Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
A Multiscale Cost–Benefit Analysis of Digital Soil Mapping Methods for Sustainable Land Management
With the emergence of machine learning methods during the past decade, alternatives to conventional geostatistical methods for soil mapping are becoming increasingly more sophisticated. To provide a complete overview of their performance, this study performed cost–benefit analysis of four soil mapping methods based on five criteria: accuracy, processing time, robustness, scalability and applicability. The evaluated methods were ordinary kriging (OK), regression kriging (RK), random forest (RF) and ensemble machine learning (EML) for the prediction of total soil carbon and nitrogen. The results of these mechanisms were objectively standardized using the linear scaling method, and their relative importance was quantified using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). EML resulted in the highest cost–benefit score of the tested methods, with maximum values of accuracy, robustness and scalability, achieving a 55.6% higher score than the second-ranked RF method. The two geostatistical methods ranked last in the cost–benefit analysis. Despite that, OK could retain its place as the most frequent method for soil mapping in recent studies due to its widespread, user-friendly implementation in GIS software and its univariate character. Further improvement of machine learning methods with regards to computational efficiency could additionally improve their cost–benefit advantage and establish them as the universal standard for soil mapping.
A Multiscale Cost–Benefit Analysis of Digital Soil Mapping Methods for Sustainable Land Management
With the emergence of machine learning methods during the past decade, alternatives to conventional geostatistical methods for soil mapping are becoming increasingly more sophisticated. To provide a complete overview of their performance, this study performed cost–benefit analysis of four soil mapping methods based on five criteria: accuracy, processing time, robustness, scalability and applicability. The evaluated methods were ordinary kriging (OK), regression kriging (RK), random forest (RF) and ensemble machine learning (EML) for the prediction of total soil carbon and nitrogen. The results of these mechanisms were objectively standardized using the linear scaling method, and their relative importance was quantified using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). EML resulted in the highest cost–benefit score of the tested methods, with maximum values of accuracy, robustness and scalability, achieving a 55.6% higher score than the second-ranked RF method. The two geostatistical methods ranked last in the cost–benefit analysis. Despite that, OK could retain its place as the most frequent method for soil mapping in recent studies due to its widespread, user-friendly implementation in GIS software and its univariate character. Further improvement of machine learning methods with regards to computational efficiency could additionally improve their cost–benefit advantage and establish them as the universal standard for soil mapping.
A Multiscale Cost–Benefit Analysis of Digital Soil Mapping Methods for Sustainable Land Management
Dorijan Radočaj (Autor:in) / Mladen Jurišić (Autor:in) / Oleg Antonić (Autor:in) / Ante Šiljeg (Autor:in) / Neven Cukrov (Autor:in) / Irena Rapčan (Autor:in) / Ivan Plaščak (Autor:in) / Mateo Gašparović (Autor:in)
2022
Aufsatz (Zeitschrift)
Elektronische Ressource
Unbekannt
Metadata by DOAJ is licensed under CC BY-SA 1.0
Land Information Science - Cost-Benefit Analysis of Montana Cadastral Mapping Project Website
| Online Contents | 2003
Cost-Benefit Analysis of Montana Cadastral Mapping Project Website
| British Library Online Contents | 2003
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LOCAL LAND USE ALLOCATION DECISIONS
| Online Contents | 2001
Soil Bioengineering as an Alternative for Roadside Management: Benefit-Cost Analysis Case Study
| British Library Online Contents | 2002