Combined Heat and Flood Impact Indicators

[p-a-s-c-a-l]

Show different indicators both for heat and flood impact based on aggregated Combined Heat and Flood Views.

[p-a-s-c-a-l]

ATM, the following indicators are available:

• "EXPOSEDQUANTITY",
• "DAMAGEQUANTITY",
• "DISCOMFORT_LEVEL",
• "HEAT_WAVE_IMPACT",
• "COST_DEVELOPMENT",
• "COST_MAINTENANCE",
• "COST_RETROFITTING",

[p-a-s-c-a-l]

See https://github.com/clarity-h2020/csis/issues/177#issuecomment-665071953

[p-a-s-c-a-l]

Now with pluvial flood:

Example Study 25 on CSIS DEV.

[p-a-s-c-a-l]

New Indicators became available:

ID	COLUMNNAME
0	"STUDY_VARIANT"
1	"TIME_PERIOD"
2	"EMISSIONS_SCENARIO"
3	"EVENT_FREQUENCY"
4	"SZM_SZENARIO_REF"
5	"HW_EXPOSEDQUANTITY"
6	"HW_DAMAGEQUANTITY"
7	"HW_DISCOMFORT_LEVEL"
8	"HW_HEAT_WAVE_IMPACT"
9	"HW_ECO_IMPACT_DIRECT"
10	"HW_ECO_IMPACT_INDIRECT"
11	"HW_ECO_IMPACT_LIFE"
12	"AO_COST_DEVELOPMENT"
13	"AO_COST_MAINTENANCE"
14	"AO_COST_RETROFITTING"
15	"PF_FLOOD_IMPACT_EURO"
16	"PF_ECO_IMPACT_RESIDENTAL_BLDG"
17	"PF_ECO_IMPACT_NONRESIDENT_BLDG"
18	"PF_ECO_IMPACT_ROAD"
19	"PF_DAMAGEPROBABILITY"
20	"PF_DAMAGE_CLASS"

[p-a-s-c-a-l]

According to @mattia-leone's comments

The layers "heat damage probability" and "flood damage probability" I think can be removed, since they are not useful to end users

in the table tab, I see that flood impacts in euro are separated (roads, res. buildings and non-res) so I guess they can be split also in the map, or not?

So in the Scenario Analysis, we should ignore PF_DAMAGEPROBABILITY and include the detailed economic impact indicators in favour of the total ones.

@therter Beware! If @humerh changes the number and order of columns in the view, this might break the scenario analysis application. So @therter has always to be notified by @humerh before such a change is made, otherwise scenario analysis in the production system might stop working.

[p-a-s-c-a-l]

done

[humerh]

Should the PF_DAMAGEPROBABILITY be removed by me definitely?