create estimations for treatment effects

[Jo-Schie]

• cross-table with cells per year -> mulitplied with parmeter estimations = total avoided loss (+ evtl. conversion factor to emissions)
• put emissions data to panel structure -> re-estimate model

New table should be

• ha/ha (=% loss reductions)

seperate table

• total loss reductions in ha (nr gridcells required)
• total emission reductions in tons (nr. of gridcells + emissions variable in repaired form or constant)
• total amount of disbursement
• co2 emissions per euro -> certificates discussion.

[melvinhlwong]

Open question regarding disbursement data:
Some entries are negative. That is, money has been payed back. How to deal with this?

I suppose ignoring payments back to the donor under the assumption that the loan/grant has not been utilized to the full extent but will be used to reduce the outststanding debt (Restmittelverwendung)

[Jo-Schie]

Agree.we should not count that as negative @melvinhlwong since it is not taking resources away from the projects

[melvinhlwong]

@Jo-Schie Thanks for the feedback.

I have some issues calculating the disbursements per cell. I have a last step where I need to aggragate the cells over all disbursements of all BMZ projects. However, there are couple of cells that are unmatched. I think they may be related to some MARINE WDPA. If yes, I would like to drop them and have a clean collapse/aggregation of the data. Here is the list of WDPAID that cause some issues

' # WDPAID
1 555682914 This one is a terrestial PA and not Marine https://www.protectedplanet.net/555682914
2 555682915
3 900786
4 900715
5 478085
6 555555655
7 555555646
8 555623649
9 26621
10 35271
11 62052
12 903037
13 99652
14 555629305
15 555629306
16 555629363
17 555556016
18 555629318
19 555629331
20 555629317
21 555629313
22 41027
23 555582978
24 555582979
25 108073
26 900668
27 903016
28 903013
29 2234
30 10754
31 67744
32 555600250
33 81060
34 555599979
35 351721
36 351720
37 351931
38 555600241
39 478454
40 555600297
41 555599932
42 555682146
43 555600232
44 555600202
45 555576230
46 555576325

[Jo-Schie]

I checked. First observations: Ten areas are kicked out because they are either Unesco Biosphere Reserves or they do not have valid geometry information. They are filter out with this code in the very beginning of the script:

wdpa_kfw <-
  wdpa_kfw %>%
  filter(DESIG_ENG != "UNESCO-MAB Biosphere Reserve") %>%
  filter(STATUS != "Proposed") %>%
  filter(GEOMETRY_TYPE != "POINT")

checkin now on the others.

[Jo-Schie]

another eight areas are purely marine areas (although that classification is not 100% reliable)

[Jo-Schie]

okay. I also checked all of the rest. There are two reasons, why we do not have WDPA-IDs. First option: they are marine areas or areas on small islands. In that case, they were not part of the original grid, which was created using GADM admin country boundaries (which do not include all smaller islands because of the rather coarse spatial resolution).

Second option: The areas are very small (smaller 1 sqkm or sometimes between 2-3 sqkm). In that case, the intersection did not attribute the WDPA ID properly. Why? Because i used centroids for intersection to speed up the intersection of 3 Mio Gridcells with about 400 KfW PAs. In case of very small PAs centroids sometimes fall out of PA and no intersection information is returned. Often small PA projects do not have a dedicated Forest Conservation Focus but rather foster environmental education or rehabilitation in urban areas etc.

Take away: Both cases do not exert a considerable influence on results. Therefore, please just ignore them.

[Jo-Schie]

I accidently closed this issue, although it embraces more then just the question you had @melvinhlwong

[melvinhlwong]

@Jo-Schie Thanks a lot for the thorough examination! That is great and I will simply drop the unmerged WDPA for the reasons you mentioned above (Marine, no geometry, small islands, small areas below 3sqm (no have a dedicated Forest Conservation Focus but rather foster environmental education or rehabilitation in urban areas). Great explanation!

I put this into in progeress since the table above is still work in progress

[yotaae]

Fyi @Jo-Schie @melvinhlwong as I won't be available next week:

I have started to create a markdown file for the separate table mentioned above - see the 05 file in the analysis branch.

Please note that I haven't had the chance to review the calculations. In particular, "total loss avoided" and "total emissions avoided" need to be reviewed, as I was unsure about the units of the our estimates.

If you have time please review (and adjust, if necessary) the code in the Rmd file.

[melvinhlwong]

awesome job. I will reviews