I am Mohsen Japelaghi. I am a Ph.D student. I’m using HRA in my dissertation.
I have determined 2 scenarios in habitat risk assessment.
- Present state with current stressors.
- Future state with current and planned human-made stressors.
in future state much more stressors will affect habitats vs current state, but results show that TOTAL_RISK_ECOSYSTEM in scenario 2 is less than first scenario while my assumption is that total risk ecosystem should be so more in second scenario. I am amazed. Can any one help me to notify is my results true?
How should I interpret my results?
Hello @Mohsen ,
It is very possible that what you describe from scenario 2 is correct model behavior. The output
TOTAL_RISK_Ecosystem.tif is not a simple sum of risk, it is normalized. If you’re looking for a sum of all of the risk across all stressors, you might want to look at
TOTAL_RISK_<habitat>.tif, or a sum of those rasters. The user’s guide has more information about these outputs for reference: Habitat Risk Assessment — InVEST documentation
If it still seems like this is a bug, please be sure to share your model inputs for both scenarios with us so we can take a closer look.
Thanks for quick reply.
In scenario 2 with much more stressors, total risk habitat in all habitats is less than scenario 1!!!
Is it true?
How should I interpret this result?
When TOTAL RISK habitat shows cumulative risk, therefore increasing of stressors should lead to more habitat risk while my results doesn’t show this.
It really depends on the details of your inputs, so I can’t say for sure if this behavior is expected. Would you please share your complete set of inputs here so we can take a closer look?
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.