Change in Formula (caet_culture, soil_health)

[joealpuerto]

Hi Simon,

Just small change in the formula:

1. On function caet_culture:
   mutate(cultf_sum = sum(c(diet, food_self_suff, food_heritage, seeds_breeds),na.rm = TRUE), cultf_score = round((cultf_sum/12)*100,6))

Instead of dividing by 12, the sum should be divided by 16.

2. On soil health: instead of (soil_health - 1) 25), it should be (soil_health/4)100

[joealpuerto]

On youth employment and emigration (there was an inaccuracy in the formula in the Stata code, thus in the adapted R too): o mutate(youth_employ = (y_good_perc + 0.5y_med_perc)/1.5) %>% #the divided by 1.5 should be taken out o mutate(youth_emigr = (g1_perc + 0.5g3_perc + 0.5*g4_perc)/2) %>% #the divided by 2 should be taken out

[joealpuerto]

• I saw some imputations done on prices that are 10 times higher or 10 times lower than the median price – that is good, we can keep it this way for now. For later, I am thinking of maybe having a parameter for the threshold on what is considered as too high or too low in a given context. The 10 times (lower or higher) than the median seems a very high (low) ceiling. For animals, that can be the case as there can be different sizes, however for crops, crop and forestry products and animal products, the threshold could be lower given they have a standardized unit of measurement
• The Excel output file is streamlined with just the main calculated indicators – that is good. We can include more readily calculated indicators, for example, the youth employment score by sex. I am also thinking of including as well some raw indicators there, like the CAET indicators, for example. It would facilitate ease of analysis to expand beyond the core criteria of performance. I don’t know how you feel about that, we can discuss it.