update appendix
This commit is contained in:
51
appendix.md
51
appendix.md
@@ -125,3 +125,54 @@ substituted into the same FE interaction framework.
|
||||
- `gap_neg` = 0.4993 (p = 0.0027)
|
||||
|
||||
These estimates are not part of the current notebook's identified model scope and should not be interpreted as a completed reaction-function test in this manuscript version.
|
||||
|
||||
## A10. Estimation Workflow and Test Inventory
|
||||
|
||||
### Border treatment construction
|
||||
|
||||
Two border definitions were used:
|
||||
|
||||
1. District-level baseline treatment (`border_district`), with border-adjacent districts coded as `01`, `02`, `06`, `08`, `8A`, `09`, `10`.
|
||||
2. Well-level proximity treatment, rolled up to district-year exposure.
|
||||
|
||||
Well-level proximity workflow:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Import TX-MX proximity flags from `WellAnalyzer` (`within_25km_texmex`, `within_50km_texmex`).
|
||||
2. Build additional TX-NM, TX-OK, TX-LA border segments from county boundary geometry plus seed lines.
|
||||
3. Compute distances in EPSG:5070 and generate threshold flags.
|
||||
4. Build composite indicators:
|
||||
- `within_50km_state_border_any`
|
||||
- `well_border_exposed` (within 50 km of TX-MX or any TX-state border segment).
|
||||
|
||||
District-year exposure share:
|
||||
$$
|
||||
ShareBorder_{dt} = \frac{BorderExposedInspections_{dt}}{Inspections_{dt}}
|
||||
$$
|
||||
Alternative district coding:
|
||||
$$
|
||||
border\_exposure\_district_{dt} = \mathbb{1}[ShareBorder_{dt} \ge 0.25]
|
||||
$$
|
||||
|
||||
### Tests run
|
||||
|
||||
1. Descriptive border-gap comparisons by group means.
|
||||
2. RQ1 levels regressions:
|
||||
- Outcomes: `inspection_intensity`, `violations_per_inspection`.
|
||||
- Model: `border_district + log_unique_wells + C(year)`.
|
||||
3. RQ2 FE interaction regressions:
|
||||
- Outcomes: `inspection_intensity`, `violations_per_inspection`, `avg_days_to_enforcement`, `resolution_rate`.
|
||||
- Model: `C(district) + C(year) + post_2019:border_district + post_trend:border_district`.
|
||||
4. Border-type robustness:
|
||||
- District border-type profile (`TX-MX`, `TX-NM`, `TX-OK`, `TX-LA`).
|
||||
- RQ1-style levels with `has_tx_*`.
|
||||
- RQ2-style FE interactions with `post_2019:has_tx_*` and `post_trend:has_tx_*`.
|
||||
5. Continuous exposure robustness:
|
||||
- Replace binary border term with `share_border_exposed_insp` in RQ1-style and RQ2-style specifications.
|
||||
6. Cutoff sensitivity robustness:
|
||||
- Recompute exposure using minimum distance to any border at 25/75/100 km.
|
||||
- Estimate RQ1-style inspection-intensity models and RQ2-style timing interaction models.
|
||||
7. Figures/reporting:
|
||||
- Border vs non-border trend plots.
|
||||
- Main timing figure with district-year means and 95% CIs.
|
||||
8. Reaction-function scaffolding (not estimated):
|
||||
- Create district-competitor link table and district-year competitor template for future data integration.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user