Terrain Constraint and Conflict Analysis
What This Tool Does
Terrain Constraint and Conflict Analysis scores terrain conflict severity from slope and optional wetness, flood-risk, and landcover-penalty rasters. It outputs a conflict score raster, a conflict class raster, a summary JSON, and an HTML report.
Typical Questions This Tool Helps Answer
- Which areas of this study region have terrain and environmental constraints severe enough to effectively preclude cost-effective development?
- Where do multiple constraint types overlap to create compounded conflict zones that will drive the highest mitigation costs?
- Which candidate development footprints fall in low-conflict terrain versus areas requiring significant engineering mitigation?
When To Use
- Early siting review where terrain and environmental constraints need a single comparable score
- Corridor or project screening before more detailed engineering review
- Rapid ranking of high-risk terrain areas for mitigation planning
What You Need
| Input | Description |
|---|---|
| DEM raster | The reference elevation raster. |
| Optional normalized rasters | Wetness, flood risk, or landcover penalty layers in the range 0 to 1. |
Key Settings
| Setting | Default | Guidance |
|---|---|---|
slope_limit_deg | 15.0 | Lower values make the tool more aggressive about calling conflict. |
| Optional rasters | null | Leave them empty if a constraint category is not available. |
What You Get
| Deliverable | Format | Description |
|---|---|---|
conflict_score | Raster | Conflict severity score in the range 0 to 1. |
conflict_class | Raster | Four-class conflict map from low to very high. |
summary | JSON | Run summary, validity counts, and QA status. |
html_report | HTML | Human-readable report. |
The summary status becomes review when the high-conflict fraction exceeds 0.40.
Runtime Output Keys
result.outputs["conflict_score"]
result.outputs["conflict_class"]
result.outputs["summary"]
result.outputs["html_report"]
Common Questions
Q: Which result should I review first?
A: Start with summary.high_conflict_fraction, then inspect where classes 3 and 4 concentrate in conflict_class.
Q: What is a common interpretation mistake?
A: Assuming class 2 is always acceptable without checking local slope and wetness conditions.
Q: Which settings most change outcomes?
A: slope_limit_deg and optional layers (wetness, flood_risk, landcover_penalty) have the largest influence on high-conflict footprint.
Q: How should planning teams use the outputs? A: Use high-conflict clusters to screen or reroute alignments before committing to final site or corridor decisions.
Results Delivery Checklist
-
summary["status"]was reviewed -
conflict_classwas inspected in GIS software - Any high-conflict hotspots were checked before siting or mitigation decisions
Operational Notes
- Conflict class
3and4cells should be treated as redesign or mitigation triggers in early siting workflows. slope_limit_degis the highest-leverage parameter; adjust it intentionally and comparehigh_conflict_fractionacross scenarios.- Optional layers (
wetness,flood_risk,landcover_penalty) are expected to be normalized to[0,1]for stable scoring behavior.
Related Tools
terrain_constructability_and_cost_analysiscorridor_mapping_intelligenceutility_corridor_encroachment_intelligence
References
- Runtime implementation:
wbtools_pro/src/tools/siting/terrain_constraint_and_cost.rs - Terrain and Infrastructure Siting bundle overview:
manual/pro-tools-customer/src/terrain_siting/overview.md
When To Use This Workflow
Use Terrain Constraint and Conflict Analysis when you need a repeatable conflict surface to screen and compare candidate routes or development footprints before detailed design.