Monitoring and Evaluating Post Disaster Recovery Using High Resolution Satellite Imagery Daniel Brown, Keiko Saito and Torwong Chenvidyakarn Department of Architecture, Cambridge University Cambridge, UK dmb56@cam.ac.uk Beverley Adams, John Bevington ImageCAT Ltd. Ashtead, UK Robin Spence, Steve Platt Cambridge Architectural Research Ltd.
Presentation Contents What is post disaster recovery? Why must it be monitored? Recovery Indicators Methodology: Overview Case Study: Ban Nam Khem, Thailand Recommendations What should be monitored? When should imagery be acquired? Transferability of Indicators Tool Integration
Recovery Project Objectives Identify Email: indicators dmb56@cam.ac.uk for measuring, monitoring and evaluating post disaster recovery Remote sensing based Field survey based + Strategically, how much have we achieved so far? Operationally, what should be done next? Develop a guide for aid agencies on how to best use these indicators
Remote Sensing and Disasters Remote Sensing has been used to assist all four phases of the disaster management cycle through early warning, crisis mapping and spatial planning. Work has focussed on Disaster Response, by assisting rapid damage assessment and loss estimation after the event (often in the immediate weeks and months). Over 80 papers have been published on this topic (Saito, 2009). but still very little work on Remote Sensing as a monitoring tool.
What is Post Disaster Recovery? Post Disaster Recovery may be thought of as an attempt to bring a post disaster situation to a level of acceptability through the rectification of damage and disruption that has been inflicted upon an urban system s built environment, people and institutions. Post disaster Post Recovery Long, costly, complex recovery process
Why must Post Disaster Recovery be Monitored? Recovery is: a) Expensive b) Numerous Stakeholders c) Numerous Sectors Since 1984, the World Bank alone has financed US$ 26 billion in disaster activities in over 600 disaster responses. Table 1 shows major reconstruction program pledges (US$ 1 billion or more) between 1998 and 2006. Natural Disasters Post Conflict 1998 Hurricane Mitch 6.3 2003 Iraq 32.0 2003 Bam Earthquake 1.0 2005 Sudan 4.5 2004 Aceh and Nias Tsunami 7.7* 2006 Lebanon 7.6 2004 Sri Lanka Tsunami 3.0 2005 Kashmir Earthquake 5.4 2010 Haiti Earthquake 9.9 Source: Dreamis (2009). * Pledges following the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami eventually reached US$ 14 billion
Why must Post Disaster Recovery be Monitored? Recovery is: a) Expensive b) Numerous Stakeholders c) Numerous Sectors Executing Agencies UN Humanitarian Partners e.g. UNICEF, UNHCR Non-UN Humanitarian Partners e.g. Red Cross, Oxfam National Government of Affected Country Local and National NGOs Companies: e.g. BP after the oil spill Donors International Financial Institutions: e.g. World Bank International Development Departments: e.g. EU (through ECHO) National Development Departments: e.g. USAID and DFiD Public Donations: e.g. through DEC and National Governments Operationally, what should be done next? M&E improves coordination, situationalunderstanding M&E improves and coordination, decision making situationalunderstanding towards and a better decision making understanding of good and bad contributes towards practice. a better understanding and contributes of good and bad practice. Strategically, how much have we achieved so far? Strategically, the techniques allow users to monitor Strategically, recovery the in a techniques comprehensive allow users and to independent monitor recovery manner in that a comprehensive promotes and transparency independent and manner accountability. that promotes transparency and accountability.
Why must Post Disaster Recovery be Monitored? Recovery is: a) Expensive b) Numerous Stakeholders c) Numerous Sectors Executing Agencies and Donors Inter-Agency Standing Committee CLUSTERS Sector or Area of Activity Agriculture Camp Management Early Recovery Education Emergency Shelter Emergency Telecommunications Health Logistics Nutrition Protection Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Global Cluster Lead FAO UNHCR / IOM UNDP UNICEF / Save The Children UNHCR / IFRC OCHA / WFP WHO WFP UNICEF UNHCR / OHCHR / UNICEF UNICEF Cross-Cutting Issues Age Environment Gender HIV/AIDS HelpAge International UNEP UNFPA / WHO UNAIDS
Why must Post Disaster Recovery be Monitored? Recovery is: a) Expensive b) Numerous Stakeholders c) Numerous Sectors Despite the complexity, cost and importance of post disaster recovery a monitoring framework that is systematic and independent still does not exist: Shelter Meeting (2006): Lack of a standard, independent and replicable approach to measure, monitor and evaluate the relief and recovery processes TRIAMS (2007): There is a need to find suitable methodologies and modalities for the TRIAMS core indicators to be collected and analysed in a systematic and periodic way by local actors in the different sectors of the recovery. Existing techniques are commonly subjective and qualitative The availability of VHR Satellite Imagery presents the opportunity to enhance and support existing data collection tools, including ground surveys and social audit methods.
Phase 1: Creation of the Indicator List and Data Collection A preliminary list of robust, versatile indicators were compiled based on: a) Current Frameworks b) User Needs Survey c) Field Collection The Sphere Guidelines ECLAC Handbook Post Disaster Needs Assessment TRIAMS Millennium Development Goals
Phase 1: Creation of the Indicator List and Data Collection A preliminary list of robust, versatile indicators were compiled based on: a) Current Frameworks b) User Needs Survey c) Field Collection Replies received from the following organisations: DIFD EuropeAid European Commission FAO ILO International Recovery Platform OCHA UNDG UNDP UNEP UNFPA University of Memphis UNOSAT WFP World Bank Head Office World Bank Indonesia Josef Leitmann - World Bank Indonesia, Disaster Management Coordinator We lack good information about damage to housing and infrastructure; impact on access; land cover change. It would be very useful to have these indicators of recovery mapped as overlays onto satellite imagery Dan Ayliffe - DIFD, Response Officer It would be useful to map population movements; rehabilitation of homes; rehabilitation of infrastructure including roads, camps and medical centres; uptake of agricultural activities and other livelihoods. Top 5 Indicators: 1. Livelihoods 2. Housing Reconstruction 3. Water quality 4. Crops/livestock/fisheries = 5. Road Reconstruction =5. Floodwater removal Users want a comprehensive approach encompassing all aspects of recovery. All indicators were ranked very highly.
Phase 1: Creation of the Indicator List and Data Collection A preliminary list of robust, versatile indicators were compiled based on: a) Current Frameworks b) User Needs Survey c) Field Collection Objective 1: Obtain feedback on candidate indicators and proposed recovery timeline. Objective 2: Exchange knowledge and experience about post tsunami recovery with key organizations and the local community to create a narrative of recovery and to verify the remote sensing analysis. Roundtable discussion Focus group meetings Household survey
Physical Indicators Socio economic Indicators Recovery Indicator List Sector Transport Buildings / Shelter Transitional Shelters and IDPs Environment Services Livelihoods Performance Indicator 1. Accessibility Analysis 2. Reconstruction of bridges and transport facilities 3. Presence of vehicles 4. Removal and construction of buildings 5. Change in urban land use and morphology 6. Quality of dwelling reconstruction 7. Temporary dwellings and shelters 8. Location of population 11. Change in Land Cover and public open space 9. Administration, education, healthcare and religious facilities 10. Power, Water and Sanitation (WATSAN ) Facilities 12. Recovery of livelihoods Table has large scope, encompassing many different aspects of Recovery Including physical, environmental, social and economic factors, which combine to give a true picture of recovery Manageable number of indicators, so list remains practical and usable.
Analysis Methodology Three Stages: 1) Pre Processing 2) Mapping & Database Creation 3) Data Analysis 4) Product Creation Registration and Pan sharpening Pansharp (PCI Geomatica) Gram Schmidt (ENVI) Principal Component (ERDAS Imagine)
Analysis Methodology Three Stages: 1) Pre Processing 2) Mapping & Database Creation 3) Data Analysis 4) Product Creation Mapping Features using both semiautomatic and manual techniques: Mapping Technique Manual Delineation Supervised Classification Object Based Image Analysis Features Buildings, Roads, Bridges, Boats, Tents, Water Towers etc. Land Cover Extraction, Green Spaces Transitional Shelters, Planned Camps, Shrimp Ponds Features Integrated into a Multi Temporal Geodatabase with standardised Schema
Analysis Methodology Three Stages: 1) Pre Processing 2) Mapping & Database Creation 3) Data Analysis 4) Product Creation Query the geodatabase using various analysis techniques: Technique Features Output Change Detection Speed of Recovery, Location of Change, Absence / Presence How fast were houses built at Site A? When was the school built? Spatial Analysis Abundance, Location How many houses were built? Are buildings sufficient distance from potential hazards? Buffer Analysis Proximity, Changing Context How many buildings have been built within 200 m of the coast? Landscape Metrics Network Analysis Disaggregation Feature size, density and distribution. Connectivity, Travelling Distance All data may be disaggregated by geographic boundary, executing agency etc. Are the new houses the same size as those that existed before the disaster? How far are households from sources of livelihood? Are sufficient schools available? How many schools have been built in each Province? Has Executing Agency A completed 2,000 houses in Region B?
The Recovery Project RSPSoc 2010. Cork, Ireland Indicators for Measuring, Monitoring and Evaluating Post Disaster Recovery Daniel Brown, Centre for Risk in the Built Environment (CURBE), Cambridge University, UK Multi Sensor Database of Very High Resolution Imagery Indicators applied to two case studies (and Yingxiu, China) Muzaffarabad 1 2 3 4 5 Date 13 August 2004 22 October 2005 13 June 2006 20 September 2008 06 June 2009 Timeline 14 months + 14 days + 8 months + 35 months + 44 months Sensor Quickbird Quickbird Quickbird WorldView 1 Quickbird Timeline 30 months +4 days +7 days +4 months +7 months +1 year +2 years +3 years +4 years Sensor Ikonos Orbview Quickbird Ikonos Quickbird Quickbird Ikonos Ikonos Quickbird Ban Nam Khem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Date 24 June 2002 30 December 2004 02 January 2005 21 April 2005 14 July 2005 28 February 2006 21 November 2006 08 February 2008 05 February 2009 Email: dmb56@cam.ac.uk
The Recovery Project Ban Nam Khem Status: a) Transport b) Buildings c) Environment d) Planned Camps Pre Disaster Road Length: 46 km. The tsunami destroyed 29.8 km of road. Emergency vehicles had access to region within several days Major Routes cleared of debris and rubble within 4 months 21 km of restoration completed in one year The total length of asphalt road in February 2009 was 8.01 km longer than it was before the disaster. Network Analysis: households relocated up to 10 Km from Ban Nam Khem, significant social and economic impact on fishing community.
The Recovery Project Ban Nam Khem Status: a) Transport b) Buildings c) Environment d) Planned Camps 621 buildings were washed away by the tsunami A further 58 buildings were demolished during relief phase 592 buildings were built in the first five months, including new school buildings Numerous Agencies operating in BNK: Military construction complete within 1.5 years; NGO construction complete between 2 to 4 years There was disparity in the size/quality of housing provided by different agencies leading to discontent among many residents. Military built buildings smaller and more densely built than the buildings that existed before the tsunami.
The Recovery Project Ban Nam Khem Status: a) Transport b) Buildings c) Environment d) Planned Camps Approximately 4.2 Km² of vegetation was removed by the tsunami. a further 0.7 Km² removed during the first 4 months of recovery due to clearance and construction work. Sparse vegetation was particularly badly affected but was seen to recover significantly in the first year. Land Degradation was seen around new construction and planned camps, but later recovered. Where possible construction took place on existing urban sites. Crop cycles appeared unaffected by the Tsunami.
Ban Ban Nam Nam Khem: Khem IDPS Status: a) Transport b) Buildings c) Environment d) Planned Camps 4 camps in Phang Nga hosting 3,200 people (correct within 10%) Three camps dismantled within three years One camp still hosting households after four years Minimum Covered Space standards adhered to EIA: Dismantled buildings with vegetation returning quickly
Recovery Indicator Outputs 1. TRANSPORT The Recovery Project 4. SHELTER Evaluating the Construction and Removal of Buildings in Ban Nam Khem RSPSoc 2010. Cork, Ireland 100 Performance Indicator 1. Accessibility Analysis 1600 Indicators for Measuring, Monitoring and Evaluating Post Disaster Recovery 60 bridges and transport facilities Buildings / Shelter 5. Change in urban land use and morphology 20 1200 Email: dmb56@cam.ac.uk 1000 800 0 600 20 400 3. Presence of vehicles 4. Removal and construction of buildings % change Daniel Brown, Centre for Risk in the Built Environment (CURBE), Cambridge University, UK 2. Reconstruction of Transport 1400 40 Total no. of structures Sector 2000 1800 80 40 Figure 1: The length of functioning road was measured, by road type. 8. POPULATION 200 Figure 2: Total number of buildings in Ban Nam Khem throughout the recovery period 9. SERVICES (EDUCATION) 6. Quality of dwelling reconstruction 7. Temporary dwellings Transitional and shelters Shelters and IDPs 8. Location of population 9. Administration, education, healthcare and religious facilities Services 10. Power, Water and Sanitation (WATSAN ) Environment Livelihoods Figure 3: The population living in transitional shelters was estimated throughout the recovery process and compared to Government Statistics. 11. ENVIRONMENT Figure 4: The removal and construction of permanent and temporary buildings was monitored at Ban Nam Khem School. 12. LIVELIHOOD 11. Change in Land Cover and public open space 12. Recovery of livelihoods Figure 5: Multi temporal supervised classification generated data on land cover changes Figure 6: The productivity of shrimp grow out ponds was analysed throughout the recovery period.
Recommendation s Four Parts: 1) What Indicators? 2) When? 3) Transferability 4) Tool Integration Knowing which indicator(s) to employ is ultimately dependent on: The processes/projects occurring on the ground Impact/Losses, Resources and Recovery Strategy Spectral, spatial and temporal limitations An understanding of these issues is crucial to acquiring suitable data and avoiding costly mistakes. Indicators used in this research are based on humanitarian frameworks, user needs survey and round table meetings with users. Spatial: At least 1.0 m, preferably 0.6 m or higher. Spectral: Vegetation require NIR band. Better spectral resolution likely to improve semi automatic extraction e.g. Worldview 2 s 8 bands. Temporal: The satellite sensors listed below all have average revisit times under 3 days. For example, Worldview 1 and 2 have a revisit time of 1.7 and 1.1 days respectively at 1.0m GSD Appropriate Sensors: Ikonos, Quickbird, Worldview 1, Worldview 2, and Geoeye 1
Recommendation s Four Parts: 1) What Indicators? 2) When? 3) Transferability 4) Tool Integration To avoid costly mistakes it is important to know when to acquire imagery. Images should be acquired when impacts are likely to be visible and measurable Due to the dynamic nature of recovery, the timing and duration of events and processes is likely to vary, so constant communication with ground workers is crucial. Many aspects of the recovery process are, to a certain extent, predictable and are ultimately determined by the funding strategies and timeframes of donors and affected governments. E.g. World Bank s 3 year Emergency Funding Loan. All of the crucial disaster response activities with infrastructure activities took 6.5 7 years on average (IEG, 2006).
Recommendation s Four Parts: 1) What Indicators? 2) When? 3) Transferability 4) Tool Integration Indicators designed to be versatile and applicable to multiple hazards and to be noncountry specific. Analyst must be aware of cultural differences The techniques offer a standardised and quantitative methodology that allows the disparity in the speed and quality of recovery to be compared across an affected region and between different disaster events. The Recovery Indicators provide a standardised method of quantifying the process of reconstruction, which allows the speed and scale of recovery after different events to be compared to each other.
Recommendation s Four Parts: 1) What Indicators? 2) When? 3) Transferability 4) Tool Integration Results from tools triangulated to verify the accuracy and reliability of results Cost effectiveness analysis of tools (Time/Money, Detail, Accuracy, Skill Requirement) VHR satellite imagery shown to be costeffectiveness at town/city scale Identified tools strengths and weaknesses and recommend how tools may be integrated and when Remote Sensing Triangulation Ground Observations Social Audit GPS Camera, Views Techniques Focus Group Meetings, Key Informant Interviews, Household Survey)
Raw Satellite Images GIS Analysis Spatial Analysis and Change Detection Satellite maps direct survey teams to Areas of Interest and may be used to select suitable survey samples. Ground Survey Geo tagged notes, videos and photographs may be used to note verify Remote Sensing analysis e.g. building use and construction quality and for detailed grounds observations. The maps are used to invoke discussion and inform the survey design and questions. Social Audit Methods Household surveys, Key Informant Surveys and Focus Group Meetings may all be used to measure progress, identify problems and derive an overall perception of recovery. Output: Geo tagged photographs & maps from executing agencies. Ground Surveys populate maps with data on building use and construction quality. Maps Spatial Temporal Recovery Geodatabase Graphs Output: Annotated Maps The notes are all given a location and where appropriate attached to the relevant map feature. Tables
Conclusion VHR Satellite Images can effectively monitor and show disparity in the speed and quality of post disaster recovery. Ancillary information has proved to be complementary to the data derived from remote sensing, and adds additional depth to the understanding of the studied areas Remote Sensing has been shown to be cost effective at town/city scale, but more work is required to allow the techniques to be applied across larger areas e.g. sampling, medium resolution data and/or more automated techniques. Remote sensing can also be used to: Plan Construction Plan Field Work (logistics, including accessibility) Create samples Act as the base to a data management system to host data from other tools, assisting triangulation. Visualisation tool Map production
ollowing outputs The Recovery Project Recovery Project Report To be published: mid-2010 Recovery Project 4 pager Published: May 2010 Conference Papers Remote Sensing and Disaster Workshops 2008, 2009 and 2010.
Many Thanks