<< Metro Transit Ridership | Planning & Land Use >>
How We Rated Cities
SustainLane examined the 50 largest US cities, assessing natural disaster risk. This ranking was devised with SustainLane primary research as well as with information from Risk Management Solutions. We looked at hurricanes, major flooding, catastrophic hail, tornado super-outbreaks, and earthquakes, taking into consideration potential frequency of disaster as well as the extent of damage.
The cities below are ranked from least to most at risk for natural disaster damage. (1 is least dangerous.)
Ryan G. says:
How is Columbus ranked 34th for natural disaster risk when nearby cities like Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh are ranked 2nd (from the Forbe's list of America's Safest cities which used this site for its Natural Disaster Risk rankings)? What risks does Columbus have that these other cities do not?
Thanks
Roc B. says:
Columbus VS Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh doesn't have tornadoes and is less effected by icing and flooding.
Can't speak for the other cities
John D. says:
Ridiculous. I have lived in all three cities (grew up in Cleveland, lived in Cols 25 years and currently live in Cincinnati) and Columbus definitely is not at a higher risk than Cleveland or Cincinnati. Cincinnati in particular is greatly at risk from Ohio River flooding-- something that Columbus is not exposed to.
JD
K S. says:
I came here looking for the same information (i.e. what the heck is so dangerous in Columbus?).
Glad to see other’s questioning it too.
Cincinnati (area) has more tornados than Columbus and Cleveland has terrible lake-effect snow and ice storms that we rarely see in central ohio.
I’m trying to recall the last time I heard of someone getting killed in the central Ohio area due to nature. I can’t think of any recent (last 5-10 years) tornado deaths… maybe some ice storm traffic accidents.
Ridiculous.
Reade K. says:
I'm with you folks questioning Columbus' rank! I came to this via a link from a paper (SF Chronicle) reporting on Forbes' list specifically because Columbus' ranking jumped out as completely off the charts. It just makes no sense.
I thought MAYBE tornados, but Chicago metro is ranked 9th safest, and has had several instances of catastrophic tornado super-outbreaks in the last 50 years. St. Louis is vulnerable to an 8+ earthquake on the New Madrid fault, vulnerable enough that Discovery (or TLC or TWC or another of the science-oriented cable channels, I forget which) has featured it in one of their 'It Could Happen Tomorrow' scare scenarios about cities flirting with disaster, yet IT ranks 16th safest. MUCH safer than Columbus. Usually when something patently ridiculous like this shows up on a ranking chart it is either due to flat-out incompetence, or else to errors in weighting. Junk 'science'...
Reade K. says:
Just checked the rankings again. It can't be tornado vulnerability- Okla. City is ranked safer than Columbus, yet it's right in the middle of tornado alley.
And now that it's in Forbes, this junk will metastasize forever. Dum and dummerer...
Reade K. says:
My mistake. Columbus, Tulsa and Oklahoma City are all ranked the same for natural disaster (39 out of 50 on sustainLane's list- the Forbes list doesn't include either Okla. City or Tulsa, because it is only a list of the top 40 largest metro areas, whereas SustainLane's list is of the top 50 largest cities, not metro areas), but the two in Oklahoma are both well-known as being dead-center in Tornado Alley...
Mark K. says:
Good Grief! Columbus has a lower safety ranking, due to the natural disaster score, than that hell hole of Detroit. Please explain what natural disasters bedevil Columbus?
Ken O. says:
Ryan: If you research Pittsburgh and the other cities you'll see that they have very low to zero earthquake or hurricane risk and very little flood risk. Cincinnati on the other hand definitely has great flood risk. Columbus historical tornado and hail activity is above Ohio state average. Tornado activity there is 70% greater than the national average. SustainLane uses insurance data that comes directly from filed claims due to natural disasters across these cities. The insurance data bears this out -- our rankings heavily weight the financial destruction as a proxy for natural disaster risk. While not fool-proof, it does provide a window into the qualitative and quantitative risks that cities face when it comes to natural disasters. Rankings like SustainLane's always have their strengths and weaknesses. We are preparing our city surveys now (we do a significant amount of primary research leading up to the rankings release) for our next rankings in 2010, and are constantly speaking with experts in the field on how to improve what is already considered to be the best benchmarking study in the US when it comes to city sustainability. That doesn't mean there isn't room to improve, and if you have any constructive criticism on how we can amend our natural disaster risk measurements across the country, we'd love to get that feedback from you, or a link to another credible research project that we can add to our list of reference materials. Thanks for posting your questions! Ken Ott, Director, SustainLane US City Rankings
John D. says:
Ken,
Don't know where you get the idea that Columbus has high tornado risk. I lived there from 1973 to 2000 and don't know of one tornado that caused significant damage in Columbus. There is no way that Columbus has a higher risk than Cleveland or Cincinnati both cities I have lived in. There may be a statistical anomaly in the insurance records, but the idea that Columbus is somehow more at risk than Cleveland or Cincinnati for Tornadoes is wrong. Also, I was in Columbus in1974 when there was a super outbreak of tornadoes that struck Xenia near Dayton-- none struck Columbus. (Confirmed by Internet Search). However, several struck in the Cincinnati area. Also, there was a tornado that struck Blue Ash in the Cincinnati area in the last 20 years. You need to double check your data because it clearly appears to be wrong.
JD
Elli A. says:
Hi,
I live in San Francisco for many years and has never experienced and earth quake. Does that mean San Francisco has a low disaster risk? Its about statistics. Numbers don't lie. Same for Columbus. The fact that something did not happen in the last couple of years does not mean the risk is gone.
Ken O. says:
John, the data is correct, if not surprising, and encompasses the entire 20th century, not just the time you've lived there. See this city page for confirmation that Columbus historical tornado activity is above Ohio state average. Tornado activity there is 70% greater than the national average.
http://www.city-data.com/city/Columbus-Ohio.html
John D. says:
Ken,
Your interpretation of the data is incorrect. Your link says:
"Columbus-area historical tornado activity is SLIGHTLY above Ohio state average. It is 70% greater than the overall U.S. average."
Are both Cleveland and Cincinnati way below the Ohio average? Additionally, Cincinnati has a much higher flood risk than Columbus, so how could it be ranked so much higher in terms of risk avoidance.
JD
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/city/Columbus-Ohio.html#ixzz0VTcsGcSF
James E. says:
Interesting discussion. I don't see Cincinnati on the SustainLane list John, but it is on the Forbes list. I'm thinking we need to find out from the Forbes reporter how he ranked Cincinnati as better than Columbus? Clearly he didn't take the SustainLane list and overlay it onto his ranking because the cities are different, and there is no data here on Cincinnati. It would be interesting to know what else he used besides SustainLane? I can't seem to find another attribution on that site that would explain it?