-
Dear all,
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 1 comment 1 reply
-
There was a core model proposal a few years ago that revamped how protected lands are handled, so I don't know for sure. Perhaps @kanishkan91 can weigh in.
Of course that approach would be a global value; assigning this at the regional level would require some revisions to the existing R code. And I don't expect the 30% protection fraction would really drive that much model behavior, as there would still be so much land available for conversion. The old default that we used, 90%, was selected in part because that was the scale of protection that was required to influence the model's behavior. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
There was a core model proposal a few years ago that revamped how protected lands are handled, so I don't know for sure. Perhaps @kanishkan91 can weigh in.
I believe in constants.R, set
Of course that approach would be a global value; assigning this at the regional level would require some revisions to the existing R code. And I don't expect the 30% protection fraction would really drive that much model behavior, as there would still be so much land available for conversion. The old default that we used, 90%, was selected in part because that was the scale of protection that was required to influence the model's beh…