Kinyarwanda is an AI-drafted translation, provisional pending native and partner review.
Modelled habitat-quality improvement
18.9 %
Restored versus current land-use scenario
SAVi compares current and restored land-use scenarios using the InVEST habitat-quality index: 0.067 and 0.080. The reported 18.9% improvement is a model result, not measured vegetation-cover change.
How do the habitat scenarios compare?
InVEST habitat-quality index, from 0 to 1. The comparison is modelled, not an observed before-and-after survey.
Common index scale: 0 to 1
View data table
| Measure | Value | Unit | Basis | Publication date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current land use | 0.067 / 1 | index | Modelled | 2026-01-20 | Read source The current-land-use scenario has a habitat-quality index of 0.067. This is a model output on a 0–1 scale, not a field survey. |
| Restored land use | 0.080 / 1 | index | Modelled | 2026-01-20 | Read source The restored-land-use scenario has a habitat-quality index of 0.080. SAVi reports an 18.9% improvement using its underlying model values; the displayed indices are rounded. |
How can upstream restoration benefit the city?
A conceptual explanation of the SAVi assessment. This is not a map of intervention boundaries or a measurement of protection achieved.
Restore upstream land
Trees on farms, restored forest and planted river buffers change land cover.
Read the assessmentView data table
| Measure | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Carbon storage | 30.86 % change | Restored versus current land-use scenario · 2026-01-20 |
| Habitat quality | 18.9 % change | Restored versus current land-use scenario · 2026-01-20 |
| Average temperature | -0.14 % change | Restored versus current land-use scenario · 2026-01-20 |
| Runoff retention | 5.3 % change | Restored versus current land-use scenario · 2026-01-20 |
Why this matters
The index estimates habitat disturbance. The published rounded index values do not reproduce the percentage exactly; the source’s reported change is retained.