This study aims to examine common hidden factors in disaster loss statistics and identify clues for verifying the fitness of the global targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR) to rule countries’ effort in reducing disaster risks. In this study, we first conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA), followed by a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using structural equation modeling (SEM). As a result of the EFA, we were able to extract three factors, namely Housing, Casualties or Education, and Relocation. In the analysis of SEM, we assumed three latent variables based on the results of the EFA. The relationship between the latent and observed variables was established in a manner that conformed to the implications of the EFA. According to the SEM results, we eventually identified three latent variables, namely Housing, Education and Relocation, as hidden common factors. Based on this identification, our judgment indicates that the latent variables appeared to be related to the following global targets of SFDRR: (b) those concerning the number of affected people and (d) those concerning damages to infrastructure and disruptions to basic services. It was found that relationships between variables could be clearly illustrated by using the path diagram. This study can be considered as a good example of introducing SEM to visualize hidden common factors and their relationships in an intelligible manner. Based on the results, we propose a starting point for discussing the fitness of SFDRR’s global targets by utilizing EFA and CFA (SEM) techniques. The path diagram can indicate the extent to which the indicators contribute to global targets that will be represented as latent variables. In the end, explicit reference should be made to the material data’s limitations in the disaster loss statistics. An effort to elaborate the input data themselves must be made in the near future.

1. [1] UNISDR, “Making Development Sustainable: The Future of Disaster Risk Management. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction,” Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), 2015.
2. [2] A. Brenkert and E. Malone, “Modeling Vulnerability and Resilience to Climate Change: A Case Study of India and Indian States,” Climatic Change, Vol.72, pp. 57-102, 2005.
3. [3] T. Ito, M. Miyamoto, and Y. Ono, “Strengthening Governance on Disaster Risk Reduction Through Improved Disaster Damage Statistics,” J. Disaster Research, Vol.11, No.3, pp. 470-475, 2016.
4. [4] https://www.desinventar.net/whatisDISendai.html [accessed March 31, 2018]
5. [5] L. Zou, “The impacting factors of vulnerability to natural hazards in China: an analysis based on structural equation model,” Natural Hazards, Vol.62, No.1, pp. 57-70, 2011.
6. [6] S. M. Hosseini, K. Roosta, A. Zamanipour, and M. Teymouri, “Using structural equation modeling approach to investigate farmers’ perception consequences of drought (Case study: Birjand Township, Iran),” Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, Vol.16, No.1, pp. 521-534, 2018.
7. [7] L. Lin, Y. Wang, and T. Liu, “Perception of recovery of households affected by 2008 Wenchuan earthquake: A structural equation model,” PLOS ONE, Vol.12, No.8, e0183631, 2017.
8. [8] R. Adams and J. Boscarino, “A structural equation model of perievent panic and posttraumatic stress disorder after a community disaster,” J. of Traumatic Stress, Vol.24, No.1, pp. 61-69, 2011.
9. [9] T. Tang, C. Yen, C. Cheng, P. Yang, C. Chen, and R. Yang et al., “Suicide risk and its correlate in adolescents who experienced typhoon-induced mudslides: a structural equation model,” Depression and Anxiety, Vol.27, No.12, pp. 1143-1148, 2010.
10. [10] B. Xiong, M. Skitmore, and B. Xia, “A critical review of structural equation modeling applications in construction research,” Automation in Construction, Vol.49, pp. 59-70, 2015.
11. [11] T. Golob, “Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research,” Transportation Research Part B, Vol.37, pp. 1-25, 2003.
12. [12] R. Bagozzi and Y. Yi, “Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models,” J. of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.40, No.1, pp. 8-34, 2011.
13. [13] J. L. Arbuckle, “Computer Announcement AMOS: Analysis of Moment Structures,” Psychometrika, Vol.59, No.1, pp. 135-137, 1994.
14. [14] K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long, “Tests for Structural Equation Models,” Sociological Methods & Research, Vol.21, No.2, pp. 123-131, 1992.
15. [15] S. A. Mulaik, L. R. James, J. V. Alstine, N. Bennett, S. Lind, and C. D. Stilwell, “ Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol.105, No.3, pp. 430-445, 1989.
16. [16] J. C. Anderson and D. W. Gerbing, “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol.103, No.3, pp. 411-423, 1988.
17. [17] https://www.desinventar.org/en/database [accessed April 8, 2018]
18. [18] https://www.emdat.be/frequently-asked-questions [accessed August 12, 2018]
19. [19] M. Marulanda, O. Cardona, and A. Barbat, “Revealing the socioeconomic impact of small disasters in Colombia using the DesInventar database,” Disasters, Vol.34, No.2, pp. 552-570, 2010.
20. [20] http://www.desinventar.org/en/methodology/DesInventar-MethodologicalGuide-English.pdf [accessed April 13, 2018]