# Typhoon Loss Assessment in Rural Housing in Ningbo Based on Township-Level Resolution
## 4 Results
### Typhoon Loss Statistics in Rural Housing in Ningbo  
The insured loss rate of rural housing in each township under the influence of different typhoon paths from 2014 to 2019 was counted, and representative typhoons were selected for analysis, as shown in Figures 6-8. Combined with the typhoon wind speed data in Table 1, it can be seen that the disaster losses of rural housing in the Ningbo area under the influence of different typhoon paths varied greatly. In general, the insured loss rate of townships and the wind speed of typhoons affecting Ningbo area were positively correlated. Specifically, typhoons landing on the coast of Zhejiang (i.e., type I typhoons such as 1509 Typhoon Chan-hom and 1909 Typhoon Lekima) caused more damage to rural houses in Ningbo area than typhoons landing in neighboring provinces and cities such as Fujian (i.e., type II typhoons). Type III typhoons such as 1616 Typhoon Malakas, although they did not make landfall in China and the affected typhoon wind speeds in Ningbo were small, the typhoon centers entered within the 500 km range of Ningbo during their evolution and still caused great damage to the rural houses in Ningbo townships. The main reason is that under the attack of the typhoon's peripheral spiral wind and rain belt, secondary disasters such as floods, landslides, and mudslides occurred in the mountainous areas of Ningbo, and rural housing was highly susceptible to damage from secondary disasters. A summary of the underwriting data and claims data due to typhoons from 2014-2019 according to district and county scales (as shown in Table 2) showed that the 6-year total coverage varied widely among districts and counties, and the total coverage was significantly higher in Cixi than in other districts and counties due to the largest population base. The zoning map of Ningbo districts and counties is shown in Figure 9. As can be seen from Table 2, Yuyao, Xiangshan, Ninghai, and Cixi had a higher total payout amount, and Xiangshan, Beilun, Ninghai, Yuyao had larger insured loss rates. It is worth mentioning that \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline Year & \begin{tabular}{c} **Impact Time** \\ **(Month/Day)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Typhoon Number** \\ **and Name** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Landing Location** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Path Type** \\ **Average Maximum Wind Speed** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
2016 & 9/16/9/17 & 1616 Malakas & Not landed in China & Type III & 9.2 & 10.9 \\
2016 & 10/31/05 & 1618 Chaba & Not landed in China & Type III & 8.5 & 3.8 \\
2017 & 7/27/4 & 1703 Nannadol & Not landed in China & Type III & 9.7 & 6.0 \\
2017 & 7/27/27/30 & 170 West & Taiwan; Fuqing, Fujian & Type II & 6.3 & 5.0 \\
2017 & 7/31-8/2 & 170 Haitang & Taiwan; Fuqing, Fujian & Type II & 7.7 & 5.6 \\
2017 & 9/13-9/17 & 1718 Laiming & Not landed in China & Type III & 8.4 & 11.4 \\
2018 & 7/21-7/23 & 1810 Ampli & Shanghai & Type II & 7.9 & 20.1 \\
2018 & 7/26-8/03 & 1812 Jongdiar & Shanghai & Type II & 9.5 & 23.1 \\
2018 & 8/10-8/14 & 1814 Yagi & Wenling Zhejiang & Type I & 7.5 & 19.2 \\
2018 & 8/16-8/19 & 1818 Rumblia & Shanghai & Type II & 8.4 & 22.2 \\
2018 & 8/28-2/23 & 1819 Soukil & Nad Indeed in China & Type III & 6.0 & 9.5 \\
2018 & 10/4-10/6 & 1825 Kong-rey & Not landed in China & Type III & 11.0 & 4.6 \\
2019 & 7/17/27/19 & 1905 Damas & Not landed in China & Type III & 7.0 & 6.6 \\
2019 & 8/8-8/11 & 1909 Lekima & Wenling Zhejiang & Type I & 12.3 & 28.2 \\
2019 & 9/6-6/7 & 1913 Lijing & Not landed in China & Type III & 8.8 & 12.6 \\
2019 & 9/21-9/22 & 1917 Tapabu & Not landed in China & Type III & 9.8 & 5.4 \\
2019 & 10/1-10/3 & 1918 Míng & Zhoushan, Zhejiang & Type I & 15.5 & 32.4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._  
Figure 6: Insured loss rate of townships due to type I typhoons. (**a**) 1416 Fung-wong; (**b**) 1509 Chan-hom; (**c**) 1909 Lekima.