-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Proposal] Vulnerability category codelist #76
Comments
This is the same field as present in the exposure component (#62) - can be used to link the two components. |
This was intended as a high level category. Roads, rail, etc would be specified in taxonomy |
What is the proposed codelist based on? I'm unclear on the difference between buildings and infrastructure, e.g. would an exposure dataset about schools be classified as buildings or infrastructure? |
From the original documentation about exposure, schema.
Buildings refer to residential, commercial and industrial buildings. |
Thanks! That makes sense. I've drafted descriptions for the codes based on GED4ALL. The only one I'm unsure about is 'population'. Please could you provide a description for that code? I also think that 'people' would fit better with the other codes than 'population'. Is it usual practice in disaster risk management to consider people as an asset? If not, we might need to reword the description of
|
@matamadio |
That is true, population isn't strictly a location-fixed "asset", except it is often treated like it is: an indication of the density of exposed value in one place, and driver of the mortality losses in that place. However that fits more with our Vulnerability - Socio-economic indicators component, in terms of use-case application. |
Yes that makes sense, than it would be:
|
Great, I've aded edu and hlth in description to make it clear. |
Regarding population density, it still seems not to fit with the other codes to me. If I understood correctly, the purpose of the field and codelist is to categorise what is exposed to risk. So it makes sense to say, for example, "buildings are exposed to risk". It doesn't make sense to say that "population density is exposed to risk" because population density is a measurement rather than an asset. I think that 'people' would be a better fit with the nature of the other codes. Would that work from your perspective? It still seems a bit odd to describe people as an asset, but that could be addressed by updating the description of Otherwise, the changes look good :-) |
Updated description to people |
also related to #62 as this codelist will be referenced in |
codelist updated in #101, leaving this issue open as it still needs updating in |
What is your proposed change?
To create a new codelist for the field
category
within the vulnerability component.category
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: