Effects of variable attribute weights on landform classification

Abstract

This paper focuses on the attribute weight issue and advocates use of modifiable attribute weights in terrain-based environmental analysis and classification. A question was asked: 'How much will the result of a terrain-based environmental analysis be affected if the weights of used terrain attributes are changed?' The literature on landform classification and the fuzzy k-means method was reviewed in particular to help clarify the background and importance of this weight assignment issue. As an example, the effects of modifying attribute weights were evaluated for fuzzy k-means landform classification in a case study area. A total of 102 classifications were compared with each other and with a soil map, and comparison methods were specifically designed to evaluate the differences between these classifications. The results show that fuzzy k-means landform classification is sensitive to weight adjustments of adopted terrain attributes. The sensitivity is particularly high when the attribute weights started to be tuned away from the standard (i.e. uniform) weight of one. Better matching between landform classification and a soil map may be produced when attribute weights are tuned. In all, we advocate the widespread adoption of an exploratory attitude in assigning attribute weights for environmental analysis and classification. Copyright

Boundary Delineator for Martian Crater Instances with Geographic Information and Deep Learning

“…Furthermore, accurate boundaries can be used to deduce the history of surface degradation [26,27]. Second, obtaining accurate boundaries is essential for planetary geological and geomorphological mapping [40,41]. Notably, the identification of impact craters is time-and energy-intensive when mapping the global Moon.…”

Quantitative studies of the morphology of the south Poland using Relief Index (RI)

“…Other methods were proposed by Jenness [10], who quantifies ruggedness as the ratio of 3-dimensional surface area to planar surface area, or Grohmann et al [14] -surface roughness as an expression of the variability of a topographic surface at a given scale, where the scale of analysis is determined by the size of the landforms or geomorphic features of interest. Another interesting indicator was Topographic Wetness Index (TWI) by Beven and Kirkby [15] which combines local upslope contributing area and slope, is commonly used to quantify topographic control on hydrological processes [16][17][18][19]. Jenson and Domingue [20] proposed tools for digital elevation modeling contain various options for the analysis of topographical attributes, such as algorithms for extracting drainage networks.…”

Single point iterative weighted fuzzy C-means clustering algorithm for remote sensing image segmentation

“…The above efforts fully developed the "crisp" landform classification, which maybe causes that landform of large areas can be classified rapidly into small and repetitive landform units at various spatial scales. However, the spatial continuum that has long been recognized as an essential characteristic of landforms is poorly represented [8].…”