1. Document the chain
An investigation candidate requires a supported source, transport pathway, and receptor, each with a source URL, observation date and explanatory note. This is a transparent editorial rule, not a calibrated scientific model.
RESEARCH LAB / GAZA PILOT
Where is damage
near public wells?
Compare mapped structural damage with public-well locations, then examine the evidence needed to investigate a connection.
Spatial comparison · not a contamination forecast. Use the sourced spatial proximity view below, or document a source–pathway–receptor chain in the separate manual workspace. Neither view predicts contamination, exposure or the probability of harm. Manual entries start as “Insufficient information.”
SPATIAL SCREENING / SOURCED DATA SNAPSHOTS
Where is structural damage
near mapped public wells?
New: Follow the Water — explore the evidence journey ↗
Follow the evidence from damaged structures to questions about water. Explore the geography, test distance choices, and see what remains unknown.
Dates do not fully align. Structural damage: imagery dated 8 July 2025, published 5 August 2025. Public-well locations: UNICEF public layer retrieved 22 October 2026; the layer does not supply an observation date. Its item-modified date, 11 September 2025, is not a survey date. This comparison cannot establish that a well existed, operated or was damaged in July 2025.
Start here
Choose a map view, then select a governorate. Change the distance to see how sensitive the proximity count is to that choice.
Damage imagery8 July 2025Well observationsDate unknownInventory retrieved22 October 2026
Distances are analyst-selected sensitivity settings, not pollutant travel distances, safe distances or established exposure zones.
Governorate shading summarizes counts or proportions. It does not locate individual wells, damage footprints, contamination or service areas.
What can this result tell us?
Nearby assessed structural damage identifies a question for investigation. It cannot establish damage to a well itself, a damaged pipe connection, a release into groundwater, loss of water service or contamination.
Broad co-occurrence is common in this snapshot. A larger percentage is not a calibrated risk score or a sufficient basis to prioritize sites.
No field chemistry, groundwater transport, exposure data or validated forecasts are loaded.
| Governorate | Mapped wells | Within selected distance | Included damage points |
|---|
Sources, calculation and quality checks
1. Structural-damage snapshot
UNOSAT product 4165, July 2025 assessment. Downloaded directly from the official geodatabase. This is preliminary satellite interpretation, not field validation. The selected date field is SensorDate_13; class field Main_Damage_Site_Class_13.
The source has 192,851 point records: 192,812 in damage classes and 39 coded “No Visible Damage,” which are excluded. The default uses 161,383 destroyed, severe and moderate points. The expanded setting also includes both possible-damage classes. Class labels were read from the source geodatabase’s damage_type domain.
2. Public-well snapshot
UNICEF GIS · Map12_WFL1, Public Wells layer 7 · item metadata. Retrieved 22 October 2026. All 152 returned point records had unique coordinates, fell within the Gaza bounding box used for checking, and were assigned to a governorate. This is the layer’s coverage, not a census of all wells. No operating-status attributes are used.
The item and layer do not state an observation date or explicit reuse license. Only derived governorate summaries are published here; raw well locations and identifiers are not redistributed. Neither UNICEF nor UNOSAT has validated or endorsed this site’s calculation.
3. Distance calculation
Both point sets were projected to WGS 84 / UTM zone 36N (EPSG:32636). For each mapped well, calculate the straight-line distance to its nearest included structural-damage point; count distances at or below 100, 250 and 500 metres. Each well is counted once per setting. This is point proximity, not intersection of infrastructure footprints or hydrological connectivity.
Well governorates were assigned with point-in-polygon using the existing 2017 geoBoundaries boundaries; structural-damage governorate counts use the source’s Governorate field. These geography definitions may differ. Geometric distances omit uncertainty in both input locations.
4. What would strengthen it?
A dated and validated infrastructure inventory, facility footprints, linked network damage, field inspections, site chemistry and groundwater information would be needed to test the proposed consequences. The linked Perlman, Collins & Van Den Hoek (2025) WASH study provides separate satellite-based evidence; its restricted site dataset was not used or reconstructed.
Boundary attribution: geoBoundaries gbOpen / Open Data Watch, PSE ADM2, boundary year 2017, December 2023 build, CC BY 4.0. Simplified, fitted for display. Input checksums and aggregate results are in the downloadable summary.
N ↑ · Mediterranean Sea to the west. Governorate shading summarizes your entered evidence; it does not locate contamination.
▧ Insufficient information● Investigation candidate
YOUR EVIDENCE WORKSPACE
For each component, document evidence for this governorate and pathway. A citation alone does not establish a connection. Explain the location, timing, and relevance.
Entries stay in this open page only and disappear on reload. Export before leaving. They are not published or independently reviewed.
Screening methods and evidenceHow to interpret this exploratory tool
READ THE MAP RESPONSIBLY
Evidence before color.
2. Keep the gaps visible
Unknown, incomplete or unestablished links remain “Insufficient information.” Gray does not mean safe. Governorate-level evidence cannot establish parcel-level conditions or individual exposure.
3. Test against measurements
The manual workspace does not perform spatial calculations. The separate spatial view calculates point proximity only; neither view models runoff, wind, groundwater transport, or contaminant fate. Predictive results would require dated inputs, independent validation, and uncertainty estimates.
Sources to investigate
These resources support further research. The spatial view above uses its own documented inputs; it does not auto-fill the manual evidence workspace. Source publication dates and observation dates may differ.
- UNOSAT: Gaza damage assessment, 8 July 2025 — structural damage can identify places to investigate; it does not measure chemical contamination.
- UNEP: Gaza debris management resources — debris, potential hazardous materials, and assessment methods. Debris mass is not a measured contaminant concentration.
- Carrie’s modeled lead map and provenance limitations — retained separately; its values are not inputs to this tool.
Boundary attribution: geoBoundaries gbOpen / Open Data Watch, PSE ADM2, boundary year 2017, build December 2023, CC BY 4.0. Gaza’s five governorates extracted from the simplified geometry; projected and fitted for this display. Metadata · Download boundaries. Boundaries are reference geography, not current access or control lines.
Contribute a source or methodological correction ↗Explore the LEAD model
Test how ammunition lead inventory and soil mass affect a synthetic concentration scenario. Inspect the assumptions, mass accounting and evidence still needed.
Open the LEAD scenario calculator ↗Measured · Modeled · Reported · Unknown — read the evidence labels ↗