Process / pipelineInternational RelationsEvent-data analysis of political violencePipeline

Global Terrorism Database Analysis

Also known as: GTD Analysis, Terrorism Event Data Analysis, START GTD Analysis, Terrorist Incident Database Analysis

OriginatorGary LaFree & Laura Dugan (START, University of Maryland)Year2007Sources1Related methods3

Global Terrorism Database (GTD) analysis is the quantitative study of terrorism using the open-source incident database maintained by the START center at the University of Maryland and introduced by LaFree and Dugan (2007). The GTD codes tens of thousands of terrorist attacks since 1970 against explicit inclusion criteria, recording each incident's date, location, perpetrator, target, tactic, and human and material consequences. Analysts use it to map trends, profile groups and tactics, and model the causes and effects of terrorism.

Key highlights

  • Long time span (since 1970) with tens of thousands of richly coded incidents.
  • Explicit definition and inclusion criteria with filters that improve comparability.
  • Detailed attributes — perpetrator, target, weapon, casualties — enable fine-grained analysis.
  • Open and widely used, supporting cumulative research and policy analysis.

Intuition

This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro

How it works

This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro

When to use it

Use GTD analysis when studying terrorism specifically — its trends, perpetrators, tactics, lethality, geographic spread, and the effects of counterterrorism — with a long, richly attributed, openly available incident record. It is the standard quantitative source for terrorism research. It is less suited to organized armed conflict generally (where UCDP/COW fit), to real-time monitoring (the GTD is periodically updated), or to settings where its definitional choices and open-source coverage gaps would bias the question without careful handling.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Long time span (since 1970) with tens of thousands of richly coded incidents.
  • Explicit definition and inclusion criteria with filters that improve comparability.
  • Detailed attributes — perpetrator, target, weapon, casualties — enable fine-grained analysis.
  • Open and widely used, supporting cumulative research and policy analysis.
Limitations
  • Reliance on open sources creates media and reporting biases, with under-coverage in closed or remote settings.
  • The contested definition of terrorism means inclusion choices materially affect results.
  • A data-collection gap (1993 records were lost) and shifts in collection methodology create discontinuities.
  • Perpetrator attribution is often unknown or contested, limiting group-level analysis.

Common pitfalls

This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro

Applications

This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro

Frequently asked

How does the GTD define terrorism?

The GTD defines a terrorist attack as the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation. Beyond requiring intentional violence by a non-state actor, coders record three additional criteria (a discernible aim, intent to coerce a wider audience, and action outside legitimate warfare), and analysts can filter to incidents meeting all criteria for stricter comparability.

Why is the year 1993 a problem in the GTD?

The original incident records for 1993 were lost before the database was digitized, so the GTD has no event-level data for that year (only some aggregate estimates). Analysts must account for this gap in any time-series analysis, since naively treating 1993 as zero attacks would create a spurious dip and distort trend estimates.

How does the GTD compare to ACLED for studying violence?

The GTD focuses specifically on terrorism — non-state violence intended to intimidate a wider audience — with a long history back to 1970 and detailed tactic and target coding. ACLED codes a broader range of political violence and protest with near-real-time updates. For terrorism-specific questions and long trends the GTD is standard; for broad, current political-violence monitoring ACLED is often preferred. Their definitions and scope differ, so counts are not directly comparable.

Sources

  1. 1.
    LaFree, G., & Dugan, L. (2007). Introducing the Global Terrorism Database. Terrorism and Political Violence, 19(2), 181–204.

You have read it. What now?

Cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 22). Global Terrorism Database Analysis. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/international-relations/global-terrorism-database-analysis