Flexible Damage Functions

Author

James Rising, Sebastian Cadavid Sanchez, Climate Impact Lab

Published

April 30, 2026

0.1 Energy: Total Country Unconstrained

Flexible damage function parameters at the Country level.

Outcome units: kWh_per_capita — kWh per capita for total, rebased to 2005 baseline; DIAGNOSTIC variant with NO beta constraint applied (allows beta < 0 = concave temperature response). Compare with the constrained total_country version to see where the convexity constraint is binding and how it shifts the regional fit.

\[D_{it} = (\alpha_i T_t + \beta_i T_t^2) \cdot Y_{it}^{\gamma}\]

where \(\gamma\) is the income elasticity (fitted globally), \(\alpha_i\) is the linear coefficient, and \(\beta_i\) is the quadratic coefficient.


1 Global Estimation

1.1 Income Elasticity Estimation

The income elasticity \(\gamma\) is estimated using a fixed-effects regression:

\[y_{it} = \gamma \cdot \log(Y_{it}) + \mu_{g(i,T)} + \nu_t + \varepsilon_{it}\]

where \(\mu_{g(i,T)}\) are region-by-temperature-bin fixed effects and \(\nu_t\) are year fixed effects.

Table 1: Income Elasticity (Gamma) Estimation Results
Statistic Value
Income elasticity (\(\gamma\)) 0.0659
Standard error 1.46e-02
95% CI [0.0374, 0.0945]
R-squared 0.9084
Observations 3,519,180
Regions 245
Gamma quantiles 19

2 Parameter Distributions

2.1 8-Panel Summary

Row 1: gamma, alpha, beta, rsqr1. Row 2: rho, zeta, eta, rsqr2.

Using median gamma: 0.065944, 245 rows (of 4,655 total)
Figure 1: Distribution of Regional Parameters

2.2 Projection Equation and Parameter Definitions

The estimated parameters are used to project damages via Monte Carlo sampling:

\[D_{it}^k = (\hat{\alpha}_{ik} T_t + \hat{\beta}_{ik} T_t^2) Y_{it}^{\hat{\gamma}_k} + \hat{\theta}_{ik} T_t Y_{it}^{\hat{\gamma}_k} + \hat{\phi}_{it}^k\]

where \(k\) indexes the Monte Carlo draw. The parameters in each row of the output CSV control distinct components of this equation:

  • gamma: income elasticity \(\hat{\gamma}_k\), one of 19 quantile values drawn from \(N(\hat{\gamma}, SE(\hat{\gamma}))\)
  • alpha, beta: linear and quadratic temperature coefficients; \(\hat{\alpha}_{ik}\) and \(\hat{\beta}_{ik}\) are drawn from the joint normal defined by the VCV below
  • sigma11, sigma12, sigma22: variance-covariance matrix of \((\alpha, \beta)\), used for joint uncertainty sampling
  • rho: correlation between regional and global polynomial residuals \(\rho_i\), used to maintain spatial covariance across regions in Monte Carlo draws
  • zeta: temperature-dependent error scale \(\zeta_{ik}\); the run-specific error term \(\hat{\theta}_{ik}\) is drawn from \(N(0, \zeta_{ik})\)
  • eta: residual noise standard deviation \(\eta_{ik}\); the annual noise \(\hat{\phi}_{it}^k\) is drawn from \(N(0, \eta_{ik})\)
  • rsqr1, rsqr2: polynomial fit quality and error model fit, respectively

2.3 Summary Statistics

Table 2: Regional Parameter Summary
Parameter Mean Median Std Min Max N
alpha -0.161 0.05301 0.4229 -2.674 0.235 245
beta 0.01022 0.003429 0.02589 -0.04062 0.1522 245
rho 0.02431 0.01166 0.1533 -0.3405 0.4524 245
zeta 0.05992 0.03743 0.05818 0.009076 0.5209 245
eta 0.1107 0.06665 0.11 0.01697 0.9411 245
rsqr1 0.5518 0.5966 0.2115 0.005605 0.8839 245
rsqr2 0.5477 0.5448 0.06525 0.3349 0.7424 245

3 Spaghetti Curves

Regional damage function curves showing D(T) = αT + βT² for sampled regions.

Figure 2: Regional Damage Functions

4 Zero Crossings

The zero crossing (extremum) of the parabola occurs at \(T^* = -\alpha / (2\beta)\).

Table 3: Zero Crossing Statistics
Category Count Percentage
β = 0 (no crossing) 0 0.0%
T > 20°C (beyond graph) 27 11.0%
T < 0°C (negative crossing) 45 18.4%
Valid crossings (0-20°C) 173 70.6%
Figure 3: Distribution of Zero Crossing Temperatures

5 Slope Analysis

Maximum slope between 0 and 10°C: \(\frac{dM}{dT} = \alpha + 2\beta T\)

The maximum occurs at either T=0 or T=10 (endpoints of interval).

Figure 4: Distribution of Maximum Slopes (0-10°C)

6 Convexity Analysis

Figure 5: Beta Sign Distribution (Convexity)
Figure 6: Beta Distribution

6.1 Convexity by Country

Table 4: Fraction of Convex (beta > 0) Regions by Country (top 20)
country n_regions n_convex frac_convex
ALA 1 1 100.0%
ALB 1 1 100.0%
AND 1 1 100.0%
ARG 1 1 100.0%
ARM 1 1 100.0%
ASM 1 1 100.0%
AUS 1 1 100.0%
AUT 1 1 100.0%
AZE 1 1 100.0%
BDI 1 1 100.0%
BEL 1 1 100.0%
BGR 1 1 100.0%
BHS 1 1 100.0%
BIH 1 1 100.0%
BLM 1 1 100.0%
BLR 1 1 100.0%
BMU 1 1 100.0%
BOL 1 1 100.0%
BRN 1 1 100.0%
BTN 1 1 100.0%

7 R-squared Analysis

7.1 Polynomial Fit Quality (rsqr1)

Figure 7: Regional Fit Quality (R-squared)

7.2 Error Model R-squared (rsqr2) Quantiles

Table 5: rsqr2 Quantiles
0% (Min) 25% 50% (Median) 75% 100% (Max)
0.3349 0.5073 0.5448 0.5929 0.7424

8 Modelled Variance

Modelled variance statistic: \(1 - \frac{\sum_i \eta_i^2}{\sum_i D_i^2}\)

Table 6: Modelled Variance Statistics
Statistic Value
Modelled variance 0.9812
Sum(η²) 5.9559
Sum(D²) at T=3.0°C 316.0486
N regions 245

9 Best- and Worst-Fitting Regions

The 3 worst- and 3 best-fitting regions by R-squared, with raw simulation data overlaid on the fitted polynomial curve. Red rows = worst fits, green rows = best fits.

Table 7: Best- and worst-fitting regions
Top 3 best fit (R²)   Top 3 worst fit (R²)
Region α β η
AND -0.992 0.0318 0.214 0.884
LIE -0.964 0.0343 0.224 0.869
RUS -1.25 0.0569 0.305 0.846
NGA 0.0191 -0.00506 0.0708 0.00561
YEM -0.0129 0.00435 0.0749 0.00902
GUY 0.0396 -0.00627 0.0629 0.0219
Figure 8: Fitted polynomial with raw data for worst-fitting regions

10 Regional Parameter Maps

Maps of key parameters at the country level. Red = negative (damage increases with T), Blue = positive.

10.1 Alpha (Linear Coefficient)

Alpha (\(\alpha\)) represents the linear sensitivity to temperature. Regions with negative alpha experience damage that increases with the first degree of warming.

Figure 9: α (linear coefficient)

10.2 Beta (Quadratic Coefficient)

Beta (\(\beta\)) represents the curvature of the damage function.

The no constraint applied (β unconstrained) constraint is enforced for this sector, meaning this is an unconstrained diagnostic run. β can take either sign, letting the data choose convex or concave shape per region..

Figure 10: β (quadratic coefficient)

10.3 R-squared (Fit Quality)

\(R^2\) measures the polynomial fit quality. Higher values indicate that the quadratic form captures more of the variance in the data.

Figure 11: R² (stage 1 fit quality)

11 F2: Flex vs Raw Comparison

Comparison of flexible damage function predictions against raw simulation means.

For each scenario (RCP × SSP × Model), we compute at the final year:

  • Flex predicted: \((\alpha \cdot T + \beta \cdot T^2) \cdot Y^\gamma\)
  • Raw actual: The outcome variable (y) from the source data

Year 2099: 65,780 rows

Correlation: 0.8531 | RMSE: 1.685973 | Sign agreement: 69.0%

Top 5 best predicted   Top 5 worst predicted
Year 2099 · Tmean across these regions: 1.96°C
Region Raw Flex Residual
ETH 0.495 0.517 0.0221
ZWE 0.707 0.684 -0.0232
KEN 0.528 0.62 0.0915
UGA 0.776 0.683 -0.0931
MWI 0.871 0.775 -0.0961
SJM -3.14 -9.69 -6.55
FIN -1.11 -6.11 -5
EST -0.846 -5.14 -4.3
CAN -0.656 -4.71 -4.06
SWE -0.61 -4.66 -4.05

Correlation: 0.7894 | RMSE: 1.616920 | Sign agreement: 68.6%

Top 5 best predicted   Top 5 worst predicted
Year 2099 · Tmean across these regions: 1.96°C
Region Raw Flex Residual
SLE 0.44 0.421 -0.0183
LBR 0.444 0.463 0.0192
NPL 0.317 0.358 0.0415
CAF 0.395 0.442 0.0465
GIN 0.338 0.438 0.1
SJM -2.28 -9.42 -7.13
FIN -1.08 -6.08 -5.01
EST -0.601 -4.92 -4.32
SWE -0.673 -4.73 -4.06
CAN -0.668 -4.72 -4.05

Correlation: 0.7631 | RMSE: 1.555886 | Sign agreement: 69.0%

Top 5 best predicted   Top 5 worst predicted
Year 2099 · Tmean across these regions: 1.96°C
Region Raw Flex Residual
CPV 0.342 0.324 -0.0178
SWZ 0.278 0.301 0.0226
HTI 0.385 0.41 0.0248
TON 0.223 0.248 0.0249
BGD 0.475 0.423 -0.0513
SJM -1.68 -9.23 -7.55
FIN -0.964 -6 -5.03
EST -0.729 -5.03 -4.3
CAN -0.672 -4.73 -4.05
SWE -0.534 -4.57 -4.04

Correlation: 0.6771 | RMSE: 1.561309 | Sign agreement: 69.8%

Top 5 best predicted   Top 5 worst predicted
Year 2099 · Tmean across these regions: 1.96°C
Region Raw Flex Residual
LKA 0.276 0.275 -8.89e-4
TLS 0.347 0.349 0.00171
BLM 0.43 0.433 0.00354
COK 0.16 0.155 -0.00508
NIC 0.285 0.297 0.0112
SJM -0.907 -9 -8.1
FIN -0.948 -5.99 -5.04
EST -0.532 -4.86 -4.33
CAN -0.566 -4.62 -4.06
SWE -0.518 -4.56 -4.04

Correlation: 0.8057 | RMSE: 3.635841 | Sign agreement: 66.9%

Top 5 best predicted   Top 5 worst predicted
Year 2099 · Tmean across these regions: 4.20°C
Region Raw Flex Residual
ERI 0.85 0.741 -0.109
RWA 1.34 1.18 -0.155
BDI 1.72 1.52 -0.205
MDG 1.35 1.03 -0.32
CCK 1.38 0.821 -0.559
SJM -5.13 -17.8 -12.7
FIN -1.66 -11.5 -9.8
EST -1.15 -9.41 -8.27
NOR -1.09 -9.22 -8.13
CAN -0.581 -8.54 -7.96

Correlation: 0.7229 | RMSE: 3.363330 | Sign agreement: 66.9%

Top 5 best predicted   Top 5 worst predicted
Year 2099 · Tmean across these regions: 4.20°C
Region Raw Flex Residual
KEN 0.958 0.968 0.0103
COM 0.748 0.761 0.0135
GIN 0.76 0.625 -0.134
ERI 0.957 0.74 -0.217
MOZ 1 0.75 -0.25
SJM -3.73 -17.3 -13.6
FIN -1.61 -11.4 -9.79
EST -0.824 -9.01 -8.19
NOR -1.19 -9.35 -8.16
CAN -0.592 -8.55 -7.96

Correlation: 0.6981 | RMSE: 3.168916 | Sign agreement: 66.1%

Top 5 best predicted   Top 5 worst predicted
Year 2099 · Tmean across these regions: 4.20°C
Region Raw Flex Residual
NPL 0.363 0.358 -0.00473
TON 0.668 0.658 -0.00945
TLS 0.684 0.718 0.0342
ZMB 1.14 1.17 0.0346
COD 0.796 0.848 0.0527
SJM -2.74 -17 -14.2
FIN -1.45 -11.2 -9.79
EST -0.991 -9.21 -8.22
NOR -0.964 -9.05 -8.09
CAN -0.584 -8.57 -7.98

Correlation: 0.5906 | RMSE: 3.153362 | Sign agreement: 66.5%

Top 5 best predicted   Top 5 worst predicted
Year 2099 · Tmean across these regions: 4.20°C
Region Raw Flex Residual
CXR 0.407 0.392 -0.0149
NPL 0.314 0.333 0.0183
MOZ 0.636 0.664 0.0283
COD 0.786 0.822 0.0362
MUS 0.882 0.843 -0.0388
SJM -1.48 -16.6 -15.1
FIN -1.43 -11.2 -9.8
EST -0.732 -8.9 -8.17
NOR -1.07 -9.18 -8.12
GRL -0.861 -8.96 -8.1

11.1 Scenario Summary

Table 8: Fit statistics across all 12 scenarios
RCP SSP Model N Corr RMSE Sign%
rcp45 SSP2 high 245 0.8531 1.68597 69.0%
rcp45 SSP2 low 245 0.7894 1.61692 68.6%
rcp45 SSP3 high 245 0.7631 1.55589 69.0%
rcp45 SSP3 low 245 0.6771 1.56131 69.8%
rcp85 SSP2 high 245 0.8057 3.63584 66.9%
rcp85 SSP2 low 245 0.7229 3.36333 66.9%
rcp85 SSP3 high 245 0.6981 3.16892 66.1%
rcp85 SSP3 low 245 0.5906 3.15336 66.5%

12 Data Reference

12.1 File Locations

Item Path
Regional CSV /project/cil/gcp/flex_damage_funcs/parameters/energy__total_country_unconstrained__regional_parameters.csv
Global JSON /project/cil/gcp/flex_damage_funcs/parameters/energy__total_country_unconstrained__global_results.json
Metadata JSON /project/cil/gcp/flex_damage_funcs/parameters/energy__total_country_unconstrained__metadata.json

12.2 Column Definitions

Column Description
region Region identifier (hierarchical code, first 3 chars = country ISO3)
gamma Income elasticity quantile value
alpha Linear temperature coefficient
beta Quadratic temperature coefficient
sigma11 Var(alpha)
sigma12 Cov(alpha, beta)
sigma22 Var(beta)
rho Correlation with global residual process
zeta Temperature-dependent heteroskedasticity
eta Residual standard deviation
rsqr1 R-squared of polynomial fit
rsqr2 R-squared of error model

Report generated with FlexDamage v1.0.0