Performance evaluation of multiple methods for landscape aesthetic suitability mapping: A comparative study between Multi-Criteria Evaluation, Logistic Regression and Multi-Layer Perceptron neural network

Land Use Policy

Volumn 67, Issue , 2017, Pages 1-12

  Saeidi, Sepideh ^a   Mohammadzadeh, Marjan ^a   Salmanmahiny, Abdolrassoul ^a   Mirkarimi, Seyed Hamed ^a  

^a GORGAN UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES AND NATURAL RESOURCES   (Iran)

Author keywords

Ecosystem services; Landscape aesthetics; Logistic Regression; Multi Criteria Evaluation; Multi Layer Perceptron; Scenic beauty

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ESTHETICS; LAND USE PLANNING; LANDSCAPE; MAPPING; MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

IRAN;

EID: 85019634178     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.05.014     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Alivand, M., Hochmair, H., Srinivasan, A., Analyzing how travelers choose scenic routes using route choice models. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 50 (2015), 41–52.
2. Aminzadeh, B., Ghorashi, S., Scenic landscape quality and recreational activities in Natural Forest Parks, Iran. Environ. Res. 1:1 (2007), 5–13.
3. Amir, S., Gidalizon, E., An expert-based method for the evaluation of visual absorption capacity of the landscape. Environ. Manage. 30 (1990), 251–263.
4. Angileri, V., Toccolini, A., The assessment of visual quality as a tool for the conservation of rural landscape diversity. Landscape Urban Plann. 24:1–4 (1993), 105–112.
5. Anselin, L., Spatial Econometrics. Methods and Models. 1988, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
6. Arrowsmith, C., Modeling tourism potential for nature-based tourism. Proceeding of The Australian Academy of Science Fenner Conference, Canberra, 2001.
7. Austin, M.P., Cawsey, E.M., Baker, B.L., Yialeloglou, M.M., Grice, D.J., Briggs, S.V., Predicted Vegetation Cover in the Central Lachlan Region. 2000, CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology 174 pp.
8. Ayad, M.Y., Remote sensing and GIS in modeling visual landscape change: a case study of the northwestern arid coast of Egypt. Landscape Urban Plann. 73:4 (2005), 307–325.
9. Baghri Bodaghabadi, M., Martínez-Casasnovas, J.A., Salehi, M.H., Mohammadi, J., Esfandiarpoor Borujeni, J., Toomanian, N., Gandomkar, A., Pedosphere 25:4 (2015), 580–591.
10. Bishop, I.D., Hulse, D.W., Prediction of scenic beauty using mapped data and geographic information systems. Landscape Urban Plann. 30 (1994), 59–70.
11. Brown, T.C., Daniel, T.C., Modeling forest scenic beauty: concepts and applications to ponderosa pine. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-256, 1984, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Fort Collins, CO 35p.
12. Chen, Z., Xu, B., Devereux, B., Urban landscape pattern analysis based on 3D landscape models. Appl. Geogr. 55 (2014), 82–91.
13. Chhetri, P., Arrowsmith, C., Mapping the potential of scenic views for the Grampian National park. Proceeding of 21 International Cartographic Conference (ICC), Durban, South Africa, 2003.
14. Crask, M., Fox, R., An exploration of the interval properties of three commonly used marketing research scales: a magnitude estimation approach. Mark. Res. Soc. 29 (1987), 317–339.
15. Methodological Issues in the Assessment of Landscape Quality. Daniel, T.C., Vining, J., (eds.), 1983, Plenum, New York.
16. Eastman, R., Idrisi Taiga Version. 16.01. 2009, Clark Laboratories, Clark University, Worcester, MA.
17. Eskandari, B., M.Sc., Thesis. 2013, Gorgan University of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
18. Foltête, J.C., Litot, J.B., Scenic postcards as objects for spatial analysis of tourist regions. Tourism Manage. 49 (2015), 17–28.
19. Franco, D., Franco, D., Mannino, I., Zanetto, G., The impact of agroforestry networks on scenic beauty estimation: the role of a landscape ecological network on a socio-cultural process. Landscape Urban Plann. 62:3 (2003), 119–138.
20. Frank, S., Fürst Ch Koschke, L., Witt, A., Makeschin, F., Assessment of landscape aesthetics—validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty. Ecol. Indic. 32 (2013), 222–231.
21. Givon, M., Shaphira, Z., Response to rating scales: a theoretical model and its application to the number of categories problem. Mark. Res. 21 (1984), 410–419.
22. Golestan Province land use planning report, Golestan Province Land Use Planning Report., 2013, Published by Gorgan University of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
23. Goodarzi, M.S., Sakieh, Y., Navardi, S., Scenario-based urban growth allocation in a rapidly developing area: a modeling approach for sustainability analysis of an urban-coastal coupled system. Environ. Dev. Sustainability, 2016, 1–24.
24. Hasani, M., Sakieh, Y., Khammar, S., Measuring satisfaction: analyzing the relationships between sociocultural variables and functionality of urban recreational parks. Environ. Dev. Sustainability, 2016, 1–18.
25. Hu, Z., Lo, C.P., Modeling urban growth in Atlanta using logistic regression. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 31:6 (2007), 667–688.
26. Huang, B., Zhang, L., Wu, B., Spatiotemporal analysis of rural–urban land conversion. Int. J. Geog. Inf. Sci. 23:3 (2009), 379–398.
27. Hull, R.B., McCarthy, M.M., Change in the landscape. Landscape Urban Plann. 15:3–4 (1988), 265–278.
28. Hull, R.B., Stewart, W.P., Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Environ. Psychol. 12:2 (1992), 101–114.
29. Jaccard, J., Wan, C., LISREL Approaches to Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression. 1996, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
30. Jokar, J., Helbich, M., Kainz, W., Darvishi Boloorani, A., Integration of logistic regression, Markov chain and cellular automata models to simulate urban expansion. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 21 (2013), 265–275.
31. Litton, Burton R., Tetlow, R.J., Sorensen, J., Beatty, R.A., Water and Landscape: an Aesthetic Overview of the Role of Water in the Landscape. 1974, Water Information Center Inc.
32. Mahiny, A.S., Clarke, K.C., Guiding SLEUTH land-use/land-cover change modeling using multicriteria evaluation: towards dynamic sustainable land-use planning. Environ. Plann. B 39:5 (2012), 925–944.
33. Mahiny, A.S., Turner, B.J., Modeling past vegetation change through remote sensing and G.I.S: a comparison of neural networks and logistic regression methods. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Geo Computation, The 7th International Conference on Geo Computation, University of Southampton, United Kingdom, 2003.
34. Martina, B., Ortegaa, E., Oteroa, I., Arce, R., Landscape character assessment with GIS using map-based indicators and photographs in the relationship between landscape and roads. Environ. Manage. 180 (2016), 324–334.
35. McCullagh, P., Nelder, J., Generalized Linear Models. 1989, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
36. McFeeters, S., The use of the Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI) in the delineation of open water features. Int. J. Remote Sens. 17:7 (1996), 1425–1432.
37. Mehri, A., Salmanmahiny, A., Mirkarimi, S.H., Rezaei, H.R., Use of optimization algorithms to prioritize protected areas in Mazandaran Province of Iran. Nat. Conserv. 22:5 (2014), 462–470.
38. Mozumder, C., Tripathi, N.K., Geospatial scenario based modelling of urban and agricultural wetland Deepor Beel in Northeast India using a multi-layer perceptron neural network. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 32 (2014), 92–104.
39. Naveh, Z., Interactions of landscapes and cultures. Landscape Urban Plann. 32 (1995), 43–54.
40. Pao, H., A comparison of neural network and multiple regression analysis in modeling capital structure. Expert Syst. Appl. 35:3 (2008), 720–727.
41. Pijanowski, B.C., Brown, D.G., Shellito, B.A., Manik, G.A., Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 26:6 (2002), 553–575.
42. Pontius, R.G. Jr, Schneider, L.C., Land-cover change model validation by an ROC method for the Ipswich watershed, Massachusetts, USA. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 85 (2001), 239–248.
43. Ribe, R.G., Scenic beauty perceptions along the ROS. Environ. Manage. 42:3 (1994), 199–221.
44. Riveira, I.S., Maseda, R.C., A review of rural land-use planning models. Environ. Plann. B: Plann. Des. 33 (2006), 165–183.
45. Saaty, T.L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. 1980, McGraw Hill, New York.
46. Saeidi, S., Mohammadzadeh, M., Salmanmahiny, A.R., Mirkarimi, S.H., Assessing and modeling of landscape scenic values using weighted linear combination method. Nat. Environ. 67:3 (2013), 301–313.
47. Saeidi, S., Mohammadzadeh, M., Salmanmahiny, A.R., Mirkarimi, S.H., Identifying the most important criteria affect landscape visual quality. J. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2014 Accepted in.
48. Saeidi, S., Visual Quality Assessment and Modeling of Aesthetic Values Along Walking Tracks in Ziarat Watershed, Gorgan, Golestan, Iran. M.Sc. Thesis. 2013, Gorgan University of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
49. Sakieh, Y., Salmanmahiny, A., Jafarnezhad, J., Mehri, A., Kamyab, H., Galdavi, S., Evaluating the strategy of decentralized urban land-use planning in a developing region. Land Use Policy 48 (2015), 534–551.
50. Sakieh, Y., Salmanmahiny, A., Mirkarimi, S.H., Saeidi, S., Measuring the relationships between landscape aesthetics suitability and spatial patterns of urbanized lands: an informed modeling framework for developing urban growth scenarios. Geocarto Int., 2016, 1–21.
51. Sakieh, Y., Urban Sustainability Through Urban Growth Modeling and Land Suitability Analysis (Karaj Case Study). M.Sc., Thesis. 2013, University of Tehran.
52. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). Sarukhán, J., Whyte, A., (eds.), 2005, Island Press, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., USA.
53. Singh, A., Kushawaha, S.P.S., Refining logistic models for wildlife habitat suitability modeling—a case study with muntjak and goral in the Central Himalaya, India. Ecol. Modell. 222:8 (2011), 1354–1366.
54. Sung, D.G., Lim, S.H., Ko, J., Cho, G., Scenic evaluation of landscape for urban design purposes using GIS and ANN. Landscape Urban Plann. 56 (2001), 75–85.
55. Thonet, J.A., The future of wetlands: assessing visual-cultural values. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 20:4 (1984), 628–629.
56. Vries, S., Groot, M. de., Boers, J., Eyesores in sight: quantifying the impact of man-made elements on the scenic beauty of Dutch landscapes. Landscape Urban Plann. 105:1–2 (2012), 118–127.
57. Wagtendonk, A., Vermaat, J., Visual perception of cluttering in landscapes: developing a low resolution GIS-evaluation method. Landscape Urban Plann. 124 (2014), 85–92.
58. Wu, Y., Bishop, I.D., Hossain, H., Sposito, V., Applying GIS in landscape visual quality assessment. Appl. GIS 2:3 (2006), 1–20.
59. Xie, C., Huang, B., Claramunt, C., Chandramouli, C., Spatial logistic regression and GIS to model rural-urban land conversion. Proceedings of PROCESSUS Second International Colloquium on the Behavioral Foundations of Integrated Land-use and Transportation Models: Frameworks, Models and Applications, June 12–15, 2005, University of Toronto, Canada, 2005.
60. Zadeh, L.A., Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8:3 (1965), 338–353.
61. Zhang, Z., Tsou, J.Y., Lin, H., GIS for visual impact assessment. Proceedings of the 21st Asian Conference on Remote Sensing, Taipei, Taiwan, 2000.
62. Zhou, W., Cadenasso, M.L., Schwarz, K., Pickett, S.T., Quantifying spatial heterogeneity in urban landscapes: integrating visual interpretation and object-based classification. Remote Sens. 6:4 (2014), 3369–3386.
63. Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions, and Resources. Zube, E.H., Brush, R.O., Fabos, J.Y., (eds.), 1975, Halsted, New York.