Validating Remote-Sensing Measures of Natural Hazards: Granular-Level Links to Insured Loss during a Cyclone
Abstract. Remote-sensing products are widely used after disasters as indicators of incurred damage, yet it remains uncertain which mapped surface-disturbance remote-sensing signals are most informative about residential damages. This study examines the damage from the 2023 Cyclone Gabrielle in New Zealand by linking four publicly available remote-sensing layers—SAR-detected standing water, post-event wetness, soil- or silt-related disturbance, and inferred slope-related disturbance—to residential insurance claims from the public insurer at a fine spatial scale. We construct claim-rate and insurance payout outcomes and estimate cross-sectional models, investigating their association with the data from remote-sensing products. The two insurance outcomes capture recorded claim intensity relative to local building stock and the monetary intensity of insured loss. Slope-related disturbance is most strongly associated with claim occurrence and loss variation in hazard-positive rural areas. Wetness-related disturbance becomes the strongest predictor of loss severity once claims are observed. Standing-water and soil-related indicators provide smaller but more stable signals, and their composite index is positively associated with both claim rates and payouts. Urban areas show higher baseline loss levels, whereas rural areas show stronger marginal responses to additional physical disturbance. Our findings show that remote-sensing indicators are not interchangeable hazard proxies. Their value as proxies for disaster damage depends on the physical signal captured, the damage outcome measured, and the settlement context in which damage occurs.
The study ‘Validating Remote-Sensing Measures of Natural Hazards: Granular-Level Links to Insured Loss during a Cyclone’ looks at the correlation between four different remote-sensing indicators and the occurrence and magnitude of residential losses represented through natural-hazard insurance claims following Cyclone Gabrielle, which hit the North Island of New Zealand in February 2023.
The study is an interesting and timely contribution to improvements in the validation of risk and hazard indices. While the results are interesting and worth publishing in NHESS, several key points made in the manuscript require further clarification. I would therefore recommend the manuscript for publication after major revisions.
General comments
I think the manuscript will do well in future reviews if the authors are able to address the following issues:
Specific comments:
L37ff: ‘This distinction matters for loss analysis because insurance claims better reflect realised damage rather than meteorological intensity alone. Remote-sensing indicators can therefore provide a more direct spatial link between physical disturbance and observed residential losses and damages.’ These two sentences confuse hazard, risk and vulnerability. Both the meteorological intensity and the used remote sensing indicators are just different ways to measure hazard intensity. Losses are a function of properties exposed to the measured hazard and how vulnerable these properties are to the hazard.
L164:’This “standing water” image has not been validated against ground observations of flood extent.’ That seems like a useful thing to do as I would assume that standing water can be the result of various processes including in-situ rainfall which is different from standing flood water from rivers. Is there a reason why the authors have not done that?
L188f: What is the rationale for normalising LogPayouts by the total number of buildings and not by the number of affected buildings in a mesh block? Normalising by the total number of buildings makes it difficult to distinguish between areas that have few buildings with high damages and areas with many buildings with low damages.
L288ff: It would be good to get at least a bit more detail about the remote sensing indicators used and how they were constructed. For example, for D-Wet, how was the threshold defined to distinguish between higher soil moisture levels following rainfall and higher soil moisture levels caused by flooding?
L423: ‘This sample’ repetition