This forum is shutting down! Please post new discussions at

Coastal Vulnerability and Natural Habitats


I have been using the Coastal Vulnerability in areas in the Philippines. I ran the model several times with different Natural Habitat CSV files to simulate habitat changes - i.e. mangrove restoration and mangrove destruction. However, I did not get values between "a maximum of 4 when a segment is solely fronted by kelp or seagrass, to a minimum of 1.025 when it is fronted by a mangrove and coastal forests, a seagrass bed and a coral reef" as specified in the Coastal Vulnerability User Guide. Rather, my ranges varied under the different scenarios:
  • Current scenario: 0.3 to 5
  • Restoration scenario: -0.124 to 5
  • Destruction scenario: 0.769 to 5. 
We used the following natural habitat types with the specified ranking:
  • Mangrove: 1
  • Coral Reef: 1
  • Open-canopy forest: 3
  • Closed-canopy forest: 2
  • Mossy forest: 1
  • Fishpond derived from mangroves*: 5
where the fishpond ranking was varied for each scenario, i.e. for the restoration scenario, we converted the fishpond rank to be equal to mangrove and for the destruction scenario, we converted the mangrove rank to be equal to fishpond.

Is it acceptable that the results had different ranges than specified in the user manual? Or do you have any suggestions as to how we can improve our model results?


  • Thanks to all who've thought about and looked at the original comment. I was able to utilize some better natural habitat data. And have corrected the issue.  
  • Great!  Sorry we were late to reply!  If you have any other follow up questions, please let us know and we will be more prompt!

Sign In or Register to comment.