when I was using the Urban Flood Riks Mitigation model to run different scenarios of adaptation, I found some issues on the output from the model.
More specifically, I implemented green roofs on the building areas of some neighborhoods so then I changed the land use just for those zones and re-run the model. What I was expecting, as far as I understood how it works the model, is that the areas in which I didn’t changed anything (input) from the base to the adaptation (NBS) scenarios were showing the same results in both scenarios. This is not happening, because there are always different values and I don’t know how to explain that difference. Probably there is something I don’t know about the model is built and how it works. Can you try to explain me why I get this issue? Because I need to justify those differences in the discussion of the results.
Hi Carlotta,
I would also expect the raster outputs to be unchanged where the LULC is unchanged. The model works on each pixel individually so I’m not sure why that’s happening. Could you please share your data and results so we can try to reproduce the problem?
This is consistent with the change in LULC between scenarios. The LULC change is mostly within one region, but it extends slightly into the two other regions:
Thank you for your reply.
Actually, I am referring to the raster output. What happens is that when I convert the raster to shapefile and I start working on it, the values related to those pixels in which I didn’t change the land use are different from the base scenario. This is not what I expected.
