Natural Hazards

, Volume 86, Supplement 1, pp 177–182 | Cite as

Speeding up the clock in remote sensing: identifying the ‘black spots’ in exposure dynamics by capitalizing on the full spectrum of joint high spatial and temporal resolution

  • Christoph Aubrecht
  • Patrick Meier
  • Hannes Taubenböck
Original Paper

Increasing human and monetary losses resulting from extreme natural events over the past decades have been documented in corresponding disaster data compilations such as the open-access EM-DAT, SHELDUS, and DesInventar or the private domain NatCatSERVICE (Munich Re) and Sigma (Swiss Re) databases. One of the most imminent questions in disaster risk research is therefore to identify the main root causes of those increasing impacts as a first step toward being able to address those aspects in mitigation planning. Statistical evidence about increase in frequency and intensity of hazardous extreme events depends on the quality and quantity of data available for probabilistic trend evaluation, and varies across regions and in particular for different types of events. For example, certain hydrometeorological hazards such as heavy precipitation events show an observed statistically significant increase in parts of North America in the second half of the twentieth century (e.g., Peterson et...


Disaster Risk International Space Station Drone Disaster Response Volunteer Geographic Information 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aubrecht C, Özceylan D (2013) Identification of heat risk patterns in the U.S. National Capital Region by integrating heat stress and related vulnerability. Environ Int 56:65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aubrecht C, Steinnocher K, Hollaus M, Wagner W (2009) Integrating earth observation and GIScience for high resolution spatial and functional modeling of urban land use. Comput Environ Urban Syst 33(1):15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aubrecht C, Fuchs S, Neuhold C (2013) Spatio-temporal aspects and dimensions in integrated disaster risk management. Nat Hazards 68(3):1205–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aubrecht C, Steinnocher K (2014) Urbane Fernerkundung 2.0—Haben wir bereits alle Ziele erreicht? Oder stehen wir vielmehr erst am Anfang…? In: Taubenböck H, et al (eds) Globale Urbanisierung—Blickwinkel aus dem All. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. Aubrecht C, Steinnocher K, Huber H (2014) DynaPop—population distribution dynamics as basis for social impact evaluation in crisis management. In: Hiltz SR et al (eds) ISCRAM 2014, 11th international conference on information systems for crisis response and management. University Park, PA, pp 319–323Google Scholar
  6. Biehn N (2013) The missing V’s in big data: viability and value. WIRED. Accessed 15 March 2015
  7. Birkmann J, Cardona OD, Carreño ML, Barbat AH, Pelling M, Schneiderbauer S, Kienberger S, Keiler M, Alexander D, Zeil P, Welle T (2013) Framing vulnerability, risk and societal responses: the MOVE framework. Nat Hazards 67(2):193–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cannon T (2008) Vulnerability, “innocent” disasters and the imperative of cultural understanding. Disaster Prev Manag 17(3):350–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Choi G, Collins D, Guoyu R, Trewin B, Baldi M, Fukuda Y, Afzaal M, Pianmana T, Gomboluudev P, Huong PTT, Lias N, Kwon WT, Boo KO, Cha YM, Zhou Y (2009) Changes in means and extreme events of temperature and precipitation in the Asia–Pacific Network region, 1955–2007. Int J Climatol 29(13):1956–1975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crichton D (1999) The risk triangle. In: Ingleton J (ed) Natural disaster management. Tudor Rose Holdings Ltd, London, pp 102–103Google Scholar
  11. DeGaetano AT (2009) Time-dependent changes in extreme-precipitation return-period amounts in the Continental United States. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 48:2086–2099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Francica J (2014) UAVs vs. small sats—which has the more viable business model today? In: Directions Magazine, 11 Aug 2014Google Scholar
  13. Freire S, Aubrecht C (2012) Integrating population dynamics into mapping human exposure to seismic hazard. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 12(11):3533–3543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freire S, Ehrlich D, Ferri S (2014) Assessing temporal changes in global population exposure and impacts from earthquakes. In: Hiltz SR, et al (eds) ISCRAM 2014, 11th international conference on information systems for crisis response and management. University Park, PA, pp 329–333Google Scholar
  15. Gall M, Borden KA, Emrich C, Cutter SL (2011) The unsustainable trend of natural hazard losses in the United States. Sustainability 3(12):2157–2181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geiß C, Taubenböck H (2013) Remote sensing contributing to assess earthquake risk—from a literature review towards a road map. Nat Hazards 68(1):7–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goodchild MF (2008) Geospatial technologies and homeland security: challenges and opportunities. In: Sui DZ (ed) Geospatial technologies and homeland security: research frontiers and future challenges. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 345–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC (2012) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. In: Special report of working groups I and II of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Meier P (2013) How UAVs are making a difference in disaster response. iRevolutions blog. Accessed 15 March 2015
  20. Meier P (2014a) An introduction to humanitarian UAVs and their many uses. iRevolutions blog. Accessed 15 March 2015
  21. Meier P (2014b) Using micromappers to make sense of UAV imagery during disasters. iRevolutions blog. Accessed 15 March 2015
  22. Meier P (2015) Digital humanitarians—how big data is changing the face of humanitarian response. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  23. Mosterman PJ, Sanabria DE, Bilgin E, Zhang K, Zander J (2014) A heterogeneous fleet of vehicles for automated humanitarian missions. Comput Sci Eng 16(3):90–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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(4):1149–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peterson TC, Zhang X, Brunet-India M, Vazquez-Aguirre JL (2008) Changes in North American extremes derived from daily weather data. J Geophys Res Atmos 113:DO7113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sandvik KB, Lohne K (2014) The rise of the humanitarian drone: giving content to an emerging concept. Millenn J Int Stud 43(1):145–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stephens P, Hawkins O, Mackin S (2008) The disaster monitoring constellation (DMC): advances in small satellite constellation imaging capability. Supporting Resource Management with Technology. In: RS-2008, 12th biennial remote sensing applications conference. Salt Lake City, UTGoogle Scholar
  28. The Guardian (2014) Humanitarians in the sky. Global development professionals network partner zone. Accessed 15 March 2015
  29. UNISDR (2009) 2009 UNISDR terminology on disaster risk reduction. United Nations, Geneva, May 2009Google Scholar
  30. White GF (1978) Natural hazards and the third world—a reply. Human Ecol 6(2):229–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2004) At risk—natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters, 2nd edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Aubrecht
    • 1
    • 2
  • Patrick Meier
    • 3
  • Hannes Taubenböck
    • 4
  1. 1.Energy DepartmentAIT Austrian Institute of TechnologyViennaAustria
  2. 2.Global Practice on Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience (GSURR)The World BankWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Social Computing DepartmentQatar Computing Research InstituteDohaQatar
  4. 4.German Remote Sensing Data Center (DFD)German Aerospace Center (DLR)OberpfaffenhofenGermany

Personalised recommendations