Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T01:17:09.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Valparaiso’s 2014 Fire: Evaluation of Environmental and Epidemiological Risk Factors During the Emergency Through a Crowdsourcing Tool

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 September 2016

Sebastián Eduardo Espinoza Espinoza ,
Anibal Enrique Vivaceta De la Fuente  and
Constanza Andrea Machuca Contreras
Sebastián Eduardo Espinoza Espinoza*
Affiliation:
School of Dentistry, Public Health Department, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile
Anibal Enrique Vivaceta De la Fuente
Affiliation:
School of Medicine, Public Health Department, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile.
Constanza Andrea Machuca Contreras
Affiliation:
School of Dentistry, Public Health Department, Universidad de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Sebastián Espinoza E, #211, Subida Carvallo, Valparaíso, Chile (e-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To describe and relate the main environmental risk factors in the emergency process after a large urban fire in Valparaiso, Chile, in April 2014.

Methods

An observational, cross-sectional descriptive study was performed. All 243 reports from an ad hoc web/mobile website created on the Ushahidi/Crowdmap platform were reviewed. Reports were recorded in a new database with dichotomist variables based on either the presence or absence of the relevant category in each report.

Results

Almost one-third of the reports presented data about garbage (30%) and chemical toilets (29%). Reports related to water, infrastructural damage, and garbage had significant associations with 4 categories by chi-square test. In the logistic regression model for chemical toilets, only the variable of water was significant (P value=0.00; model P value: 0.00; R2: 11.7%). The “garbage” category confirmed infrastructural damage (P value: 0.00), water (P value: 0.028), and vectors (P value: 0.00) as predictors (model P value: 0.00; R2: 23.09%).

Conclusions

Statistically significant evidence was found for the statistical dependence of 7 out of 10 studied variables. The most frequent environmental risk factors in the reports were garbage, chemical toilets, and donation centers. The highest correlation found was for damaged infrastructure, vectors, and garbage. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:239–243)

Keywords

urban fireenvironmental risk factorsepidemiologyemergencies and disasterscrowdsourcing
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , April 2017 , pp. 239 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Astorga, M, Eguren, D, Espinoza, S, et al. An experience in combining disaster data with tools of distributed knowledge. Revista Chilena de Salud Pública. 2014;18(2):199-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.5354/0719-5281.2014.31980.Google Scholar
2. Datar, A, Liu, J, Linnemayr, S, et al. The impact of natural disasters on child health and investments in rural India. Soc Sci Med. 2013;76(1):83-91. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.10.008.Google Scholar
3. Pan American Health Association, Ministry of Health Office. Guía de Vigilancia Epidemiológica en Emergencias y Desastres. Santiago de Chile: Elaborado por el Ministerio de Salud; 2010; ISBN: 978-956-8823-52-8.Google Scholar
4. Noji, Eric, K. Impacto de los Desastres en la Salud Pública. Bogotá, Colombia: Pan American Health Association/WHO; 2000.Google Scholar
5. Zook, M, Graham, M, Shelton, T, et al. Volunteered geographic information and crowdsourcing disaster relief: a case study of the Haitian earthquake. World Med Health Policy. 2010;2(2):7-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1948-4682.1069.Google Scholar
6. Van den Berg, B, Grievink, L, Gutschmidt, K, et al. The public health dimension of disasters - health outcome assessment of disasters. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2008;23(suppl):55S-59S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Petersen, K. Producing space, tracing authority: mapping the 2007 San Diego wildfires. Sociol Rev. 2014;62:91-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12125.Google Scholar
8. Korteweg, HA, van Bokhoven, I, Yzermans, CJ, et al. Rapid health and needs assessments after disasters: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2010;10(1):295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Ministry of Health Office, Government of Chile. Public law number 20.584.Google Scholar
10. Dominici, F, Levy, JI, Louis, TA. Methodological challenges and contributions in disaster epidemiology. Epidemiol Rev. 2005;27(1):9-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxi009.Google Scholar