the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
How are public compensation efforts implemented in multi-hazard events? Insights from the 2020 Gloria storm in Catalonia
Abstract. Natural disasters result in increasing economic losses worldwide. Existing loss databases primarily capture insured damages and therefore often overlook uninsured assets and public compensation efforts. This study examines the role of public-sector compensation in disaster recovery, using the multi-hazard 2020 Storm Gloria in Catalonia as a case study. By systematically collecting, classifying and analyzing public compensation data related to rebuilding and restoring the direct tangible damages, we provide new insights into financial aid distribution for disaster recovery. In addition, an analysis of single major hazards is performed to understand the event's frequency, as well as its temporal and spatial distribution. Finally, the damages caused by the storm are used to estimate losses based on the probability of the triggering hazard's occurrence. The findings reveal that fluvial and coastal hazards caused over 80 % of recorded damages, while meteorological and slope hazards contributed the remainder. Concerning the affected elements, infrastructure sustained the highest losses, followed by economic and social sectors. Rebuilding and reconstruction costs for Storm Gloria were split evenly between fully public and public-private partnerships efforts. Public funding prioritized community assets and critical infrastructure, using hazard-dependent cost assessments and standardized government procedures. Additionally, the study identifies potential multi-hazard municipalities where overlapping hazards intensified damages, highlighting the need for comprehensive disaster documentation. Results also indicate that fully public compensations lack a direct correlation with hazard probability, reflecting prioritization based on recovery needs rather than hazard frequency. The research underscores the critical role of public intervention in disaster risk management and calls for enhanced data standardization to improve loss estimation methodologies in multi-hazard scenarios. Finally, this study contributes to the improve our understanding on disaster loss assessment and provides a framework for future evaluations of government interventions in post-disaster recovery.
- Preprint
(2541 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1009', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Apr 2025
reply
The paper examines public-sector compensation in disaster recovery, focusing on the 2020 Gloria storm in Catalonia. It highlights the importance of public compensation for uninsured assets and provides insights into financial aid distribution for disaster recovery. The study reveals that fluvial and coastal hazards caused over 80% of recorded damages, with infrastructure sustaining the highest losses. Public funding prioritized community assets and critical infrastructure.
The paper details the data used and the methodology with great precision and presents clear and concise results. The case study seems very appropriate to me. In addition to good conclusions. For all these reasons, I recommend its publication. I simply add some personal recommendations that the authors may or may not consider:
- In line 226, Gumbel is mentioned but its use is not justified as it is done with GEV previously.
- In figure 6, it would be advisable to add the letter labels to know what the caption refers to (a, b, c…).
- In the conclusions, add future contributions following the line of research.
- If possible, a graphical diagram of the methodology used in the paper.
Congratulations to the authors for their work, I found it very interesting.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1009-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Nuria Pantaleoni Reluy, 03 Jun 2025
reply
We thank the reviewer for the comments and have provided a detailed, point-by-point response in the attached supplementary material.
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1009', Samuele Segoni, 06 May 2025
reply
Dear Authors,
I was at EGU2025 and I had the opportunity of reading a poster based on this publication. I also got the chance to have an interesting discussion with the first author. Since I liked the work described in the poster very much, I was also very curious to check the submitted manuscript.
For what my opinion is worth (I'm not an official reviewer), I highly recommend the publication of this work, as I found it very interesting, based on a sound methodology, and original.
I just put forward a couple of comments that you are free to address or discard.
- I don't know how frequent similar events in Catalonia are, but one thing that maybe could be stated more clearly is that it is safe to assume that this disaster didn't come on top of another precedent disaster fro which the study area hadn't fully recovered yet. This is to avoid complex compound effects among repeated shocks that stack each other in a non-linear way, complicating any mathematics beyond the analysis.
- While readying the paper I was very curious of finding some explanations or speculations about the spatial pattern of damages: why did some areas receive more direct damage than others? This issue is partially addressed in the manuscript, and I think you correctly pointed out that the impacts of some hazard are widespread, while others are clustered around the spots where the most severe phenomena occurred. Here I would suggest a rapid search for possible correlations with soil sealing (or soil consumption or imperviousness). Indeed, in recent research of my group (DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/ad5fa1), we discovered that such impacts do not occur at random places, are not driven only by the severity of the driving hazardous process (e.g. rainfall or discharge return time), but depend (a lot!) on how much each municipality built buildings and infrastructure, and, more importantly, where the urbanization occurred (specifically, to what extent high hazard and medium hazard areas were spared or aggressed by urbanization). I see that this is partially beyond the scopes of the work, but I think it is relevant for discussion and conclusion, as it could be useful information to better address future intervention by both the public and private sectors.
Lastly, I would like to remark that my comments should not be intended as critics, and that I appreciate this work very much.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1009-CC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Nuria Pantaleoni Reluy, 03 Jun 2025
reply
We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s feedback and have addressed each comment in detail in the supplementary material provided.
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Nuria Pantaleoni Reluy, 03 Jun 2025
reply
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
168 | 56 | 15 | 239 | 15 | 20 |
- HTML: 168
- PDF: 56
- XML: 15
- Total: 239
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1