You are on page 1of 47

Do Natural Disasters Really Lead to More Migration?

Evidence from Indonesia


Chun-Wing Tse October 18, 2011

Abstract Do natural disasters lead to more migration? Using panel datasets of Indonesia, I discover that the three most common types of disasters, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and oods, in fact reduce the likelihood for households to move out, contrary to our intuitive understanding and ndings of existing research. Yet, household migration can take various forms and in this study, I consider split household migration which is dened as households splitting o and moving to a new area. Together with whole household migration, I analyze the impacts of the three types of disasters on these two dierent forms of migration separately and also nd that they all suppress these two dierent forms of household migration. The paper goes on to explain the results and discovers that: (1) Earthquakes reduce household size, total earnings and non-business assets. (2) Households with smaller size, lower total earnings and less non-business assets are less likely to split. Thus, I conclude that earthquakes reduce split household migration by decreasing the values of those economic variables. Meanwhile, eruptions drive up farm business assets and consequently lead to less moving of the entire households since greater holdings of farm business assets makes households less mobile to move out as a whole. On the other hand, oods do not operate through human and economic assets to drive down household migration. Thus, the paper concludes that the intuitive view of more migration after natural disasters is not well founded.

Keywords: Indonesia, natural disasters, migration JEL codes: O15, Q54


I would like to thank Dilip Mookherjee for all his guidance and support. I also wish to thank Daniele Paserman and Michael Manove for their advice and comments. I am also grateful to Ye Li, Jie Hou, Julian Chan, Hyo-Youn Chu, Saori Chiba and seminar participants at Boston University. All errors are my own. Department of Economics, Boston University, 270 Bay State Rd., Boston, MA 02215 (winghk@bu.edu)

Introduction
Given the rising losses from environmental calamities across the globe (Cameron 2010), the

study of natural disasters has never been more crucial at our time. In just the year of 2010, natural disasters of various types have killed at least a quarter million people, which exceeds the number of people killed in terrorist attacks in the past 40 years combined (U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency). The research on environmental risk is even more important in development economics given the fact that poor households have limited resources to deal with natural disasters, which are highly unpredictable and aggregate in nature (Noy 2010 & Ebeke 2010). Among all the coping mechanisms, it has been claimed that poor households in developing countries resort to outmigration to stay away from disaster prone areas (International Organization for Migration (IOM) 2009). There is an increasing concern that rising natural disasters can drive toward more migration. E.g. soaring climate change exacerbates the problem of water shortage and agricultural failures. Increasing seismic activities destroy industrial establishments or threaten prospective investors away from quake zones. Households having lost their livelihoods after natural disasters need to make a living elsewhere and move out (IOM 2009). However, do natural disasters really lead to more migration? General intuition and existing theoretical research seem to answer yes to this question (Eeckhoudt 1996). Yet, empirical studies on this topic are still emerging (Paxson 2008, Drabo 2011). Using Indonesia as the case country, this paper attempts to understand the link between natural disasters and migration by answering the following two questions: Do natural disasters really make households move out more? Why natural disasters drive toward such household migration decision? This study relies on two nationally representative datasets of Indonesia. Using the panel nature of the datasets, I can conduct a longitudinal study to account for household xed eects and measure how time variation of disasters alters household migration. Also, the annual occurrence of disasters of various kinds in Indonesia provides a natural experiment for the study. Given such environmental context, I do not treat each type of disaster alike, but separately analyze the impacts of various types of disasters on dierent geographical levels of moving. Specically, the paper studies the three most common types of disasters, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and oods, to nd out how these 2

disasters aect household migration across provinces, districts and subdistricts in Indonesia. After that, the second part of the study looks at dierent economic channels through which disasters operate to shape household moving decision. Another feature of this paper is to focus on household migration instead of just looking at individual moving decision. However, household migration can take various forms. The conventional form is whole household migration which involves relocation of the entire households. In this paper, I also consider split household migration which is dened as households splitting o and moving to a new area. Contrary to the general intuition and results of existing literature, the baseline empirical results show that natural disasters in fact lead to less migration at both household and individual levels. Such ndings stand for all three types of natural disasters at all three geographical levels of moving. However, individually looking at (1) split household (SH) migration and (2) whole household (WH) migration gives dierent ndings. For whole household migration, earthquakes do not have any signicant impact, but eruptions and oods drive down the likelihood for the entire households to move out. On the other hand, earthquakes lower split migration at all geographical levels and more eruptions also reduce splits. Yet, oods do not cause signicant decrease in splits. Thus, we can conclude that earthquakes reduce migration primarily by suppressing splits and oods drive down whole household migration. Meanwhile, eruptions are signicant in decreasing both forms of household moving. The rst part of the main analysis invalidates the claim of more migration after natural disasters. But, why there exists such negative causation? The second part shows that earthquakes and eruptions operate through dierent economic channels to shape the two forms of household migration. Eruptions push up the values of farm business assets which can be due to enrichment of soil fertility by lava ash. Furthermore, I also nd that households with more farm business assets in fact move out less. Therefore, eruptions suppress migration of the entire households by increasing farm business assets. On the other hand, earthquakes drive down the household size, total earnings and non-business assets. Because households with smaller size, lower total earnings and less non-business assets are less likely to split, earthquakes make households split and migrate less by

slashing household size, total earnings and non-business assets. Meanwhile, the paper nds that oods do not operate through human and economic assets to reduce whole household migration. The study discovers that if natural disasters alter the economic status such that households become less likely to move out, the environmental shock can in fact lower migration as a result. The economics literature on natural disasters is relatively new. Most prominent studies on this topic look at some one-o deadly disasters (Noy 2009, Halliday 2007), and link up the crosssection disaster exposure with household migration pattern. Panel studies (Yang 2003) adopt the approach of dierence in dierence to study migration patterns before and after disasters. Existing research also concentrates on individual migration (Halliday 2007) and treats each kind of disaster as an homogeneous shock (Naude 2008). To my knowledge, this paper is the rst longitudinal study to consider dierent disasters as heterogeneous shocks and focus on household migration. Given the fact that disasters of various types occur in some developing countries regularly, e.g. Philippines, Bangladesh and Pakistan, a longitudinal study of time variation of natural disasters is important. Furthermore, natural disasters present an aggregate human and economic risk to the entire households, which usually trigger migration at both household and individual levels. This explain why we should also focus on household migration. Yet, household migration can take various forms and household split is common given the family structure in most developing countries. Also, dierent natural disasters have contrasting impacts on household splits and moving of the entire households. All the above facts point toward the need to separately analyze dierent forms of household migration. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the background of Indonesia, illustrating the demographics and disaster occurrence in the country. Section 3 outlines the data used and gives some descriptive statistics. Section 4 discusses the relationship between disasters and household migration. Section 5 describes the empirical strategy and section 6 presents the main ndings. Section 7 shows some robustness checks and section 8 gives the extension of the main analysis. Section 9 concludes.

Background
Indonesia is the most disaster-prone country of the world, according to the UN Oce for the

Coordination of Humanitarian Aairs. Most parts of Indonesia are right on the fault line of volcanic origin, which gives rise to frequent outbreaks of massive earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. The country is also regularly hit by oods due to its large scale deforestation and soaring global climate change. In 2009 alone, it experienced 469 earthquakes with a magnitude of 5 or higher. Sumatra, Java and Papua were especially hard hit. Floods have accounted for about 40 percent of Indonesias disasters in the past few years, according to government data (BPS Indonesia). Figure 1 shows the time series pattern of earthquakes and oods and gures 2 to 4 provides geographical snapshots on where earthquakes, eruptions and oods occur in the country between 1988 and 2000. Java and Sumatra Islands have always been the black spots of disasters due to its location along the fault line and the ever worsening problem of deforestation. However, people do not stay away from disasters but continue to live with the risk of increasing environmental calamities. Figure 5 depicts the population density of Indonesia in 2000 and most dwellers are crowded in Java and Sumatra where disasters of dierent kinds frequently strike there. E.g. West Javanese people need to face the regular occurrence of oods and earthquakes. The volcanoes in Yogyakarta pose a constant threat to the inhabitants there, where the eruption in 2010 destroyed numerous villages and killed more than 390 people (New York Times 2010). However, population density of West Java well surpasses 1000 per km square and Yogyakarta has more than 980 people per same size of area (SEDAC) in 2000. Using simple cross province regressions, the results show that population density in 1993 is not negatively correlated with disasters within 50 years before 1993. This implies that people are not driven away by disasters, but stay with the environmental risk instead. It has always been claimed that communities in Indonesia stay nearby volcanic areas regardless of the constant threat of eruptions. The regression of rice yield on eruptions at province level within the last 50 years show that provinces with more eruptions can produce a higher rice yield. This is plausibly due to the fact that lava ash from the volcanoes enhances the soil fertility which helps boost the farm yield. As a result, people settle and stay nearby volcanic areas. 5

Data and descriptive statistics


The paper uses two datasets for the empirical analysis. The rst one is a panel dataset from

Indonesian Family Life Survey (IFLS), a nationally representative survey covering both rural and urban areas. This dataset gives a nation-wide sample of households spreading across 13 provinces in the rst wave of the survey in 1993 (IFLS1) and three more waves were also conducted in 1997 (IFLS2), 2000 (IFLS3) and 2007 (IFLS4).1 One prominent feature of this longitudinal survey is the very high tracking rate. The survey did not just attempt to re-interview original households sampled in 1993, but also all the migrant households and those split-o from the original households. In IFLS4, 93.6% of IFLS1 households were re-contacted and this rate is as high as or even higher than most longitudinal surveys in the United States and Europe. High re-interview rates contribute signicantly to data quality because this lessens the attenuation bias due to nonrandom attrition, which is a critical issue of concern for studies of migration and natural disasters.2 A dummy variable indicating whether a household migrates between two successive survey years is the main outcome of interest in the empirical study. But rst, we need a clear denition of household out-migration. In this paper, I dene two forms of household migration: (1) split household (SH) migration and (2) whole household (WH) migration. In split household migration, one or more household members, but not including the head of household, leave and establish a new household at a certain geographical level. On the other hand, if the whole household including the household head moves to a new area, I call this form of moving as whole household migration. Apart from a detailed section of household migration history, IFLS also asks several comprehensive sets of questions to obtain the economic variables of the sample households. In particular, I focus on household size, aid received, remittances, total household earnings and level of dierent assets to study how natural disasters alter these variables to shape the two forms of household migration. The second dataset is Indonesian DesInventar Database (DesInventar) administered by Data
IFLS2+ was also carried out in 1998 to measure the impact of nancial crisis starting from 1997. Yet, only about 20% of the households in IFLS2 were re-interviewed in that wave. 2 I also test whether there exists non-random attrition in the analysis and the results are not sensitive to the treatment of households which dropped out from the samples.
1

& Informasi Bencana Indonesia. The aim of DesInventar is to record every disaster happening in Indonesia from early 20th century. The details include geographical location, date, fatalities, nancial losses, infrastructure damage and other relevant information of the disasters. The study looks at earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and oods which are the three most common forms of natural disasters occurring in Indonesia. For the empirical analysis, the most important explanatory variable is the average annual number of the three types of disasters happening between two successive survey years at the province level. DesInventar adopts a method of counting natural disasters dierent from the traditional practice. First, a disaster is dened as the set of eects caused by an event on human lives and economic infrastructure on a geographical unit of minimum resolution. (DesInventar) It imposes no thresholds on the amount of damage for an environmental shock to be regarded as a disaster. Furthermore, instead of treating a single event of environmental shock as one disaster, DesInventar counts the number of minimal geographical units, which is kecamatan (subdistrict) in the database, aected in the event. Thus, DesInventar counts an earthquake event of extensive geographical coverage as multiple earthquake disasters. Thus, this makes statistics kept by DesInventar look inated compared with statistics kept under the traditional practice. Yet, such method is desirable for this study as disaster of extensive coverage should receive more weights. DesInventar denes earthquakes, eruptions and oods as follows: Earthquakes - All movements in the earths crust causing any type of damage or negative eect on communities or properties. Volcanic eruptions - eruptions with disastrous eects: eruption and emission of gas and ashes, stone falls (pyroclast), ows of lava, etc. Floods - Water that overows river-bed levels (riverine oods) and runs slowly on small areas or vast regions in usually long duration periods (one or more days). The study just retains households and their split-os which exist in all four waves of the survey. Certainly, I can only keep households with clear migration history between 1993 and 2007. Households without information on some economic variables such as household size, earnings and assets can only be discarded. This nally leaves the study with 8,217 households.

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of the IFLS sample households. The disaster statistics records the annual average number of each type of disaster at province level happening between 1988 and 2000. Households on average experience 0.099 earthquakes and 0.20 eruptions annually between 1988 and 2000. Floods are more prevalent in Indonesia and the sample households are exposed to more than two oods in every three years. The descriptive statistics also presents the migration gures between 1993 and 2007. We rst look at the annual rate of migration in general combining both split household migration and whole household moving. On average, 1.43% of the households move across provinces annually. The corresponding rates across kabupatens (districts) and kecamatans (subdistricts) are respectively 3.24% and 4.60%, which are considerably high. Yet, when we consider the two forms of household moving separately, the statistics shows that most household migration are in the form of splits. More then 3.75% of households have split-o households located in a new province. On the contrary, whole household migration is much less frequent. Annually, just less than 0.1% of households move to a new province as a whole on average. Table 2 also shows that there is a generally even proportion of urban and rural households. Most of the household heads just nish elementary education and about 15% of the households are female headed. Table 3 links household economic well beings in 2000 with household migration between 2000 and 2007. We separate the entire samples into three groups: (1) households which are completely intact without involving in split or whole household moving, (2) households which split and migrate across provinces between 2000 and 2007 but do not move out as a whole, (3) households which move to a new province as a whole. The mean statistics tells us that households which split and move generally have a bigger size with higher earnings and assets of various kinds. On the other hand, households which migrate as a whole are smaller and have less non business assets. The median gures illustrate a much more clear picture. 50% of households which move out as a whole have non business assets less than 4.7 million rupiah. But, the corresponding gure of for split migrant households is 16.6 million rupiah. In general, households which migrate as a whole have less farm business and non business assets compared with the other two groups. The above descriptive analysis portrays the disparity in asset composition between migrant and

non-migrant households which illustrates how household asset composition links with migration. Before moving to the empirical analysis, the paper rst explains how disasters may drive down migration. Since the empirical study emphasizes the disparity between split migration and whole household migration, the following section also describes how the two forms of migration dier.

How natural disasters drive down household migration


It is intuitive to conclude that natural disasters lead to more migration since households want

to stay away from the risk of disasters or they should make a living elsewhere if their livelihoods are wiped out. However, households exposed to natural disasters can actually move out less. There exists three possible reasons: (1) increase in marginal product of labor, (2) decrease in nancial resources to pay for migration and (3) strengthened social bonding and mutual insurance, which can drive to less migration after disasters. (1) Increase in marginal product of labor (MPL) Natural disasters can cause recession, higher unemployment and lower wages in general. Yet, the aected areas with infrastructure and houses destroyed have a high demand for labor to rebuild villages. The MPL of reconstruction sector can go up as a result, which induces households to stay after disasters for a better employment. In particular for farming, soil fertility can be enriched by lava ash in eruptions and alluvial deposits in oods. This drives up the productivity of farming and hence, households will choose to stay instead. (2) Decrease in nancial resources to pay for migration With assets destroyed and earnings reduced, households are less capable to aord migration. Thus, they are not forced to migrate but forced to stay. Also, households nd it more dicult to borrow from others to nance migration as disasters present an aggregate shock and aect most households living nearby (Yang 2003). Disasters pose liquidity constraints to households and as a result drive down migration. (3) Strengthened social bonding and mutual insurance Disasters can boost family ties and strengthen social bonding, especially in developing countries since social capital plays a signicant role in less developed economies. Households choose to cope

with disaster shock by accumulating social capital instead of moving out. Thus, they are less likely to migrate. Also, households with houses damaged by disasters require members to stay nearby to repair the houses. Furthermore, law and order may break down after disasters and households should remain to protect property and land rights. The paper will empirically examine the rst two reasons and leave out the third due to data limitation.

4.1

Split household migration and whole household migration

Split household migration is a rarely studied concept, which involves not just household splits but the split-o households moving to a new area. A single individual leaving and setting up a single-member household is also classied as split household migration in this study. Split household migration diers from individual migration in various aspects: (1) In individual moving, the migrant individuals may just move out and enter another household in a new area. (2) Individual migration tends to be temporary and migrants may return after some time. (3) Individual migrants are in general more attached to the original household. Meanwhile, split-o households are considered separate from the original household. Households may also consider split migration as an insurance strategy. Considering household members, especially the young and educated groups, as human asset, the head of household can diversify risk by spreading out the asset to various geographical areas. Certainly, the remittances received from split-o households is an important source of income, which enables the original household to better mitigate the risk of future economic shocks. Whole household migration is a completely dierent concept, which is dened as the moving of the entire household across a certain geographical level. The insurance factor is much less signicant when the head of household decides to move out as a whole. The decision is rather based on the push factors of the origin and the pull factors of the destination, taking into account the total migration cost. This paper tries to focus on these two forms of household migration separately and understand how natural disasters shape these two dierent moving decisions. The rest of the sub-section will discuss the following economic determinants of split and whole household migration: household size, 10

total earnings, external transfer and household assets. Household size: A bigger household will be more likely to split and migrate as it has more human asset to allocate to various geographical locations for the purpose of diversifying risk. On the other hand, household with more members are less likely to move out as a whole because migration cost goes up with the size of household. Total earnings: Households with more earnings have higher likelihood to split and migrate because they have more nancial resources to support the splits. Furthermore, considering split household migration as a risky investment, the risk of the investment decreases with the income of the households. Thus, higher earnings lower the risk for split-o households to move out and make an even higher income elsewhere. On the contrary, the total eects of earnings on whole household migration can be ambiguous. Households with higher earnings are better endowed nancially to pay for migration. Yet, the opportunity cost increases with the current earnings. External transfer: External transfer such as remittances and government aid, is a positive factor for split migration. Similar to the theory related to household earnings, household with more external transfer have more nancial resources to pay for split migration. Yet, remittances can have totally dierent eects from government aid on whole household migration. Households receiving more remittances can better aord migration. However, the government aid induces people to stay for obtaining more aid money, which points toward Samaritans Dilemma. Household assets: Households with more assets, in particular farm business assets, should be less likely to split and migrate as they need members to stay and take part in the agricultural business. They also need more people to protect the property and avoid eviction from their lands. Yet, households with more assets are in fact better endowed nancially to support splits. Also similar to the theory on total earnings, the risk of split household migration falls with the wealth of the households. Greater holdings of assets of various kinds lowers the risk of split household migration. Hence, the likelihood of split migration can go up with household assets. On the other hand, households with more assets are less likely to migrate as a whole because it is costly for households to sell and dispose their assets to move out. More assets mean higher cost of whole household migration.

11

The above discussion suggests how disasters operate through a variety of economic channels to shape dierent household migration decisions. The following sections empirically examine all the above claims.

Empirical Strategy
The empirical analysis rst starts with equation (1):

Mit = 0 + 1 Dct + i + t +

it

(1)

The LHS variable Mit is the migration dummy indicating whether household i moves out at a given geographical level between time t and t + 1. The three dierent geographical levels are across provinces, across kabupatens (districts) and across kecamatans (subdistricts). The most important RHS variable is Dct , which uses the denition given by DesInventar to count the annual average number of disasters happening in province c, where household i resides in between time t 1 and t. The panel survey spans from 1993 to 2007 with four waves altogether. The regression specication includes t =1993, 1997 and 2000. I take t 1 =1988 for t =1993 and t + 1 =2007 when t =2000. Earthquakes, eruptions and oods happen regularly in dierent provinces across time in Indonesia. Such environment acts as a natural experiment, which provides a sucient degree of dispersion for the RHS disaster variable, Dct . Equation (1) also controls for household xed eect, i and
it

captures idiosyncratic errors. t

denotes time dummies, which is essential because the panel data set is unevenly spaced. Yet, I rst run regression on equation (1) without including the household xed eect and conduct a simple OLS analysis. The OLS results tell us how the cross household variation of disasters correlates with migration in the following period. Such analysis gives the causal impact of disasters on household migration only when Dct is uncorrelated with the combined error term, i +
it .

This assumption is arguably plausible given the random nature of disasters. However, it

could be possible that people with a high unobserved propensity to migrate tend to live in a disaster prone province, which will render the coecients from a simple cross-section regression biased. Thus the paper takes advantage of the panel nature of the IFLS dataset and includes household xed 12

eects, i , in the equation. By controlling for household xed eects, the coecients on the disaster variable, 1 , can measure the causal impacts of disasters on migration in the next period. Household migration, Mit , consists of split household migration and whole household moving. Equations (2) and (3) give the regression specication respectively on these two dierent forms.

Splitit = 0 + 1 Dct + i + t + eit

(2)

Allit = 0 + 1 Dct + i + t + it

(3)

Splitit in equation (2) counts how many new households formed between time t and t + 1 by splitting and moving. In equation (3), Allit is a migration dummy, representing whether the entire household i migrates to a new location. The above empirical analysis enables us to measure the total eects of disasters on these two forms of migration, which makes up the rst part of the analysis. The second part goes on to explain through which channels disasters operate to bring about such eects. To do this, I modify equations (2) and (3) to include controls for dierent economic variables, as shown in equations (4) and (5).

Splitit = 0 + 1 Dct + 2 Yit + i + t + eit

(4)

Allit = 0 + 1 Dct + 2 Yit + i + t + it

(5)

Yit , consists of a list of economic variables of household i at time t. By comparing the coecients on disaster variables, Dct , in equations (2) and (4) and also the coecients on economic variables, Yit in equation (4), we can tell through which economic channels disasters work on to aect split migration. We can use the same approach to nd out the channels for whole household migration.

13

Results
Table 3 presents the results of the linear probability model. The dependent variable is the

household migration dummy between time t and t + 1, combining both split household migration and moving of the entire households. The explanatory variables are the annual average number of earthquakes, eruptions and oods, happening between time t 1 and t. All specications allow for clustering of standard errors at the province-time level. The rst three columns do not control for household xed eects, which give the analysis of cross-household variation. Contrary to general intuition, probability for households to move out in fact goes down with more disasters. Furthermore, oods signicantly drive down household moving across provinces and kabupatens (districts). The eect of eruptions on all three geographical levels of migration is negatively signicant at 0.01 level. When an additional eruption occurs annually, the probability for households to move to another province falls by 0.0237. Given that the overall migration rate across provinces is 0.06, eruptions drive down cross-province migration by 39.5%. By the similar token, one more ood each year lowers cross-province migration by 29.3%. Yet, as suggested in section 5, simple OLS cannot account for unobserved household migration propensity. From now on, I control for household xed eects in all specications to address this possible endogeneity. In columns (4) to (6), the results present an even more negative impact of disasters. Apart from all the coecients being negative, the eect of earthquakes is much greater for all geographical levels of migration. Time variation of all three types of disasters does signicantly drive down household migration. When an additional earthquake strikes annually in a province, households will be 0.024 less likely to migrate to another province in the next period. Translated into percentage terms, the fall amounts to a whopping 134%. One more eruption and ood each year also push down cross-province migration by respectively 18% and 24% even though the impacts of eruptions are not signicant. We now separately consider the two dierent forms of household moving, split household and whole household migration. Columns (1) to (3) of table 4 list the results for split household migration. The dependent variable counts the number of new households formed by splitting and moving 14

to a new area. Meanwhile, columns (7) to (9) are about whole household migration. The dependent variable is a dummy indicating whether the entire household relocates to a new residence. The main analysis uses count variable for split household migration and dummy for whole household migration. To enhance comparability, I also include columns (4) to (6) which use split migration dummy as the dependent variable. The dummy denotes whether the household splits and migrates to a new area. Table 4 shows a clear dierence between the two forms of migration. For split migration, earthquakes are signicant to drive down all geographical levels of migration. Splits to a new province goes down by 0.0681, which is 120% in percentage terms. Eruptions also signicantly reduce splits at all geographical levels. Cross-province splits go down by 0.018 when one more eruption happens annually, which is 31% in percentage terms. However, the eects of oods are not statistically signicant except for splits across provinces. We now move to whole household migration. As shown in columns (7) to (9), earthquakes do not signicantly drive down whole household migration at any geographical level. These ndings contrast with the results of split migration. Yet, eruptions cause the entire households to move out less. Cross-district migration goes down by 0.0094, which amounts to 32%. Meanwhile, all geographical levels of household moving decrease signicantly when one more ood occurs each year. Cross-province migration drop by 0.0068, which is a considerable fall of 64%. Table 4 shows that oods do not signicantly reduce split household migration, but drives down whole household migration at all geographical levels. On the other hand, earthquakes lower splits at all levels but have no eects on moving of the entire households. Meanwhile, eruptions cause both forms of household migration to fall. These contrasting ndings tell us that it is crucial to study each form of migration separately. The negative impacts of disasters do not just apply to household moving, but also migration at individual level. From table 5, all types of disasters drive down individual migration at every geographical level even though the eects of oods are not signicant. Earthquakes reduce crossprovince migration by 0.031. This is a large eect (121%), given that the mean of cross-province migration is just 0.026. The negative impacts of eruptions are also considerable. When an additional

15

eruption takes place, cross-province migrations falls by 0.0098, which is a decrease of 15.4%. Thus, the analysis on migration at both household and individual levels shows that disasters make people move out less. From now on, the paper will shift the focus back to household migration because I will explain how disasters operate through economic variables to shape migration. The datasets just provide economic variables at household level rather than individual level. The results in tables 4 and 5 clearly invalidate the claim that natural disasters lead to more migration. However, why is there a negative causation? To answer this question, it is necessary to rst understand how dierent disasters aect a variety of economic variables. This can be done by running an auxiliary regression on the following equation. Regression on equation (6) tells us the impacts of disasters on dierent economic variables of household i at time t controlling for household xed eects, i , and time dummies, t .

Yit = 0 + 1 Dct + i + t + eit

(6)

Table 6 shows the impacts of disasters on the economic variables. All the variables except household size are real values in natural logs. The stock variables include household size, non business assets, farm business assets and nonfarm business assets, which are measured at time t. Nonbusiness assets are further categorized into land holdings, housing and nancial assets. Meanwhile, the ow variables include total household earnings, remittances and nancial aid received within one year before time t. It would be ideal to have the average annual measures of ow variables between time t 1 and t. But it is not feasible due to data limitations. Table 6 indicates that earthquakes signicantly drive down economic well beings on various measures. An additional earthquake each year reduces household size by 0.347. Earthquakes also slash non-business assets substantially by 68.9%. Financial asset, a category of non-business asset, goes down by 79.4% when one more earthquake takes place annually. This implies that households may drain nancial resources to cope with earthquakes. As expected, earthquakes damage housing assets, driving down the values by 13.7% if one more earthquake happens in every 10 years. Households also suer from losses in farm and nonfarm business assets but the eects are not signicant. Furthermore, earthquakes also lower total household earnings and the fall amounts to 126%. One

16

possible explanation is the worsening of macroeconomic conditions or destruction of factories, which may altogether reduce the employment prospects. On the other hand, remittances and aid received do not go up signicantly with more earthquakes. While earthquakes give some negative impacts on household economic status, eruptions increase dierent measures of economic variables. An additional eruption raises the amount of farm business assets substantially by 55%. Lava ash in eruptions can highly enrich soil fertility which plausibly increases the value of farm business assets. Interestingly, eruptions also increase housing assets. This can be because relief money runs into aected areas for house rebuilding, which consequently helps boost the housing market. Furthermore, households receive signicantly more remittances with the rise as 48.4%. However, such signicant increase is not observed for earthquakes and oods. One possible explanation is that the impacts of eruptions can be very limited geographically, conned to the areas nearby volcanoes. Hence, most households in the province are largely unaected and they are still nancially intact to remit money to aected households. However, the damage of oods and earthquakes can be much more far reaching, adversely aecting most households in the province. Earthquakes and oods may constitute aggregate shocks, causing households not to receive more nancial support as non-household members are also nancially impaired. To recap, earthquakes reduce non-business assets and in particular, the values of nancial and housing assets go down as a consequence. Total household earnings and household size also fall with more earthquakes. Meanwhile, eruptions drive up farm business assets and the amount of remittances received. Floods in general do not aect any measure of household economic well beings. Given the results of tables 5 and 6, we can now explore the channels which disasters operate to aect the two dierent forms of household migration. I will focus on split household and whole household migration one by one. Table 7 presents the ndings for split household migration. I put the regression results without controls and with controls for economic variables side by side. By including controls for economic variables, the magnitude of coecients on earthquakes has dropped for all three geographical levels of moving. From column (1), earthquakes reduce household splits to a new province by 0.068 (120% in percentage terms), but the magnitude falls to 0.058 (102%) after adding economic variables as

17

shown in column (4). The drop in magnitude is even more noticeable for splits to a new kabupaten (district). Furthermore, the coecients on split migration to kecamatan (subdistrict) is no longer signicant after adding controls. This suggests that earthquakes operate through some of the included economic variables to reduce split migration. Table 7 also shows that household size and total earnings are signicant positive factors for split migration. An additional household member increases cross-province splits by 0.024 or 42.4% in percentage terms. Also, one percent increase in household earnings raises the number of new household formed in a new province by 0.00085, which amounts to an elasticity of 1.5%. We have known from table 6 that earthquakes signicantly reduce household size, total earnings. Combining these ndings, we can conclude that earthquakes slash household earnings and household size to drive down split migration as a result. However, the ndings on non-business assets do not give us a clear conclusion. Table 7 tells us that non-business assets do not signicantly drive up split migration and the coecient of crosssubdistrict splits is even negative. Yet, we can also consider farm and nonfarm business assets and both types of business assets signicantly increase split migration. As shown in table 6, earthquakes lower the two types of business assets though insignicantly. Thus, the results suggest that earthquakes decrease split migration through reducing business and non-business assets. On the other hand, amount of remittance received is not a signicant factor for split migration at all three geographical levels and aid money from the government is just barely signicant in driving up splits across provinces. Hence, we can conclude that the eects of external transfer are insignicant. Furthermore, earthquakes in fact do not signicantly aect remittances and aid received. We can discard these two variables which earthquakes operate to reduce split migration. Yet, table 7 presents a completely dierent story for eruptions. All the negative signs just remain and the coecients are even more negative after controlling for economic variables. Households with more farm business assets split more and farm business assets go up with eruptions. Hence, eruptions cause more household splits as a result. This explains why the coecients on eruptions in columns (4) to (6) of table 7 are even more negative. Since the coecients are even more negative after including controls, we can reject all the economic variables listed in table 6 as the channels which

18

eruptions work on to suppress household splits. We now shift our focus to whole household migration. Table 8 shows how disasters and various economic variables aect moving of the entire households. In particular, we just need to consider the eects of eruptions and oods because earthquakes are not signicant in aecting whole household migration. After adding economic variables, there is a substantial drop in magnitude for the coecients on eruptions. Coecients for cross-district moving goes down from -0.0094 to -0.0073 and including controls even completely wipes out the signicant impacts on migration across subdistricts. This is because households with more farm business assets are less mobile to move as a whole. The likelihood of migration to a new district falls 0.0012 when farm business asset goes up by 1%, with the elasticity as 4.0%. Since eruptions raise the amount of farm business assets, eruptions drive down whole household migration by increasing farm business assets. Table 8 shows that the magnitude and signicance of coecients on oods do not change substantially which implies that the suggested economic variables are not the channels which oods operate to reduce migration. From table 6, oods in fact do not cause signicant impacts on any of the economic variables, therefore the negative signicance remains after including those variables in the specication. We can conclude that oods do not alter human and economic assets to reduce whole household moving. Tables 7 and 8 together tell us some contrasting impacts of economic variables on split migration and moving of the entire households. The size of household has totally opposite eects on these two forms of moving. Households with more members split and migrate more , but less likely to move out as a whole. Similarly, more assets enable households to split and move to a new location, but drag down migration of the entire households. These results are in line with the discussion in section 4. Households with more assets have greater ability to support splits. However, most forms of assets, e.g. land and house are illiquid, accumulating assets in fact makes the entire households more rooted in its village and less mobile to move out. More assets on the one hand increase household splits but on the other makes the household less mobile to move out as a whole. As a summary, when earthquakes, eruptions and oods occur, households move out less in the following period. But after breaking down the analysis into two dierent forms of migration, we

19

observe that earthquakes only reduce household splits and oods have negative impacts only on migration of the entire households. Meanwhile, eruptions drive down both forms of migration. Earthquakes decrease household splits through decreasing household size, household earnings and non-business assets. On the other hand, eruptions increase farm business assets and consequently make households move out less as a whole. Floods do not alter human and economic assets to lower whole household migration. To quantitatively assess the impacts of disasters on household migration through economic variables, we can conduct a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation. From tables 6 and 7, an additional earthquake decreases household size by 0.35 and an additional household member drives up splits across provinces by 0.024. Thus, earthquakes reduce cross-province splits by 0.0085 (0.35*0.024), which amounts to 15%. Using the similar method, earthquakes lower earnings to decrease crossprovince splits by 0.0011 or 1.9%. For whole household migration, eruptions increase farm business assets by 55.4% and consequently drives down moving of the entire households across provinces by 0.00022 (0.554*0.000405), or 2.1%. We can also tell to what extent the economic variables explain the negative impacts of disasters on household migration. From table 7, the coecient on earthquakes for cross-province drop from 0.0681 to 0.0581, which is a 15% drop. Thus, 15% of the negative impacts of earthquakes is explained by economic variables. Similarly, economic variables explain respectively 25% and 36% the decrease in cross-district and cross-subdistrict splits. We use the same method to calculate how much economic variables account for the fall in whole household migration due to eruptions. From table 8, including economic variables respectively explain 22% and 17% for the cross-district and cross-subdistrict moving of the entire households.

Robustness checks
First, to arm the negative impacts of disasters on the two forms of migration, the study takes

a placebo test on the migration data. The analysis alters the time interval for the disaster variables. Instead of using the yearly average number of disasters within the immediate last period, I push the time period 14 years backward to set up a placebo time frame. E.g., for the regression of migration

20

between 1997 and 2000, the time period for disaster variables is from 1983 to 1986. Hence, the specication uses the number of disasters in the placebo time frame and check whether disasters in that period have any eects on the two forms of migration. Table 9 shows that the coecients on disasters in the placebo time frame are mostly insignicant. Earthquakes only have barely signicant eects on split migration at district level and whole household moving at province level. Floods are just marginally signicant in aecting cross-province splits. Hence the placebo test arms the negative relationship between disasters and migration within the immediate last period. The surveys are not conducted at a regular time interval and there is a seven-year gap between the last two waves, IFLS3 (2000) & IFLS4 (2007). Such time period is too long that the eects of disasters in the previous period (1997-2000) have substantially diminished well before 2007. Furthermore, a huge tsunami happened in the province of Aceh in 2004, which resulted in massive fatalities. Though the samples do not include any households from Aceh, tsunami can force Acehnese households to relocate to neighboring provinces, which may cloud the estimates. To address this problem, I set a cut-o point at year 2004 and discarded all the sample households which moved after 2004. Only households moving before 2004 are considered migrants. Tables 10 and 11 present the results of the revised specication. For split migration, most of the negative coecients still remain, but the magnitude and signicance drop. Earthquakes still primarily reduce split migration. The number of cross-province splits decrease by 0.052, or 90.9%. An additional eruption also causes signicantly less splits to district and subdistrict. Furthermore, the conclusions drawn in section 6 still stand. For household splits, the coecients on earthquakes fall in magnitude after adding economic variables. Meanwhile, the size of household and total earnings are still signicant to drive up household splits. Also, household assets have marginally signicant impacts on increasing splits. Thus, earthquakes suppress household splits by reducing household size, earnings and assets. Such results are similar to the ndings in table 7. For whole household migration, eruption is no longer a signicant negative factor at all after controlling for economic variables. The coecients either become less negative or even positive. Following the results that more farm assets lower whole household moving, we can conclude that

21

eruptions reduce the likelihood of migration by increasing farm business assets. Table 10 and 11 show us some contrasting results which we also observe in tables 7 and 8. The size of household on the one hand increases household splits but on the other hand suppresses the migration of the entire households. More assets of dierent kinds enhance the likelihood of household splits, but at the same time lowers the geographical mobility for the entire households to move. The specication regresses migration decision between time t and t + 1 on disaster occurrence from time t 1 to t. One may be concerned that some earlier disasters have driven out households with high propensity of moving well before time t. E.g., the disasters in 1988 have prompted households with high propensity of moving to migrate well before 1993. Thus, the households left behind in 1993 are more inclined to stay. This may cause the negative relationship between disasters and household migration. To test whether such bias exists, I shorten the time interval and count disasters between time t and one year before time t. Shortening time interval eliminates the possibility that households migrate after disasters and before time t. Table 12 presents the results for revised specication and the negative impacts of disasters on household migration still remain. The conclusions drawn from section 6 still stand. All the above specications use annual average number of disasters as the explanatory variables. However, number by itself cannot fully gauge the severity of disasters. A single massive deadly catastrophe has far much greater eects than a series of small scale disasters of mild intensity. Hence, I use other disaster variables in the specication, which include number of deaths, injuries, people missing and houses destroyed. These variables count the average annual number of respective losses at the province level between time t1 and t. The list also includes the logged value of nancial losses and the tonnes of crop damage due to disasters in the last period. Table 12 shows some mixed ndings. On the front of human losses, earthquakes and eruptions are just marginally signicant to reduce the two forms of household migration. More deaths due to oods in fact push up split migration and whole household moving, but more injuries from oods make the entire households less likely to migrate. Number of missing people caused by oods is another important factor lowering both forms of household migration.

22

For economic losses, the eects of disasters on migration are mostly negative. Households residing in the province with more houses destroyed by earthquakes are signicantly less likely to migrate. Similarly, when oods damage more houses in a province, households are also less likely to relocate. Financial losses and crop damage from oods also lower the likelihood for households to split and move.

Extension: Heterogeneous eects of disasters on household migration


The main analysis in section 6 tells us how disasters aect household migration in general. How-

ever, when disasters happen, dierent households can take dierent migration decisions, depending on their economic well beings at time t (Yit ). Before examining empirically the heterogeneous impacts, I rst give a brief discussion on why dierent households may respond dierently to disasters. A bigger household is more likely to split and move out after disasters. The environmental shock acts as a trigger and households with more members have greater propensity to move out in the following period. On the contrary, whole household migration is less likely for a bigger household as the migration cost increases with its size. Households receiving more external transfer and having higher income should tend to move out less whether in the form of split or whole household moving. They are more nancially endowed to cope with the shock of disasters with less needs to nd a living elsewhere. On the other hand, households with more assets are more capable to support split moving. Thus, disasters act as a trigger for households to split and migrate. Yet, there should be less whole household migration since households with more assets need to incur a higher cost to dispose assets and move out altogether. Also, assets act as a strong buer against adverse impacts of disasters. In particular, eruptions increase the value of farmland and households with more farm assets are less likely to move out as a whole after eruptions. To empirically analyze the heterogeneous impacts of disasters, I add some interaction terms between disasters and economic variables to equations (4) and (5).

23

Splitit = 0 + 1 Dct + 2 Yit + 3 Yit Dct + i + t + it

(7)

Allit = 0 + 1 Dct + 2 Yit + 3 Yit Dct + i +

+ it

(8)

The coecients on the interaction term, 3 and 3 denote how disasters in the previous period interact with economic variables at time t to shape the household migration decision in the next period. A positive signicant coecient implies that households with higher values of economic variables are more likely to move out in the following period after disasters. The disaster and economic variables in the interaction terms are rst grand-mean centered such that the results are comparable to the main results in tables 7 and 8. Table 13 presents the results on equations (7) and (8). In general the heterogeneous impacts are minimal and households with dierent economic status do not have signicantly dierent migration responses. We consider each of the economic variables individually. For the size of household, a bigger household will not be more likely to split or move out as a whole given the mean number of earthquakes in the last period. Floods give some similar ndings and the coecients on the interaction terms are not signicant at all three geographical levels. Eruptions interacting with household size have negative impacts which are just barely signicant. Also the sign ips from one geographical level of migration to another. Thus, we can conclude that disasters do not have heterogeneous impacts on households of dierent sizes. For receipt of aid, the interaction terms with earthquakes and oods do not give any signicant impacts on household migration. However, eruptions have heterogeneous impacts on households receiving dierent amount of aid and the eects are signicantly negative. Given the average number of eruptions, split migration to a new district goes down by 0.0034 with a percentage increase of aid received. On the other hand, the probability for the entire households to move to a new district falls by 0.0011. The rest of the two ow variables, household earnings and remittances received also do not give rise to any heterogeneous impacts. Households with more earnings or more remittances do not react

24

dierently in migration in the next period. For asset variables, the picture is not much dierent and most of the coecients on interaction terms are not statistically signicant. However, oods interacting with non-business assets lead to contrasting impacts on the two forms of migration. Households with more non-business assets will split and move to a new province and district more. On the contrary, households with more nonbusiness assets will be less likely to move out as a whole. Households with more non-business assets are more capable to support splits and oods trigger households to split more. Yet, non-business assets also act as a buer against the environmental shock. However, the above mentioned eects are just barely signicant statistically and we can conclude that disasters do not cause substantially dierent responses in migration for households with dierent levels of economic well beings.

Conclusion
Using Indonesia as the case country, the study examines whether natural disasters will lead to

more migration. It discovers that increasing disasters in fact cause households to move out less. The three most common types of disasters in Indonesia, earthquakes, eruptions and oods, all lead to less household and individual migration. For household migration, the paper separately considers split migration and whole household migration. The study shows that disasters have negative impacts on both. In particular, earthquakes reduce migration primarily through suppressing household split and oods drive down whole household migration. Meanwhile, eruptions lower both forms of migration at all geographical levels. The above analysis enables us to invalidate the claim of more migration after disasters. The paper then moves on to explain why there exists such negative causation. For split migration, earthquakes suppress household splits through a variety of economic channels. Earthquakes signicantly slash household size, total earnings and holding of non-business assets. Since smaller households are less likely to split, so do the households with less earnings and non-business assets, earthquakes cause less split migration by decreasing the values of those economic variables. For whole household moving, eruptions increase the values of farm business assets possibly by

25

enhancing soil fertility through lava ash. Households with more farm assets are less mobile to move out as a whole. Thus, eruptions lower whole household migration by driving up values of farm business assets. Finally, oods do not operate through human and economic assets to reduce whole household migration. I also quantitatively assess the explanatory power of the economic variables for the negative impacts of disasters. For earthquakes, the economic variables explain 15% of cross-province splits. The economic channels can also account for 25% and 35% for the fall of cross-district and crosssubdistrict splits repetitively. Meanwhile, for eruptions, economic variables respectively explain 22% and 17% of cross-district and cross-subdistrict moving of the entire households. This paper shows that the usual claim of more migration after natural disasters is not valid for Indonesia. The hypothesis in fact ignores two important facts: (1) Disasters can alter household economic well-beings, which may consequently lower their propensity to migrate as described in the study. (2) Given the regular occurrence of disasters, households may resort to a variety of adaptation mechanisms instead of simply moving out of disaster prone areas (IOM 2009). The adaptation behaviors of households facing increasing natural disasters are not covered in this paper. The makes a promising avenue of research to further examine the theory of disasters and migration. Yet, even after adding economic variables in the regression, the negative coecients still remain and the signicance has not been fully wiped out. For the eects of eruptions on household splits, the magnitude of the coecients even goes up. Indonesian communities develop their heritage nearby volcanic areas which may give rise to positive correlation between eruptions and population density. But this reason cannot explain the ndings on the empirical specication of this paper. Because the regression controls for household xed eects, the coecients measure how the variation of the eruptions across time alters household migration pattern. Increasing eruptions should not induce households to stay. Furthermore, none of the suggested economic variables can explain how oods drive down whole household migration. Thus the most possible explanation is that the specication has not fully captured some other variables through which disasters operate to aect migration. Since the regression has controlled for time invariant household xed eects, those other possible variables should be time varying

26

which may include but not limited to degree of risk aversion, health status of household heads, accumulation of social capital and other sociological factors as described in section 4. The strong negative causal relationship of disasters on household migration warrants further research to better study how households in developing countries determine migration decisions at our time of surging environmental calamities.

27

References
[1] Ahmad, Z. (2011), Impact of Alluvial Deposits on Soil Fertility during the Floods of 2010 in Punjab, Pakistan [2] Arellano, Manuel; Bond, Stephen (1991), Some Tests of Specication for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations [3] Attzs, Marlene (2008), Natural Disasters and Remittances: Exploring the Linkages between Poverty, Gender, and Disaster Vulnerability in Caribbean SIDS [4] Blaikie, Piers (1994), At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples Vulnerability and Disasters [5] Cameron, Lisa; Shah, Manisha (2010), Risk Taking Behavior in the Wake of Natural Disasters [6] Cavallo, Eduardo; Noy, Ilan (2009), The Economics of Natural Disasters: A Survey [7] Cavallo, Eduardo; Galiani, Sebastian; Noy, Ilan & Pantano, Juan (2010), Catastrophic Natural Disasters and Economic Growth [8] Drabo, Alassane (2011), Climate Change, Natural Disasters and Migration: An Empirical Analysis in Developing Countries [9] Ebeke, Christian; Combes, Jean-Louis (2010), Do remittances dampen the eect of natural disasters on output growth volatility in developing countries? [10] Halliday, Timothy J. (2007), Migration, Risk and the Intra-Household Allocation of Labor in El Salvador [11] Hsiao, Cheng (1986), Analysis of Panel Data [12] International Organization of Migration (2009), Migration, Environment and Climate Change: Assessing the evidence [13] Naude, Wim. (2008), Conict, Disasters, and No Jobs: Reasons for International Migration from Sub-Saharan Africa [14] New York Times (Nov 02, 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/world/asia/02indo.html [15] Noy, Ilan; Vu, Tam Bang (2010), The economics of natural disasters in a developing country: The case of Vietnam [16] O Grda, Cormac (1997), The Great Irish Famine : Winners and Losers a

28

[17] Paxson, Christina; Cecilia Elena Rouse (2008), Returning to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina [18] SEDAC - Gridded population of the World, http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/ [19] Skidmore, Mark; Toya, Hideki (2005), Economic Development and the Impacts of Natural Disasters [20] UN International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction, (2007), World experts unite to confront growing risks of disasters, Press release UN/ISR 2007/8, Geneva [21] US Federal Emergency Management Agency (2011),

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2011/01/01/2010s-world-gone-wildquakes-oods-blizzards/ [22] Wooldridge, Jerey (2001), Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data [23] Yamamura, Eiji (2011), Institution, economic development, and impact of natural disasters [24] Yang, Dean (2008) Risk, Migration, and Rural Financial Markets: Evidence from Earthquakes in El Salvador

29

Fig.1:YearlyoccurrenceofearthquakeandfloodinIndonesia
no.ofearthquake
12

no.offlood
50 45

10 40 35 8 30 Eathquake 6 25 20 4 15 10 2 5 0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 0 Flood

Source:DesInventarDatabase

30

Fig.2:Sp patialvariati ionofnumbe erofearthqu uake,19882 2000

patialvariati ionofnumbe eroferuptio on,1988200 00 Fig.3:Sp

Source:De esInventarData abase

31

Fig4:Spa atialvariatio onofnumbe erofflood,19882000

So ource:DesInventarDatabase e

Fig.5Pop pulationden nsityofIndon nesiain2000

Source e:GriddedPopulationoftheW World(GPWv3 )SocioEconomicDataandApplicationC 3 n d Center

32

Table1:DescriptiveStatisticsofIFLSandDesInventar
Variable Earthquake Volcaniceruption Flood Move_prov Move_kabu Move_kec All_move_prov All_move_kabu All_move_kec Split_move_prov Split_move_kabu Split_move_kec Obs 24651 24651 24651 24651 24651 24651 24651 24651 24651 24651 24651 24651 Mean 0.099 0.195 0.680 0.0142 0.0324 0.0460 0.00218 0.00582 0.00963 0.0122 0.0271 0.0375 Std.Dev. 0.176 0.524 0.924 0.0609 0.0889 0.103 0.0225 0.0362 0.0457 0.0573 0.0835 0.0966 Median 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90percentile 0.333 0.5 1.75 0 0.143 0.25 0 0 0 0 0.143 0.143

Notes:AllThefiguresareannualstatistics.Thedisastervariables,earthquake,eruptionandflood,showtheannual averagerateofoccurrencebetween1988and2000.Migrationstatisticsshowstheannualrateofmigrationacross provinces(prov),acrossdistricts(kabu)andacrosssubdistricts(kec)between1993and2007.Move_provisthe annualaveragemigrationrateacrossprovincescombiningbothwholehousehold(WH)migrationandsplit household(SH)migration.Allmove_provistheannualWHmigrationrateacrossprovinces.Split_move_provisthe correspondingstatisticsforSHmigration. Variable HHsize Aidfromgovt (000rupiahs) Totalearnings (000rupiahs) Remittances (000rupiahs) Farmbizassets (000rupiahs) Nonfarmbiz asset (000rupiahs) Nonbizassets (000rupiahs) Urban/rural Educationhead Femalehead Agehead Obs Mean Std.Dev. 2.57 18,000 14,600 1,668 32,80 21,100 median 5 0 25 0 0 0 75percentile 7 0 2,070 0 1,129 40

24651 5.50 24651 360 24651 2,288 24651 221 24651 4,843 24651 1,887

24651 18,300 24651 24651 24651 24651 0.55 1.85 0.15 46.42

60,900 0.98 1.16 0.36 14.17

3,440 1 1 0 45

12,800 1 2 0 57

Notes:Allmeasuresareinrealvalues.ForUrban/ruraldummy,thevalue=0standsforhouseholdresidingin urbanarea,value=1representsresidenceinruralarea.Educationheadgivestheeducationlevelofhousehold head.Femaleheadshowswhetherthehouseholdisfemaleheaded.

33

Table2:Comparingthreegroupsofsamples:1.Householdswhichdonotmove,2.Householdssplitandmigrateacrossprovinces& 3.Householdswhichmoveacrossprovincesasawhole,between2000and2007
Variable Farmbizasset (000rupiahs) Nonfarmbizasset (000rupiahs) Nonbizasset (000rupiahs) TotalHHearnings (000rupiahs) HHsize N Nomoveatall Mean 11,000 (54,100) 3,800 (31,500) 34,400 (83,300) 2,961 (8,306) 5.42 (2.65) 7498 median 0 0 11,700 400 5 Splithousehold migrationacross provinces Mean median Ttest (1) 11,900 0 0.36 (36,100) 7,186 0 2.36*** (46,800) 16,600 58,300 6.16*** (143,000) 5,525 900 5.74*** (2,400) 7.04 7 14.01*** (2.74) 565 Wholehousehold migrationacross provinces Mean median Ttest (2) 3,197 0 1.79** (17,600) 6,019 0 0.84 (55,800) 36,000 4,675 0.24 (90,100) 3,495 850 0.79 (6,644) 3.37 3 9.50*** (2.34) 154

Notes:Standarderrorsinparentheses.Allthemeasuresareinrealvalues.Ttest(1):comparingthemeansbetweenSHmigrationandthosewhichdonot moveatall.Ttest(2):comparethemeansbetweenWHmigrationandthosewhichdonotmoveatall.

34

Table3:BaselineResultsImpactsofdisastersonhouseholdmigrationingeneral(combiningbothsplithousehold(SH)andwhole household(WH)migration)
DepVariables Earthquake Eruption Flood ControlforHHfixed effect Observations Rsquared Numberofhhid Generalhouseholdmigrationacross Province District Subdistrict (1) 0.0434 (0.0297) 0.0237*** (0.00815) 0.0176*** (0.00591) N 24,651 0.034 (2) 0.0207 (0.0302) 0.0217*** (0.00475) 0.0137** (0.00607) N 24,651 0.061 (3) 0.000149 (0.0425) 0.0304*** (0.00813) 0.0127 (0.00868) N 24,651 0.087 Generalhouseholdmigrationacross Province District Subdistrict (4) 0.0805*** (0.0224) 0.0113 (0.00845) 0.0145** (0.00669) Y 24,651 0.046 8,217 (5) 0.0821** (0.0328) 0.0176** (0.00656) 0.00726 (0.00624) Y 24,651 0.093 8,217 (6) 0.0693 (0.0449) 0.0242* (0.0122) 0.00807 (0.00795) Y 24,651 0.128 8,217

Notes:Robuststandarderrorsinparentheses,adjustedforclusteringatprovincetimelevel.Allcolumnscontrolfortimedummies.Columns(1)(3)donot controlforHHfixedeffects,columns(4)(6)do.Thedependentvariablesarethemigrationdummiesbetweentandt+1atvariousgeographicallevels,which areprovince,districtandsubdistrict.Disastervariablesmeasuretheannualaveragenumberofdisasterhappeningattheprovincebetweent1andtwhere householdresidesin.t=1993,1997and2000.Fort=1993,t1=1998.Fort=2000,t+1=2007. (***p<0.01,**p<0.05,*p<0.1)

35

Table4:BaselineResultsImpactsofdisastersonindividualmigration
DepVariables Earthquake Eruption Flood sex age grade Observations Rsquared Numberofhhid Individualmigrationacross District Subdistrict (2) (3) 0.0251 (0.0217) 0.00984** (0.00396) 0.00477 (0.00334) 0.00211** (0.000889) 0.00189*** (0.000159) 0.000467 (0.000328) 55,647 0.026 9,990 0.0146 (0.0327) 0.0175** (0.00784) 0.00733 (0.00521) 0.00254** (0.00116) 0.00261*** (0.000205) 0.00110*** (0.000364) 55,647 0.039 9,990

Province (1) 0.0310* (0.0174) 3.52e05 (0.00278) 0.00447 (0.00324) 0.000549 (0.000800) 0.000888*** (0.000172) 0.000393* (0.000199) 55,647 0.014 9,990

Notes:Robuststandarderrorsinparentheses,adjustedforclusteringatprovincetimelevel.Allcolumnscontrolfortimedummiesandhouseholdfixedeffects. Thedependentvariablesareindividualmigrationdummiesbetweentandt+1atvariousgeographicallevels,,whichareprovince,districtandsubdistrict. Disastervariablesmeasuretheannualaveragenumberofdisasterhappeningattheprovincebetweent1andtwherehouseholdresidesin.t=1993,1997and 2000.Fort=1993,t1=1998.Fort=2000,t+1=2007. (***p<0.01,**p<0.05,*p<0.1)

36

Table5:Impactsofdisastersonsplithousehold(SH)migrationandwholehousehold(WH)migration
DepVariables Earthquake Eruption Flood Observations Rsquared Numberofhhid Dependentvariablesascountvariables Splithouseholdmigrationacross Province District Subdistrict (1) (2) (3) 0.0681*** 0.0823** 0.0813** (0.0215) (0.0307) (0.0344) 0.0177* 0.0199** 0.0307** (0.00888) (0.00851) (0.0122) 0.0120* 0.00494 0.00435 (0.00620) (0.00807) (0.0103) 24,651 24,651 24,651 0.040 0.080 0.105 8,217 8,217 8,217 Dependentvariablesasdummyvariables Splithouseholdmigrationacross Wholehouseholdmigrationacross Province District Subdistrict Province District Subdistrict (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 0.0613*** (0.0206) 0.0120 (0.00750) 0.00791 (0.00485) 24,651 0.044 8,217 0.0729** (0.0259) 0.0112* (0.00578) 0.000683 (0.00535) 24,651 0.093 8,217 0.0835** (0.0300) 0.0145 (0.00835) 0.000988 (0.00562) 24,651 0.130 8,217 0.0208 (0.0145) 0.000173 (0.00215) 0.00684* (0.00371) 24,651 0.009 8,217 0.00898 (0.0195) 0.00937** (0.00339) 0.00677* (0.00371) 24,651 0.017 8,217 0.0182 (0.0309) 0.0151* (0.00771) 0.0114** (0.00525) 24,651 0.033 8,217

Notes:Robuststandarderrorsinparentheses,adjustedforclusteringatprovincetimelevel.Allcolumnscontrolfortimedummiesandhouseholdfixedeffects. Thedependentvariablesofcolumns(1)to(3)measurehouseholdsplit,whichcountthenumberofnewhouseholdsformedbysplittingfromtheoriginal householdsandthenmovetoanewprovince,districtandsubdistrictbetweentandt+1.Thedependentvariablesofcolumns(4)to(6)aredummiesindicating whetherthehouseholdhasinvolvedinsplittoanewprovince,districtandsubdistrictbetweentandt+1.Thedependentvariablesofcolumns(7)to(9)are dummiesindicatingwhethertheentirehouseholdhasmovedacrossprovinces,districtsandsubdistrictsbetweentandt+1. (***p<0.01,**p<0.05,*p<0.1)

37

Table6:AuxiliaryregressionImpactsofdisastersonhouseholdeconomicvariables
Dep. Household Total Remittance Aid from House Land Financial Nonbiz Nonfarm Farmbiz VARIABLES size earning govt asset asset bizasset asset (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Earthquake 0.347*** 1.262** 0.310 0.0254 1.369** 0.457 0.794*** 0.689** 0.430 0.169 (0.116) (0.468) (0.382) (0.290) (0.532) (1.470) (0.264) (0.254) (0.423) (0.449) Eruption 0.0214 0.0716 0.484*** 0.105 0.324*** 0.115 0.125 0.0571 0.149 0.554*** (0.0563) (0.0992) (0.101) (0.137) (0.0801) (0.316) (0.134) (0.0332) (0.174) (0.143) Flood 0.0186 0.0608 0.0676 0.0138 0.0984 0.0716 0.0527 0.0354 0.0753 0.182 (0.0312) (0.0789) (0.0699) (0.101) (0.0766) (0.169) (0.127) (0.0308) (0.0717) (0.152) Observations 24,651 24,651 24,651 24,651 24,651 24,651 24,651 24,651 24,651 24,651 0.055 0.055 0.030 0.099 0.045 0.021 0.011 0.279 0.035 0.043 Rsquared 8,217 8,217 8,217 8,217 8,217 8,217 8,217 8,217 8,217 Numberofhhid 8,217 Notes:Robuststandarderrorsinparentheses,adjustedforclusteringatprovincetimelevel.Allcolumnscontrolfortimedummiesandhouseholdfixedeffects. Thedependentvariablesaredifferenteconomicvariablesmeasuredattimet.Totalearnings,remittancesandaidaretheamountsaccumulatedwithinone yearbeforetimet.Remittancesaretransfersfromnonhouseholdfamilymembers.Aidisthetransferfromgovernment,NGOsorsomeotherparties.Allthe valuesexcepthouseholdsizearerecordedinlog(1+Y).House,landandfinancialassetaresubcategoriesofnonbizassets.Disastervariablesmeasurethe numberofdisasterhappeningattheprovincebetweent1andtwherehouseholdresidesin. (***p<0.01,**p<0.05,*p<0.1)

38

Table7:ImpactsofdisastersonSplitHousehold(SH)migration
Dep.Variables Earthquake Eruption Flood HHsize Totalearnings Remittances Aid Farmasset Nonfarmbizasset Nonbizasset Observations Rsquared Numberofhhid Splithouseholdmigrationacross Province District Subdistrict (1) 0.0681*** (0.0215) 0.0177* (0.00888) 0.0120* (0.00620) 24,651 0.040 8,217 (2) 0.0823** (0.0307) 0.0199** (0.00851) 0.00494 (0.00807) 24,651 0.080 8,217 (3) 0.0813** (0.0344) 0.0307** (0.0122) 0.00435 (0.0103) Splithouseholdmigrationacross Province District Subdistrict (4) 0.0581*** (0.0190) 0.0188** (0.00722) 0.0124** (0.00547) 0.0241*** (0.00701) 0.000847* (0.000453) 0.000562 (0.000935) 0.00180* (0.00101) 0.00112** (0.000472) 0.000938 (0.000672) 0.000294 (0.00157) 24,651 0.071 8,217 (5) 0.0621** (0.0248) 0.0219** (0.00821) 0.00552 (0.00654) 0.0411*** (0.00614) 0.00270*** (0.000551) 0.00134 (0.00127) 0.00154 (0.00118) 0.00136 (0.00114) 0.00112 (0.000808) 0.00292 (0.00184) 24,651 0.132 8,217 (6) 0.0516 (0.0302) 0.0340*** (0.00937) 0.00468 (0.00850) 0.0648*** (0.0122) 0.00518*** (0.000957) 0.00187 (0.00210) 0.00195 (0.00195) 0.00229* (0.00124) 0.00237* (0.00113) 0.000158 (0.00196) 24,651 0.182 8,217

24,651 0.105 8,217

Notes:Robuststandarderrorsinparentheses,adjustedforclusteringatprovincetimelevel.Allcolumnscontrol fortimedummiesandhouseholdfixedeffects.Dependentvariablescountthenumberofhouseholdsformedfrom splitacrossprovinces,districtsandsubdistricts.Disastervariablesmeasurethenumberofdisasterhappeningat theprovincebetweent1andtwherehouseholdresidesin.Allotherindependentvariablesaremeasuredattime t.Totalearnings,remittancesandaidaretheamountsaccumulatedwithinoneyearbeforetimet.Allthevaluesof economicvariablesexcepthouseholdsizearerecordedinlog(1+Y).Columns(1)(3)donotcontrolforeconomic variablesandcolumns(4)(6)do. (***p<0.01,**p<0.05,*p<0.1)

39

Table8:Impactofdisastersonwholehousehold(WH)migration
Dep.Variables Earthquake Eruption Flood HHsize Totalearnings Remittances Aid Farmasset Nonfarmbizasset Nonbizasset Observations Rsquared Numberofhhid Wholehouseholdmigrationacross Province District Subdistrict (1) 0.0208 (0.0145) 0.000173 (0.00215) 0.00684* (0.00371) 24,651 0.009 8,217 (2) 0.00898 (0.0195) 0.00937** (0.00339) 0.00677* (0.00371) 24,651 0.017 8,217 (3) 0.0182 (0.0309) 0.0151* (0.00771) 0.0114** (0.00525) Wholehouseholdmigrationacross Province District Subdistrict (4) 0.0210 (0.0130) 0.00103 (0.00239) 0.00711* (0.00373) 0.00480*** (0.000947) 0.000203 (0.000194) 2.13e05 (0.000124) 0.000355 (0.000472) 0.000405** (0.000159) 0.000457** (0.000203) 0.00138** (0.000507) 24,651 0.032 8,217 (5) 0.0112 (0.0188) 0.00732* (0.00396) 0.00708* (0.00359) 0.0103*** (0.00222) 2.78e05 (0.000278) 0.000203 (0.000204) 0.000128 (0.000746) 0.00116*** (0.000272) 0.000974** (0.000337) 0.00325*** (0.000638) 24,651 0.058 8,217 (6) 0.0146 (0.0311) 0.0126 (0.00853) 0.0114** (0.00507) 0.0138*** (0.00286) 3.38e06 (0.000366) 7.15e05 (0.000381) 0.000502 (0.000808) 0.00204*** (0.000392) 0.000541 (0.000483) 0.00468*** (0.000775) 24,651 0.080 8,217

24,651 0.033 8,217

Notes:Robuststandarderrorsinparentheses,adjustedforclusteringatprovincetimelevel.Allcolumnscontrol fortimedummiesandhouseholdfixedeffects.Dependentvariablesarewholehouseholdmigrationacross provinces,districtsandsubdistricts.Disastervariablesmeasurethenumberofdisasterhappeningattheprovince betweent1andtwherehouseholdresidesin.Allotherindependentvariablesaremeasuredattimet.Total earnings,remittancesandaidaretheamountsaccumulatedwithinoneyearbeforetimet.Allthevaluesof economicvariablesexcepthouseholdsizearerecordedinlog(1+Y)..Columns(1)(3)donotcontrolforeconomic variablesandcolumns(4)(6)do. (***p<0.01,**p<0.05,*p<0.1)

40

RobustnessChecks Table9:PlaceboTestimpactsonmigrationofnaturaldisasterswithinplacebotimeinterval
Dep.variables Splithouseholdmigration Province District Subdistrict Wholehouseholdmigration Province District Subdistrict

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Earthquake 0.0282 0.0538* 0.0580 0.0122** 0.00941 0.0114 (0.0227) (0.0257) (0.0367) (0.00571) (0.0135) (0.0165) Eruption 0.0247 0.00624 0.0125 0.00972 0.00481 0.00582 (0.0205) (0.0179) (0.0194) (0.00609) (0.00809) (0.0109) Flood 0.0511* 0.0298 0.00975 0.00134 0.0211 0.0371 (0.0285) (0.0286) (0.0316) (0.00544) (0.0169) (0.0307) Observations 24,651 24,651 24,651 24,651 24,651 24,651 Rsquared 0.039 0.079 0.104 0.006 0.016 0.031 Numberof 8,217 8,217 8,217 8,217 8,217 8,217 hhid Notes:Robuststandarderrorsinparentheses,adjustedforclusteringatprovincetimelevel.Allcolumnscontrol fortimedummiesandhouseholdfixedeffects.Dependentvariablesofcolumns(1)to(3)countthenumberofsplit offhouseholdsformedacrossprovinces,districtsandsubdistricts.Dependentvariablesofcolumns(4)to(6)are dummiesofwholehouseholdmigrationacrossprovinces,districtsandsubdistricts.Disastervariablesarethe numberofdisastersmeasuredintheplacebotimeframe.Theplacebotimeframeforeachtimeinterval:(1)1988 1993,placebotimeframe:19741979;(2)19931997,placebotimeframe:19791983;(3)19972000,placebotime frame:19831986 (***p<0.01,**p<0.05,*p<0.1)

41

Table10:Impactsofshortintervaldisastersonhouseholdmigration
Dep.Variables HHmigrationcombiningbothSHandWH migrationacross province district Subdistrict (1) (2) (3) 0.0555*** 0.0542*** 0.0618*** (0.00524) (0.0113) (0.0146) 0.00770** 0.0103*** 0.0123*** (0.00268) (0.00222) (0.00408) 0.00421* 0.00419 0.00541 (0.00241) (0.00365) (0.00578) 0.0151* 0.0260*** 0.0397*** (0.00726) (0.00556) (0.00583) 24,651 24,651 24,651 0.045 0.093 0.129 8,217 8,217 8,217 Splithouseholdmigrationacross Wholehouseholdmigration across

province district Subdistrict province district Subdistrict (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Earthquake 0.0477*** 0.0538*** 0.0551*** 0.0144 0.00944 0.00799 (0.00976) (0.0115) (0.0136) (0.00837) (0.0112) (0.0139) Eruption 0.00952*** 0.0109*** 0.0142*** 0.000698 0.00419*** 0.00535** (0.00300) (0.00317) (0.00476) (0.000668) (0.00114) (0.00240) Flood 0.00230 0.00398 0.00327 0.00365** 0.00387* 0.00696* (0.00314) (0.00557) (0.00711) (0.00126) (0.00192) (0.00347) Constant 0.00668 0.00775 0.00781 0.00955*** 0.0200*** 0.0328*** (0.00994) (0.00801) (0.00755) (0.00158) (0.00253) (0.00349) Observations 24,651 24,651 24,651 24,651 24,651 24,651 Rsquared 0.039 0.080 0.105 0.007 0.017 0.032 Numberof 8,217 8,217 8,217 8,217 8,217 8,217 hhid Notes:Robuststandarderrorsinparentheses,adjustedforclusteringatprovincetimelevel.Allcolumnscontrolfortimedummiesandhouseholdfixedeffects. Dependentvariablesofcolumns(1)(3)aredummiesofhouseholdmigrationcombiningbothSHandWHmigration.Dependentvariablesofcolumns(4)(6) measuresthenumberofsplitoffhouseholdsformed.Dependentvariablesofcolumns(7)(9)aredummiesofwholehouseholdmigration.Disastervariables measurethenumberofdisasterhappeningattheprovinceduringoneyearbeforeyeartandyeart. (***p<0.01,**p<0.05,*p<0.1)

42

Table11:Use2004ascutoffyear
Dep.Variables Earthquake Eruption Flood HHsize Totalearnings Remittances Aid Nonbizasset farmbizasset Nonfarmbizasset Observations Rsquared Numberofhhid Splithouseholdmigrationacross Province District Subdistrict (1) 0.0516** (0.0183) 0.0111 (0.00715) 0.00431 (0.00417) 23,529 0.036 7,843 (2) 0.0543** (0.0190) 0.0171** (0.00664) 0.00237 (0.00486) 23,529 0.081 7,843 (3) 0.0561** (0.0253) 0.0266* (0.0134) 0.00293 (0.00782) Splithouseholdmigrationacross Province District Subdistrict (4) 0.0443** (0.0167) 0.0115* (0.00559) 0.00503 (0.00384) 0.0213*** (0.00729) 0.000549 (0.000354) 0.000871 (0.000969) 0.00141 (0.000858) 0.000542 (0.00160) 0.000964* (0.000470) 0.000736 (0.000670) 23,529 0.066 7,843 (5) 0.0409** (0.0159) 0.0181*** (0.00489) 0.00156 (0.00431) 0.0334*** (0.00640) 0.00225*** (0.000494) 0.000956 (0.00120) 0.00136 (0.000894) 0.00207 (0.00166) 0.000614 (0.00105) 0.000711 (0.000838) 23,529 0.124 7,843 (6) 0.0339 (0.0250) 0.0284*** (0.00965) 0.00223 (0.00727) 0.0576*** (0.0130) 0.00473*** (0.000948) 0.00140 (0.00209) 0.00169 (0.00180) 0.00124 (0.00188) 0.00150 (0.00109) 0.00218* (0.00115) 23,529 0.175 7,843

23,529 0.104 7,843

Notes:Robuststandarderrorsinparentheses,adjustedforclusteringatprovincetimelevel.Allcolumnscontrol fortimedummiesandhouseholdfixedeffects.Householdsmigratedafter2004arediscardedfromthesamples. Dependentvariablescountthenumberofhouseholdsformedfromsplitacrossprovinces,districtsandsubdistricts. Disastervariablesmeasurethenumberofdisasterhappeningattheprovincebetweent1andtwherehousehold residesin.Allotherindependentvariablesaremeasuredattimet.Totalearnings,remittancesandaidarethe amountsaccumulatedwithinoneyearbeforetimet.Allthevaluesofeconomicvariablesexcepthouseholdsize arerecordedinlog(1+Y)..Columns(1)(3)donotcontrolforeconomicvariablesandcolumns(4)(6)do. (***p<0.01,**p<0.05,*p<0.1)

43

Table12:Use2004ascutoffyearandcontrolforeconomicvariables
Dep.Variables wholehouseholdmigrationacross Province District Subdistrict wholehouseholdmigrationacross Province District Subdistrict

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Earthquake 0.0192 0.0121 0.0261 0.0187 0.0116 0.0231 (0.0133) (0.0168) (0.0314) (0.0117) (0.0160) (0.0315) Eruption 0.00132 0.00418 0.0152* 0.00193 0.00257 0.0131 (0.00200) (0.00321) (0.00755) (0.00219) (0.00371) (0.00799) Flood 0.00582 0.00639* 0.00909* 0.00618* 0.00705** 0.00844 (0.00347) (0.00334) (0.00514) (0.00348) (0.00322) (0.00497) HHsize 0.00407*** 0.00827*** 0.00968*** (0.000907) (0.00203) (0.00233) Totalearnings 0.000202 1.36e05 0.000139 (0.000206) (0.000261) (0.000265) Remittances 6.38e05 0.000259 0.000346 (9.82e05) (0.000220) (0.000380) Aid 0.000316 8.88e05 0.00110 (0.000385) (0.000641) (0.000678) Nonbizasset 0.00144*** 0.00308*** 0.00415*** (0.000470) (0.000651) (0.000900) farmbizasset 0.000182 0.000786*** 0.00193*** (0.000124) (0.000217) (0.000372) Nonfarmbiz 0.000985*** 0.000479 asset 0.000547*** (0.000177) (0.000274) (0.000300) Observations 23,529 23,529 23,529 23,529 23,529 23,529 Rsquared 0.006 0.009 0.053 0.027 0.046 0.093 Numberof 7,843 7,843 7,843 7,843 7,843 7,843 hhid Notes:Robuststandarderrorsinparentheses,adjustedforclusteringatprovincetimelevel.Allcolumnscontrol fortimedummiesandhouseholdfixedeffects.Householdmigratedafter2004arediscardedfromthesamples. Dependentvariablesarewholehouseholdmigrationacrossprovinces,districtsandsubdistricts.Disastervariables measurethenumberofdisasterhappeningattheprovincebetweent1andtwherehouseholdresidesin.All otherindependentvariablesaremeasuredattimet.Totalearnings,remittancesandaidaretheamounts accumulatedwithinoneyearbeforetimet.Allthevaluesofeconomicvariablesexcepthouseholdsizeare recordedinlog(1+Y)..Columns(1)(3)donotcontrolforeconomicvariablesandcolumns(4)(6)do. (***p<0.01,**p<0.05,*p<0.1)

44

Table13:Impactsofotherdisastermeasuresonsplitmigrationandmovingoftheentire household
Dep.Variables Splithouseholdmigrationacross Wholehouseholdmigrationacross Province District Subdistrict Province District Subdistrict (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 0.0272 0.0343 0.0365 Death_earth 0.126** 0.0785 0.0680 (0.0587) (0.0829) (0.0884) (0.0735) (0.0691) (0.0982) Death_erupt 0.0208 0.0229 0.0312 0.00512 0.00116 0.00374 (0.0128) (0.0171) (0.0184) (0.00523) (0.00555) (0.00685) Death_flood 0.0237*** 0.0216*** 0.0138 0.00549** 0.00676*** 0.0106** (0.00447) (0.00711) (0.00944) (0.00210) (0.00223) (0.00415) Injured_earth 0.0162*** 0.00670 0.00445 0.00200 0.00231 0.00247 (0.00359) (0.00540) (0.00841) (0.00188) (0.00273) (0.00676) Injured_flood 0.0351 0.0400 0.00359 0.118*** 0.127*** 0.116*** (0.0450) (0.0608) (0.0670) (0.0266) (0.0291) (0.0334) Missing_flood 0.00427*** 0.00390* 0.00211 0.00156** 0.00274*** 0.00307*** (0.00113) (0.00204) (0.00248) (0.000579) (0.000595) (0.00102) 5.33e05 6.45e05 0.000116** 0.000117** 0.000117* House_destroyed_ 5.06e05 earth (4.66e05) (5.77e05) (5.64e05) (5.30e05) (4.98e05) (6.37e05) 0.000182 0.000156 House_destroyed_ 0.000312 0.000544 0.000622* 0.000985** flood (0.000218) (0.000318) (0.000301) (0.000343) (0.000318) (0.000437) Financial 0.0654*** 0.0581** 0.0642* 0.0144 0.0128 0.0494 loss_flood (0.0186) (0.0228) (0.0312) (0.0151) (0.0154) (0.0306) Crop 0.000106** 5.42e05 5.92e05 1.42e05 2.56e05 1.59e05 damage_flood (4.02e05) (5.68e05) (5.97e05) (4.63e05) (4.29e05) (5.61e05) Observations 24,651 24,651 24,651 24,651 24,651 24,651 0.051 0.084 0.109 0.048 0.036 0.046 Rsquared Numberofhhid 8,217 8,217 8,217 8,217 8,217 8,217 Notes:Robuststandarderrorsinparentheses,adjustedforclusteringatprovincetimelevel.Allcolumnscontrol fortimedummiesandhouseholdfixedeffects.Columns(1)(3)areaboutsplithouseholdmigration.Columns(4) (6)areaboutwholehouseholdmigration.Differentdisastervariablesmeasurevariousareasofhumanand economiclosses.Financiallossismeasuredinlog(1+Y).. (***p<0.01,**p<0.05,*p<0.1)

45

Table14:Heterogeneousimpactsofdisastersonsplitmigrationandmovingoftheentire household
Dep.Variables Earthquake Eruption Flood HHsize Totalearning Remittances Aid Nonbizasset Farmasset Nonfarmbiz asset Earth*hh_size Erupt*hh_size Flood*hh_size Earth*aid Erupt*aid Flood*aid Earth*earning Erupt*earning Flood*earning Earth*remit Erupt*remit Splithouseholdmigrationacross Province District Subdistrict (1) (2) (3) 0.0528** 0.0616*** 0.0511* (0.0183) (0.0200) (0.0276) 0.0251** 0.0304** 0.0467*** (0.00937) (0.0108) (0.0143) 0.0172*** 0.0134** 0.0127 (0.00553) (0.00584) (0.00836) 0.0239*** 0.0404*** 0.0640*** (0.00711) (0.00692) (0.0133) 0.000843* 0.00258*** 0.00505*** (0.000419) (0.000561) (0.00102) 0.00161 0.000607 0.00110 (0.000918) (0.00129) (0.00207) 4.24e05 0.00172 0.00193 (0.000900) (0.00118) (0.00138) 0.000970 0.00388** 0.000507 (0.00119) (0.00174) (0.00170) 0.00116** 0.00131 0.00228* (0.000478) (0.00112) (0.00123) 0.000895 0.000959 0.00231* (0.000712) 5.25e05 (0.00813) 0.00471** (0.00164) 0.000296 (0.00273) 0.00429 (0.00846) 0.00198 (0.00308) 0.00397** (0.00163) 0.00423 (0.00248) 0.00110*** (0.000364) 0.000186 (0.000363) 0.00158 (0.00268) 0.000223 (0.000549) (0.000775) 0.0161 (0.0180) 0.00620 (0.00429) 0.00563 (0.00372) 0.00614 (0.0128) 0.0143** (0.00563) 0.00203 (0.00226) 0.00319 (0.00301) 0.000298 (0.000544) 0.000793 (0.000697) 0.00339 (0.00550) 0.000911 (0.00159) (0.00114) 0.0110 (0.0271) 0.00593 (0.00554) 0.00788 (0.00594) 0.00267 (0.0164) 0.0187** (0.00679) 0.00216 (0.00267) 0.00149 (0.00252) 0.000291 (0.000462) 0.000332 (0.000512) 0.00149 (0.00865) 0.000670 (0.00150) 46 wholehouseholdmigrationacross Province District Subdistrict (4) (5) (6) 0.0150 0.0181* 0.00956 (0.00933) (0.0146) (0.0249) 0.0125** 0.0177* 0.000880 (0.00261) (0.00458) (0.0100) 0.00795* 0.00538 0.00858* (0.00379) (0.00327) (0.00437) 0.00483*** 0.0103*** 0.0137*** (0.00103) (0.00216) (0.00271) 0.000203 1.89e05 5.53e06 (0.000175) (0.000268) (0.000359) 3.68e05 0.000202 8.46e05 (0.000124) (0.000190) (0.000382) 0.000191 0.000807* 0.00120** (0.000338) (0.000395) (0.000557) 0.00144** 0.00359*** 0.00520*** (0.000579) (0.000729) (0.000750) 0.000440** 0.00109*** 0.00191*** (0.000176) (0.000286) (0.000385) 0.000462** 0.000961*** 0.000528 (0.000212) 0.000197 (0.00139) 0.000775* (0.000395) 0.000295 (0.000207) 0.000926 (0.00358) 0.00181 (0.00170) 0.000826* (0.000448) 0.000102 (0.000605) 5.94e05 (0.000126) 0.000302** (0.000131) 2.20e05 (0.000505) 5.48e05 (0.000106) (0.000329) 0.00426* (0.00241) 0.00140 (0.000873) 0.00149 (0.000938) 0.00547 (0.00435) 0.00440* (0.00218) 0.000130 (0.000824) 0.00211 (0.00124) 0.000110 (0.000237) 0.000201 (0.000151) 0.000126 (0.000869) 4.32e05 (0.000144) (0.000474) 0.00379 (0.00552) 0.00235* (0.00128) 0.00117 (0.00128) 0.0109* (0.00576) 0.00455 (0.00295) 0.000459 (0.000973) 0.00300 (0.00181) 5.94e05 (0.000274) 2.48e06 (0.000196) 0.00233 (0.00231) 0.000486 (0.000305)

Flood*remit 0.000349 0.00238* 0.00315** 0.000219* 0.000213 0.000687* (0.000770) (0.00125) (0.00126) (0.000113) (0.000227) (0.000368) 0.00253 4.45e05 0.00120 0.00187** 0.00159* 0.00139 Earth*farm (0.00190) (0.00186) (0.00268) (0.000832) (0.000821) (0.00268) 0.000518 0.000638 0.000320 0.000181 0.000352 0.000936* Erupt*farm (0.000476) (0.000605) (0.000787) (0.000219) (0.000250) (0.000502) Flood*farm 0.000676* 0.00127 0.000911 0.000146 0.000183 9.66e06 (0.000345) (0.000756) (0.000696) (0.000144) (0.000236) (0.000456) 0.00324 0.00521 0.000617 0.000928 0.00291 0.00649 Earth*nonbiz (0.00423) (0.0114) (0.0127) (0.00248) (0.00378) (0.00505) 0.000924 0.00264 0.000179 0.000351 0.000887 0.000744 Erupt*nonbiz (0.000938) (0.00182) (0.00193) (0.000970) (0.000913) (0.000959) 0.00334** 0.00581** 0.00414 0.000331 0.00193** 0.00293** Flood*nonbiz (0.00148) (0.00251) (0.00285) (0.000432) (0.000878) (0.00114) 0.00124 0.00238 0.000133 0.000158 0.00275** Earth*nonfarm 0.00299* (0.00162) (0.00313) (0.00438) (0.000471) (0.000759) (0.000962) 0.000219 0.000489 0.000208 1.87e05 0.000445 Erupt*nonfarm 0.000325 (0.000430) (0.000882) (0.00119) (0.000121) (0.000210) (0.000278) 0.000443 0.000344 0.000140** 0.000183 0.000335 Flood*nonfarm 7.33e05 (0.000510) (0.000700) (0.000887) (6.45e05) (0.000247) (0.000316) Observations 24,651 24,651 24,651 24,651 24,651 24,651 0.074 0.136 0.185 0.034 0.060 0.082 Rsquared 8,217 8,217 8,217 8,217 8,217 Numberofhhid 8,217 Notes:Robuststandarderrorsinparentheses,adjustedforclusteringatprovincetimelevel.Allcolumnscontrol fortimedummiesandhouseholdfixedeffects.Columns(1)(3)areaboutsplithouseholdmigration.Columns(4) (6)areaboutwholehouseholdmigration.AlltheeconomicvariablesexceptHHsizearemeasuredinlog(1+Y).. Theinteractiontermsinteractnumberofdisasterswithdifferenteconomicvariables. (***p<0.01,**p<0.05,*p<0.1)

47