Demonstrates nighttime-light anomalies can indicate recovery activity in disaster-affected areas, suggesting a new monitoring tool.
Post-disaster recovery is a multi-year, multi-dimensional process, yet most remote-sensing assessments rely on single indicators and are hard to apply in data-sparse regions—limiting their value for sustainable, evidence-based reconstruction. We develop a Google Earth Engine (GEE)-based multi-sensor Recovery-Activity Index (RAI), built entirely from free satellite data, and apply it to the 2023 Al Haouz earthquake (Mw 6.8) in the High Atlas, Morocco. The index is framed explicitly as an observed recovery-activity monitoring proxy, not a direct measure of welfare or resilience capacity. Monthly VIIRS nighttime-light (NTL) anomalies, Dynamic World built-up probability, and precipitation-corrected Sentinel-2 NDVI were extracted for a 30 km rural core zone (January 2022–May 2026), deseasonalized, standardized, and integrated. NTL anomalies rose after the earthquake (post-event mean +18%) and appeared to precede built-up anomalies by about two months; because monthly series are short and autocorrelated, we tested this lead with block-bootstrap and block-permutation methods and report it as a reproducible but modest early-activity lead (r = 0.65, p = 0.02; p = 0.14 after correction) that is not an artefact of optical data gaps. NDVI was governed mainly by precipitation (R2 = 0.61) with negligible earthquake-attributable change, so vegetation signals do not confound the index. The integrated RAI peaked in December 2024 and proved robust to indicator weighting (pairwise r ≥ 0.97), baseline choice (r = 0.88), and spatial domain (<9% variation), with a genuinely multi-sensor peak (NTL 62%, built-up 43%). Province-level analysis revealed an uneven recovery hierarchy (Chichaoua > Al Haouz > Taroudannt) driven by differences in physical-rebuilding signal rather than baseline luminosity. Running in minutes server-side at no cost, the RAI offers data- and resource-limited administrations a scalable, reproducible tool to flag where reconstruction activity lags and to prioritize targeted ground verification—supporting more equitable, sustainability-oriented recovery governance—rather than serving as a stand-alone, validated recovery measure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: