Open oayounis opened 1 month ago
@oayounis - Do you mean the workflows here- https://zenodo.org/records/11642540? Well those workflows are intended to reproduce high and low protection scenarios, so they would be different. These are designed specifically for a project where we were downscaling different protected area scenarios. I would not recommend using that workflow if you are not interested in alternative protection scenarios.
There are demeter workflows which just use a single protection setting. Perhaps you would need to use that? I think you would be better off using a workflow from this paper- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-00669-x
Overall, I think it would be better if you reached out over email regarding your specific question at kanishka.narayan@pnnl.gov
@oayounis Also, to keep the protected area constant with that workflow, you would need to follow the following steps-
Again, let me know if you just want to clarify this over email.
Hi @kanishkan91 ... I hope all is well! .. I am trying to run Demeter to downscale projected land uses of 3 GCAM scenario runs for comparison. I intend to aggregate downscaled grids to administrative scales (but finer than the GCAM region scales). I am having a couple of issues though:
1) I am noticing when I run with both Hi and Low protection config files, and aggregate the output back to a regional scale, they don't match for some of the land uses (especially the protected land uses). Is that expected and is there a way to let them match (i.e adjustments to the input files or config files) ? 2) For protected land types, I would ideally like to see the protected lands downscaled but do not expanding. How do I do that?
Thanks in advance for your help!