, 77–78: 53-64

[35] Powell MD, Soukup G, Cocke S, Gulati S, Morisseau-Leroy N, Hamid S, Dorst N, Axe L. State of Florida hurricane loss projection model: Atmospheric science component. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2005, 93(8): 651-674

[36] Risk Management Solutions. 2019. North Atlantic hurricane models, version 18.1 (Build 1945). Submitted in compliance with the 2017 Standards of the Florida Commission on Hurricane loss projection methodology, 21 May 2019.

[37] Roueche, D.B., D.O. Prevatt, and F.T. Lombardo. 2018. Epistemic uncertainties in fragility functions derived from post-disaster damage assessments. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering 4(2): Article 04018015.

[38] Schneider PJ, Schauer BA. HAZUS – Its development and its future. Natural Hazards Review, 2006, 7(2): 40-44

[39] Shah HC, Dong W, Stojanovski P, Chen A. Evolution of seismic risk management for insurance over the past 30 years. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2018, 17(1): 11-18

[40] Simon M, Tryby M. Open source SWMM: Community-based software development for storm water management modeling, 2018, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

[41] Suppasri A, Mas E, Charvet I, Gunasekera R, Imai K, Fukutani Y, Abe Y, Imamura F. Building damage characteristics based on surveyed data and fragility curves of the 2011 Great East Japan tsunami. Natural Hazards, 2013, 66(2): 319-341

[42] USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers) Depth-damage relationships for structures, contents, and vehicles and content-to-structure value ratios (CSVR) in support of the Donaldsonville to the Gulf, Louisiana, Feasibility Study, 2006, New Orleans District, Louisiana: US Army Corps of Engineers

[43] USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 2015. US North Atlantic coast comprehensive study: Resilient adaptation to increasing risk. Physical damage function summary report. US Army Corps of Engineers. https://www.nad.usace.army.mil. Accessed 24 Oct 2020.

[44] Wald D, Lin K, Porter K. ShakeCast: Automating and improving the use of ShakeMap for post-earthquake decision-making and response. Earthquake Spectra, 2008, 24(2): 533-553

[45] Zhang K, Xiao C, Shen J. Comparison of the CEST and SLOSH models for storm surge flooding. Journal of Coastal Research, 2008, 24(2): 489-499