The disaster risk modeling framework has long focused on quantifiable impact metrics to assess a hazard's potential direct effects, such as fatalities (deaths) and economic losses (dollars). Over time, as the framework has expanded to inform both public and private applications, additional impact metrics that more directly consider the societal roots of risk and contemporary inequalities have been developed. However, it remains unclear which metrics best support practitioners, especially those whose work prioritizes equity. This article seeks to address this gap by identifying the metrics required for equity‐focused disaster risk management through a social science‐informed and human‐centered approach. We conducted 15 virtual focus groups with a total sample of 49 global disaster management practitioners, leveraging the United States Geological Survey's Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER), an earthquake impact product that produces the traditional impact metrics of fatalities and economic losses. With PAGER informing the focus group discussion, our team posed several open‐ended questions to learn how practitioners consider social equity in their decision‐making, what metrics they use, and what modeling gaps exist to support these decisions. Focus group data revealed that the traditional impact metrics shown in PAGER do not fully support practitioner decisions that integrate equity. Participants required equity‐supporting risk metrics , including demographically disaggregated risk metrics to understand who is exposed, vulnerable, or impacted, and actionable impact metrics to understand how to care for affected populations. Importantly, designing models to produce these metrics requires context‐driven approaches that are user‐oriented and locally specific. This article highlights opportunities for future research and development of a more sociotechnical disaster risk modeling practice, where disaster risk modelers better meet the growing desire and need of practitioners to integrate equity into their decision‐making and ultimately mitigate disaster injustices.
Loos et al. (Sun,) studied this question.