edit si

analysis/paper/si.Rmd

@@ -38,6 +38,20 @@ always_allow_html: yes
 
 Content: `r rmarkdown::metadata$content`
 
+```{r setup0, include=FALSE}
+
+knitr::opts_chunk$set(echo = TRUE)
+devtools::source_gist("c83e078bf8c81b035e32c3fc0cf04ee8", 
+                      filename = 'render_toc.R')
+
+```
+
+```{r toc, echo = FALSE}
+
+render_toc("si.Rmd")
+
+```
+
 ```{r setup, echo = FALSE, include = FALSE, message = FALSE}
 knitr::opts_chunk$set(
   collapse = TRUE,
@@ -912,7 +926,7 @@ We ran the same analysis for the years 2015, 2010 and 2005. We presented only 20
 
 We show each of these in turn in the format of Figure 1 from the main paper: 1) the year 2005 using the main paper method and EXIOBASE industry-by-industry version, then 2) the year 2010 using the main paper method and EXIOBASE industry-by-industry version, 3) the year 2010 using the main paper method but EXIOBASE product-by-product version, and finally 4) the year 2015 using the alternative methodology and EXIOBASE industry-by-industry version. 
 
-## 2005 using main method, EXIOBASE industry-by-industry
+## Year 2005, using main method, EXIOBASE industry-by-industry
 
 ```{r load-data, include=FALSE}
 # load data wrangling functions
@@ -1188,7 +1202,7 @@ ggsave(here("analysis", "figures", "figureS1.pdf"), device=cairo_pdf)
 
 ```
 
-## 2010 using main method, EXIOBASE industry-by-industry
+## Year 2010, using main method, EXIOBASE industry-by-industry
 
 ```{r ntiles-total-2010-ixi}
 
@@ -1428,7 +1442,7 @@ ggsave(here("analysis", "figures", "figureS2.pdf"), device=cairo_pdf)
 
 ```
 
-## 2010 using main method, EXIOBASE product-by-product
+## Year 2010, using main method, EXIOBASE product-by-product
 
 ```{r load-data2, include=FALSE}
 # load data wrangling functions
@@ -1706,7 +1720,7 @@ ggsave(here("analysis", "figures", "figureS3.pdf"), device=cairo_pdf)
 
 ```
 
-## 2015 using alternative method, EXIOBASE industry-by-industry
+## Year 2015, using alternative method, EXIOBASE industry-by-industry
 
 There is relatively good agreement between the alternative method footprints and the EXIOBASE footprints, except in Bulgaria, where the alternative method footprint was around 3 times larger. Including Bulgaria, the alternative method footprints were on average 20% larger than the EXIOBASE footprints. With Bulgaria removed they were 10% larger on average. Eastern European countries especially had larger alternative method footprints due to high intensities in electricity production and hot water supply, and then more expenditure in CP045 multiplied by these intensities than the expenditure in EXIOBASE. This is why the figure shows such high footprints in the bottom European deciles compared to the method keeping EXIOBASE footprints the same (ms results).