2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.03.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of simulation models in terms of quantity and allocation of land change

Abstract: -François Mas. Comparison of simulation models in terms of quantity and allocation of land change. Environmental Modelling and Software, Elsevier, 2015, pp.214-221. 10.1016/j.envsoft.2015 Comparison of simulation models in terms of quantity and allocation of land change a b s t r a c tOur article illustrates how to compare the outputs from models that simulate transitions among categories through time. We illustrate the concepts by comparing two land change models: Land Change Modeler and Cellular Automata Ma… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
45
0
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 120 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
45
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Triantakonstantis and Stathakis [32] used MLP for modeling future LULC transition probabilities based on information on past LULC changes and geomorphic drivers such as elevation, slope, and distance variables from specific land features, etc. Similar methods can be seen in a number of studies, although the number and types of driver variables utilized vary [27,[34][35][36][37][38].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Triantakonstantis and Stathakis [32] used MLP for modeling future LULC transition probabilities based on information on past LULC changes and geomorphic drivers such as elevation, slope, and distance variables from specific land features, etc. Similar methods can be seen in a number of studies, although the number and types of driver variables utilized vary [27,[34][35][36][37][38].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Therefore, some differences exist in the MOLA algorithm in LCM and in CA_MARKOV (Eastman 2012;Camacho Olmedo et al 2015). The MOLA works only once in the LCM procedure, while, in CA_MARKOV, the MOLA runs once for each chosen iteration, that is the number of time units of the simulation period (t1 to T), and the final result is the overlay of each new simulation map after each MOLA reallocation.…”
Section: Land Change Simulation: the Scenariomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides, using CA transition rules and land use transition is governed by maximum probability transition and will follow the constraint of cell transition that happens only once to a particular land use, which will never be changed further during simulation. For better comparing CA_MARKOVand LCM, in our case study, we used a non-filter (Camacho Olmedo et al 2015), ignoring the cellular automata; therefore, the effect of contiguity disappeared.…”
Section: Land Change Simulation: the Scenariomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Model calibration (1) involves the modeling of a transition potential map (i.e., transition from non-built to built); simulation (2) involves the prediction of the quantities of ULCs (i.e., changes from non-built to built from 2001 to 2014, 2030, and 2050); and validation (3) comprises the allocation of the predicted changes (i.e., using the transition potential map to spatially allocate the predicted quantities of ULCs). The details of these modeling processes can be found in the literature [20,[49][50][51]. More specifically, we used the MLP NN algorithm to model the transition potential map with the following inputs: the land-use/cover maps of 1992 and 2001 and the five driver variables, namely distance to major roads, distance to schools, distance to growth nodes, distance to administrative centers, and distance to existing built-up areas (1992).…”
Section: Urban Land Change Modelingmentioning
confidence: 99%