Let me answer briefly to the two comments by J.-F. Mas and B. Soares-Filho (see below).
First, regarding the comparison with other approaches, one must separate the modelling procedure (parameter inference) from the forecasting procedure (projecting future). In our paper, we say that most of the available programs do not offer internal statistical tools to properly estimate the effect of population density on the intensity of deforestation. As said by J.-F. Mas, this must be done outside the available programs using an appropriate statistical software (we suggest the use of the phcfM R package to handle the variable time-interval between observations). But, as underlined by J.-F. Mas, once this relationship has been identified, it can be included in most of the available programs for the forecasting procedure.
Second, regarding the relevance of deforestation emission baselines in the REDD framework, we understand the point of view of B. Soares-Filho (which is well explained here: http://www.csr.ufmg.br/dinamica/redd/redd.html). The aim of our work was to provide elements of methodology and alternative statistical tools to improve deforestation modelling. One potential application is the REDD, but there are others.
If you wish, I propose to continue this discussion on a separated Forum (http://phcfm.sourceforge.net/forum/) to avoid cluttering the mailbox of people who would not feel concerned.
Le 10/05/2013 04:23, Jean Francois Mas a écrit :>
> The point is that the comparison with other approaches is unfair. Authors
> claimed that none of the other available programs [CLUE, DINAMICA, GEOMOD and
> LCM] offers the possibility to include population growth and they cited a
> paper of mine (Mas et al. 2007). However, at least CLUE and DINAMICA are able
> to include such modelling. CLUE because it needs the amount of category’s area
> from outside so it can be obtained by any method outside CLUE (including the
> effect of population growth) and DINAMICA because it enables to use any
> equation to calculate quantity of change instead of the Markov matrix. It
> seems that the authors do not have a deep knowledge of the packages involved
> into the comparison.
> On Sun, 5 May 2013 12:04:57 +0000, Gaveau, David L.A. (CIFOR) wrote
>> I would tend to listen to Britaldo given his expertise. D
>> —–Original Message—–
>> From: Britaldo Soares-Filho [...]
>> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 6:08 PM
>> To: Ghislain Vieilledent
>> Subject: Re: REDD+, baseline and phcfM R package
>> Now Redd “experts” have more tools to fake baselines.
>> Britaldo Silveira Soares Filho
>> Centro de Sensoriamento Remoto/UFMG
>> 553134095449, 34095417
>>> Dear colleagues,
>>> We are pleased to inform you about the publication of novel
>>> methodology and computational tools to forecast deforestation and
>>> carbon dioxide emissions in tropical developing countries:
>>> 1. Scientific article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.550
>>> 2. Computational and statistical tools: http://phcfM.sf.net
>>> With the hope that it would serve for tropical forest conservation.
>>> Ghislain Vieilledent and co-authors
>>> Vieilledent G., Grinand C. and Vaudry R. 2013. Forecasting
>>> deforestation and carbon emissions in tropical developing countries
>>> facing demographic
>>> expansion: a case study in Madagascar. Ecology and Evolution. Article
>>> first published online: 3 MAY 2013. [doi: