Dynamic Modeling, Geostatistics, and Fuzzy Classificaiton: New Sneakers for a New Geography?

O lId Methodological Sneakers: Fashion and Function in a CrossTraining Era" (Bauer et al. 1999) summarizes the recent focus and shortcomings of physical geography and suggests why the conventional approach to the discipline may be insufficient to compete successfully in a future dominated by multidisciplinary teams from other earth and biological sciences, working to solve real-world problems. The synthesis offered by Bauer, Veblen, and Winkler in their Forum introductory essay (pp. 679-87) may be just as apposite for recent work in pedology as in other subfields of our discipline. In recent decades, soil geographers and others have investigated soils at scales ranging from the molecular to the pedon (plot), polypedon (field), watershed, county, region, country, and globe. Much of this research, however, has been a static inventory and analysis of individual pedons or hillslopes that has avoided spatial and temporal interactions of interest at the management scale of farm field or catchment (Usery et al. 1995; Bouma 1997). Work at these scales has, until recently, focused on the production of maps and related database products (e.g., the SSURGO, STATSGO and NATSGO databases, Reybold and TeSelle 1989; USDA-NRCS 1991; Digital Soil Map of the World, FAO 1974-1978). The advent of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and related geospatial technologies, while greatly increasing the availability and use of these products (Wilson 1999a), has also served to reinforce the conventional paradigms of space on which they depend. In reaction, an increasing number of studies has critically examined the methods used to construct these products and how these methods have constrained the physical geographer in his/her ability to convey understanding about operation of the landscape in response to natural and anthropogenic forces (e.g., Baker and Gersmehl 1991; Wilson et al. 1996; Burrough et al. 1997; Zhu 1997). These investigations have indicated that there are several important new opportunities that can be used to: (1) extend the discussion of Bauer et al., and (2) show that there are several useful extensions to the conventional spatial and temporal paradigms that will enable the multidisciplinary real-world problem solving that is likely to dominate the academic enterprise of the twenty-first century. Although computer technology plays an important role in the enablement of these new methods, the real innovation involves a fundamental change in the way space, objects in space, and space-time interactions are perceived, described, and recorded. These ideas are discussed here with reference to recent work in physical geography and soil science.

[1]  Fangju Wang,et al.  Fuzzy Representation of Geographical Boundaries in GIS , 1996, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[2]  Lucien Duckstein,et al.  Fuzzy Rule-Based Modeling with Applications to Geophysical, Biological and Engineering Systems , 1995 .

[3]  Derek Karssenberg,et al.  Integrating dynamic environmental models in GIS: The development of a Dynamic Modelling language , 1996, Trans. GIS.

[4]  Bryan D. Baker,et al.  TEMPORAL TRENDS IN SOIL PRODUCTIVITY EVALUATIONS , 1991 .

[5]  Stephen J. Ventura,et al.  Fuzzy and isodata classification of landform elements from digital terrain data in Pleasant Valley, Wisconsin , 1997 .

[6]  Boucneau,et al.  Integrating properties of soil map delineations into ordinary kriging , 1998 .

[7]  Lubos Mitas,et al.  Interacting Fields Approach for Evolving Spatial Phenomena: Application to Erosion Simulation for Optimized Land Use , 1996 .

[8]  P.F.M. van Gaans,et al.  Continuous classification in soil survey: spatial correlation, confusion and boundaries , 1997 .

[9]  Helen Couclelis,et al.  Map Dynamics Integrating Cellular Automata and GIS Through Geo-Algebra , 1997, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[10]  Yvan Pannatier,et al.  Variowin: Software for Spatial Data Analysis in 2D , 1996 .

[11]  A-Xing Zhu,et al.  Automated soil inference under fuzzy logic , 1996 .

[12]  Michael F. Goodchild,et al.  Geographical data modeling , 1992 .

[13]  John P. Wilson,et al.  GIS-based solute transport modeling applications: scale effects of soil and climate data input , 1996 .

[14]  William U. Reybold,et al.  Soil geographic data bases , 1989 .

[15]  R. M. Lark,et al.  Uncertainty in prediction and interpretation of spatially variable data on soils , 1997 .

[16]  Lubos Mitas,et al.  Modelling Spatially and Temporally Distributed Phenomena: New Methods and Tools for GRASS GIS , 1995, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[17]  Trevor J. Davis,et al.  Modelling Uncertainty in Natural Resource Analysis Using Fuzzy Sets and Monte Carlo Simulation: Slope Stability Prediction , 1997, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[18]  P. Burrough,et al.  The indicator approach to categorical soil data. II: Application to mapping and land use suitability analysis , 1993 .

[19]  Karen K. Kemp Fields as a framework for integrating GIS and environmental process models. Part 2: Specifying field variables , 1996, Trans. GIS.

[20]  S. de Bruin,et al.  Soil-landscape modelling using fuzzy c-means clustering of attribute data derived from a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) , 1998 .

[21]  G. Ampt,et al.  Studies on Soil Physics: Part II — The Permeability of an Ideal Soil to Air and Water , 1912, The Journal of Agricultural Science.

[22]  Peter A. Burrough,et al.  High-resolution landform classification using fuzzy k-means , 2000, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[23]  E. L. Usery,et al.  Precision farming data management using geographic information systems , 1995 .

[24]  Mike Kirkby Computer Simulation in Physical Geography , 1988 .

[25]  Markus Disse,et al.  Fuzzy rule-based models for infiltration , 1993 .

[26]  J. Bouma,et al.  The role of quantitative approaches in soil science when interacting with stakeholders. , 1997 .

[27]  Bernard O. Bauer,et al.  Old Methodological Sneakers: Fashion and Function in a Cross‐Training Era , 1999 .

[28]  Masanao Takeyama Building spatial models within GIS through Geo-Algebra , 1997, Trans. GIS.

[29]  P. Burrough,et al.  Principles of geographical information systems , 1998 .

[30]  Antony Unwin,et al.  SPIDER - an interactive statistical tool for the analysis of spatially distributed data , 1990, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[31]  Karen K. Kemp Fields as a framework for integrating GIS and environmental process models. Part 1: Representing spatial continuity , 1996, Trans. GIS.

[32]  A. McBratney,et al.  Application of fuzzy sets in soil science: fuzzy logic, fuzzy measurements and fuzzy decisions , 1997 .

[33]  Lubos Mitas,et al.  Role of dynamic cartography in simulations of landscape processes based on multivariate fields , 1997 .

[34]  B. Kosko Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic , 1993 .

[35]  A-Xing Zhu,et al.  A similarity model for representing soil spatial information , 1997 .

[36]  A-Xing Zhu,et al.  A Knowledge-Based Approach to Data Integration for Soil Mapping , 1994 .

[37]  A. Zhu,et al.  Derivation of Soil Properties Using a Soil Land Inference Model (SoLIM) , 1997 .

[38]  D.J.J. Walvoort,et al.  Continuous soil maps - a fuzzy set approach to bridge the gap between aggregation levels of process and distribution models , 1997 .

[39]  Helen Couclelis,et al.  People Manipulate Objects (but Cultivate Fields): Beyond the Raster-Vector Debate in GIS , 1992, Spatio-Temporal Reasoning.

[40]  Fangju Wang,et al.  Fuzzy information representation and processing in conventional GIS software: database design and application , 1990, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[41]  S. Bie,et al.  Comparison of four independent soil surveys by air-photo interpretation, paphos area (Cyprus) , 1973 .

[42]  Timothy C. Coburn,et al.  Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation , 2000, Technometrics.

[43]  L. A. Richards Capillary conduction of liquids through porous mediums , 1931 .

[44]  Hans-Hermann Bock,et al.  Classification and Related Methods of Data Analysis , 1988 .

[45]  P. Rich,et al.  Modeling topographic influences on solar radiation: A manual for the SOLARFLUX Model , 1995 .