Natural hazard events

[AntoniaJost]

The main issue with our current approach to handling natural hazard data in the code (as of 31.01.2024) is related to how the size of natural events is represented versus how we select data for analysis. Here's a breakdown of the problem:

1. Representation of natural events: In the raw data, every natural hazard event (like a flood or storm) is pinpointed to a very specific location, given by its longitude and latitude coordinates. These coordinates are highly precise, up to 8 decimal places. This precision suggests that each event is confined to a very small, specific point.
2. Reality of natural events: In reality, natural hazard events usually affect much larger areas. A single event like a storm can impact an entire city or a large geographical region, not just a pinpointed location.
3. Our data selection approach: In our code, when a user clicks on a map, we select natural hazard events that occurred within a 5-kilometer square radius of that clicked point. This selection is based on matching the event's exact coordinates with our highly detailed climate data.
4. The core issue: The problem arises because our method only includes events within this 5-kilometer radius. This means if the precise coordinate of a large-scale event (like a city-wide flood) is just outside this radius, it won't be included in our analysis for that click-point. Consequently, significant events that realistically impact the clicked area might be overlooked simply because their registered coordinates are slightly off.

In essence, our method of selecting data based on a small radius around a click-point might miss larger natural events that realistically affect that area, leading to a potential under-representation of hazards in our analysis.