Peer feedback - model project

[emilblicher]

1. The best part of the project was:

It is very good and interesting topic. Having had the course, Economics of the environment, natural ressources and climate change, I find the topic very important.

2. The hardest part of the project to understand was:

• The motivation lacked sometimes. So you had to read further in the notebook to find out why you did the things you did.

3. A good idea for an improvement/clarification could be:

• Typos: i. Rather than using <= try using \leq - it should render as a "≤" in the markdown. ii. In your production function you have $D_t$ but when you divide by $A_tN_t$ suddenly the production function is not a function of $D_t$ and you only write $D$. That is, $D$ is suddenly a constant which have some implications (which are not wrong but you don't say anything about it). iii. You write alpha and delta instead of \alphaand \delta several places (this might be on purpose but it does not look so good). iv. Proofread you markdown.

• You need to write a lot more text to motivate your choices. Explain why you create the vectors, how you plot the functions with and without climate.

• When you print the SymPy equations try using the display function from IPython (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/36288670/how-to-programmatically-generate-markdown-output-in-jupyter-notebooks) so you can write k^*= and then the solution.

  • Instead of creating a Damage-vector manually you could create it in a loop, thus creating a e.g. 100 by 1 vector with damage parameters.

4. A good idea for an extension could be:

• You could extend your plots by making it interactive. This could e.g. be by controlling the parameters.

[emilblicher]

Just found out that I wasn't supposed to give you peer feedback but here you go. 😄