Replies: 1 comment
-
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.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Dear all,
my task is easily described but harder realized. Any input is welcome.
The task:
restrict land use expansion to a level that conserves 30% of natural terrestrial land cover first for a single GCAM-land region and later globally
The problem:
Again, any input/ideas is appreciated a lot.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions