This forum is shutting down! Please post new discussions at


Dear all,

I have been doing several habitat quality models. But the last models I have been doing, the output model does not seem correct.
I am using 15 threats, a LULC with 11 classes in an area of about 200000ha, and raster with 10x10 m resolution.
I run all the treaths individually and I have a minimum habitat quality between 0.2 to 0.4.
Every time I add all the threats I have a minimum habitat quality of 0.8 or 0.9, which does not seem correct at all.
Could you please help me identify what is the problem. We rechecked all input raster and tables, and could not find anything.

Many thanks in advance
Best regards


  • DougDoug Administrator, NatCap Staff

    It could be because of the half saturation input. The documentation recommends setting the half saturation value at half of the highest degradation value. Could you look at your degradation output from the run where you used all the threats? Doing another run with the same inputs, but changing the half saturation value to half the highest degradation value will give a better range of habitat quality scores. The degradation raster / values will not change per model run, but the quality raster will depending on the half saturation constant.

    Sorry that was a bit confusing.

  • Dear Doug, thank you for answering. We will try your suggestion.
  • AnaLuzAnaLuz Member

    The model now shows 2 different errors (4 and 6) in the "black log box". However, when we run the model, it runs (until the end) and it does not show any problem in the parameter log

    I have attached an image where these errors are shown. 

    Could you please help me identify what is the problem?

    Many thanks.
    Best regards,
    778 x 436 - 30K
  • RichRich Administrator, NatCap Staff
    Hi @AnaLuz, part of the HRA model run attempts to identify file types in a directory.  One way to do that is to try to open them with different libraries and seeing if it works.  It's likely that if your output looks correct, the errors you're seeing there are from the process of identifying file types and can be safely ignored.  Is that consistent with what you're seeing on your end?
  • AnaLuzAnaLuz Member
    Dear Rich,

    thank you for your reply. We attempt this doubt because we have sistematically been running several models for a baseline situation and a future scenario with more pressure and increased number of threats. However, over and over (we even tryed decreasing the number of threats) we get that the habitat quality for the future scenario is better then the baseline situation, which mathematically seems impossible.
    We recheak every raster and tables in the input folder and we can not find anything. Do you have any idea of what could be? We always run the models at k=0.5 and then we run again with half of the max degradation value.

    Many thanks in advance
    Best regards, Ana
  • RichRich Administrator, NatCap Staff
    Hi Ana, I'm unfamiliar in the mechanics of this model, but I'd be happy to dive into it with you.  Could you dropbox me your datastack to and I'll see what I can figure out on my end.
  • RichRich Administrator, NatCap Staff
    Hi Ana, I think you sent me a file regarding this?  Called ""?  But as far as I can tell it doesn't have any threats data or accessibility or threat rasters or other files necessary to run habitat quality.  If that was you, can you send the rest of the files, or send me a little email along with it describing what files you put into what boxes in the user interface?

Sign In or Register to comment.