the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 08 Sep 2022
Reconstruction of past exposure to natural hazards driven by historical statistics: HANZE v2.0
Dominik Paprotny
Matthias Mengel
Abstract. Understanding and quantifying the influence of climate change on past extreme weather impacts is vital for climate litigation, the loss and damage debate, and for building more accurate models to assess future impacts. However, the effects of climate change are obscured in the observed impact data series due to the rapid evolution of the social and economic circumstances in which the extreme events occurred. The model and data presented in this study (HANZE v2.0) aims at quantifying the evolution of key socioeconomic drivers in Europe since 1870, namely land use, population, economic activity and assets. It consists of algorithms to reallocate baseline (2011) land use and population for any given year based on a large collection of historical subnational- and national-level statistics, and then disaggregate data on production and tangible assets by economic sector into a high-resolution grid. Maps generated by the model enable reconstructing exposure within the footprint of any extreme event both at the time of the event and in any other moment in the past 150 years. This allows the separation of the effects of climate change from the effects of exposure change. In addition, HANZE v2.0 can be used for assessing socio-economic influences on hazard (e.g. effects of land use-change on hydrological extremes) and vulnerability (e.g. the changing structure of assets at risk).
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(2562 KB)
-
Supplement
(3607 KB)
-
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(2562 KB) -
Supplement
(3607 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Dominik Paprotny and Matthias Mengel
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2022-194', Elco Koks, 10 Dec 2022
First of all, my apologies that it has been taken so long to start this review. I did start it a several times but this manuscript is so long that it was hard to do it in between other activities. This is actually also directly one of my main critiques of the article. While I appreciate the level of detail and nuance in this article, in particular when it comes to the reproducibility of scientific work, I really do suggest to restructure the manuscript. I would really suggest to make a much more concise version as the main article (of roughly 7-8k words). Many more elements of the main manuscript can be moved to the supplementary to substantially improve the readability. Not everyone is interested in all these details and the interested reader will always know where to find it.
- Some suggestions that (in my opinion) could really be moved to a supplementary:
- Table 3 and Table 4 would perfectly fit into a supplementary materials.
- Or well actually, I would suggest to move 2.4 almost entirely to the supplementary and only discuss the key steps in the manuscript. It would substantially improve the readability of the paper.
- Table 7 could also be moved to a supplementary
- Table 9 could be moved to the supplementary. Does it not tell a similar story compared to Figure 9?
- Table 11 could be moved to the supplementary.
- I do like the results and they clearly show the valuable use of the new dataset. I think this section has overall a decent length, just some tables could be moved (as suggested in my previous comment).
- Some small comments:
- Line 21-23: I am not really sure what the authors are trying to say with this sentence?
- Line 53: I disagree that impact data are increasingly available. Granular-level impact data is still almost non-existent. At least in the public domain.
- Line 88: odd sentence, feels more something to add in the cover letter? Or perhaps by now a reference can be made to that other piece of work?
- Line 848: should it say “any other domain”?
- Due to the size of the manuscript, I did not attempt to really check for grammatical errors or errors in any of the mathematical functions. I would be happy to do that in a revised, more concise version of the manuscript.
To conclude. I do think this is really a solid piece of work. The HANZE dataset fills a very important gap in the current availability of (spatial) socioeconomic historic data. The work done is very thorough and I very much appreciate that the authors did as much as they could to ensure transparency and reproducibility of their work. I would simply make the main manuscript more concise and move multiple parts to the supplementary. That would make the manuscript really much better and most likely also much more read.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-194-RC1 - Some suggestions that (in my opinion) could really be moved to a supplementary:
-
EC1: 'Comment on gmd-2022-194', Daniel Huppmann, 04 Jan 2023
Dear authors,
Echoing the comments by the first reviewer, it has been very difficutl to find reviewers for this work given its size and completxity. I concur with the main conclusion of the reviewer that this manuscript is trying to cover too much ground - instead, a more concise description of the work linking/refering to individual datasets or derived publications (not just a mega-SI) would be a better contribution to science. Distributing your substantial work into smaller pieces would facilitate reuse for particular analysis or allow updating in the future.
Thank you,
Daniel HuppmannCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-194-EC1
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2022-194', Elco Koks, 10 Dec 2022
First of all, my apologies that it has been taken so long to start this review. I did start it a several times but this manuscript is so long that it was hard to do it in between other activities. This is actually also directly one of my main critiques of the article. While I appreciate the level of detail and nuance in this article, in particular when it comes to the reproducibility of scientific work, I really do suggest to restructure the manuscript. I would really suggest to make a much more concise version as the main article (of roughly 7-8k words). Many more elements of the main manuscript can be moved to the supplementary to substantially improve the readability. Not everyone is interested in all these details and the interested reader will always know where to find it.
- Some suggestions that (in my opinion) could really be moved to a supplementary:
- Table 3 and Table 4 would perfectly fit into a supplementary materials.
- Or well actually, I would suggest to move 2.4 almost entirely to the supplementary and only discuss the key steps in the manuscript. It would substantially improve the readability of the paper.
- Table 7 could also be moved to a supplementary
- Table 9 could be moved to the supplementary. Does it not tell a similar story compared to Figure 9?
- Table 11 could be moved to the supplementary.
- I do like the results and they clearly show the valuable use of the new dataset. I think this section has overall a decent length, just some tables could be moved (as suggested in my previous comment).
- Some small comments:
- Line 21-23: I am not really sure what the authors are trying to say with this sentence?
- Line 53: I disagree that impact data are increasingly available. Granular-level impact data is still almost non-existent. At least in the public domain.
- Line 88: odd sentence, feels more something to add in the cover letter? Or perhaps by now a reference can be made to that other piece of work?
- Line 848: should it say “any other domain”?
- Due to the size of the manuscript, I did not attempt to really check for grammatical errors or errors in any of the mathematical functions. I would be happy to do that in a revised, more concise version of the manuscript.
To conclude. I do think this is really a solid piece of work. The HANZE dataset fills a very important gap in the current availability of (spatial) socioeconomic historic data. The work done is very thorough and I very much appreciate that the authors did as much as they could to ensure transparency and reproducibility of their work. I would simply make the main manuscript more concise and move multiple parts to the supplementary. That would make the manuscript really much better and most likely also much more read.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-194-RC1 - Some suggestions that (in my opinion) could really be moved to a supplementary:
-
EC1: 'Comment on gmd-2022-194', Daniel Huppmann, 04 Jan 2023
Dear authors,
Echoing the comments by the first reviewer, it has been very difficutl to find reviewers for this work given its size and completxity. I concur with the main conclusion of the reviewer that this manuscript is trying to cover too much ground - instead, a more concise description of the work linking/refering to individual datasets or derived publications (not just a mega-SI) would be a better contribution to science. Distributing your substantial work into smaller pieces would facilitate reuse for particular analysis or allow updating in the future.
Thank you,
Daniel HuppmannCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-194-EC1
Dominik Paprotny and Matthias Mengel
Data sets
Pan-European exposure maps and uncertainty estimates from HANZE v2.0 model, 1870-2020 Dominik Paprotny https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6783202
HANZE v2.0 exposure model input data Dominik Paprotny https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6783023
Model code and software
HANZE v2.0 exposure model Dominik Paprotny https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6826536
Dominik Paprotny and Matthias Mengel
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 518 | 126 | 16 | 660 | 50 | 8 | 6 |
- HTML: 518
- PDF: 126
- XML: 16
- Total: 660
- Supplement: 50
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(2562 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3607 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote