QUALITY, RELIABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY OF NATIONAL DISASTER DATABASES Preliminary Results

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