You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Without building footprint data, the current valuation method has a lot of uncertainty around energy costs/savings associated with building heating & cooling because it relates the presence of buildings on a pixel to the LULC type of that pixel. This might be okay for types like "Dense Urban" or "Natural Park", but for types like "Commercial, Industrial, or Transportation" and many others, there could be a wide variety of building densities occurring on land of those types.
Also, right now we don't yet have energy cost parameters that vary by LULC code. We have one-size-fits-all energy parameters. If we don't want to incorporate building footprint data, should we at least parameterize the energy costs table for different LULC types? Or associate LULC to a "building type" label?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
davemfish
changed the title
incorporate building footprint data for urban cooling valuation
Urban Cooling: incorporate building footprint data for valuation
Nov 17, 2023
Without building footprint data, the current valuation method has a lot of uncertainty around energy costs/savings associated with building heating & cooling because it relates the presence of buildings on a pixel to the LULC type of that pixel. This might be okay for types like "Dense Urban" or "Natural Park", but for types like "Commercial, Industrial, or Transportation" and many others, there could be a wide variety of building densities occurring on land of those types.
Also, right now we don't yet have energy cost parameters that vary by LULC code. We have one-size-fits-all energy parameters. If we don't want to incorporate building footprint data, should we at least parameterize the energy costs table for different LULC types? Or associate LULC to a "building type" label?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: