[Docs update] Describe use of and mapping to UNDRR Hazard Taxonomy (HIPS) #2
Comments
|
I'll update the existing comparison matrixes we did with new UNDRR framework. |
UNDRR taxonomy for natural hazards(excluded chemical, biological, environmental, extraterrestrial, technological, societal hazards) Show huge table
|
|
See comparative table of our hazard schema and UNDRR hazard list. Includes also taxonomies by DRMKC, OED, Inspire. Let's focus on RDLxUNDRR hazard taxonomy comparison. UNDRR hazard list is copied from the Annex 6 of 2020 report.
but at the same time it has only one general "Drought" hazard category while RDL has 4 sub-categories (meteo, hydro, agri, socio-eco).
Ultimately I don't think we should adopt the UNDRR list as a whole, considering that many of those "hazards" are never ever mentioned in risk assessment. Rather justify that our schema matches with the most relevant items in this list and other taxonomies. |
|
Thanks a lot, Mattia, based on your evaluation I agree that a perfect (one to one) alignment with UNDRR hazard taxonomy might be problematic, especially due to those two reasons:
Suggestion, include the mapping to UNDRR taxonomy in the documentation, but do not replace RDL Hazard Taxonomy with UNDRR one. Having said that, I see one issue in the current Hazard taxonomy of RDL which is that we have hazard and process type that are similar and this can create confusion for users:
Should we open a specific issue on that? |
|
Yes, taxonomy could be improved based on UNDRR, but not fully mirroring it. In agreement with UNDRR (combining Meteo-Hydro Terrestrial and Shallow geohazard), landslide could contain 5 processes:
As a reference in the case of Afghanistan data, landslide hazard is classified as:
Fitting these into the proposed process change would translate as 1 and 2 to be "rockfall" (not including the slow-rapid distinction in schema), 3 "debris flow" and 4 "avalanche". Similar for coastal flood, my proposal would be to have it include:
Because often hazard layers can describe the combination of two or more processes, the choice of process shouldn't be univocal. E.g. a landslide layer may consider both rockfalls and debris flows. Then both processes should be included in the metadata. |
|
Please ignore my previous post. Better check alignment with existing hazard taxonomies instead. This online sheet includes definitions from:
The first tab compare shows the alignment/matching of these sources compared to current RDL hazard schema, and propose a new "common denominator" hazard taxonomy that is based on these criteria:
Below is the resulting hazard taxonomy:
|
|
Thanks for doing this Mat, this is very good and actually something that could be featured within a blog post. |
|
Latest proposal for hazard taxonomy discussed with Stu, matching (at best compromise) with UNDRR and other sources while maintaining our current taxonomy structure (main hazard - process). Not using "clusters" as in UNDRR (repetition across categories, non intuitive term). New main hazard types:
Notable differences with other taxonomies:
Summary table:
Next steps:
|
|
If you have mappings from the RDL codes to those other standards, then it might be useful to also publish those in a machine-readable form (e.g. a CSV file sitting alongside the code lists). This will help share the mappings and potentially allow people to translate/transform between datasets. |
|
Adding a note on tsunami - it shouldn't be a process in EQ given there are also landslide and volcanic generation mechanisms, so to place tsunami in earthquake hazard would ignore these. Equally, we did not want to replicate the process type as we do not need to link the process all of it's triggers (we have the link between trigger event and triggered event that does not rely on hazard classification. |
|
Noting that environmental degradation and biological were added to expand potential to relevant hazard and create alignment with UNDRR for these (also a reason to move wildfire under environmental) Noting that for earthquake, primary rupture and secondary rupture provide a detailed separation which we do not experience in practice - therefore they are combined. Note on combination of storm surge and coastal flood. The previous separation was because coastal flood includes storm surge but also technically includes wave set up, wave run-up which contributes to the hazard but are independent of cyclone/pressure (though generally storm surge provides the greatest wave heights), through they use the same IMTs and vulnerability curves. Combination will simplify the categorisation of very similar datasets and would use the dataset description to explain the components of hazard included. |
|
Requirement: IMTs to be defined for:
|
Proposed IMT for new hazardsTo be approved @stufraser1
When hazard list and imt are approved I will update docs and data package specifics. |
|
@matamadio I updated proposed list above #2 (comment) |
matamadio
changed the title
|
Process_type.csv has been updated with descriptions here: #112 (comment) However, I didn't complete the table according to these proposals. I added rockfall, mudflow, rockslide while retaining a general landslide category, given we have lots of data which is not defined as the subtype of landslide, but landslide overall. @matamadio When we have the codelists for process_type and IMT both published as csv, we should make changes to make them comprehensive according to the above proposal #2 (comment) |
…inutes Steering Committee No.2 - 07 Dec 2022.md change use of '' to 'No.' to avoid accidental reference of issues or PR.
|
IFRC suggested at SC mtg (July 12 2023) to create a mapping between RDLS hazard_type and process_type to UNDRR HIPS RDLS 4 drought codes -> drought, for example |
stufraser1
changed the title
|
Proposing csv mapping file to be included somewhere in repo, to describe how RDL hazard_type and process_type map to UNDRR HIPS:
|
Sounds good. Since there might be more than one mapping, I suggest that we:
(@stufraser1 edited to add tick boxes) |
|
new folder: https://github.com/GFDRR/rdl-standard/tree/2-addHazardMappings/schema/mappings |
proposal for new page per #2 (comment)
|
@stufraser1 I've taken what you'd done in a074aa2 and added it to the larger PR for updating the guidance pages as some of the guidance needs to reference this so its easier if it's all together |
|
Should this mapping include the hazard identifiers assigned in the UNDRR-ISC Hazard Information Profiles? e.g. MH0001 for 'Downburst':
|
|
@stufraser1 to add identifiers to the CSV file |
|
Noting here a consideration to map RDLS hazard process codes to those used by EMDAT (IRDR 2014). This is not being done because EMDAT have a roadmap from 2023 to align their codes with UNDRR HIPS, which we are already aiming to align with |
See PR #266 |
If you are filing a proposed change, e.g. a new attribute, relationship, use of a new taxonomy, or a revised definition, then please fill in the below template.
What is the context or reason for the change?
Publication of the UNDRR Hazard definition and classification review
https://www.undrr.org/publication/hazard-definition-and-classification-review
Why is this not covered by the existing model?
UNDRR taxonomy was not available when the RDL project started.
What is your proposed change?
To align RDL hazard taxonomy with UNDRR Hazard definition for hazard within the scope of RDL.
i.e. reviewing names, code and hierarchy of the common tables for hazard against the UNDRR taxonomy
https://docs.riskdatalibrary.org/common.html
Rationale: UNDRR official source for hazard definition and classification.
Can you provide an example?
RDL
UNDRR
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: