The article examines the importance of high-quality data in understanding disaster trends and the limitations of existing disaster databases, especially the International Disaster Database (EM-DAT). Despite being a key resource used by organizations like the UN, EM-DAT’s data is incomplete and varies in quality, which can lead to misleading conclusions about the actual number of disasters.
The article highlights that the perceived increase in disasters since the 1980s is influenced by improved reporting technologies and practices rather than a definitive rise in actual events. For instance, most small disasters from earlier years are missing from records, leading to skewed statistics. EM-DAT recommends caution in interpreting pre-2000 data and suggests that while there may be increases in certain types of disasters or locations, they should not be generalized globally based solely on EM-DAT figures.
Additionally, the article points out gaps in economic damage reporting, particularly in low-income countries, where data coverage is poorer. It also notes specific challenges in recording extreme temperatures and indirect impacts of disasters, such as health effects from heat and drought that are often underreported. Overall, users of disaster data must be aware of these biases and limitations to accurately interpret trends and impacts.
Source link
