# Urban flood risk mitigation - run of retention m3 seems to be right but do not show appropirate Data

**URL:** <https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/t/urban-flood-risk-mitigation-run-of-retention-m3-seems-to-be-right-but-do-not-show-appropirate-data/1395>\
**Category:** Software Support\
**Tags:** urban-flood\
**Created:** [October 7, 2020, 5:59pm UTC](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/t/urban-flood-risk-mitigation-run-of-retention-m3-seems-to-be-right-but-do-not-show-appropirate-data/1395 "2020-10-07T17:59:38Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 18\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tp09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/48db29/32.png) [@Tp09](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/u/Tp09)\
**Post date:** [October 7, 2020, 5:59pm UTC](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/t/urban-flood-risk-mitigation-run-of-retention-m3-seems-to-be-right-but-do-not-show-appropirate-data/1395/1 "2020-10-07T17:59:38Z")

</div>

Hello,

The model is running successfully and the data make sense but when I compare the runoff-retetntion-volume-m3-output to other outputs I can see that they have other values.

2020-10-05 19:44:40,327 utils.prepare\_workspace(111) INFO Writing log messages to C:/Users/thols/OneDrive/Desktop/process\InVEST-UrbanFloodRiskMitigation-log-2020-10-05–19\_44\_40.txt  
2020-10-05 19:44:40,330 model.\_logged\_target(1629) Level 100 Starting model with parameters:  
Arguments for InVEST natcap.invest.urban\_flood\_risk\_mitigation 3.8.7:  
aoi\_watersheds\_path C:/Users/thols/OneDrive/Desktop/Data\_Input/watershed.shp  
built\_infrastructure\_vector\_path  
curve\_number\_table\_path C:/Users/thols/OneDrive/Desktop/Data\_Input/abcneu.csv  
infrastructure\_damage\_loss\_table\_path  
lulc\_path C:/Users/thols/OneDrive/Desktop/new/landuse.tif  
n\_workers -1  
rainfall\_depth 27  
results\_suffix  
soils\_hydrological\_group\_raster\_path C:/Users/thols/OneDrive/Desktop/new/hsgsoil.tif  
workspace\_dir C:/Users/thols/OneDrive/Desktop/process

2020-10-05 19:44:40,404 validation.\_wrapped\_validate\_func(839) DEBUG Using ARG\_SPEC for validation  
2020-10-05 19:44:40,412 validation.\_wrapped\_validate\_func(843) INFO Starting whole-model validation with ARGS\_SPEC  
2020-10-05 19:44:40,544 validation.\_wrapped\_validate\_func(889) DEBUG Validation warnings: []  
2020-10-05 19:44:45,743 geoprocessing.logger\_callback(3239) INFO Warp 63.0% complete C:/Users/thols/OneDrive/Desktop/process\temp\_working\_dir\_not\_for\_humans\aligned\_lulc.tif  
2020-10-05 19:44:47,539 geoprocessing.logger\_callback(3239) INFO Warp 100.0% complete C:/Users/thols/OneDrive/Desktop/process\temp\_working\_dir\_not\_for\_humans\aligned\_lulc.tif  
2020-10-05 19:44:47,883 geoprocessing.align\_and\_resize\_raster\_stack(752) INFO 1 of 2 aligned: aligned\_lulc.tif  
2020-10-05 19:44:52,971 geoprocessing.logger\_callback(3239) INFO Warp 62.0% complete C:/Users/thols/OneDrive/Desktop/process\temp\_working\_dir\_not\_for\_humans\aligned\_soils\_hydrological\_group.tif  
2020-10-05 19:44:55,773 geoprocessing.logger\_callback(3239) INFO Warp 100.0% complete C:/Users/thols/OneDrive/Desktop/process\temp\_working\_dir\_not\_for\_humans\aligned\_soils\_hydrological\_group.tif  
2020-10-05 19:44:56,065 geoprocessing.align\_and\_resize\_raster\_stack(752) INFO 2 of 2 aligned: aligned\_soils\_hydrological\_group.tif  
2020-10-05 19:44:56,066 geoprocessing.align\_and\_resize\_raster\_stack(754) INFO aligned all 2 rasters.  
2020-10-05 19:44:56,158 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(375) INFO starting stats\_worker  
2020-10-05 19:44:56,163 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(381) INFO started stats\_worker \<Thread(Thread-2, started daemon 16124)\>  
2020-10-05 19:45:01,168 geoprocessing.(451) INFO 82.7% complete  
2020-10-05 19:45:02,064 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(454) INFO 100.0%% complete  
2020-10-05 19:45:02,065 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(457) INFO signaling stats worker to terminate  
2020-10-05 19:45:02,066 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(459) INFO Waiting for raster stats worker result.  
2020-10-05 19:45:02,066 threading.run(870) DEBUG payload is None, terminating  
2020-10-05 19:45:02,823 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(375) INFO starting stats\_worker  
2020-10-05 19:45:02,825 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(381) INFO started stats\_worker \<Thread(Thread-3, started daemon 9000)\>  
2020-10-05 19:45:05,162 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(454) INFO 100.0%% complete  
2020-10-05 19:45:05,163 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(457) INFO signaling stats worker to terminate  
2020-10-05 19:45:05,163 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(459) INFO Waiting for raster stats worker result.  
2020-10-05 19:45:05,164 threading.run(870) DEBUG payload is None, terminating  
2020-10-05 19:45:05,791 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(375) INFO starting stats\_worker  
2020-10-05 19:45:05,794 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(381) INFO started stats\_worker \<Thread(Thread-4, started daemon 7312)\>  
2020-10-05 19:45:08,620 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(454) INFO 100.0%% complete  
2020-10-05 19:45:08,621 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(457) INFO signaling stats worker to terminate  
2020-10-05 19:45:08,622 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(459) INFO Waiting for raster stats worker result.  
2020-10-05 19:45:08,623 threading.run(870) DEBUG payload is None, terminating  
2020-10-05 19:45:09,088 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(375) INFO starting stats\_worker  
2020-10-05 19:45:09,090 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(381) INFO started stats\_worker \<Thread(Thread-5, started daemon 8992)\>  
2020-10-05 19:45:11,621 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(454) INFO 100.0%% complete  
2020-10-05 19:45:11,622 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(457) INFO signaling stats worker to terminate  
2020-10-05 19:45:11,623 threading.run(870) DEBUG payload is None, terminating  
2020-10-05 19:45:11,623 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(459) INFO Waiting for raster stats worker result.  
2020-10-05 19:45:12,227 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(375) INFO starting stats\_worker  
2020-10-05 19:45:12,229 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(381) INFO started stats\_worker \<Thread(Thread-6, started daemon 16548)\>  
2020-10-05 19:45:14,817 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(454) INFO 100.0%% complete  
2020-10-05 19:45:14,818 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(457) INFO signaling stats worker to terminate  
2020-10-05 19:45:14,819 threading.run(870) DEBUG payload is None, terminating  
2020-10-05 19:45:14,819 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(459) INFO Waiting for raster stats worker result.  
2020-10-05 19:45:15,267 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(375) INFO starting stats\_worker  
2020-10-05 19:45:15,269 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(381) INFO started stats\_worker \<Thread(Thread-7, started daemon 1268)\>  
2020-10-05 19:45:17,050 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(454) INFO 100.0%% complete  
2020-10-05 19:45:17,051 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(457) INFO signaling stats worker to terminate  
2020-10-05 19:45:17,051 threading.run(870) DEBUG payload is None, terminating  
2020-10-05 19:45:17,051 geoprocessing.raster\_calculator(459) INFO Waiting for raster stats worker result.  
2020-10-05 19:45:17,606 geoprocessing.reproject\_vector(1640) INFO starting reprojection  
2020-10-05 19:45:17,614 utils.\_log\_gdal\_errors(68) WARNING [errno 1] A geometry of type MULTIPOLYGON is inserted into layer watershed of geometry type POLYGON, which is not normally allowed by the GeoPackage specification, but the driver will however do it. To create a conformant GeoPackage, if using ogr2ogr, the -nlt option can be used to override the layer geometry type. This warning will no longer be emitted for this combination of layer and feature geometry type.  
2020-10-05 19:45:17,622 geoprocessing.reproject\_vector(1683) INFO reprojection 100.0% complete on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:17,723 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1129) DEBUG \<osgeo.gdal.Dataset; proxy of \<Swig Object of type ‘GDALDatasetShadow \*’ at 0x1B044548\> \>  
2020-10-05 19:45:21,622 geoprocessing.align\_and\_resize\_raster\_stack(752) INFO 1 of 1 aligned: clipped\_rastertbgomqo2.tif  
2020-10-05 19:45:21,624 geoprocessing.align\_and\_resize\_raster\_stack(754) INFO aligned all 1 rasters.  
2020-10-05 19:45:21,626 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1189) INFO build a lookup of aggregate field value to FID  
2020-10-05 19:45:21,627 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1196) INFO creating disjoint polygon set  
2020-10-05 19:45:21,633 geoprocessing.calculate\_disjoint\_polygon\_set(2082) INFO build shapely polygon list  
2020-10-05 19:45:21,640 geoprocessing.calculate\_disjoint\_polygon\_set(2096) INFO build shapely rtree index  
2020-10-05 19:45:21,648 geoprocessing.calculate\_disjoint\_polygon\_set(2111) INFO poly feature lookup 100.0% complete on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:21,649 geoprocessing.calculate\_disjoint\_polygon\_set(2113) INFO build poly intersection lookup  
2020-10-05 19:45:21,655 geoprocessing.calculate\_disjoint\_polygon\_set(2137) INFO poly intersection feature lookup 100.0% complete on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:21,655 geoprocessing.calculate\_disjoint\_polygon\_set(2171) INFO maximal subset build 100.0% complete on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:21,696 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1219) INFO processing 3 disjoint polygon sets  
2020-10-05 19:45:21,699 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1253) INFO disjoint polygon set 1 of 3 100.0% processed on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:22,067 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1261) INFO rasterizing disjoint polygon set 1 of 3 reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:24,332 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1279) INFO summarizing rasterized disjoint polygon set 1 of 3 reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:25,596 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1253) INFO disjoint polygon set 2 of 3 100.0% processed on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:25,875 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1261) INFO rasterizing disjoint polygon set 2 of 3 reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:27,952 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1279) INFO summarizing rasterized disjoint polygon set 2 of 3 reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:28,901 geoprocessing.(1225) INFO zonal stats approximately 100.0% complete on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:28,904 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1253) INFO disjoint polygon set 3 of 3 100.0% processed on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:29,128 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1261) INFO rasterizing disjoint polygon set 3 of 3 reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:31,077 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1279) INFO summarizing rasterized disjoint polygon set 3 of 3 reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:32,143 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1322) DEBUG unset\_fids: 0 of 4  
2020-10-05 19:45:32,151 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1325) DEBUG gt [ 3.6209706e+05 1.0000000e+00 0.0000000e+00 5.6245770e+06  
0.0000000e+00 -1.0000000e+00] for (‘C:/Users/thols/OneDrive/Desktop/process\intermediate\_files\Q\_m3.tif’, 1)  
2020-10-05 19:45:32,152 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1399) DEBUG remaining unset\_fids: 0 of 4  
2020-10-05 19:45:32,152 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1407) INFO all done processing polygon sets for reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:32,240 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1129) DEBUG \<osgeo.gdal.Dataset; proxy of \<Swig Object of type ‘GDALDatasetShadow \*’ at 0x1B0448F0\> \>  
2020-10-05 19:45:35,141 geoprocessing.align\_and\_resize\_raster\_stack(752) INFO 1 of 1 aligned: clipped\_rasterlutkrgrj.tif  
2020-10-05 19:45:35,141 geoprocessing.align\_and\_resize\_raster\_stack(754) INFO aligned all 1 rasters.  
2020-10-05 19:45:35,144 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1189) INFO build a lookup of aggregate field value to FID  
2020-10-05 19:45:35,145 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1196) INFO creating disjoint polygon set  
2020-10-05 19:45:35,152 geoprocessing.calculate\_disjoint\_polygon\_set(2082) INFO build shapely polygon list  
2020-10-05 19:45:35,155 geoprocessing.calculate\_disjoint\_polygon\_set(2096) INFO build shapely rtree index  
2020-10-05 19:45:35,157 geoprocessing.calculate\_disjoint\_polygon\_set(2111) INFO poly feature lookup 100.0% complete on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:35,157 geoprocessing.calculate\_disjoint\_polygon\_set(2113) INFO build poly intersection lookup  
2020-10-05 19:45:35,163 geoprocessing.calculate\_disjoint\_polygon\_set(2137) INFO poly intersection feature lookup 100.0% complete on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:35,163 geoprocessing.calculate\_disjoint\_polygon\_set(2171) INFO maximal subset build 100.0% complete on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:35,205 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1219) INFO processing 3 disjoint polygon sets  
2020-10-05 19:45:35,207 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1253) INFO disjoint polygon set 1 of 3 100.0% processed on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:35,527 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1261) INFO rasterizing disjoint polygon set 1 of 3 reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:37,580 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1279) INFO summarizing rasterized disjoint polygon set 1 of 3 reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:38,637 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1253) INFO disjoint polygon set 2 of 3 100.0% processed on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:38,901 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1261) INFO rasterizing disjoint polygon set 2 of 3 reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:41,039 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1279) INFO summarizing rasterized disjoint polygon set 2 of 3 reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:41,872 geoprocessing.(1225) INFO zonal stats approximately 100.0% complete on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:41,873 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1253) INFO disjoint polygon set 3 of 3 100.0% processed on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:42,109 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1261) INFO rasterizing disjoint polygon set 3 of 3 reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:44,605 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1279) INFO summarizing rasterized disjoint polygon set 3 of 3 reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:46,003 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1322) DEBUG unset\_fids: 0 of 4  
2020-10-05 19:45:46,016 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1325) DEBUG gt [ 3.6209706e+05 1.0000000e+00 0.0000000e+00 5.6245770e+06  
0.0000000e+00 -1.0000000e+00] for (‘C:/Users/thols/OneDrive/Desktop/process\Runoff\_retention.tif’, 1)  
2020-10-05 19:45:46,017 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1399) DEBUG remaining unset\_fids: 0 of 4  
2020-10-05 19:45:46,017 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1407) INFO all done processing polygon sets for reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:46,131 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1129) DEBUG \<osgeo.gdal.Dataset; proxy of \<Swig Object of type ‘GDALDatasetShadow \*’ at 0x1B044D58\> \>  
2020-10-05 19:45:49,454 geoprocessing.align\_and\_resize\_raster\_stack(752) INFO 1 of 1 aligned: clipped\_raster0i5vqzri.tif  
2020-10-05 19:45:49,455 geoprocessing.align\_and\_resize\_raster\_stack(754) INFO aligned all 1 rasters.  
2020-10-05 19:45:49,460 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1189) INFO build a lookup of aggregate field value to FID  
2020-10-05 19:45:49,462 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1196) INFO creating disjoint polygon set  
2020-10-05 19:45:49,472 geoprocessing.calculate\_disjoint\_polygon\_set(2082) INFO build shapely polygon list  
2020-10-05 19:45:49,476 geoprocessing.calculate\_disjoint\_polygon\_set(2096) INFO build shapely rtree index  
2020-10-05 19:45:49,479 geoprocessing.calculate\_disjoint\_polygon\_set(2111) INFO poly feature lookup 100.0% complete on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:49,480 geoprocessing.calculate\_disjoint\_polygon\_set(2113) INFO build poly intersection lookup  
2020-10-05 19:45:49,487 geoprocessing.calculate\_disjoint\_polygon\_set(2137) INFO poly intersection feature lookup 100.0% complete on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:49,487 geoprocessing.calculate\_disjoint\_polygon\_set(2171) INFO maximal subset build 100.0% complete on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:49,547 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1219) INFO processing 3 disjoint polygon sets  
2020-10-05 19:45:49,550 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1253) INFO disjoint polygon set 1 of 3 100.0% processed on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:49,860 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1261) INFO rasterizing disjoint polygon set 1 of 3 reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:52,010 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1279) INFO summarizing rasterized disjoint polygon set 1 of 3 reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:53,240 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1253) INFO disjoint polygon set 2 of 3 100.0% processed on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:53,495 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1261) INFO rasterizing disjoint polygon set 2 of 3 reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:55,554 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1279) INFO summarizing rasterized disjoint polygon set 2 of 3 reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:56,394 geoprocessing.(1225) INFO zonal stats approximately 100.0% complete on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:56,396 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1253) INFO disjoint polygon set 3 of 3 100.0% processed on reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:56,631 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1261) INFO rasterizing disjoint polygon set 3 of 3 reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:45:59,020 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1279) INFO summarizing rasterized disjoint polygon set 3 of 3 reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:46:00,044 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1322) DEBUG unset\_fids: 0 of 4  
2020-10-05 19:46:00,050 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1325) DEBUG gt [ 3.6209706e+05 1.0000000e+00 0.0000000e+00 5.6245770e+06  
0.0000000e+00 -1.0000000e+00] for (‘C:/Users/thols/OneDrive/Desktop/process\Runoff\_retention\_m3.tif’, 1)  
2020-10-05 19:46:00,051 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1399) DEBUG remaining unset\_fids: 0 of 4  
2020-10-05 19:46:00,051 geoprocessing.zonal\_statistics(1407) INFO all done processing polygon sets for reprojected\_aoi.gpkg  
2020-10-05 19:46:00,459 urban\_flood\_risk\_mitigation.\_write\_summary\_vector(472) DEBUG creating layer flood\_risk\_service  
2020-10-05 19:46:00,509 model.\_logged\_target(1638) INFO Execution finished  
2020-10-05 19:46:00,511 utils.prepare\_workspace(117) INFO Elapsed time: 1m 20.180000000000007s

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tp09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/48db29/32.png) [@Tp09](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/u/Tp09)\
**Post date:** [October 7, 2020, 6:05pm UTC](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/t/urban-flood-risk-mitigation-run-of-retention-m3-seems-to-be-right-but-do-not-show-appropirate-data/1395/2 "2020-10-07T18:05:30Z")

</div>

![Unbenanntq](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/uploads/naturalcapitalproject/original/1X/22781c6b4b88592a59ca3f2ffc6f9dea12cc2ad5.png)

Here is a picture. My resulting values are between 0.002 and 0.027. The colours do make sense but I do not understand why I have these low values. I am running InVEST 3.8.9.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![esoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9d8465/32.png) [@esoth](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/u/esoth)\
**Post date:** [October 7, 2020, 9:52pm UTC](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/t/urban-flood-risk-mitigation-run-of-retention-m3-seems-to-be-right-but-do-not-show-appropirate-data/1395/3 "2020-10-07T21:52:45Z")

</div>

Hi @Tp09,

Do the relative runoff retention values (Runoff\_retention.tif) also seem low?

You could try calculating the runoff retention volume 𝑅\_𝑚3𝑖 for one pixel by hand using equations 1 - 4 in the user’s guide: [https://storage.googleapis.com/releases.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest-userguide/latest/urban\_flood\_mitigation.html#runoff-production-and-runoff-attenuation-index](https://storage.googleapis.com/releases.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest-userguide/latest/urban_flood_mitigation.html#runoff-production-and-runoff-attenuation-index)  
Please let us know if that lines up with the raster values you’re seeing!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tp09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/48db29/32.png) [@Tp09](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/u/Tp09)\
**Post date:** [October 8, 2020, 4:54am UTC](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/t/urban-flood-risk-mitigation-run-of-retention-m3-seems-to-be-right-but-do-not-show-appropirate-data/1395/4 "2020-10-08T04:54:47Z")

</div>

Dear @esoth, thanks for replying.

PS: Run off retention m3: Besides they do not range a lot. It’s from 0,0027 to 0,027.

The run off retention values are in a normal range (compared to other outputs)

I will try your advices and give you feedback.

Kind regards

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tp09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/48db29/32.png) [@Tp09](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/u/Tp09)\
**Post date:** [October 8, 2020, 5:40pm UTC](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/t/urban-flood-risk-mitigation-run-of-retention-m3-seems-to-be-right-but-do-not-show-appropirate-data/1395/5 "2020-10-08T17:40:40Z")

</div>

Hello @esoth,

precipitation is 27 mm

study area is: 17.595.635 m² / pixel size 1 m²

10-3 is 0,001

when I try to calculate one Pixel --\> 0.9684765 (value from runoff\_retention)

0.9684765 \* 27 \* 0.001 \* 1 -----------------\> 0.02614887.

When I want to calculate runoff\_retention\_m³ for the whole area, is the formula --\> runoff\_retention \* 27 \* 0.001 \* 1 ?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tp09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/48db29/32.png) [@Tp09](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/u/Tp09)\
**Post date:** [October 8, 2020, 6:50pm UTC](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/t/urban-flood-risk-mitigation-run-of-retention-m3-seems-to-be-right-but-do-not-show-appropirate-data/1395/6 "2020-10-08T18:50:41Z")

</div>

Finally, I know whats going on.

I got these values because of the low Pixel size. I resampled the test data for the model to pixel size 1m instead of 30m. Now they also have these low Values.

What is your opinion about these values? Are they usable? Regards Tp09

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tp09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/48db29/32.png) [@Tp09](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/u/Tp09)\
**Post date:** [October 9, 2020, 5:48am UTC](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/t/urban-flood-risk-mitigation-run-of-retention-m3-seems-to-be-right-but-do-not-show-appropirate-data/1395/7 "2020-10-09T05:48:24Z")

</div>

Dear @esoth,

Why is there a warning message regarding the multipolygon?

My watershed consist of 4 subwatersheds. It has also correct attributes in the table?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dcdenu4](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/dcdenu4/32/544_2.png) [@dcdenu4](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/u/dcdenu4)\
**Post date:** [October 9, 2020, 12:27pm UTC](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/t/urban-flood-risk-mitigation-run-of-retention-m3-seems-to-be-right-but-do-not-show-appropirate-data/1395/8 "2020-10-09T12:27:36Z")

</div>

Hi @Tp09,

I just noticed that you are using InVEST 3.8.7. We made a bugfix that might be very relevant in InVEST 3.8.9. Could you try downloading the latest version of invest [[InVEST Download Page]](https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/software/invest) and let us know if you still see these low unexpected values?

Cheers,

Doug

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tp09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/48db29/32.png) [@Tp09](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/u/Tp09)\
**Post date:** [October 9, 2020, 3:38pm UTC](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/t/urban-flood-risk-mitigation-run-of-retention-m3-seems-to-be-right-but-do-not-show-appropirate-data/1395/9 "2020-10-09T15:38:01Z")

</div>

Hello @dcdenu4 ,

I have downloaded the latest Version.

It is the same. My output got the same low values as in the previous version.

I only get higher values when i change the pixel size.

Kind regards Tp09

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dcdenu4](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/dcdenu4/32/544_2.png) [@dcdenu4](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/u/dcdenu4)\
**Post date:** [October 9, 2020, 5:47pm UTC](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/t/urban-flood-risk-mitigation-run-of-retention-m3-seems-to-be-right-but-do-not-show-appropirate-data/1395/10 "2020-10-09T17:47:39Z")

</div>

Hey @Tp09,

Thanks for trying that. Would you be willing to share your input data so we could better check to see if it’s a bug with the model? You could zip up your inputs and share them here, or a cloud sharing service like google drive, dropbox, etc… My email is ddenu @ stanford . edu if you’d feel more comfortable sharing that way.

Doug

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tp09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/48db29/32.png) [@Tp09](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/u/Tp09)\
**Post date:** [October 9, 2020, 6:09pm UTC](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/t/urban-flood-risk-mitigation-run-of-retention-m3-seems-to-be-right-but-do-not-show-appropirate-data/1395/11 "2020-10-09T18:09:21Z")

</div>

Hey @dcdenu4,

Can you confirm to me that you downloaded it? Then I will delet it.

Kind regards Tim

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dcdenu4](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/dcdenu4/32/544_2.png) [@dcdenu4](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/u/dcdenu4)\
**Post date:** [October 9, 2020, 6:10pm UTC](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/t/urban-flood-risk-mitigation-run-of-retention-m3-seems-to-be-right-but-do-not-show-appropirate-data/1395/12 "2020-10-09T18:10:20Z")

</div>

@Tp09,

I Downloaded it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tp09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/48db29/32.png) [@Tp09](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/u/Tp09)\
**Post date:** [October 9, 2020, 6:10pm UTC](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/t/urban-flood-risk-mitigation-run-of-retention-m3-seems-to-be-right-but-do-not-show-appropirate-data/1395/13 "2020-10-09T18:10:46Z")

</div>

Thank you very much 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dcdenu4](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/dcdenu4/32/544_2.png) [@dcdenu4](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/u/dcdenu4)\
**Post date:** [October 9, 2020, 7:03pm UTC](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/t/urban-flood-risk-mitigation-run-of-retention-m3-seems-to-be-right-but-do-not-show-appropirate-data/1395/14 "2020-10-09T19:03:58Z")

</div>

Hey @Tp09,

Thanks for sharing your data. I think everything looks in working order and if I’ve wrapped my mind around the problem I’m pretty confident in those low volume values. The reason those values are so low is because, as you pointed out, the pixel size of 1m x 1m.

If we drop 27mm of rain on a 1 x 1 pixel and the retention ratio is 0.62, we would expect a little more than half of that to be retained volume. 27mm to meters is 0.027m, and since the pixel size is 1m x 1m, that will be our retention volume for that pixel. That’s a 0.027 cubic meter retention on a pixel (which is 1m x 1m).

The sample data has higher values because it’s looking at 27mm per meter for a 30m x 30m area. So 0.027m x 900sqm = 24.3m\_3. That’s a 24.3 cubic meter retention on a pixel (which is 30m x 30m).

So the confusion might be, the 27mm of storm depth is “dropped on the landscape” per meter and NOT per pixel. The model is designed to convert that to an output of volume per pixel.

Does that make sense? Sorry if that attempted explanation was confusing. So yes, I’m not an expert in the science development of the model, but the values seem reasonable.

Doug

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tp09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/48db29/32.png) [@Tp09](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/u/Tp09)\
**Post date:** [October 9, 2020, 7:38pm UTC](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/t/urban-flood-risk-mitigation-run-of-retention-m3-seems-to-be-right-but-do-not-show-appropirate-data/1395/15 "2020-10-09T19:38:20Z")

</div>

Hey @dcdenu4,

thank you a lot for sharing your time with me. Your Explanation was really helpful and in my eyes we share the same opinion. I think I will change the Pixel Size a bit 🙂

So I have one more (my last) question: What does the values in the Damage.csv file mean?

There is 0 (type) and 1 (Damage) --\> How can I understand them? I think I know what type is but what about 1 (Damage) what does Value 1 mean?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dcdenu4](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/dcdenu4/32/544_2.png) [@dcdenu4](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/u/dcdenu4)\
**Post date:** [October 9, 2020, 8:07pm UTC](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/t/urban-flood-risk-mitigation-run-of-retention-m3-seems-to-be-right-but-do-not-show-appropirate-data/1395/16 "2020-10-09T20:07:54Z")

</div>

Hi @Tp09,

No problem at all.

The _damage_ is referring to _cost in dollars per square meter_ of infrastructure damage. So in the example sample data if _type 0_ is residential infrastructure, then damage would be _$100_ per square meter of potential damage from flooding on that type of infrastructure. So in the output shapefile the _aff.bld_ field will show _potential damage to built infrastructure in $, per watershed_.

Cheers,

Doug

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tp09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/48db29/32.png) [@Tp09](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/u/Tp09)\
**Post date:** [October 9, 2020, 8:23pm UTC](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/t/urban-flood-risk-mitigation-run-of-retention-m3-seems-to-be-right-but-do-not-show-appropirate-data/1395/17 "2020-10-09T20:23:17Z")

</div>

Hello @dcdenu4,

get it. Thank you so much for everything. Nice support at all. 🙂 🙂 🙂 stay safe.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/uploads/naturalcapitalproject/original/2X/8/8d95591aa074da87ea0fdd61ca47c1c3c0588aa7.png) [@system](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/u/system)\
**Post date:** [October 16, 2020, 8:23pm UTC](https://community.naturalcapitalalliance.org/t/urban-flood-risk-mitigation-run-of-retention-m3-seems-to-be-right-but-do-not-show-appropirate-data/1395/20 "2020-10-16T20:23:19Z")

</div>

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.