Rough set rule induction for suitability assessment

Environmental Management

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 546-558

  Berger, Patricia A ^a  

^a Oregon State University   (United States)

Author keywords

Crop suitability assessment; Regional modeling; Rough set theory; Rule induction

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; CROPS; DATA REDUCTION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; ROUGH SET THEORY; SOILS;

CROSS-VALIDATION ANALYSIS; DATA SETS; ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES; ROUGH-SET RULE INDUCTION;

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT;

ALGORITHM; ASSESSMENT METHOD; CROP PRODUCTION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; MODELING; SOIL CLASSIFICATION;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; DATA ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENT; METHODOLOGY; PREDICTION; SOIL ANALYSIS; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ALGORITHMS; CROPS, AGRICULTURAL; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; OREGON; SOFTWARE; SOIL; UNCERTAINTY;

ALGORITHMS; FARM CROPS; SOIL;

NORTH AMERICA; OREGON; UNITED STATES; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WILLAMETTE RIVER; WORLD;

EID: 23444444535     PISSN: 0364152X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-003-0097-z     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Agotnes, T. 1999. Filtering large propositional rule sets while retaining classifier performance. MSc thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Computer and Information Science, February 1999.
2. E. Alpaydin 1999 Combined 5 × 2 CV F-Test for comparing supervised classification learning algorithms. Neural Computation 11 1885 1982
3. A. An N. Shan C. Chan N. Cercone W. Ziarko 1996 Discovering rules from data for water demand prediction. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 9 645 653
4. Berger, P., Bolte, J. (2004) Evaluating the impact of policy options on agricultural landscapes: an alternative futures approach. Ecological Applications. 14: 342-354
5. I. Bruha 1997 Quality of decision rules: definitions and classification schemes for multiple rules. Pages 107-131 G. Nakhaeizadeh C. C. Taylor Machine learning and statistics, the interface. John Wiley and Sons New York
6. C. Daly R. P. Neilson D. L. Phillips 1994 A statistical-topographic model for mapping climatological precipitation over mountainous terrain. Journal of Applied Meteorology 33 140 158
7. T. G. Dietterich 1998 Approximate statistical tests for comparing supervised classification learning algorithms. Neural Computation 10 1895 1923
8. J. Dougherty R. Kohavi M. Sahami 1995 Supervised and unsupervised discretizations of continuous features. Pages 194-202 A. Prieditis S. Russell Proceedings of the 12th international conference on machine learning (ML95) Morgan Kaufmann San Francisco
9. H. Furuta M. Hirokane Y. Mikumo 1998 Extraction method based on rough set theory of rule-type knowledge from diagnostic cases of slope-failure danger levels. Pages 178-192 L. Polkowski A. Skowron Rough sets in knowledge discovery 2: applications, case studies and software systems. Physica-Verlag Heidelberg
10. Jenssen, T. K. 1998. Refinements to Mollestad's algorithm for synthesis of default rules. MSc thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Computer and Information Science.
11. D. S. Johnson 1974 Approximation algorithms for combinatorial problems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 9 256 278
12. J. Komorowski Z. Pawlak L. Polkowski A. Skowron 1999 Rough sets: a tutorial. Pages 3-98 S. K. Pal A. Skowron Rough-fuzzy hybridization: a new trend in decision making. Springer-Verlag Singapore
13. A. ØJ. Komorowski A. Skowron P. Synak 1998 The ROSETTA software system L. Polkowski A. Skowron Rough sets in knowledge discovery 2: applications, case studies and software systems. Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 572 576
14. J. M. Omernik 1987 Ecoregions of the conterminous United States: Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77 118 125 1 pl., scale 1:7,500,000
15. Pater, D. E., Bryce, S. A., Thorson, T. D., Kagan, J., Chappell, C.,Omernik, J. M., Azevedo, S. H., Woods, A. J. 1998. Ecoregions of Western Washington and Oregon (two-sided color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
16. Z. Pawlak 1982 Rough sets. International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences 11 341 356
17. Z. Pawlak 1984 Rough classification. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 20 469 483
18. Z. Pawlak 1991 Rough sets: theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht 229
19. Soil Survey Staff. 2001. National Soil Survey Handbook, title 430-VI. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
20. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1998. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. Fort Worth, Texas.
21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Level III ecoregions of the continental United States (revision of Omernik 1987): Corvallis, OR, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, digital map, scale 1:250,000.
22. C. A. van Diepen H. van Keulen J. Wolf J. A. A. Berkhout 1991 Land evaluation: from intuition to quantification. Pages 139-204 B. A. Stewart Advances in soil science. Springer-Verlag New York
23. F. Wang 1994 The use of artificial neural networks in a geographical information system for agricultural land-suitability assessment. Environment and Planning A 26 265 284
24. Wilk, S., Flinkman, M., Michalowski, W., Nilsson, S., Slowinski, R., Susmaga, R. 1998. Identification of biodiversity and other forest attributes for sustainable forest management: Siberian Forest case study. IIASA Interim Report 98-106. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Laxenburg, Austria, 23 pp.
25. Withrow-Robinson, B., Hibbs, D., Beuter, J. 1995. Poplar chip production for Willamette Valley grass seed sites. Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 47 pp.