search

GFDRR / rdl-data

Challenge Fund Database combining Hazard, Exposure, Loss and Vulnerability schema into a single database
GNU Affero General Public License v3.0
1 stars 2 forks source link

Issue with flood types definitions from SWIO-RAFI #24

Closed matamadio closed 3 years ago

matamadio commented 3 years ago

From SWIO-RAFI datasets we have:

Tropical cyclones Coastal Floods Pluvial Floods Wind Non-tropical cyclones Pluvial floods

For both pluvial floods, that translates as:

Tropical Cyclon (trigger) > Flood (hazard type) > Pluvial (process)
Extra- Tropical Cyclon (trigger) > Flood (hazard type) > Pluvial (process)

Fitting to hazard schema, both pluvial datasets becomes FL > FPF, and the difference between them becomes not obvious; it is still included in the description, plus we can use "trigger_process_type" in the "event" table to keep this information using "TCY" and "ETC". However, both processes relates to wind speed units only, so that would not be appropriate.

stufraser1 commented 3 years ago

Lots of studies provide a single pluvial layer, and where TC and non-TC sources both are accounted for in the pluvial hazard footprint. In my experience this is most common. We could create another FPF definition but this would mean 3 FPF codes wth same units: FPF-TC, FPF-NonTC, FP-both, and I don't think this is a helpful addition - more confusing than not. I think the trigger process is an interesting solution. If you think about EQ and tsunami, the EQ as trigger has different units than the tsunami footprint, so the same case often applies.

matamadio commented 3 years ago

Agreed; trigger to be used for this particular cases.