Predictive ability of logistic regression, auto-logistic regression and neural network models in empirical land-use change modeling – a case study

The objective of this study is to compare the abilities of logistic, auto-logistic and artificial neural network (ANN) models for quantifying the relationships between land uses and their drivers. In addition, the application of the results obtained by the three techniques is tested in a dynamic land-use change model (CLUE-s) for the Paochiao watershed region in Taiwan. Relative operating characteristic curves (ROCs), kappa statistics, multiple resolution validation and landscape metrics were used to assess the ability of the three techniques in estimating the relationship between driving factors and land use and its subsequent application in land-use change models. The validation results illustrate that for this case study ANNs constitute a powerful alternative for the use of logistic regression in empirical modeling of spatial land-use change processes. ANNs provide in this case a better fit between driving factors and land-use pattern. In addition, auto-logistic regression performs better than logistic regression and nearly as well as ANNs. Auto-logistic regression and ANNs are considered especially useful when the performance of more conventional models is not satisfactory or the underlying data relationships are unknown. The results indicate that an evaluation of alternative techniques to specify relationships between driving factors and land use can improve the performance of land-use change models.

[1]  Timothy Evans,et al.  A Review and Assessment of Land-Use Change Models Dynamics of Space, Time, and Human Choice , 2002 .

[2]  Jean-Christophe Castella,et al.  Combination of process-oriented and pattern-oriented models of land-use change in a mountain area of Vietnam , 2007 .

[3]  K. McGarigal,et al.  FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. , 1995 .

[4]  R. Congalton.  A Quantitative Method to Test for Consistency and Correctness in Photointerpretation , 1983 .

[5]  John R. Jensen,et al.  Introductory Digital Image Processing: A Remote Sensing Perspective , 1986 .

[6]  Jens-Christian Svenning,et al.  Spatial distribution and environmental preferences of the piassaba palm Aphandra natalia (Arecaceae) along the Pastaza and Urituyacu rivers in Peru , 2005 .

[7]  Keith C. Clarke,et al.  A Self-Modifying Cellular Automaton Model of Historical Urbanization in the San Francisco Bay Area , 1997 .

[8]  R. Costanza.  MODEL GOODNESS OF FIT: A MULTIPLE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE , 1989 .

[9]  Chien-Ju Lin,et al.  Modeling and assessing land-use and hydrological processes to future land-use and climate change scenarios in watershed land-use planning , 2007 .

[10]  Patrick Bogaert,et al.  Spatial analysis and modelling of land use distributions in Belgium , 2007, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[11]  Ahmed Shaker,et al.  Modeling Change-Pattern-Value Dynamics on Land Use: An Integrated GIS and Artificial Neural Networks Approach , 2005, Environmental management.

[12]  Palmer.  Encyclopedia of biostatistics , 1999, BMJ.

[13]  P. Verburg,et al.  Downscaling of land use change scenarios to assess the dynamics of European landscapes , 2006 .

[14]  E. Lambin,et al.  Proximate Causes and Underlying Driving Forces of Tropical Deforestation , 2002 .

[15]  Bryan C. Pijanowski,et al.  Calibrating a neural network‐based urban change model for two metropolitan areas of the Upper Midwest of the United States , 2005, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[16]  Yu-Pin Lin,et al.  Monitoring and Predicting Land-use Changes and the Hydrology of the Urbanized Paochiao Watershed in Taiwan Using Remote Sensing Data, Urban Growth Models and a Hydrological Model , 2008, Sensors.

[17]  Emiliano Ferreira Castejon,et al.  Using neural networks and cellular automata for modelling intra‐urban land‐use dynamics , 2008, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[18]  Roger L. H. Dennis,et al.  A comparison of geographical and neighbourhood models for improving atlas databases. The case of the French butterfly atlas , 2002 .

[19]  J A Swets,et al.  Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. , 1988, Science.

[20]  Peter H. Verburg,et al.  Impacts of land use change scenarios on hydrology and land use patterns in the Wu-Tu watershed in Northern Taiwan , 2007 .

[21]  Zhiyong Hu,et al.  Modeling urban growth in Atlanta using logistic regression , 2007, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[22]  Xia Li,et al.  Calibration of Cellular Automata by Using Neural Networks for the Simulation of Complex Urban Systems , 2001 .

[23]  B. Pijanowski,et al.  Using neural networks and GIS to forecast land use changes: a Land Transformation Model , 2002 .

[24]  Dennis Ojima,et al.  The global impact of land-use change , 1994 .

[25]  Liang-Cheng Chang,et al.  Optimal control algorithm and neural network for dynamic groundwater management , 2009 .

[26]  Flemming Skov,et al.  Mesoscale distribution of understorey plants in temperate forest (Kalø, Denmark): the importance of environment and dispersal , 2002, Plant Ecology.

[27]  Jean-François Mas,et al.  Modelling deforestation using GIS and artificial neural networks , 2004, Environ. Model. Softw..

[28]  P. Goovaerts,et al.  Accounting for geophysical information in geostatistical characterization of unexploded ordnance (UXO) sites , 2005, Environmental and Ecological Statistics.

[29]  PETER H. VERBURG,et al.  Modeling the Spatial Dynamics of Regional Land Use: The CLUE-S Model , 2002, Environmental management.

[30]  Anthony Gar-On Yeh,et al.  Neural-network-based cellular automata for simulating multiple land use changes using GIS , 2002, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[31]  S. Manel,et al.  Evaluating presence-absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence , 2001 .

[32]  Heekuck Oh,et al.  Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition , 1993, Adv. Comput..

[33]  Jean-Christophe Castella,et al.  Combining top-down and bottom-up modelling approaches of land use/cover change to support public policies: Application to sustainable management of natural resources in northern Vietnam , 2007 .

[34]  Karen C. Seto,et al.  Using the ART-MMAP neural network to model and predict urban growth : a spatiotemporal data mining approach , 2008 .

[35]  Eric F. Lambin,et al.  Land-use and land-cover change : local processes and global impacts , 2010 .

[36]  R. Pontius,et al.  Modeling Land-Use and Land-Cover Change , 2006 .

[37]  Peter H. Verburg,et al.  Analysis of land use drivers at the watershed and household level: Linking two paradigms at the Philippine forest fringe , 2005, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[38]  Peter H. Verburg,et al.  Accessibility and land-use patterns at the forest fringe in the northeastern part of the Philippines , 2004 .

[39]  Nikos Koutsias.  An autologistic regression model for increasing the accuracy of burned surface mapping using Landsat Thematic Mapper data , 2003 .

[40]  L. H. Cammeraat,et al.  Identification of vulnerable areas for gully erosion under different scenarios of land abandonment in Southeast Spain , 2007 .

[41]  Matthew G. Betts,et al.  The importance of spatial autocorrelation, extent and resolution in predicting forest bird occurrence , 2006 .

[42]  Mark D. Piorecky,et al.  Multiple spatial scale logistic and autologistic habitat selection models for northern pygmy owls, along the eastern slopes of Alberta’s Rocky Mountains , 2006 .

[43]  K. Overmars,et al.  Combining top-down and bottom-up dynamics in land use modeling: exploring the future of abandoned farmlands in Europe with the Dyna-CLUE model , 2009, Landscape Ecology.

[44]  Martin Herold,et al.  The spatiotemporal form of urban growth: measurement, analysis and modeling , 2003 .