Natural Hazards

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 845–852 | Cite as

Using disaster footprints, population databases and GIS to overcome persistent problems for human impact assessment in flood events

  • Debarati Guha-Sapir
  • Jose M. Rodriguez-Llanes
  • Thomas Jakubicka
Short Communication

Abstract

Preventing disasters and their consequences is crucial to protect our societies and promote stability. Reliable information on impact is essential for an in-depth analysis of the factors that lead to disaster and for better disaster prevention and preparedness policies. At present, the estimation of the population exposed to natural hazards is based on proxies of their physical footprint such as flooded regions or watersheds. Satellite hazard footprints, combined with population and disaster impact data, can provide an impact assessment of higher precision. We report here on the procedure to combine such data using GIS methods and compare these estimates with those obtained using a previous approach. We found that the process is feasible, although there were limitations in the matching of disaster databases and possible problems of estimation when the data had different resolutions. In half of the events, the watershed approach largely overestimated the population physically exposed to floods. We conclude that the systematic production of footprints, as well as better methodologies for human impact measurement, would improve our understanding of disaster impacts and thereby strengthen disaster preparedness.

Keywords

Footprint Satellite Population exposure Flood Disaster impact Mortality 

References

  1. Ahern M, Kovats RS, Wilkinson P, Few R, Matthies F (2005) Global health impacts of floods: epidemiologic evidence. Epidemiol Rev 27:36–46. doi:10.1093/epirev/mxi004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allenby B, Fink J (2005) Toward inherently secure and resilient societies. Science 309:1034–1036. doi:10.1126/science.1111534 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balica SF, Douben N, Wright NG (2009) Flood vulnerability indices at varying spatial scales. Water Sci Technol 60:2571–2580. doi:10.2166/wst.2009.183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Christoplos I, Mitchell J, Liljelund A (2001) Re-framing risk: the changing context of disaster mitigation and preparedness. Disasters 25:185–198. doi:10.1111/1467-7717.00171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Groeve, T, Riva, P (2009) Early flood detection and mapping for humanitarian response. In: Proceedings of the 6th international ISCRAM conferenceGoogle Scholar
  6. Dilley M, Chen RS, Deichmann U, Lerner-Lam AL, Arnold M, Agwe J, Buys P, Kjekstad O, Lyon B, Yetman G (2005) Natural disaster hotspots: a global risk analysis. The World Bank, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Joyce KE, Belliss SE, Samsonov SV, McNeill SJ, Glassey PJ (2009) A review of the status of satellite remote sensing and image processing techniques for mapping natural hazards and disasters. Prog Phys Geogr 33:183–207. doi:10.1177/0309133309339563 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mosquera-Machado S, Dilley M (2009) A comparison of selected global disaster risk assessment results. Nat Hazards 48:439–456. doi:10.1007/s11069-008-9272-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Omira R, Baptista M, Miranda J, Toto E, Catita C, Catalao J (2009) Tsunami vulnerability assessment of Casablanca–Morocco using numerical modelling and GIS tools. Nat Hazards 54:75–95. doi: 10.1007/s11069-009-9454-4 Google Scholar
  10. Peduzzi P, Dao H, Herold C, Mouton F (2009) Assessing global exposure and vulnerability towards natural hazards: the disaster risk index. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:1149–1159. doi:10.5194/nhess-9-1149-2009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rodriguez J, Vos F, Below R, Guha-Sapir D (2009) Annual disaster statistical review 2008: the numbers and trends. CRED, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  12. Shultz JM, Russell J, Espinel Z (2005) Epidemiology of tropical cyclones: the dynamics of disaster, disease, and development. Epidemiol Rev 27:21–35. doi:10.1093/epirev/mxi011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Stevens MR, Song Y, Berke PR (2010) New Urbanist developments in flood-prone areas: safe development, or safe development paradox? Nat Hazards 53:605–629. doi:10.1007/s11069-009-9450-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Debarati Guha-Sapir
    • 1
  • Jose M. Rodriguez-Llanes
    • 1
  • Thomas Jakubicka
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre For Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, Institute of Health and SocietyUniversité catholique de LouvainBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations