-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Finalize static data ingest #20
Comments
Deciding not to use grazing capacity as it is not informative - it predicts livestock coverage, which is redundant with GLW. We also discussed correcting the model for livestock population, i.e., being able to predict which locations would have an outbreak if there were livestock. This is more about informing decisions for where to have livestock rather than providing an alert for an immediate outbreak. |
slope and aspect: https://www.fao.org/soils-portal/data-hub/soil-maps-and-databases/harmonized-world-soil-database-v12/en/ key to soil data, using drainage(p12) and texture class (p15) : https://www.fao.org/3/cc3823en/cc3823en.pdf |
We should verify the soil type key and aggregation strategy. Some of the groupings conflict (5 -> 1 but then later 10 -> 5 and 7->2 but later 12->7). The key is pulled from the key above. @noamross @emmamendelsohn
|
We may have decided not to include bioclim and forest cover because its captured by NDVI. Does that ring a bell @noamross ? |
I'm trying to remember. But given that both climate and forest info are encoded in the dynamic variables, that makes sense. I'd put off putting those two in. |
Slope and aspect will not be relevant/interpretable at the ADM level. If they are already working and available, great, but I wouldn't spend any time troubleshooting them. |
For each, find data source, download and normalize to project spatial resolution (0.1 x 0.1)
Then, PCA, and visualize results, interpretation. We will decide number to use variables.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: