Habitat Risk Assessment ValueError: Criteria Type should be either E or C

Hi Everyone

I got an error message when I run the Habitat Risk Assessment Model. It said that
" ValueError: Criteria Type in the criteria scores table should be either E or C "

In fact that I have already put either E or C in my exposure_consequence_criteria excel file.

So Would you please identify my error message?

i use InVEST 3.8.1 and I have cleared all my cache.

Thank You

1 Like

Hello,

Thanks for writing-in with your question regarding the error message you received when running the Habitat Risk Assessment InVEST model. To help us diagnose the issue, please reply and attach your “Habitat & Stressor Information” file, the full “Criteria Scores” file, and the log file. Do all the 'NAME’s in the “Habitat & Stressor” table exactly match those in the “Criteria Scores” file?

If the files are too large to attach here, feel free to share them with me at jgldstn@stanford.edu .

Be well,
Jesse

2 Likes

Hi Aryo,

Thank you for sharing your “Habitat & Stressor Information” and “Criteria Scores” tables. I’ve converted them to CSV files and attached them hereexposure_consequence_criteria.csv (2.3 KB) habitat_stressor_info.csv (307 Bytes) .

I’ve also edited four E/C values in the former table to remove excess space characters that were present following the letters (in rows 3, 13, 21, and 23). Hopefully changing those values to “E” and “C”, rather than "E " and "C ", will satisfy the input criteria and allow the model to run successfully. Please try it with the attached CSV files and let us know how it goes.

I was unable to read the log file. When the model finishes running the log file will have a “.txt” extension.

Be well,
Jesse

2 Likes

Hi Jesse

Thank you so much for your help. Yes, It works. I really appreciate it.
If you do not mind, However, i have one last question in Habitat Risk Assessment regarding connectivity rate.

In the official website of HRA (http://releases.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest-userguide/latest/habitat_risk_assessment.html). It states connectivity rate:
No 1 means Highly connected relative to dispersal distances
No 2 means Medium connectivity
No 3 means Low connectively relative to dispersal distances

However, in the csv file that is provided from sample data in QGIS. It states connectivity rate:
No 1 means >100km
No 2 means 10 -100 km
No 3 means <10 km
No 0 means no score

So, I think the connectivity rate that is explained in the website and connectivity rate that is provided by sample date in QGIS is a contradiction.

Thank you

This is a little bit confusing, but I think the distances in the table e.g. “100km” could be meant to describe the distance over which the species is able to disperse. If so, larger distances mean greater ability to disperse, thus lower consequences from having a patchy habitat. Does that make sense?

1 Like

Hi Dave

Sorry if i did not explain correctly. I think there is a contradiction between the definition given for “number 1” in the InVEST website guideline and “number 1” in CSV file from sample data in InVEST.

Number 1 is explained as “Highly connected relative to dispersal distance” on the website. However, number 1 is explained as " more than >100 km" in the CSV file from sample data in InVEST),

Well, I think if there are two habitats situated close to each other. It should be very connected. So It will have a greater ability to disperse. So the two habitats should be located less than 10 km.

I hope you can understand my question now.

Thank you. Have a great day.

Hi @Aryolejandro,

This criteria describes the habitat’s resilience to a disturbance or human impact. Lower scores should be assigned to habitats/species that more resilient.

What if we imagine the CSV instead stated: “able to maintain connectivity at distances more than >100 km” or “able to disperse more than > 100 km”?

To me, this criteria makes the most sense in the context of the species, rather than the habitat (or maybe the species that live in the habitat). If a species is able to disperse very long distances, then it will have an easier time colonizing new habitat after a disturbance, compared to a species that cannot disperse so far. Therefore, the consequence (1) of a disturbance/human impact is lower for the species that can disperse greater distances.

1 Like

Hi Dave

Well, that’s make sense for species. Now i understand it completely. Thanks Dave.

However, for habitat, it does not make sense. I am analyzing about the effect of aquaculture towards mangrove, sea grass and coral reef. Since, they are always situated near each other. So the have high connectivity. They are located less than 10 km each other and even they can live together.

So when number 1 is defined as “>100km” for habitat risk assessment. So i think it means two habitats live more than 100 km. Because they live far >100 km, it will have less connectivity. That is why I thought it is a contradiction.

Furthermore, maybe I should put “1” as the one who have higher connectivity.

Thank you.

Greetings from Indonesia.

You should definitely use lower scores, like 1, for habitats with higher connectivity. Connectivity is a function of two things: 1) the distance between patches of habitat and 2) the distance that the species/habitat is able to disperse itself. I don’t think you should fixate too much on those example numbers in the table (10km, 100km, etc). They are just examples and not meant to be taken literally.

Finally, if any particular criteria does not make sense for the habitats you are working with you can always remove that criteria row from the table entirely to not use that criteria.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.