Assessing spatial uncertainty in predictive geomorphological mapping: A multi-modelling approach

Maps of earth surface processes and the potential distribution of landforms make an important contribution to theoretical and applied geomorphology. Because decision making often depends on information based on spatial models, there is a great need to develop methodology to evaluate the spatial uncertainty resulting from those models. In this study we developed a new method to produce maps of the uncertainty of predictions provided by ten state-of-the-art modelling techniques for sorted (SP) and non-sorted (NSP) patterned ground in subarctic Finland at a 1.0-ha resolution. Six uncertainty classes represent the modelling agreement between the different modelling techniques. The resulting uncertainty maps reflect the reliability of the estimates for the studied periglacial landforms in the modelled area. Our results showed a significant negative correlation between the degree of uncertainty and the accuracy of the modelling techniques. On average, when all ten models agreed, the mean area under the curve (AUC) values were 0.904 (NSP) and 0.896 (SP), these values decreased to 0.416 (NSP) and 0.518 (SP), respectively, when only five models agreed. Mapping of the uncertainty of predictions in geomorphology can help scientists to improve the reliability of their data and modelling results. The predictive maps can be interpreted simultaneously with the uncertainty information, improving understanding of the potential pitfalls of the modelling.

[1]  Jan Hjort,et al.  Generalized linear modelling in periglacial studies: terrain parameters and patterned ground , 2004 .

[2]  Wilfried Thuiller,et al.  Statistical consensus methods for improving predictive geomorphology maps , 2009, Comput. Geosci..

[3]  J. Hjort.  Environmental Factors Affecting the Occurrence of Periglacial Landforms in Finnish Lapland: A Numerical Approach , 2006 .

[4]  A. Brenning,et al.  Statistical estimation and generalized additive modeling of rock glacier distribution in the San Juan Mountains, Colorado, United States , 2007 .

[5]  Mathieu Marmion,et al.  A comparison of predictive methods in modelling the distribution of periglacial landforms in Finnish Lapland , 2008 .

[6]  Miska Luoto,et al.  Potential effect of climate change on the distribution of palsa mires in subarctic Fennoscandia , 2006 .

[7]  P. Reichenbach,et al.  Landslide hazard evaluation: a review of current techniques and their application in a multi-scale study, Central Italy , 1999 .

[8]  Miska Luoto,et al.  Modelling the distribution of palsas in Finnish Lapland with logistic regression and GIS , 2002 .

[9]  Jan Hjort,et al.  Can abundance of geomorphological features be predicted using presence–absence data? , 2008 .

[10]  Antoine Guisan,et al.  Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology , 2000 .

[11]  M. Sykes,et al.  Methods and uncertainties in bioclimatic envelope modelling under climate change , 2006 .

[12]  T. Dawson,et al.  Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions , 2005 .

[13]  John Bell,et al.  A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models , 1997, Environmental Conservation.

[14]  Jerald B. Johnson,et al.  Model selection in ecology and evolution. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[15]  Mathieu Marmion,et al.  Evaluation of consensus methods in predictive species distribution modelling , 2009 .

[16]  N. Matsuoka,et al.  Solifluction rates, processes and landforms: a global review , 2001 .

[17]  Miska Luoto,et al.  Summit peats (‘peat cakes’) on the fells of Finnish Lapland: continental fragments of blanket mires? , 2000 .

[18]  L. Miska,et al.  Evaluation of current statistical approaches for predictive geomorphological mapping , 2005 .

[19]  Miska Luoto,et al.  Spatial modelling of palsa mires in relation to climate in northern Europe , 2004 .

[20]  Russell G. Congalton,et al.  A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data , 1991 .

[21]  W. Thuiller.  Patterns and uncertainties of species' range shifts under climate change , 2004 .

[22]  John R. Giardino,et al.  Mapping geomorphology: A journey from paper maps, through computer mapping to GIS and Virtual Reality , 1996 .

[23]  M. Luoto,et al.  Scale matters–A multi-resolution study of the determinants of patterned ground activity in subarctic Finland , 2006 .

[24]  P. Legendre.  Spatial Autocorrelation: Trouble or New Paradigm? , 1993 .

[25]  S. Walsh,et al.  An overview of scale, pattern, process relationships in geomorphology: a remote sensing and GIS perspective , 1998 .

[26]  Jan Hjort,et al.  Landscape scale determinants of periglacial features in subarctic Finland: a grid‐based modelling approach , 2007 .

[27]  W. Thuiller.  BIOMOD – optimizing predictions of species distributions and projecting potential future shifts under global change , 2003 .

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

[29]  M. Austin.  Species distribution models and ecological theory: A critical assessment and some possible new approaches , 2007 .

[30]  M. Araújo,et al.  Validation of species–climate impact models under climate change , 2005 .

[31]  Stephan Gruber,et al.  Statistical modelling of mountain permafrost distribution: local calibration and incorporation of remotely sensed data , 2001 .

[32]  Robert P. Anderson,et al.  Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions , 2006 .

[33]  Peter Scull,et al.  Predictive soil mapping: a review , 2003 .

[34]  L. King,et al.  Permafrost Thickness and Distribution in Finnish Lapland - Results of Geoelectrical Soundings , 1987 .

[35]  S. Hartley,et al.  Quantifying uncertainty in the potential distribution of an invasive species: climate and the Argentine ant. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[36]  A. L. Washburn,et al.  Geocryology: A survey of periglacial processes and environments , 1979 .

[37]  R. J. Pike,et al.  GIS technology and models for assessing landslide hazard and risk , 2008 .