Hi @JeffM , thanks for sharing your case here. The lead developer of this model is out on vacation right now, so might be another week or so to get a detailed response, especially on the risk score discrepancies.
But for now I can try to answer your questions.
- I’m seeking explanation for how the InVEST tool can calculate a Risk.i value of 2.25, given max E.i and C.i values of 2.5.
We recently fixed some inaccuracies in the risk calculations so it would be most helpful if you could try the latest version 3.12.0 and let us know what you find. InVEST
I’m also seeking clarification on the importance of listing different E and C criteria within different portions of the criteria table
- Each “block” of the criteria table represents a different habitat-stressor pair. And I believe it is a requirement that each habitat-stressor pair include the same list of criteria (though some can be marked with a RATING of 0 to exclude that criteria for that particular habitat-stressor pair).
However, the first block of “Resilience Attributes” are treated as Consequence criteria that are specific to each Habitat, but apply the same to all Stressors. So you are correct, these criteria could instead be listed under each habitat-stressor pair, but since it does not make ecological sense for their scores to vary by stressor, the values are assigned only once for each habitat.
They are all treated as Consequence, except if they are labeled “E”, they are excluded altogether.
They are defined by polygons in the Area of Interest input dataset. Generally, these polygons are used to calculate zonal statistics from the raster outputs. So the subregion results are aggregated information from the pixel-scale raster results.