1. Geo-referencing EM-DAT: methodology & experiences CRED 27 Oct 2009 - New York

2.  CRED objectives for geo-referencing  CRED tools  EM-DAT geocoding approaches  EM-DAT experiences  Conclusions Overview

3. CRED OBJECTIVES

4. CRED ACTIVITIES Natural Disaster Research Natural Disaster Research Civil Conflict Research Civil Conflict Research Training and Capacity Building (e.g. APHES Summer Course) Training and Capacity Building (e.g. APHES Summer Course) Database and information support EM-DAT, CE-DAT Database and information support EM-DAT, CE-DAT

5. EM-DAT: Occurrence & impacts of disasters Natural & technological disasters 1900 to today Geographical locations as text field National resolution CE-DAT: Field Surveys Epidemiological Indicators Mortality Rates, Malnutrition Rates, Vaccination coverages Geocoded using longitude/latitude (up to Admin3, city, camp) => Common denominator? EM-DAT International Disaster database & CE-DAT Complex Emergency database

6. EM-DAT data format

7. CRED METHODOLOGY

8. CRED Geocoding tools  Geo-spatial dataset: Global Administrative Unit Layers (GAUL) (EC-FAO Food Security Programme) standardization of spatial dataset representing administrative units coding system  CRED GEOCODER interface Locate Lat/long coordinates (WGS 84) Providers: GAUL, Geonames, Google, Yahoo  CRED GAUL interface  Additional geographic information in EM-DAT (river basins,...) => checking of geocodes

9. CRED GEOCODER interface

10. CRED GAUL interface

11. EM-DAT EXPERIENCES

12. 1. Hazard approach (earthquakes)  Epicentre coordinates  Aims: Information provided to user Mapping  Method: Search original data sources and additional sources (USGS, Reliefweb,…)  PROS: currently present in >85% of earthquakes in EM-DAT easily traceable information single coordinates per disaster event  CONS: epicenter not necessarily place of human impact (‘hazard’ vs. ‘disaster’) only valid for limited number of disaster types Explorative approaches (1)

13. 2. ‘Best available geographic data’-approach (CRED, University of Hawaii)  Point coordinates for lowest available level location  Aims: Link to GIS Increase granularity  Method: Disaster located in center point of reported area/location If multiple contiguous locations: single point located in middle If multiple non-contiguous locations: multiple point coordinates attributed  PROS: polygon available of Admin 1  CONS: center point of contiguous admins may fall ‘in the middle of nowhere’ unstandardized Admins (ESRI ArcGIS) no Admin2 level (CE-DAT) Explorative approaches (2)

14. 3. GAUL approach (CRED, Royal Museum for Central Africa)  For each identified location in EM-DAT a GAUL Admin unit is attributed  Aims: Feasibility study and explore information level of EM-DAT Increase granularity Linking EM-DAT & CE-DAT through common denominator (Admin2)  Method: Defining EM-DAT ‘locations’ GAUL-recognized administrative zone, Unrecognized Administrative zone Precise location (town), Broad cardinal indication (East, North,...) Valley, Plateau,... Location coordinates through CRED GEOCODER Lowest level GAUL Admin unit attributed Explorative approaches (3)

15. 3. GAUL approach (continued)  PROS: -polygon approaches the impact area -contiguous locations all included -adapts to different levels of location information -standardized and interoperable with other systems  CONS: -multiple lat/longs for one disaster event -information in EM-DAT sources not always detailed and comprehensive enough -polygon of Admin ≠ disaster footprint -time consuming Explorative approaches (cont)

16.  Earthquakes worldwide 1900-2008 Hazard approach  Natural disasters in African continent 1980-2008 (CRED, University of Hawaii) project underway to georeference natural disasters from 1980-2008 in Asia, Australia, North America, South America and Europe ‘Best available geographic data’-approach  Natural disasters worldwide in 2008; + Natural disasters in Burundi, Rwanda, DRC 1900-2008 (CRED, Royal Museum for Central Africa) GAUL approach Currently geo-coded in EM-DAT

17. EM-DAT level of information: natural disasters 2008 (1) Floods Admin 1Admin 2 n Africa80.957.447 Americas97.252.836 Asia96.956.965 Europe77.844.49 Oceania55.633.39 Total89.254.2166 Earthquakes Admin 1Admin 2 n Africa50 2 Americas100502 Asia10023.517 Europe10002 Oceania.. Total95.726.123 Mass movements (dry + wet) Admin 1Admin 2n Africa100502 Americas100504 Asia62.512.58 Europe..0 Oceania100 1 Total8033.315 % Admin1 and Admin2 level information in EM-DAT (by disaster type and region)* *Admin1 includes Admin2 N=390

18. EM-DAT level of information: natural disasters 2008 (1) Floods Admin 1Admin 2 n Africa80.957.447 Americas97.252.836 Asia96.956.965 Europe77.844.49 Oceania55.633.39 Total89.254.2166 Earthquakes Admin 1Admin 2 n Africa50 2 Americas100502 Asia10023.517 Europe10002 Oceania.. Total95.726.123 Mass movements (dry + wet) Admin 1Admin 2n Africa100502 Americas100504 Asia62.512.58 Europe..0 Oceania100 1 Total8033.315 % Admin1 and Admin2 level information in EM-DAT (by disaster type and region)* *Admin1 includes Admin2 N=390

19. % Admin1 and Admin2 level information in EM-DAT (by disaster type and region)* Storms Admin 1Admin 2n Africa1008010 Americas77.320.544 Asia83.730.243 Europe53.823.113 Oceania50 2 Total78.630.4112 *Admin1 includes Admin2 N=390 EM-DAT level of information: natural disasters 2008 (2) Volcanos Admin 1Admin 2n Africa..0 Americas100 5 Asia100 1 Europe..0 Oceania10001 Total10085.77 Wildfires Admin 1Admin 2n Africa10002 Americas100502 Asia100 1 Europe..0 Oceania..0 Total100405

20. *Admin1 includes Admin2 N=390 EM-DAT: overview of level of information Distribution of natural disasters with Admin1 and Admin2 level geographic information in EM-DAT, by region (2008)* Admin 1Admin 2n Asia90%40%146 Europe64%29%28 Oceania62%38%13 Africa82%53%103 Americas89%42%100

21. Example: Africa in Admin2 resolution

22. Example: Africa in Admin1 resolution

23. Example: Africa in Admin0 (national resolution)

24.  Geocoding of locations useful to increase resolution in EM-DAT  Actual way of recording locations in EM-DAT close to admin1 (without active searching)  Final EM-DAT geocoding protocol still to be agreed on  Work towards disaster footprint Conclusions

25. CONTACT: CRED 30, C LOS C HAPELLE - AUX -C HAMPS 1200 B RUSSELS – B ELGIUM T EL : +32-2-764-3327/F AX -3441 E-M AIL : CONTACT @ CRED. BE WWW. CRED. BE THANK YOU ! Acknowledgements: Manuel Albela; José Rodriguez (CRED)

27. From Points to Polygons

28. EM-DAT level of information: natural disasters 2008 (3) Epidemics Admin 1Admin 2n Africa75.050.032 Americas100.080.05 Asia100.033.33 Europe..0 Oceania..0 Total80.052.540 Extreme temperatures Admin 1Admin 2n Africa..0 Americas10001 Asia10004 Europe50254 Oceania..0 Total77.811.19 Droughts Admin 1Admin 2n Africa87.5258 Americas100 1 Asia5004 Europe..0 Oceania..0 Total76.923.113 *Admin1 includes Admin2 N=390 % Admin1 and Admin2 level information in EM-DAT (by disaster type and region)*

29. *Admin1 includes Admin2 N=390 Admin 1 (%)Admin 2 (%)n Droughts772313 Earthquakes962623 Epidemics805340 Extreme temp78119 Floods8954166 Mass movements (dry+wet) 803315 Storms7930112 Volcanos100867 Wildfires100405 EM-DAT: overview of level of information Distribution of natural disasters with Admin1 and Admin2 level geographic information in EM-DAT (2008)*

30. CRED GAUL interface