Overestimated Impact in CLIMADA Despite Calibrated Exposure and Flattened Impact Functions (SIDR Case Study) #1104
Unanswered
ketanpednekar
asked this question in
Q&A
Replies: 2 comments
-
|
Hi @ketanpednekar and thank you for raising an issue. Without your source, it is hard to follow what exactly went wrong. However, I do not understand your approach to calibration. Why did you "scale exposure totals to match actual damage"? The exposure should be considered an invariant of the model and cannot be deduced from the acutal damage. Please note that Climada contains a module for impact function calibration, with a tutorial. I suggest you use this and try to calibrate impact functions on the original, unscaled exposure. I would be interested to see the results. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Summary
I am modeling the 2007 SIDR cyclone using CLIMADA's TC module, LitPop exposure via API, and district-level damage data from Bangladesh. I've scaled exposure values to match actual damage totals and manually flattened impact functions to reflect realistic vulnerability tiers.
Despite this, modeled impact is still 3,000–15,000% higher than actual damage across all districts.
What I have Done
Results
Screenshot attached..
Question
Is this a known issue with TC modeling in CLIMADA? Are there recommended practices for further calibrating impact or validating hazard intensity?
Would appreciate any insights or suggestions. Happy to share code snippets or rerun diagnostics if needed.
Thanks!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions