270 likes | 280 Views
This database analysis compares disaster databases of Nepal, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and the Philippines. The study highlights differences in world responses to natural disasters and complex emergencies.
E N D
QUALITY, RELIABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY OF NATIONAL DISASTER DATABASES PreliminaryResults R.Below and F. Vos EM-DAT TAG Meeting, New York, 26-27 October, 2009
Database Description: Nepal, Sri Lanka, Indonesia (DesInventar model) Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918
Database Description: Vietnam, Bangladesh, Philippines (Independent Models) Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918
Database Analysis (1) Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918
Database Analysis (1b) Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918
Database Analysis (2) Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918
Database Analysis (2b) Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918
Database Analysis (3) Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918
Database Analysis (3b) Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918
Database Analysis (4) Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918
Database Analysis (4b) Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918
Database Comparison: EM-DAT vs NEPAL Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918
Database Comparison: EM-DAT vs SRI LANKA Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918
Database Comparison: EM-DAT vs VIETNAM Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918
Database Comparison: EM-DAT vs BANGLADESH Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918
Database Comparison: EM-DAT vs PHILIPPINES Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918
Database Comparison: EM-DAT vs INDONESIA Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918
General Conclusions and Recommendations • Methodology • Absence of entry criteria (definition of disaster?) • Hierarchical classification allow querying and sorting data on higher/lower scales • Moving from a location-based data entry model towards an event-based data entry model: allow analyzes at local and national level • Use of ID number (GLIDE?) necessary for inter-operability and re-aggregation of dataset • Structure of the database has to be developed at a longer-term before any implementation • Use of standards for increasing accuracy of data, facilitating the compilation and allowing inter-operablity • Analytical capacities limited but needed for outputs
General Conclusions and Recommendations 2. Accuracy and reliability • Priority mainly given to Government, secondary source (media); lead to the question of accurracy of the data • Strenghtening validation process to ensure the accuracy and reliability of data • Staff training and guideline seen as a priority
General Conclusions and Recommendations 3. Serviceability • Analytical capacity to be developed (production of reports, etc ..) + increase visibility • Development of further querying functions on the website (users) • Limited tools for interpretation of outputs (visibility) • User documentation usually incomplete, lead to inappropriate use of data or misunderstanding • Reinforce collaboration network within the country or institutions collecting data in order to complete/cross check the information • Reinforce the collaboration at a international level in order to share/exchange knowledge (creation of a platform)
General Conclusions and Recommendations 4. Accessibility • In general no restrictions/technical barriers 5. Credibility • Ensure management is supportive of quality improvement at long-term • Sharing information on database’s goals and objectives, methodology, concepts and definitions, etc … could reinforce credibility, integrity and professionalism
General Conclusions and Recommendations 6. Pre-requisites and sustainability • Institutional framework to be guaranteed at long-term even if Government is taking over • Funding: Usually for additional staff or capacities for development/analysis • Network: Reinforce collaboration within the country but also internationally • Ensure continuity of the database