Spatial video data collection in a post-disaster landscape: The Tuscaloosa Tornado of April 27th 2011 Andrew Curtis a, * , Jacqueline W. Mills b,1 a Department of American Studies & Ethnicity, Dana and David Dornsife, College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, Kaprielian Hall (KAP), Room 448B, 3620 South Vermont Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0255, USA b Department of Geography, California State University, Long Beach, CA, USA Keywords: Geographic information systems (GIS) Spatial video Disasters Recovery Tornado abstract Fine scale disaster response and recovery data suitable for spatial analysis are still relatively rare. This is unfortunate as insight into spatial patterns of recovery could be invaluable in predicting the reestablish- ment of homes, streets and neighborhoods. The purpose of this paper is to show how fine scale geographic data can be collected in near real-time for the intermediate phase between response and recovery. These data will initially be used to assess the degree of damage (with relation to the Enhanced F scale) while also establishing a baseline for subsequent recovery monitoring. A spatial video system is used to collect data from the post-disaster landscape of Tuscaloosa which was hit by a large tornado in April 2011. This video, once processed, can be viewed within a Geographic Information System which combines street-level images with exact location. These data can be used to support ongoing recovery efforts, while also archiving a dataset suitable for the spatial analysis of the changing post-disaster landscape. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction In the emergency management cycle, fine scale data collection can provide invaluable inputs for spatial analyses of the different disaster phases (planning/preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery). Such data is imperative if we are to advance our under- standing of how a post-disaster landscape returns to normalcy which is important as “recovery” remains the least understood phase (Cutter, 2003; Mileti, 1999; Mills, 2008, 2010; Rubin, 2009; Smith & Wenger, 2006). Though “place” is noted as having an influence on the process of recovery and spatial patterns are acknowledged to exist, they have not received much attention (Miles & Chang, 2006) especially from a spatial analytical perspec- tive. To date, the work on this subject has been primarily descriptive, at coarse aggregated units (Green, Bates, & Smyth, 2007; Liu & Plyer, 2008), and generally is only suggestive of the need for improved spatial study (Cutter & Emrich, 2006). Effectively, the geography of this process has remained an afterthought. From a geographer’s perspective, potentially one of our more valuable contributions is predicting the spatial recovery process in terms of reestablishing homes, streets and neighborhoods. With an understanding of how this process unfolds, in particular knowing what acts as facilitators or inhibitors, emergency managers and other government officials can plan for an efficient, equitable, and sustainable post-disaster recovery. Many questions still need to be answered. For example, how do individual actions, even within the frame of various externalities such as insurance payout, disaster relief and non-profit aid lead to identifiable rebuilding patterns that can either stimulate further recovery or impede growth? Further- more, how can these patterns be combined with other data to gain insight into associated recovery problems such as post-disaster health disparities? Only a few studies have performed fine spatial scale recovery analysis (Curtis, Duval-Diop, & Novak, 2010; Steven- son, Emrich, Mitchell, & Cutter, 2010). Finally, how might these data be disseminated to facilitate decision support for government and non-profit agencies, as well as for the public through such tools as web-based mapping services and cloud-based GIS? The lingering aftermath of Katrina over five years after the hurricane is a compel- ling case for the need to understand the geography of recovery. As this process begins shortly after the disaster event, data collection must commence early. The current study is set in this beginning point of recovery. Future field data collection will focus on these study areas and will use the data as the baseline upon which to measure recovery. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to show * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 626 429 9476; fax: þ1 213 740 9687. E-mail address: ajcurtis@usc.edu (A. Curtis). 1 Tel.: þ1 562 985 4454; fax: þ1 562 985 8993. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Applied Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apgeog 0143-6228/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.06.002 Applied Geography 32 (2012) 393e400