the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
SHEDIS-Temperature: Linking temperature-related disaster impacts to subnational data on meteorology and human exposure
Abstract. International databases of disaster impacts are crucial for advancing disaster risk research, particularly as climate change intensifies the frequency and intensity of many natural hazards – including temperature extremes. However, many widely-used disaster impact databases lack information on the physical dimension of the hazards associated with an impact, and on the exposure to such hazards. This hinders analysing drivers of severe disaster outcomes. To bridge this knowledge gap, we present SHEDIS-Temperature, a dataset that provides Subnational Hazard and Exposure information for temperature-related DISaster impact records (https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WNOTTC; Lindersson and Messori, 2025). This open-access dataset links temperature-related impact records from the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) with subnational data on their locations, associated meteorological time series, and population maps. SHEDIS-Temperature provides hazard and exposure data for 2,835 subnational locations associated with 382 disaster records from 1979 to 2018 in 71 countries. Detailed hazard metrics, derived from 0.1° 3-hourly data, encompass absolute indicators, such as the heat stress measure apparent temperature accounting for humidity and wind speed, as well as percentile-based indicators of when and where temperatures exceeded local thresholds. Population exposure data include annual population figures for impacted subnational administrative units and person-days of exposure to threshold-exceeding temperatures. Outputs are available at grid-point level as well as zonally aggregated to administrative subdivision units, and disaster-record levels. By providing comprehensive attributes across the hazard-exposure spectrum, SHEDIS-Temperature supports interdisciplinary research on past temperature-related disasters, offering valuable insights for future risk mitigation and resilience strategies.
- Preprint
(2753 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 17 Sep 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-128', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Jul 2025
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sara Lindersson, 22 Aug 2025
reply
The author team thank referee RC1 for providing a positive and constructive comment, we are happy to read that our dataset is found to be useful. Please find answers to the individual points of improvement below.
- RC1: “in section 2.2.4 the authors could state the use of a moving average window earlier in the first paragraph to avoid confusion.”
Authors: We agree with RC1 and will change the text accordingly. - RC1: “I'd like to know why MSWX was chosen over ERA5-LAND? It isn't clear to me from the text what advantage MSWX offers over the hourly 0.1 degree scale reanalysis provided by ERA5-LAND.”
Authors: We agree that ERA5-Land is also a viable data source for this type of work. Our decision to use MSWX was based on both our own analysis and due to practical reasons. First, we compared maximum and minimum temperature estimates from MSWX and ERA5-Land against EM-DAT records for a subset of our study area. Both products showed broadly similar agreement with EM-DAT, with the main difference being that ERA5-Land aligned less well with minimum temperatures during cold waves. Second, in practical terms, we also found the 3-hourly structure of MSWX less computationally demanding than the hourly files from ERA5-Land. Given these considerations, we chose to proceed with MSWX, while acknowledging that ERA5-Land would also have been a defensible choice. To increase transparency, we would be happy to include the results of our MSWX–ERA5Land–EM-DAT comparison in the revised manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-128-AC1 -
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Aug 2025
reply
Hi Sara, I don't think it is necessary to include the results of the ERA5LAND comparison, but given it is generally the standard dataset used in these kind of situations, I think it would be good to briefly explain your choice of MSWX as you have done in your response. It is also valuable from the point of view of identifying areas of relative weakness with ERA5-LAND.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-128-RC2 -
RC3: 'Reply on RC2', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Aug 2025
reply
I would then happily accept the paper for publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-128-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Sara Lindersson, 26 Aug 2025
reply
Dear Anonymous Referee #1,
We are grateful for your supportive feedback and pleased to read your positive assessment of our work.
Kind regards, Sara
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-128-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Sara Lindersson, 26 Aug 2025
reply
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sara Lindersson, 26 Aug 2025
reply
Thank you, Anonymous Referee #1, for this helpful suggestion. We will modify the text accordingly in the revised manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-128-AC2
-
RC3: 'Reply on RC2', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Aug 2025
reply
- RC1: “in section 2.2.4 the authors could state the use of a moving average window earlier in the first paragraph to avoid confusion.”
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sara Lindersson, 22 Aug 2025
reply
-
RC4: 'Comment on essd-2025-128', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Sep 2025
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2025-128/essd-2025-128-RC4-supplement.pdf
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC4', Sara Lindersson, 16 Sep 2025
reply
Please see our responses attached as a supplement. Best regards, Sara
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC4', Sara Lindersson, 16 Sep 2025
reply
-
RC5: 'Comment on essd-2025-128', Anonymous Referee #3, 01 Sep 2025
reply
This data paper introduces SHEDIS-Temperature, a curated dataset linking EM-DAT national disaster records for heat and cold waves to subnational geometries, meteorological data, and population exposure. The dataset is useful, well-structured, and has clear potential for cross-national hazard–exposure analysis, model benchmarking, and policy applications. Overall, the manuscript is strong, but several clarifications and additional details would improve transparency, reproducibility, and usability.
Major comments
- Abstract: The abstract should include some key evaluation results (e.g., mean absolute error between EM-DAT and MSWX extremes) to convey dataset reliability at first glance.
- Detrending procedure: The manuscript should explicitly clarify what “detrending” means—whether it refers to removing the long-term climatological trend or the seasonal cycle. Equations or a concise methodological description would help. Please also discuss the sensitivity of detrending results to the choice of reference period.
- Advances over EM-DAT: Although Figure 1 touches on this, the global advances in spatial coverage and finer geometries relative to EM-DAT are not clearly visualized. A global map showing EM-DAT vs. SHEDIS coverage would highlight the added value.
- Choice of MSWX: The manuscript should justify why MSWX was selected as the meteorological input, rather than ERA5-Land, which has the same spatial resolution. A short rationale (e.g., bias corrections, variable availability) is needed.
- Cross-comparison with independent datasets: The study compares EM-DAT records with MSWX-derived extremes, but this is not fully independent from SHEDIS. A cross-check with another dataset (e.g., E-OBS, GHCN, Berkeley Earth, or reanalyses) would provide an independent validation.
- Apparent temperature: Provide more detail on how apparent temperature was calculated (equations, inputs). This is important for reproducibility and comparability with alternative indices such as UTCI or WBGT.
- Area vs. geo-projection: Tables define variables in km², but the gridded input is in WGS84. Clarify whether the data were reprojected or area-corrected to ensure comparable cell areas across latitudes.
- Percentile thresholds: Provide references for the use of a 31-day window for percentile determination.
- Minimum duration: Provide references or justification for the choice of a three-day minimum duration for events.
- Uncertainty guidance: There is no quantified uncertainty guidance, required by ESSD.
Minor comments
- Correct minor typos:
- “logaritmic” → “logarithmic”
- “recrods” → “records”
- “percieved” → “perceived”
- “Jammu and Kasmir” → “Jammu and Kashmir”
- “the the” duplication
- “Files within in these subfolders” → “Files within these subfolders”
- Spelling: Ensure consistent spelling of “GADM” (some occurrences appear inconsistent).
- Figure 9: Clean up the duplicated words and phrasing in the caption/description.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-128-RC5 -
AC5: 'Reply on RC5', Sara Lindersson, 16 Sep 2025
reply
Please see our responses attached as a supplement. Best regards, Sara
Data sets
SHEDIS-Temperature Sara Lindersson and Gabriele Messori https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WNOTTC
Model code and software
Code for SHEDIS-Temperature Sara Lindersson https://github.com/sara-lindersson/shedis-temperature-replication-code
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
865 | 99 | 31 | 995 | 24 | 40 |
- HTML: 865
- PDF: 99
- XML: 31
- Total: 995
- BibTeX: 24
- EndNote: 40
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
The authors have presented a useful dataset with clear explanations of the processing. The dataset allows for the fair comparison of extreme heat and cold events across the globe, subject to the geographical biases inherent in the available data. The dataset clearly provides added value to the EM-DAT database.
I have a suggestion and also a question. Firstly, in section 2.2.4 the authors could state the use of a moving average window earlier in the first paragraph to avoid confusion. Secondly, I'd like to know why MSWX was chosen over ERA5-LAND? It isn't clear to me from the text what advantage MSWX offers over the hourly 0.1 degree scale reanalysis provided by ERA5-LAND.