1 / 27

QUALITY, RELIABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY OF NATIONAL DISASTER DATABASES Preliminary Results

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.

agusting
Download Presentation

QUALITY, RELIABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY OF NATIONAL DISASTER DATABASES Preliminary Results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. QUALITY, RELIABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY OF NATIONAL DISASTER DATABASES PreliminaryResults R.Below and F. Vos EM-DAT TAG Meeting, New York, 26-27 October, 2009

  2. Database Description

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Database Analysis

  6. Database Analysis (1) Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918

  7. Database Analysis (1b) Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918

  8. Database Analysis (2) Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918

  9. Database Analysis (2b) Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918

  10. Database Analysis (3) Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918

  11. Database Analysis (3b) Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918

  12. Database Analysis (4) Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918

  13. Database Analysis (4b) Paul Spiegel (2005). Differences in World Responses to Natural Disasters and Complex Emergencies. JAMA , Vol. 293 (15), pp. 1915-1918

  14. Database Comparison

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. Conclusions and Recommendations

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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)

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. Thank You For Your Attention

More Related