Identical HRA Outputs - Different Inputs: Any thoughts?

First - I know this post has insufficient detail for someone to answer my question directly but wanted to initiate a conversation and see what information might be most useful.

I’ve been working with the HRA on a large study area of coastal wetlands in the Great Lakes. The model works as expected given the stressor inputs we have. The stressors are: 1) location of agricultural land; 2) location of developed land; 3) location of roads; 4) location of public access sites.

We are trying to develop hypothetical scenarios to evaluate the impact of land cover (and other) changes on coastal wetlands. Two of these scenarios are increased agricultural land extent and increased developed land extent. This is where the HRA outputs are confusing - the results for the “baseline” and “scenario” runs are identical even as a float data type.

To create the scenarios I artificially modified the land cover dataset to have more of those land cover types. When looking at the input datasets they are clearly not identical

Thanks for posting. It would be helpful to see the logfile from both of these runs, could you upload them here please? It’s also fairly likely that we’ll need to get your input data in order to reproduce and explain this. So it couldn’t hurt to package that up into a zip folder and share a link, here or in a private message to me.

In the meantime, something else to explore would be digging into the intermediate results of the ‘scenario’ and identify which intermediate outputs are not what you would expect. In other words, are all of the intermediate files identical to the ‘baseline’ files when they shouldn’t be, or only some.

Hi Dave - thanks for the quick reply. I’m trying to get things together after some very crazy holiday weeks. Wanted to make sure you knew that I saw your message and am working to get the necessary files together.

The logfiles from the runs are attached here. I did have an error message show up for the second run seemingly related to the zonal statistics calculations, but the output tif files were produced. Maybe that’s one of the issues?

Thanks!
Braden

InVEST-Habitat-Risk-Assessment-log-2019-12-16–07_43_01.txt (60.6 KB)

InVEST-Habitat-Risk-Assessment-log-2019-12-16–08_04_03.txt (61.2 KB)

Hi @b.rosenberg_ERG if this is still an issue, I think troubleshooting will require seeing your input data for each run as well. It’s also worth looking inside each of the CSV file inputs for the different scenarios and confirm that they do in fact point to different sets of GIS data.

From your logs, I can see that you used a different workspace directory for each scenario. That’s a good idea, and it makes it very hard to explain how the results could be identical unless the input data were also mistakenly identical.