Comments on the short communication: The number of natural disasters is zero: commentary to “Is the number of global natural disasters increasing?” by David Oliver Kasdan, Youngdal Son, and Hangul Lee Natural Hazards https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-02

Abstract In their recently published “short communication”, Kasdan et al. (Nat Hazards 2025) explain their strong negative reaction (“raises our hackles”) to an earlier article (Alimonti and Mariani in Environ Hazards 23(2):186–202, 2023) which questioned if the often-quoted increase in the number of entries (events) in a leading “natural disaster” database is real or a consequence of evolving reporting practices. According to the communication’s abstract, their objections are partly semantic, regarding the term “natural disaster”, and also methodological. They also question the “intentions” of the authors of the earlier study. As we explain below, we consider that the comments of Kasdan et al. 2025 are flawed in several ways, both regarding perspective and methodological aspects.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Natural Hazards
Published
2025-10-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-025-07710-5
Primary Topic
Flood Risk Assessment and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comments on the short communication: The number of natural disasters is zero: commentary to “Is the number of global natural disasters increasing?” by David Oliver Kasdan, Youngdal Son, and Hangul Lee Natural Hazards https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-02

Ari Tryggvason, Luigi Mariani, G. Alimonti, Roland K. Roberts
Natural Hazards
Flood Risk Assessment and Management
article

Comments on the short communication: The number of natural disasters is zero: commentary to “Is the number of global natural disasters increasing?” by David Oliver Kasdan, Youngdal Son, and Hangul Lee Natural Hazards https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-02

Ari Tryggvason, Luigi Mariani, G. Alimonti, Roland K. Roberts
article en

Abstract

Abstract In their recently published “short communication”, Kasdan et al. (Nat Hazards 2025) explain their strong negative reaction (“raises our hackles”) to an earlier article (Alimonti and Mariani in Environ Hazards 23(2):186–202, 2023) which questioned if the often-quoted increase in the number of entries (events) in a leading “natural disaster” database is real or a consequence of evolving reporting practices. According to the communication’s abstract, their objections are partly semantic, regarding the term “natural disaster”, and also methodological. They also question the “intentions” of the authors of the earlier study. As we explain below, we consider that the comments of Kasdan et al. 2025 are flawed in several ways, both regarding perspective and methodological aspects.

Natural HazardsVol. 121(19)
Uppsala University (SE), University of Milan (IT), Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Milano (IT), University of Brescia (IT)
Uppsala Universitet
Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
Flood Risk Assessment and Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.