See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/371008195

Natural disasters, resilience-building, and risk: achieving sustainable cities

and human settlements

Article in Natural Hazards · May 2023

DOI: 10.1007/s11069-023-06021-x

CITATIONS READS

0 485

6 authors, including:

Muhammad Tariq Iqbal Khan Sofia Anwar

Government Graduate College Jaranwala Government College University Faisalabad
44 PUBLICATIONS 1,147 CITATIONS 147 PUBLICATIONS 1,955 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Samuel Asumadu Sarkodie Muhammad Rizwan Yaseen

Nord University Government College University Faisalabad
174 PUBLICATIONS 15,793 CITATIONS 69 PUBLICATIONS 1,267 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sofia Anwar on 25 May 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Natural Hazards
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-06021-x

ORIGINAL PAPER

Natural disasters, resilience‑building, and risk: achieving

sustainable cities and human settlements

Muhammad Tariq Iqbal Khan1 · Sofia Anwar1 · Samuel Asumadu Sarkodie2 ·

Muhammad Rizwan Yaseen1 · Abdul Majeed Nadeem1 · Qamar Ali3

Received: 6 March 2022 / Accepted: 14 May 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2023

Abstract
Reducing natural disasters and their related economic losses remains critical to achieving
sustainable development. However, there is a lack of comprehensive studies that assess
sustainable cities and human settlements in efforts to attain sustainable development goal
11.5. Here, the present research explains the effect of disaster risk and disaster resilience
on human loss due to natural disasters (deaths, injured, and affected) in 90 countries span-
ning 1995 to 2019. We develop global risk and resilience indices through IMF index-
making steps across 24 high, 24 upper-middle, 30 lower-middle, and 12 low-income coun-
tries. The negative binomial regression shows an increase in disaster-related loss to human
beings (deaths, injured, and affected) due to disaster risk in all panels. The empirical
results reveal a favorable impact of disaster resilience––resilience declines disaster-related
losses in developed countries. We observe that focusing on basic infrastructure, economic
stability, public awareness, hygiene practices, ICT, and effective institutions leads to dis-
aster resilience, mitigation, and speedy post-disaster recovery. Due to the insignificant
impact of resilience in developing countries, high-income countries could provide financial
resources, modern and DRR technologies, especially to low-income economies. This study
encourages countries to follow seven targets and four dimensions of the Sendai Framework
to enhance disaster resilience.

Keywords Disaster risk reduction · Index-making · Natural disasters · Negative binomial

regression · Resilience · Sendai framework 2015–30

1 Introduction

Climate change is evident in every dimension of the global economy and environment.
According to the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warmest
30-year period is from 1983 to 2012. It is predicted that the intensity of climate change will
further increase in the twenty-first century. A significant change in temperature, precipita-
tions, and other meteorological indicators underpins extreme weather effects (i.e., floods,
heat waves, cold spells, and droughts). Climate change is a factor behind the occurrence

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Natural Hazards

and intensity of natural disasters (Weerasekara et al. 2021). Therefore, it is urgently

required to ensure sustainable cities and human settlements (Panwar and Sen 2019).
A natural disaster is a destructive event that originates when hazards interact with
humans in the presence of socioeconomic, physical, and environmental vulnerabilities
(Benali et al. 2018). Natural disasters deteriorate economies through the destruction of
physical capital (i.e., housing, infrastructure, and fixed assets) and human capital (i.e.,
deaths and injuries) (Yun and Kim 2021). The level of development and economic struc-
ture typically determines country-specific vulnerability to natural disasters (Benali et al.
2018). The cost of natural disasters increases due to the absence of early warning systems
and rising population density in risk-prone areas. These events disproportionately disturb
developing economies and may have adverse effects on sustained economic development
(Yun and Kim 2021).
According to the concept of collateral damage, these destructive events are accountable
for irreversible damage to human capital, which in turn leads to poverty and poor standards
of living (Padli et al. 2018). The disturbing impact of natural disasters leads to long-term
problems, particularly on human capital and infrastructure (Fischer 2021; Dyason 2022).
These destructive events cost million to replace destroyed infrastructure and need a long
time (Dyason 2022). Natural disasters become a hurdle to achieving human development.
The destructive events hamper education, health, income-earning, and nutrition (Padli
et al. 2018). Thus, natural disasters adversely affect economic performance (Fischer 2021).
Governments need finance to undertake disaster relief, emergency aid, and recovery
in disaster-prone areas. The rebuilding of destroyed infrastructures leads to an increase in
government expenditures, budget adjustments, and economic contraction in the short run
(Shi and Sun 2021). To cope with disasters, governments should be prepared via various
economic interventions. The success of these interventions implies large-scale stimulus
investments or packages (Dyason 2022). Public trust in government is also important for
the efficient allocation of aid to households (Husted and Nickerson 2021). Therefore, spe-
cial attention is required from institutions, development organizations, and governments to
ensure resilience against disasters (Gaiha et al. 2010).
Mitigation policies or preventive actions can decrease post-disaster loss, deaths, and
injuries (Taghizadeh-Hesary et al. 2021). The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015
shows a global commitment to disaster risk reduction (DRR). It is defined as ‘‘the system-
atic development and application of policies, strategies, and practices to minimize vulner-
abilities, hazards and the unfolding of disaster impacts throughout a society, in the broad
context of sustainable development’’ (UNISDR 2004; Sun et al. 2017). In this era, the
Sendai Framework 2015–2030 for DRR is an initiative of the United Nations (UN) which
includes four priority areas such as (a) understanding the risk of disasters, (b) strengthen-
ing governance to manage the risk of disasters, (c) increase in the investment in DRR strat-
egies, and (d) increase in readiness for quick action (UNISDR 2019).
The targets of DRR are closely related to several UN sustainable development goals
(SDGs) namely poverty reduction (SDG-1), zero hunger (SDG-2), healthy life and well-
being (SDG-3), improved educational quality (SDG-4), clean water, and proper sanitation
(SDG-6), sustainable industry, innovation, and modern infrastructures (SDG-9), sustain-
able cities, communities and human settlements (SDG-11), climate change mitigation
(SDG-13), life below water (SDG-14) and life on land (SDG-15) (Khan et al. 2022). Thus,
DRR policies effectively decline disaster risks and enhance disaster resilience–––which are
crucial to attaining the SDGs (Noy and Yonson 2018; Tselios and Tompkins 2017). Yet,
the existing literature is not comprehensive enough to understand the risks, readiness, and
adaptation options of disaster and its related impacts.

13
Natural Hazards

According to Rose (2004), resilience involves societal development and implementation

of its ability to absorb shocks through mitigation, response to maintain functions, and speedy
recovery, while minimizing damage in the future (Noy and Yonson 2018). Building resilient
communities are necessary because it enables societies to face natural and socioeconomic
issues (Ludin et al. 2019). The disaster-related loss is less in a resilient country (Davies and
Davies 2018). The ability of a country to tolerate natural disasters increases due to higher gov-
ernment spending, higher literacy rate, higher income, trade openness, and quality institutions
(Albuquerque and Rajhi 2019). Technology is an important factor that increases resilience
and decreases vulnerability (Sarker et al. 2020). A rapid post-disaster recovery needs human
development, disaster mitigation, follow-up plans, management strategies, and preparedness
(Padli et al. 2018).
This implies the usefulness of policy-making that assesses resilience and quantifies the
impact of resilience and adaptation plans (Kontokosta and Malik 2018). To the best of our
knowledge, estimation of global disaster resilience and global disaster risks is limited in the
literature––calling for an empirical investigation of progress toward sustainability in the con-
text of building resilience against natural disasters.
Considering the Sendai Framework for DRR, this research answers three research ques-
tions: First, what is the impact of disaster resilience on loss due to natural disasters? Second,
what is the impact of disaster risk on loss due to natural disasters? And third, is there heteroge-
neity across income groups of countries in terms of disaster risk and disaster resilience?
These questions are addressed using the following specific objectives:

1. To investigate the effect of the natural disaster risk index on damage due to natural
disasters.
2. To assess the impact of the natural disaster resilience index on damage due to natural
disasters.

Therefore, this study offers significant contributions to the debate on natural disasters in
four ways. First, previous studies used different indicators of resilience, but, the present work
used a comprehensive disaster resilience index that captures 9 dimensions of resilience (i.e.,
economic performance, food and agriculture, infrastructure, emergency workforce, institu-
tional quality, human capital, women empowerment, ICT, and social capital) using 62 indica-
tors. Second, the literature used several proxies of risk, but this research used a comprehensive
disaster risk index that captures 3 dimensions of risk (i.e., hazard, exposure, and vulnerability)
using 15 indicators. Third, this study used a new negative binomial-p regression to investigate
the effect of disaster risk and disaster resilience on damage due to natural disasters. Fourth, it
addresses the heterogeneous nexus between disaster risk resilience in 90 countries across all
income groups.
The subsequent sections include a literature review (Sect. 2), conceptual framework and
model (Sect. 3), econometric methods (Sect. 4), results and discussion (Sect. 5), and conclu-
sion (Sect. 6).

2 Literature review

The previous literature on the nexus between natural disasters and resilience is presented
in Table 1. There are several studies (Kahn 2005; Dayton–Johnson 2006; Toya and Skid-
more 2007; McDaniels et al. 2015; Havko et al. 2017; Padli et al. 2018; Khan et al. 2022)

13
 Natural Hazards

available on disaster mitigation and preventive strategies to reduce the adverse conse-
quences of natural disasters. Thus, social and natural scientists highlight the benefits of dis-
aster readiness, up-to-date warning system, and plans (Noy 2009). A country can manage
and mitigate the adverse effects of natural disasters due to sustainable economic develop-
ment (Kahn 205; Khan et al. 2022).
The literature on this topic can be categorized into two parts. The first strand of litera-
ture explains the impact of risk indicators on disaster loss. Haque (2003) explored that pop-
ulation size had a positive relationship with disaster deaths and injuries. The World Bank
and The United Nations (2010) reported difficulties in post-disaster recovery in under-
developed economies. Kahn (2005) confirmed that poor countries faced more natural dis-
aster shocks than rich countries. Natural disaster deaths were fewer in rich countries than in
poor countries, even in cases of the same scale of disasters. Guha-Sapir et al. (2012) men-
tioned that countries faced problems due to low social capital and weak economic struc-
tures. Chun et al. (2017) confirmed that damage due to floods showed a direct connection
with population density, disability, and ethnic inequality. This implies that areas with a
disabled population, multi-cultured populations, more population density, and administra-
tive officers are likely to suffer from disasters. According to Rahman (2018), earthquake
deaths were more in middle-income countries due to vulnerable buildings. In a panel of
168 countries, Songwathana (2018) found a direct association between urbanization and
damage due to natural disasters. In Pakistan, Shah et al. (2019) revealed that most of the
local institutions were not prepared for natural disasters in terms of training, awareness,
equipment, human resources, coordination, and financial resources. Tselios and Tompkins
(2019) investigated the relationship between disaster outcomes and drivers of vulnerability
(income inequality, wealth/poverty, and social welfare systems). The study found that the
severity of hazards increases due to unequal income distribution.
The second strand of literature explains the effect of resilience indicators on disaster
loss. Haque (2003) reported that the mitigation of disaster risk needs the implementation
of training programs (i.e., disaster management training for the public, volunteers, police,
rescue workers, teachers, and social workers). Eisensee and Stromberg (2007) found that
disaster losses were less due to updated warning systems, medical care, better housing,
better evacuation plans, and rescue services. In the same way, Toya and Skidmore (2007)
reported that disaster loss declined due to higher education, higher income, trade open-
ness, and financial inclusion. Raschky (2008) reported lower disaster-related deaths and
economic losses in the presence of better institutions. Noy (2009) found that institutional
quality, literacy, income level, trade, financial development, and government spending sig-
nificantly contributed to post-disaster macroeconomic performance. Padli and Habibullah
(2009) reported a drop in disaster-related deaths due to educational attainment. Padli et al.
(2010) confirmed that richer countries and people were better prepared for natural disas-
ters, which in turn reduced the economic cost of natural disasters. Government expendi-
tures and intervention were favorable to reducing the severity of natural disasters. Naudé
and Bezuidenhout (2014) reported that migrant remittance was a significant indicator to
enhance resilience in disaster-prone sub-Saharan African countries. Arouri et al. (2015)
mentioned several indicators of disaster resilience including higher expenditure, equality in
the distribution of expenditures, micro-credit access, internal remittances, and social allow-
ance. Padli et al. (2018) described the reduction in disaster-related damage due to human
development. Moreover, the stage of economic development played a key role in reduc-
ing the consequences of natural disasters. Qureshi et al. (2019) found that foreign aid and
external funding (i.e., FDI inflows) could mitigate the short-run economic loss due to natu-
ral disasters. Taghizadeh-Hesary et al. (2019) reported a decline in disaster-related loss due

13
 Table 1  Literature on natural disasters and resilience
Author(s) Variables Countries Method Duration Results

Toya and Skidmore (2007) Deaths by natural disasters, real 151 countries Regression Analysis 1960–2003 Higher education, higher income,
Natural Hazards

GDP, education, trade openness, trade openness, financial inclu-

Benali et al. (2018)
Padli et al. (2018)
Taghizadeh-Hesary et al. (2019) Quality infrastructure, GDP,
Chowdhury et al. (2021)
financial inclusion, government
consumption
Natural disasters, economic
growth, public debt, and budget
deficit
Natural disaster losses (death,
affected, and economic loss),
human development (income/
capita, education,) population
density, investment, unem-
ployment, trade, government
consumption
14 Asian and Pacific countries GMM
trade, transport & port infra-
structure, poverty gap, control
of corruption
Female flood fatalities, inequality- 19 Indian States
adjusted human development,
spending on adaptive measures
sion, and smaller government
decline disaster-related losses
9 middle-income countries FMOLS, DOLS 2000–2014 One-way causality exists from natu-
ral disasters to budget deficits
Two-way causality exists between
budget deficit and public debt
79 countries GMM 1981–2010 Economic development mitigates
the consequences of natural
disasters
Trade, education, investment, and
government consumption decline
disaster deaths
Damage is higher in developing
economies
2007–2017 Quality of infrastructure reduces
disaster-related costs
Negative binomial 1983–2013 Higher IHDI score leads to fewer
flood fatalities, as the probability
of flood-related fatalities dropped
by 38 (female) and 26 (male) for
10% rise in IHDI
Due to higher IHDI, flood fatalities
are lower in males than females

13
 Table 1  (continued)
Author(s) Variables Countries Method Duration Results
Taghizadeh-Hesary et al. (2021) Damage due to natural disasters, 14 Asia and the Pacific GMM, VECM 2007–2017 Disaster-related loss is directly

13
corruption, infrastructure qual- countries associated with the intensity of
ity, GDP disasters
Quality infrastructure, GDP, and
control of corruption decline
damages due to natural disasters

DOLS Dynamic ordinary least square; FMOLS Fully modified ordinary least square; GDP Gross domestic product; GMM Generalized method of moments; IHDI Inequality-
adjusted human development; VECM Vector error correction model
Natural Hazards
Natural Hazards

to improvements in the infrastructure. According to Qin et al. (2021), farmers’ resilience

had a direct link with all types of capital (i.e., human, financial, social, and physical) in
China.
The existing literature lacks inclusiveness to capture disaster risk and disaster resilience.
Hence, it is useful to include multiple variables in the form of indices that capture the
effects of disaster risk and disaster resilience on disaster loss. Composite indices are use-
ful in the evaluation of performance across countries, thus, crucial for policy monitoring,
public communication, and ranking (Bonnet et al. 2021). Consequently, we extend the lit-
erature by developing a disaster risk index using 15 indicators and a disaster resilience
index using 62 indicators in 90 countries to assess the impact of risks and resilience on
disaster-related losses.

3 Conceptual framework

3.1 Disaster risk

Risks of natural disaster are outcomes of (a) hazard: the chances of a destructive natu-
ral disaster, (b) exposure: the existence of policymakers/stakeholders (i.e., people, assets,
and resources) in disaster-prone regions that could be negatively affected, and (c) vulner-
ability: the propensity of a system (i.e., environment, communities, and individuals) to be
negatively affected due to hazards (Graveline and Grémont 2017). The conceptualization
of resilience and vulnerability has been discussed extensively (Birkmann 2006; Thywis-
sen 2006; Gaillard 2010). Figure 1 depicts the relationship between resilience, adaptation,
and vulnerability. The 1979 disaster risk formulation by the United Nations Disaster Relief
Coordinator is given as (Noy and Yonson 2018; Khan et al. 2022):
Risk = Hazard × Exposure × Vulnerability (1)
Index-making is globally used to assess disaster risk and resilience. It incorporates the
multiple dimensions of risk and resilience (Noy and Yonson 2018). The disaster risk index
(Fig. 2) is developed using sub-indices, i.e., hazard (CRED 2021; WDI 2021; TCCKP
2021), exposure (WDI 2021, WID 2021), and vulnerability (WDI 2021).

3.2 Disaster resilience

The term resilience was presented in ecology by Holling (1973) and became a hot topic in sev-
eral disciplines including socio-ecological systems, sustainability, DRR, mitigation, and adap-
tation. It shows how communities experience the complexity and variation in global dynamics
to effectively deduce, manage, and govern complicated socio-ecological systems. It shows the
intent of communities to conceive and plan, integrate, recover, and adapt to actual or probable
events with adverse effects in an efficient and timely way. However, the literature on the quan-
titative assessment of disaster resilience is limited (Asadzadeha et al. 2017). The IPCC stated
that it shows the capacity of the socioeconomic and environmental system to (a) manage or
control natural disasters; (b) respond in such a way that maintains their structure, function, and
identity; and (c) ensure the capacity for adaptation, learning, and transformation. Hence, plans
for disaster preparedness are implemented to mitigate disaster risks and build resilience. This
explains the strong link between disaster preparedness, disaster resilience, and risk manage-
ment (Cavallo and Ireland 2014). Disaster resilience can be estimated through a unified index

13
 Natural Hazards

Fig. 1  Theoretical framework, reconstructed from Graveline and Grémont (2017)

Fig. 2  Indicators of disaster risk

(Kontokosta and Malik 2018; Khan et al. 2022). The disaster resilience index presented in
this study was developed using nine sub-indices (Fig. 3) including infrastructure, ICT, food
and agriculture, emergency workforce (WDI 2021), institutional quality (WGI 2021), women

13
Natural Hazards

empowerment, human capital (WDI 2021; GSD 2021), economic performance (WDI 2021;
IMF 2021; ND-GAIN 2021), and social capital (GSD 2021).

4 Model and methods

We assess the effect of disaster risk and resilience on disaster-related loss in 90 countries
(Appendix A) from 1995 to 2019. The selected countries were divided into four panels (i.e.,
24 HICs, 24 UMICs, 30 LMICs, and 12 LICs). There are two major sources of disaster data,
i.e., (a) The Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) (CRED 2021) and (b) the Disaster Infor-
mation Management System (UNDRR 2021). The EM-DAT collated these data from multiple
organizations (i.e., UN agencies, insurance companies, press agencies, NGOs, and research
organizations). An adverse event is counted as a natural disaster in the presence of certain
conditions such as (a) 10 or more reported deaths, (b) 100 affected people, (3) an emergency
announcement, and (d) a call for international help. There are several types of disasters like
hydrometeorological (i.e., floods, avalanches, landslides, droughts, wave surges, and storms),
geophysical (i.e., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis), and biological (i.e., insect
infections and epidemics) (Khan et al. 2022). Based on the conceptual framework, the link
between disaster damage and resilience can be expressed as:

(2)
( )
DAMit = f Risk it , DRIit

where DAMit denotes damage due to natural disasters (number of deaths and affected peo-
ple per million), Riskit represents disaster risk index (0–1), DRI it is the disaster resilience
index (0–1) in time t across countries i .

Fig. 3  Indicators of a disaster resilience index

13
 Natural Hazards

4.1 Index‑making procedure

This study used IMF’s index-making steps, namely the selection of variables, winsori-
zation, normalization, PCA weights estimation, and calculation of the additive index. It
is needed to generate missing values for a balanced panel. The winsorization technique
increases robustness by replacing outliers with the highest (­ 95th percentiles) and lowest (­ 5th
percentiles) extreme values. The extreme values are obtained across countries and time.
Because it is difficult to combine variables due to different units, winsorized indicators
were normalized (0,1) using the min ( xmin)-max ( xmax ) method presented as (Svirydzenka
2016; Khan et al. 2022):
x − xmin
Ix =
xmax − xmin (3)

This indicates the position of a country across the globe, ranging from zero (worse)
to one (best). Normalized indicators were aggregated through a weighted linear average.
Finally, an additive index was estimated using the PCA weights ((Svirydzenka 2016):
n
∑
Indexi = wi Ii (4)
i=1

4.2 Performance analysis

Multicollinearity may lead to inconsistent estimation, hence, requires pre-estimation test

to examine sampled variables (Ali et al. 2021). Correlation, a bivariate analysis, measures
the association and direction between two indicators. Its value lies between + 1 and − 1,
representing perfect positive and perfect negative correlation, respectively. The correla-
tion becomes weak when the correlation coefficient is close to zero. Pearson’s correlation
coefficient is the ratio of the covariance of two sampled variables to the product of their
standard deviations––which is generally used to examine the associations. This is generally
expressed as (Chok 2008):
Cov(X, Y)
𝜌= (5)
𝜎X 𝜎Y

Sample covariance and sample standard deviation were incorporated to estimate the
sample correlation coefficient (r ) as (Chok 2008):
∑n � �� �
i=1 ( xi − x yi − y )
r= � (6)
∑n 2 ∑n 2
i=1 (xi − x) i=1 (yi − y)

4.3 Regression analysis

The dependent variable, viz. number of people affected due to natural disasters, is skewed
and discrete. Due to this, standard linear regression methods (i.e., OLS) are not suitable for

13
Natural Hazards

count data analysis. Implying Poisson log-linear regression is a suitable approach for count
data variables. The expected disaster-related loss (𝜇i parameter) in the Poisson regression
is expressed as (Ahmed et al. 2021):
p
( ) ∑
log 𝜇i = 𝛽j xij (7)
j=1

where 𝛽 is a vector of predictors (i.e., disaster risk and disaster resilience). Poisson model
assumes that the mean and variance are equal to 𝜇i parameter. This assumption was invalid
in our study, as the greater ratio of variance to mean leads to overdispersion. Due to overd-
ispersion, the p-values of Poisson regression are not reliable.
The negative binomial (NB) regression is a different generalization of Poisson that
allows for overdispersion. This study used the NB model to control the overdispersion.
A gamma-distributed error term (Oztig and Askin 2020) is added to Eq. (7) to relax the
assumption of the Poisson model by introducing additional randomness expressed as
(Ahmed et al. 2021):

log 𝜇i = xiT 𝛽 + 𝜀i (8)

( )

where 𝜀i follows a gamma distribution, having mean (1) and variance (𝛼).
The NB regression has a mean (𝜇i ) and variance (𝜇i + 𝛼𝜇i2), where 𝛼 represents a
parameter of overdispersion which is used to measure dispersion. Based on the conceptual
framework, this study used the following NB model:

(9)
( )
log 𝜇i = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 Time + 𝛽2 Risk + 𝛽2 DRI + 𝜀i

where Time shows the year-period from 1995 to 2019, Risk represents the disaster risk
index (0–1), and DRI is the disaster resilience index (0–1).

5 Results

5.1 Summary of indicators

Descriptive analysis (Fig. 4) reveals the mean, minimum, and maximum of disaster-
related loss, disaster risk, and disaster resilience. The average loss due to natural disas-
ters is more in LMICs (24,726.8 per million) followed by LICs (21,325.0 per million),
UMICs (17,334.7 per million), and HICs (2488.2 per million). The value of the disaster
risk index is more in LICs (0.40) and less in HICs (0.278). It shows that disaster risk
is more in developing economies than in developed countries. In contrast, the disaster
resilience index is more in HICs (0.674) followed by UMICs (0.461), LMICs (0.372),
and LICs (0.314). Country-wise indices for disaster risk (Fig. 5) and disaster resilience
(Fig. 6) show the status of 90 sampled countries in the world. For country-wise compar-
ison, the disaster risk and resilience indices were multiplied by 100. Figure 5 shows the
country-wise score of disaster risk index and its dimensions. The top 10 hotspot coun-
tries facing disaster risk include Angola (53.3), Burundi (51.3), South Africa (51.2),
Philippines (49.0), Gambia (48.0), Mozambique (46.3), India (45.6), Nigeria (44.1),
Namibia (43.9), Zambia (43.6), and Bangladesh (43.5). Contrary to this, disaster risk
score is low in the Netherlands (22.7), Hungary (23.7), Austria (23.5), Uruguay (23.5),

13
 Natural Hazards

Fig. 4  Descriptive analysis

Germany (23.6), Dominican Republic (23.6), Portugal (23.9), New Zealand (24.0),
Timor-Leste (24.4), and Georgia (24.4). Figure 6 shows the country-wise score of dis-
aster resilience index and its nine dimensions such as economic performance (EP), food
and agriculture (AGR), infrastructure (INFR), emergency workforce (EWF), institu-
tional quality (IQ), human capital (HC), women empowerment (WEM), Information and
Communication Technology (ICT), and social capital (SC). The top 10 disaster-resil-
ient countries include Switzerland (78.9), Germany (77.7), France (75.1), New Zealand
(74.9), Australia (73.3), Belgium (73.2), Canada (72.5), Austria (72.3), The Netherlands
(71.9), and Italy (70.4). Contrary to this, disaster resilience score is low in Congo, Dem.
Rep. (22.9), Haiti (23.8), Sudan (24.6), Angola (25.7), Myanmar (26.1), Ethiopia (26.6),
Guinea (27.6), Cameroon (28.1), Bangladesh (29.3), and Cambodia (29.7).

13
Natural Hazards

Fig. 5  Country-wise risk index

(Link: https://​dataw​rapper.​
dwcdn.​net/​D0aTX/1/)

13
 Natural Hazards

Fig. 6  Country-wise resilience

index (Link: https://​dataw​rapper.​
dwcdn.​net/​C6GnS/1/

13
Natural Hazards

5.2 Correlation analysis

The correlation plot (Fig. 7) shows the pairwise correlation coefficients between variables
(i.e., disaster loss, time, disaster risk, and disaster resilience). The correlation coefficient is
less than 0.5 in each case, which shows the absence of multicollinearity. A positive correla-
tion exists between disaster loss and risk in each case whereas a negative association exists
between disaster resilience and disaster loss in HICs and UMICs.

5.3 Negative binomial regression

The results of negative binomial regression show the impact of time (1995–2019), disaster
risk, and disaster resilience on disaster loss in HICs (Table 2), UMICs (Table 3), LMICs
(Table 4), and LICs (Table 5). The increase in the expected log count of the number of
affected people due to natural disasters was 17.015 (HICs), 6.652 (UMICs), 4.927 (LMICs),
and 3.993 (LICs) for each one-unit increase in disaster risk. The reduction in the expected log
count of the number of affected people due to natural disasters is 10.512 (HICs) and 4.438
(UMICs) for one-unit increase in disaster resilience. The coefficient is negative but insignifi-
cant in LMICs, which shows the prevailing resilience situation is not effective to reduce dis-
aster losses. The coefficient is positive and insignificant between disaster loss and resilience
in LICs. Due to significant negative coefficients (HICs), a reduction in the number of affected
people is observed in 1997–2001, 2004–2009, 2012, 2014, 2015, and 2017–2019. Due to sig-
nificant positive coefficients (LICs), the increase in the number of affected people is observed
in 1996–2005, 2007–2012, and 2014–2019. The fitted lines show the relationship between
the response and predictor variables in Fig. 8 (HICs), Fig. 9 (UMICs), Fig. 10 (LMICs), and

Fig. 7  Plots of pairwise Pearson correlation coefficients between sampled variables

13
 Natural Hazards

Table 2  Estimation of negative Variables Estimate Std. error z value Pr( >|z|)
binomial regression in HICs
Intercept 10.719*** 1.203 8.913 0.000
Time1996 − 0.782 0.655 − 1.193 0.233
Time1997 − 2.419*** 0.656 − 3.688 0.000
Time1998 − 2.028** 0.656 − 3.090 0.002
Time1999 0.183 0.657 0.279 0.780
Time2000 − 2.204*** 0.658 − 3.349 0.001
Time2001 − 2.152*** 0.659 − 3.265 0.001
Time2002 − 1.019 0.663 − 1.538 0.124
Time2003 − 1.070 0.661 − 1.618 0.106
Time2004 − 1.713** 0.661 − 2.593 0.010
Time2005 − 2.563*** 0.664 − 3.859 0.000
Time2006 − 1.974** 0.665 − 2.966 0.003
Time2007 − 1.516* 0.665 − 2.281 0.023
Time2008 − 0.924 0.664 − 1.390 0.164
Time2009 − 2.244*** 0.669 − 3.356 0.001
Time2010 1.469* 0.667 2.204 0.028
Time2011 1.358* 0.667 2.035 0.042
Time2012 − 3.235*** 0.669 − 4.833 0.000
Time2013 − 1.040 0.672 − 1.548 0.122
Time2014 − 1.739** 0.669 − 2.598 0.009
Time2015 − 1.606* 0.670 − 2.398 0.016
Time2016 − 0.181 0.669 − 0.270 0.787
Time2017 − 2.283*** 0.670 − 3.407 0.001
Time2018 − 2.275*** 0.667 − 3.413 0.001
Time2019 − 1.479* 0.666 − 2.220 0.026
Risk 17.015*** 2.132 7.980 0.000
Resilience − 10.512*** 1.311 − 8.017 0.000
Dispersion 0.194 (Std. Error.: 0.010)
Log. Likelihood − 7766.531
AIC 7822.5

***0.001, **0.01, *0.05, and ‘.’ 0.01 show statistical significance

Fig. 11 (LICs). The number of affected people due to natural disasters shows a positive rela-
tionship with disaster risk and a negative relationship with disaster resilience. Diagnostic plots
indicate the reliability of negative binomial regression in Fig. 12 (HICs), Fig. 13 (UMICs),
Fig. 14 (LMICs), and Fig. 15 (LICs).

6 Discussion

The negative binomial regression shows the effect of disaster risk and resilience on dis-
aster-related human loss in four income groups. The effect of time on disaster damage is
mostly negative in HICs, which shows an over-time reduction in disaster loss in HICs.
Contrarily, it is mostly positive in LICs, which indicates an over-time increase in disaster

13
Natural Hazards

Table 3  Estimation of negative Variables Estimate Std. error z value Pr( >|z|)
binomial regression in UMICs
Intercept 8.891*** 0.852 10.432 0.000
Time1996 1.098 0.608 1.804 0.071
Time1997 − 0.803 0.608 − 1.319 0.187
Time1998 0.802 0.609 1.317 0.188
Time1999 0.155 0.609 0.254 0.799
Time2000 0.865 0.609 1.420 0.156
Time2001 − 0.950 0.610 − 1.559 0.119
Time2002 0.611 0.610 1.002 0.316
Time2003 − 0.099 0.610 − 0.162 0.871
Time2004 0.422 0.611 0.691 0.489
Time2005 0.444 0.611 0.726 0.468
Time2006 − 0.509 0.612 − 0.832 0.406
Time2007 0.427 0.614 0.696 0.486
Time2008 0.712 0.615 1.158 0.247
Time2009 0.662 0.622 1.064 0.287
Time2010 0.560 0.616 0.909 0.363
Time2011 0.796 0.618 1.288 0.198
Time2012 1.465* 0.618 2.369 0.018
Time2013 0.706 0.626 1.128 0.259
Time2014 1.004 0.618 1.623 0.105
Time2015 0.456 0.619 0.735 0.462
Time2016 1.055 0.620 1.703 0.089
Time2017 − 0.132 0.621 − 0.212 0.832
Time2018 − 0.076 0.619 − 0.123 0.902
Time2019 0.423 0.621 0.681 0.496
Risk 6.652*** 1.170 5.685 0.000
Resilience − 4.438** 1.478 − 3.003 0.003
Dispersion 0.225 (Std. Error.: 0.011)
Log. likelihood − 11,046.084
AIC 11,102

***0.001, **0.01, *0.05, and ‘.’ 0.01 show statistical significance

loss in LICs. The impact of time is neither negative nor positive in UMICs and LMICs.
This implies a connection between income level and loss mitigation in the world, which
in turn leads to Risk-Informed Sustainable Development. The increase in disaster risk is
responsible for disaster-related human loss in all panels. It shows the risk indicators (haz-
ard, exposure, and vulnerability) that lead to intense disasters irrespective of income level.
The effect of the disaster resilience index on disaster loss is negative and insignificant
in HICs and UMICs. This infers that resilience-building is effective in DRR plans. The
increase in disaster resilience effectively mitigates the damage due to natural disasters in
developed economies. Although, the effect of resilience on damage is negative but insig-
nificant in LMICs. This indicates that governments in LMICs could further concentrate
on resilience indicators and ensure their significant role in DRR. Contrarily, the effect of
resilience on disaster loss is positive and insignificant in LICs, which shows that resilience
is not beneficial in poor countries. Thus, resilience indicators are ineffective to mitigate

13
 Natural Hazards

Table 4  Estimation of negative Variables Estimate Std. Error z value Pr( >|z|)
binomial regression in LMICs
Intercept 8.591*** 0.721 11.916 0.000
Time1996 − 0.441 0.597 − 0.738 0.461
Time1997 − 0.424 0.598 − 0.709 0.478
Time1998 − 0.057 0.597 − 0.095 0.925
Time1999 0.309 0.597 0.517 0.605
Time2000 0.392 0.598 0.657 0.511
Time2001 0.534 0.598 0.893 0.372
Time2002 0.122 0.598 0.204 0.838
Time2003 − 1.151 0.597 − 1.927 0.054
Time2004 − 0.476 0.598 − 0.797 0.425
Time2005 − 0.708 0.598 − 1.184 0.236
Time2006 − 1.021 0.598 − 1.706 0.088
Time2007 − 0.354 0.598 − 0.592 0.554
Time2008 − 0.538 0.599 − 0.899 0.369
Time2009 0.410 0.603 0.680 0.496
Time2010 − 0.191 0.600 − 0.319 0.750
Time2011 0.045 0.601 0.076 0.940
Time2012 − 0.547 0.601 − 0.911 0.363
Time2013 − 0.346 0.605 − 0.572 0.567
Time2014 − 0.226 0.602 − 0.375 0.708
Time2015 0.557 0.603 0.924 0.355
Time2016 0.054 0.603 0.090 0.928
Time2017 0.543 0.604 0.899 0.369
Time2018 − 0.286 0.602 − 0.475 0.635
Time2019 − 0.790 0.604 − 1.308 0.191
Risk 4.927*** 1.136 4.339 0.000
Resilience − 0.476 1.160 − 0.410 0.682
Dispersion 0.187 (Std. Error.: 0.008)
Log. Likelihood − 13,784.701
AIC 13,841

***0.001, **0.01, *0.05, and ‘.’ 0.01 show statistical significance

disaster loss in developing countries. This is mainly because the average resilience score
is only 31.4 (for LICs) and 37.2 (for LMICs) whereas the average resilience index is 46.1
(for UMICs) and 67.4 (for HICs). The results infer countries should have a resilience index
above 40 to experience the benefits of disaster resilience. Governments could invest in
infrastructure, as infrastructures (sanitation, water, and electricity) may lead to better use of
open spaces (parks, streets, and grounds) (French et al. 2019). Digitalization is beneficial to
execute post-disaster responses, forecasting, transmission of weather information, and early
warning mechanism (Firdhous and Karuratane 2018). The Montreal Declaration reported
the benefits of ICT in disaster response, awareness, capacity building, waste management,
smart metering, environmental safety, environmental sustainability, recycling, and mitiga-
tion of climate change (Tarhan et al. 2016). Governments could strengthen institutions and
ensure their effective involvement in DRR plans. Institutional quality is a vital component

13
Natural Hazards

Table 5  Estimation of negative Variables Estimate Std. error z value Pr( >|z|)
binomial regression in LICs
Intercept 4.461*** 1.033 4.318 0.000
Time1996 2.537** 0.838 3.028 0.002
Time1997 2.717*** 0.838 3.241 0.001
Time1998 2.103* 0.838 2.508 0.012
Time1999 4.070*** 0.839 4.851 0.000
Time2000 4.852*** 0.839 5.785 0.000
Time2001 2.484** 0.839 2.960 0.003
Time2002 2.721*** 0.841 3.237 0.001
Time2003 3.786*** 0.841 4.500 0.000
Time2004 3.881*** 0.839 4.628 0.000
Time2005 3.639*** 0.841 4.329 0.000
Time2006 1.280 0.841 1.521 0.128
Time2007 2.821*** 0.840 3.357 0.001
Time2008 4.651*** 0.841 5.529 0.000
Time2009 2.694*** 0.842 3.199 0.001
Time2010 4.440*** 0.844 5.261 0.000
Time2011 2.649** 0.843 3.144 0.002
Time2012 3.358*** 0.843 3.982 0.000
Time2013 1.536 0.843 1.821 0.069
Time2014 2.747*** 0.844 3.255 0.001
Time2015 3.164*** 0.844 3.750 0.000
Time2016 4.337*** 0.846 5.127 0.000
Time2017 1.851* 0.845 2.191 0.028
Time2018 2.616** 0.843 3.103 0.002
Time2019 2.152* 0.846 2.545 0.011
Risk 3.993* 1.634 2.444 0.015
Resilience 1.384 2.008 0.689 0.491
Dispersion 0.238 (Std. Error.: 0.016)
Log. Likelihood − 5557.676
AIC 5613.7

***0.001, **0.01, *0.05, and ‘.’ 0.01 show statistical significance

in risk management that eventually leads to a resilient community––as strong and effec-
tive institutions can reduce disaster damage (Tanesab 2020). The establishment of strong
institutions boosts the capacity of governments to achieve targets and supply public goods
and services (Persson and Povitkina 2017). Generally, a large proportion of people with
food insecurity live in disaster-prone areas with limited technology to counter disasters
(Habiba et al. 2016). Agriculture development is required to ensure food security (Pingali
et al. 2005). It is reported that food availability leads to disaster resilience in disaster-prone
regions (Haen and Hemrich 2007). Disaster resilience increases due to women’s empow-
erment and active contribution to community tasks. Women play a vital role in bonding
and bridging relationships that aim to manage natural disasters. Women share necessities
(i.e., food, cloth, medicine, and water) with neighbors, relatives, and friends during post-
disaster recovery and reconstruction (Alam and Rahman 2017). The active role of women

13
 Natural Hazards

Fig. 8  Fitted lines between

response and predictor variables
in HIC

Fig. 9  Plots of negative binomial regression in HICs

13
Natural Hazards

Fig. 10  Fitted lines between

response and predictor variables
in UMICs

Fig. 11  Plots of negative binomial regression in UMICs

13
 Natural Hazards

Fig. 12  Fitted lines between

response and predictor variables
in LMICs

Fig. 13  Plots of negative binomial regression in LMICs

13
Natural Hazards

Fig. 14  Fitted lines between

response and predictor variables
in LICs

Fig. 15  Plots of negative binomial regression in LICs

13
 Natural Hazards

to manage adverse events has been acknowledged by the Sendai Framework (Moreno and
Shaw 2018). Countries could adopt policy guidelines to speed up their journey toward
resilient communities––as an increase in resilience spurs the effective implementation of
disaster mitigation plans (Balaei et al. 2021). Countries can minimize the consequences of
natural disasters due to economic resilience (Cimellaro et al. 2016). Human capital (i.e.,
skills, training, education, and experience) plays a vital role in strengthening capacities,
which further improves disaster resilience (Al-Maruf 2017; Ashmawy 2020). It is impor-
tant to ensure an effective emergency medical care system during medical emergencies
(Swathi et al. 2017). Healthcare facilities are important due to their key role in disaster
relief operations (Cimellaro et al. 2011). However, it is a challenge to ensure appropriate
health services in hospitals, especially in low-income economies (Aghapour et al. 2019).
Similarly, post-disaster recovery is better due to social capital. It is a tool that ensures
mutual sympathy, goodwill, social relationships, and fellowship (Tammar et al. 2020). It
became a vital part of resilience that shows the measurement and strengthening of adap-
tive, absorptive, and transformative capacity (Story et al. 2018).
Governments and policymakers could adopt, support, and implement several policy
measures in DRR, such as (1) investment in basic facilities (sanitation, electricity, and
water), (2) use of ICT for weather information transmission, forecasting, early warning,
and safety programs, (3) ensure coordination among different institutions, (4) ensure food
availability to the entire population through modern technologies in agriculture, (5) provi-
sion of basic facilities to rural people, (6) establishment of basic infrastructure in rural
areas, (7) ensure a safe environment for women during community tasks, (8) women
involvement to prepare their families for future disasters, (9) implement effective poli-
cies for economic stability, (10) transfer modern technology from developed to developing
countries, (11) provision of financial resources to poor countries, (12) investment in health
sector (i.e., emergency plans, medical care system, and hospital beds) (13) use of armed
forces manpower and their communication networks during disasters, (14) conduct train-
ing of stakeholder to provide precautionary guidelines, and (15) increase social capital via
freedom, civil society participation, equality, power distribution, and social rights.

7 Conclusion and policy implications

This study explored the effects of the disaster risk index and disaster resilience index
on damage due to natural disasters in 90 countries. We develop comprehensive disas-
ter risk and resilience indices following a standard IMF index-making procedure. The
negative binomial regression shows an increase in disaster-related loss to human beings
(deaths, injured, affected, missing) due to the disaster risk index in all panels. Regres-
sion analysis indicates a favorable impact on disaster resilience, as an increase in dis-
aster resilience leads to a reduction in disaster-related loss to human beings in devel-
oped countries (HICs and UMICs). Focusing on basic infrastructure, economic stability,
public awareness, hygiene practices, ICT, and effective institutions could build disaster
resilience, mitigate disasters, and speed recovery after a disaster. It is recommended to
increase food availability through modern agriculture practices and rural development.
It is the responsibility of governments to ensure a safe environment for women. Due to
the insignificant impact of resilience in developing countries, it is recommended that
developed countries could provide external funding resources, modern and DRR tech-
nologies to developing countries. Besides, investment in the health sector is crucial to

13
Natural Hazards

mitigate disaster loss and speed recovery of injured persons. Social capital development
is another option to ensure personal integrity and security, civic participation, freedom,
equality, power distribution, and social rights. Countries could follow the Sendai Frame-
work 2015–2030––which has 7 targets and 4 dimensions to enhance disaster resilience.
This study has some limitations due to space and time. This study addressed only
natural disasters and ignored technological disasters while failing to categorize coun-
tries based on geographical locations. Future work could use different proxies of risk
and resilience to examine their impact on disaster loss. It is also possible to add more
indicators of risk and resilience. Future studies could categorize countries based on geo-
graphical locations to examine the effect of resilience on damage due to disasters.

Appendix A

See Fig. 16.

Fig. 16  List of selected countries

13
 Natural Hazards

Acknowledgements We are grateful to the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters–CRED,
Belgium, for access to EM-DAT database.

Funding This research has no funding from any organization.

Availability of data and material Data will be available upon request.

Declarations
Conflicts of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by
any of the authors.

References
Aghapour AH, Yazdani M, Jolai F, Mojtahedi M (2019) Capacity planning and reconfiguration for disaster-
resilient health infrastructure. J Build Eng 26:100853. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jobe.​2019.​100853
Ahmed J, Jaman MH, Saha G, Ghosh P (2021) Effect of environmental and socio economic factors on the
spreading of COVID-19 at 70 cities/provinces. Heliyon 7:e06979. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​heliy​on.​
2021.​e06979
Alam K, Rahman MH (2017) Chapter 29: the role of women in disaster resilience. In: Madu CN, Kuel
C (eds) Handbook of disaster risk reduction & management. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1142/​97898​13207​950_​0029
Albuquerque PH, Rajhi W (2019) Banking stability, natural disasters, and state fragility: panel VAR evi-
dence from developing countries. Res Int Bus Finance 50:430–443. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ribaf.​
2019.​06.​001
Ali Q, Yaseen MR, Anwar S, Makhdum MSA, Khan MTI (2021) The impact of tourism, renewable energy,
and economic growth on ecological footprint and natural resources: A panel data analysis. Resour Pol-
icy 74:102365
Al-Maruf A (2017) Enhancing disaster resilience through human capital: Prospects for adaptation to
cyclones in coastal Bangladesh. University of Cologne, Germany
Arouri M, Nguyen C, Youssef AB (2015) Natural disasters, household welfare, and resilience: evidence
from rural Vietnam. World Dev 70:59–77. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​world​dev.​2014.​12.​017
Asadzadeha A, Köttera T, Salehib P, Birkmann J (2017) Operationalizing a concept: The systematic review
of composite indicator building for measuring community disaster resilience. Int J Disaster Risk
Reduct 25:147–162. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijdrr.​2017.​09.​015
Ashmawy IKIM (2020) Stakeholder involvement in community resilience: evidence from Egypt. Environ
Dev Sustain 23:7996–8011. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10668-​020-​00894-9
Balaei B, Noy I, Wilkinson S, Potangaroa R (2021) Economic factors affecting water supply resilience to
disasters. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 76:100961. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​seps.​2020.​100961
Benali N, Abdelkafi I, Feki R (2018) Natural-disaster shocks and government’s behavior: evidence from
middle income countries. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 27:1–6. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijdrr.​2016.​12.​014
Birkmann J (2006) Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient societies: conceptual frameworks
and definitions, In: Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: towards disaster resilient societies;
United Nations University: New York, NY, USA
Bonnet J, Coll-Martínez E, Renou-Maissant P (2021) Evaluating sustainable development by composite
index: evidence from French departments. Sustainability 13:761. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su130​20761
Cavallo A, Ireland V (2014) Preparing for complex interdependent risks: a system of systems approach to
building disaster resilience. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 9:181–193. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijdrr.​2014.​
05.​001
Centre for research on the epidemiology of disasters (CRED) (2021) EM-DAT The international disaster
database. Institute health and society UClouvain, Belgium, www.​emdat.​be, Accessed 01 April 2021
Chok NS (2008) Pearson’s versus Spearman’s and Kendall’s correlation coefficients for continuous data.
M.Sc. thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the United States

13
Natural Hazards

Chowdhury JR, Parida Y, Goel PA (2021) Does inequality-adjusted human development reduce the impact
of natural disasters? A gendered perspective. World Dev 141:105394. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​world​
dev.​2021.​105394
Chun H, Chi S, Hwang B (2017) A spatial disaster assessment model of social resilience based on geo-
graphically weighted regression. Sustainability 9:2222. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su912​2222
Cimellaro GP, Reinhorn AM, Bruneau M (2011) Performance-based metamodel for healthcare facilities.
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40:1197–1217. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​eqe.​1084
Cimellaro GP, Tinebra A, Renschler C, Fragiadakis M (2016) New resilience index for urban water distri-
bution networks. J Struct Eng 142:C4015014. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​ST.​1943-​541X.​00014​33
Davies TRH, Davies AJ (2018) Increasing communities’ resilience to disasters; an impact-based approach.
Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 31:742–749. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijdrr.​2018.​07.​026
Dayton-Johnson J (2006) Natural disaster and vulnerability. OECD Publishing. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1787/​
20267​05440​86
Eisensee T, Stromberg D (2007) News droughts, news floods, and US disaster relief. Q J Econ 122:693–728
Firdhous MFM, Karuratane PM (2018) A model for enhancing the role of information and communication
technologies for improving the resilience of rural communities to disasters. Procedia Eng 212:707–
714. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​proeng.​2018.​01.​091
Fischer S (2021) Post-disaster spillovers: Evidence from Iranian provinces. J Risk Financ Manag 14:193.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​jrfm1​40501​93
French EL, Birchall SJ, Landman K, Brown RD (2019) Designing public open space to support seismic
resilience: a systematic review. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 34:1–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijdrr.​2018.​
11.​001
Gaiha R, Hill K, Thapa G (2010) Natural disasters in South Asia. ASARC Working Paper 2010/06, Aus-
tralia South Asia research centre. The Australian National University, Australia
Gaillard J (2010) Vulnerability, capacity and resilience: perspectives for climate and development policy. J
Int Dev 22:218–232. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​jid.​1675
Global state of democracy (GSD) (2021) World Bank, https://​govda​ta360.​world​bank.​org/, Accessed 01 Aug
2021
Graveline N, Grémont M (2017) Measuring and understanding the microeconomic resilience of businesses
to lifeline service interruptions due to natural disasters. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 24:526–538. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijdrr.​2017.​05.​012
Guha-Sapir D, Vos F, Below R, Ponserre S (2012) Annual disaster statistical review 2011: the numbers and
trends. Brussels: C.R.E.D. Retrieved from www.​cred.​be/​sites/​defau​lt/​files/​ADSR_​2011.​pdf
Habiba U, Abedin MA, Shaw R (2016) Chapter 6: Food security, climate change adaptation, and disas-
ter risk. In: Uitto JI, Shaw R (eds) Sustainable development and disaster risk reduction. Disaster risk
reduction, Springer, Tokyo. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-4-​431-​55078-5_1
Haen HD, Hemrich G (2007) The economics of natural disasters: implications and challenges for food secu-
rity. Agri Econ 37:31–45. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1574-​0862.​2007.​00233.x
Haque CE (2003) Perspectives of natural disaster in East and South Asia, and the Pacific Island states:
socioeconomic correlates and need assessment. Nat Hazards 29:465–483. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1023/A:​
10247​65608​135
Havko J, Mitašová V, Pavlenko T, Titko M, Kováčová J (2017) Financing the disaster resilient city in the
Slovak Republic. Procedia Eng 192:301–306. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​proeng.​2017.​06.​052
Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 4:1–23. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1146/​annur​ev.​es.​04.​110173.​000245
Husted T, Nickerson D (2021) Private support for public disaster aid. J Risk Financ Manag 14:247. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​3390/​jrfm1​40602​47
Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (ND-GAIN) (2021) University of Notre Dame, https://​gain.​nd.​
edu/, Accessed 01 Aug 2021
International Monetary Fund (IMF) (2021) International Monetary Fund, http://​data.​imf.​org/?​sk=​F8032​
E80-​B36C-​43B1-​AC26-​493C5​B1CD3​3B, Accessed 01 Aug 2021
Kahn ME (2005) The death toll from natural disasters: the role of income, geography and institutions. Rev
Econ Stat 87:271–284
Khan MTI, Anwar S, Batool Z (2022) The role of infrastructure, socio-economic development, and food
security to mitigate the loss of natural disasters. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:52412–52437. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​022-​19293-w
Kontokosta CE, Malik A (2018) The resilience to emergencies and disasters index: applying big data to
benchmark and validate neighborhood resilience capacity. Sustain Cities Soc 36:272–285. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​scs.​2017.​10.​025

13
 Natural Hazards

Ludin SM, Rohaizat M, Arbon P (2019) The association between social cohesion and community disas-
ter resilience: a cross-sectional study. Health Soc Care Community 27(3):621–631. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1111/​hsc.​12674
McDaniels T, Chang S, Hawkins D, Chew G, Longstaff H (2015) Towards disaster- resilient cities: an
approach for setting priorities in infrastructure mitigation efforts. Environ Syst Decis 35:252–263.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10669-​015-​9544-7
Moreno J, Shaw D (2018) Women’s empowerment following disaster: a longitudinal study of social change.
Nat Hazards 92:205–224. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11069-​018-​3204-4
Naudé WA, Bezuidenhout H (2014) Migrant remittances provide resilience against disasters in Africa. Atl
Econ J 42:79–90. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11293-​014-​9403-9
Noy I (2009) The macroeconomic consequences of disasters. J Dev Econ 88:221–231. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​jdeve​co.​2008.​02.​005
Noy I, Yonson R (2018) Economic vulnerability and resilience to natural hazards: a survey of concepts
and measurements. Sustainability 10:2850. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su100​82850
Oztig LI, Askin OE (2020) Human mobility and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a negative bino-
mial regression analysis. Public Health 185:364–367.
Padli J, Habibullah MS (2009) Natural disaster and socio-economic factors in selected Asian countries:
A panel analysis. Asian Soc Sci 5:65–71. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5539/​ass.​v5n4p​65
Padli J, Habibullah MS, Baharom AH (2010) Economic impact of natural disasters’ fatalities. Int J Soc
Econ 37:429–441. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​03068​29101​10423​19
Padli J, Habibullah MS, Baharom AH (2018) The impact of human development on natural disaster
fatalities and damage: panel data evidence. Econ Res 31:1557–1573. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13316​
77X.​2018.​15046​89
Panwar V, Sen S (2019) Economic impact of natural disasters: An empirical re-examination. Margin J
Appl Econ Res 13:109–139. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​09738​01018​800087
Persson TA, Povitkina M (2017) “Gimme Shelter”: The role of democracy and institutional quality in
disaster preparedness. Political Res Q. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10659​12917​716335
Pingali P, Alinovi L, Sutton J (2005) Food security in complex emergencies: enhancing food system
resilience. Disasters 29:S5–S24. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​0361-​3666.​2005.​00282.x
Qin Y, Shi X, Li X, Yan J (2021) Geographical indication agricultural products, livelihood capital, and
resilience to meteorological disasters: evidence from kiwifruit farmers in China. Environ Sci Pollut
Res 28:65832–65847. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​021-​15547-1
Qureshi MI, Yusoff RM, Hishan SS, Alam ASAF, Zaman K, Rasli AM (2019) Natural disasters and
Malaysian economic growth: policy reforms for disasters management. Environ Sci Pollut Res
26:15496–15509. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​019-​04866-z
Rahman MH (2018) Earthquakes don’t kill, built environment does: Evidence from cross country data.
Econ Model 70:458–468. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​econm​od.​2017.​08.​027
Raschky PA (2008) Institution and the losses from natural disasters. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 8:627–
634. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5194/​nhess-8-​627-​2008
Rose A (2004) Defining and measuring economic resilience to disasters. Disaster Prev Manag 13:307–
314. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​09653​56041​05565​28
Sarker MNI, Peng Y, Yiran C, Shouse RC (2020) Disaster resilience through big data: Way to envi-
ronmental sustainability. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 51:101769. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijdrr.​2020.​
101769
Shah AA, Shaw R, Ye J, Abid M, Amir SM, Pervez AKMK, Naz N (2019) Current capacities, prepared-
ness and needs of local institutions in dealing with disaster risk reduction in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,
Pakistan. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 34:165–172. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijdrr.​2018.​11.​014
Shi Y, Sun J (2021) The influence of neighboring jurisdictions matters: examining the impact of natural
disasters on local government fiscal accounts. Public Finance Rev 49:435–463. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1177/​10911​42121​10257​40
Songwathana K (2018) The relationship between natural disaster and economic development: a panel
data analysis. Procedia Eng 212:1068–1074. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​proeng.​2018.​01.​138
Story WT, Tura H, Rubin J, Engidawork B, Ahmed A, Jundi F, Iddosa T, Abrha TH (2018) Social capital
and disaster preparedness in Oromia, Ethiopia: an evaluation of the “women empowered” approach.
Soc Sci Med 257:111907. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​socsc​imed.​2018.​08.​027
Sun Y, Chau PH, Wong M, Woo J (2017) Place- and age-responsive disaster risk reduction for Hong
Kong: collaborative place audit and social vulnerability index for elders. Int J Disaster Risk Sci
8:121–133. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13753-​017-​0128-7
Svirydzenka K (2016) Introducing a new broad-based index of financial development. IMF Working
Paper No. WP/16/5. Strategy, policy, and review department, Washington, D.C., the United States

13
Natural Hazards

Swathi JM, González MA, Delgado RC (2017) Disaster management and primary health care: implica-
tions for medical education. Int J Med Educ 8:414–415. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5116/​ijme.​5a07.​1e1b
Taghizadeh-Hesary F, Sarker T, Yoshino N, Mortha A, Vo XV (2021) Quality infrastructure and natural
disaster resiliency: a panel analysis of Asia and the Pacific. Econ Anal Policy 69:394–406. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​eap.​2020.​12.​021
Taghizadeh-Hesary F, Yoshino N, Mortha A, Sarker T (2019) Quality infrastructure and natural disaster
resiliency. ADBI Working Paper Series No. 991. Asian development bank institute, Japan. https://​
www.​adb.​org/​publi​catio​ns/​quali​ty-​infra​struc​ture-​and-​natur​al-​disas​ter-​resil​iency
Tammar A, Abosuliman SS, Rahaman KR (2020) Social capital and disaster resilience nexus: A study
of flash flood recovery in Jeddah city. Sustainability 12:4668. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su121​14668
Tanesab JP (2020) Institutional effectiveness and inclusions: Public perceptions on Indonesia’s disaster
management authorities. Int J Disaster Manag 3:1–15. https://​doi.​org/​10.​24815/​ijdm.​v3i2.​17621
Tarhan C, Aydin C, Tecim V (2016) How can be disaster resilience built with using sustainable develop-
ment? Procedia-Soc Behav Sci 216:452–459. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​sbspro.​2015.​12.​059
The climate change knowledge portal (TCCKP) (2021) The World Bank Group, https://​clima​tekno​wledg​
eport​al.​world​bank.​org/​downl​oad-​data, Accessed 15 May 2021
The United Nations office for disaster risk reduction (UNDRR) (2021) Sendai framework for disaster risk
reduction 2015–2030. The disaster information management system (DesInventar), https://​www.​desin​
ventar.​net/​index.​html, Accessed 01 Apr 2021
The United Nations office for disaster risk reduction (UNISDR) (2019) global assessment report on disaster
risk reduction 2019. 9–11 Rue de Varembé, CH 1202, Geneva, Switzerland, https://​gar.​unisdr.​org
The World Bank and The United Nations (2010) Natural hazards, unnatural disasters: The economics of
effective prevention. The World Bank, Washington DC
Thywissen K (2006) Core terminology of disaster reduction. In Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards:
towards disaster resilient societies; Birkmann J (Ed.), United Nations University: New York, NY, USA
Toya H, Skidmore M (2007) Economic development and the impact of natural disasters. Econ Lett 94:20–
25. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​econl​et.​2006.​06.​020
Tselios V, Tompkins E (2017) Local government, political decentralisation and resilience to natural hazard-
associated disasters. Environ Hazards 16:228–252. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17477​891.​2016.​12779​67
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) (2004) Terminology: Basic Terms
of Disaster Risk Reduction. UNISDR, Geneva
Weerasekara S, Wilson C, Lee B, Hoang V-N, Managi S, Rajapaksa D (2021) The impacts of climate
induced disasters on the economy: Winners and losers in Sri Lanka. Ecol Econ 185:107043. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ecole​con.​2021.​107043
World development indicators (WDI) (2021) World Bank. http://​datab​ank.​world​bank.​org, Accessed 01 Apr
2021
World governance indicators (WGI) (2021) World Bank, https://​info.​world​bank.​org/​gover​nance/​wgi/​Home/​
Repor​ts, Accessed 20 Mar 2021
World inequality database (WID) (2021) World inequality lab. https://​wid.​world/​data/, Accessed 15 July
2021
Yun SD, Kim A (2021) Economic impact of natural disasters: a myth or mismeasurement? Appl Econ Lett.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13504​851.​2021.​18966​67

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

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable
law.

13
 Natural Hazards

Authors and Affiliations

Muhammad Tariq Iqbal Khan1 · Sofia Anwar1 · Samuel Asumadu Sarkodie2 ·

Muhammad Rizwan Yaseen1 · Abdul Majeed Nadeem1 · Qamar Ali3

* Muhammad Tariq Iqbal Khan

tariqiqbal88@yahoo.com
Sofia Anwar
sofia_eco@gcuf.edu.pk; sofia_ageconomist@yahoo.com
Samuel Asumadu Sarkodie
asumadusarkodiesamuel@yahoo.com
Muhammad Rizwan Yaseen
rizwany2001@yahoo.com
Abdul Majeed Nadeem
majeednadeem@gcuf.edu.pk
Qamar Ali
qamarali2402@gmail.com
1
Department of Economics, Government College University, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan
2
Nord University Business School (HHN), Post Box 1490, 8049 Bodø, Norway
3
Department of Economics, Virtual University of Pakistan, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan

13
View publication stats