The article emphasizes the critical need for accurate tracking of disaster data to manage and reduce disaster risks effectively. It highlights the International Disaster Database (EM-DAT) from the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) as a primary source for disaster statistics. However, it points out the inherent limitations and biases in these databases, notably the issue of incomplete data and variations in reporting quality over time, especially before the year 2000.
Though reports suggest a dramatic increase in disaster events over recent decades, EM-DAT acknowledges that improvements in communication technology and systematic reporting may have influenced these numbers, rather than reflecting a true rise in disaster frequency. The article also discusses missed smaller events in historical data and the lack of comprehensive economic damage records, particularly in low-income countries.
Moreover, it warns of the underreporting of extreme temperature impacts and indirect disaster effects. Users of disaster data should exercise caution in interpreting trends due to underlying biases and gaps in coverage. Overall, while an increase in reported disasters may be apparent, it does not necessarily equate to a proportionate rise in actual events.
Source link
