Remove REDD scenario option from Carbon Storage and Sequestration model

[jagoldstein]

We should consider removing the REDD Scenario section. It confuses users and is redundant with the "Calculate Sequestration/Future LULC" option, AFAICT. @newtpatrol do you agree or am I missing some context?

And it might actually be better/more accurate to call the scenarios "Baseline" instead of "Current" and "Alternate" or "Other" or "Scenario" or something instead of "Future". This would signal that users can compare scenarios from the past with the current, or whatever they want (not limited to current and future only).

I created this issue in this repo because @emilyanndavis stated that she "suspect[s] it would affect more than the UI". Also, it looks like the invest-workbench repo was archived.

[davemfish]

Thanks, @jagoldstein , this is the correct place for an issue like this. On hold until we have some consensus around it. The proposal makes sense to me though.

[newtpatrol]

I've always wondered why we bother with the REDD scenario, for the same question of redundancy, and it makes it sound like the model is doing something fancy when it isn't. The User Guide says this, indicating that it just runs the sequestration calculation twice:

Based on these three LULC maps for current, baseline, and REDD policy scenarios, the carbon biophysical model produces rasters for total carbon storage for each of the three LULC maps, and two sequestration rasters for future and REDD scenarios.

And I'm not aware of anyone ever using this option. That said, removing it doesn't seem like any sort of priority in the grand scheme of things.

My more regular puzzlement comes with the output file naming. If the model is called "Storage and Sequestration", then why aren't the "tot_c" outputs named "storage" and the "delta" outputs named "sequestration"?

~ Stacie

[dcdenu4]

Hey @jagoldstein or @newtpatrol, do you think this is something mention and link to in our natcapsoftwaremodelin channel to see if anyone else has strong thoughts?

My more regular puzzlement comes with the output file naming. If the model is called "Storage and Sequestration", then why aren't the "tot_c" outputs named "storage" and the "delta" outputs named "sequestration"?

@newtpatrol , I think this could be a separate issue!

[dcdenu4]

@rmgriffin, @chrisnootenboom , and others were in favor for

And it might actually be better/more accurate to call the scenarios "Baseline" instead of "Current" and "Alternate" or "Other" or "Scenario" or something instead of "Future"

There was an additional suggestion of:

Also perhaps some clarity on how the Tons/pixels is calculated would be super (probably one or two sentences in the user guide would do)

My overall sense from the Slack discussion is that a majority of folks are in favor of dropping the REDD component and updating some terms to make scenario runs more intuitive.

[rmgriffin]

I've always wondered why we bother with the REDD scenario, for the same question of redundancy, and it makes it sound like the model is doing something fancy when it isn't. The User Guide says this, indicating that it just runs the sequestration calculation twice:

Based on these three LULC maps for current, baseline, and REDD policy scenarios, the carbon biophysical model produces rasters for total carbon storage for each of the three LULC maps, and two sequestration rasters for future and REDD scenarios.

And I'm not aware of anyone ever using this option. That said, removing it doesn't seem like any sort of priority in the grand scheme of things.

My more regular puzzlement comes with the output file naming. If the model is called "Storage and Sequestration", then why aren't the "tot_c" outputs named "storage" and the "delta" outputs named "sequestration"?

~ Stacie

I could see renaming the model being the preferred route vs the outputs, as some scenarios could cause emissions versus sequestration. Maybe something like carbon "storage and change."