The article discusses the challenges and limitations of disaster databases, particularly the International Disaster Database (EM-DAT), which is widely used for tracking disaster events. It emphasizes that while high-quality data is crucial for understanding disaster trends and impacts, no database is flawless; data can be incomplete, inconsistent, and subject to reporting biases.
Since EM-DAT’s inception in the 1970s, a significant increase in reported disasters has been noted, especially after the 1980s. However, this trend is largely driven by improved reporting practices and advancements in communication technology, rather than an actual rise in disaster occurrences. Many small events from earlier periods are missing from records, leading to skewed historical analyses.
Furthermore, the article highlights gaps in economic damage reporting, especially from low-income countries, where statistical capacities are limited. It warns that indirect disaster impacts, such as those from extreme temperatures or droughts, are often underreported, resulting in an incomplete picture of their effects.
In conclusion, the authors stress the importance of being cautious when interpreting trends from EM-DAT and other databases, as misinterpretations can lead to incorrect conclusions about the frequency and impacts of natural disasters.
Source link
