Rough Set Rule Induction for Suitability Assessment Article First Online: 26 October 2004 DOI:
Cite this article as: Berger, P. Environmental Management (2004) 34: 546. doi:10.1007/s00267-003-0097-z Abstract
The data that characterize an environmental system are a fundamental part of an environmental decision-support system. However, obtaining complete and consistent data sets for regional studies can be difficult. Data sets are often available only for small study areas within the region, whereas the data themselves contain uncertainty because of system complexity, differences in methodology, or data collection errors. This paper presents rough-set rule induction as one way to deal with data uncertainty while creating predictive if–then rules that generalize data values to the entire region. The approach is illustrated by determining the crop suitability of 14 crops for the agricultural soils of the Willamette River Basin, Oregon, USA. To implement this method, environmental and crop yield data were spatially related to individual soil units, forming the examples needed for the rule induction process. Next, four learning algorithms were defined by using different subsets of environmental attributes. ROSETTA, a software system for rough set analysis, was then used to generate rules using each algorithm. Cross-validation analysis showed that all crops had at least one algorithm with an accuracy rate greater than 68%. After selecting a preferred algorithm, the induced classifier was used to predict the crop suitability of each crop for the unclassified soils. The results suggest that rough set rule induction is a useful method for data generalization and suitability analysis.
Keywords Crop suitability assessment Rule induction Rough set theory Regional modeling References
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.
Alpaydin, E. 1999 Combined 5 × 2 CV F-Test for comparing supervised classification learning algorithms. Neural Computation 11 1885 1982 CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
An, A., Shan, N., Chan, C., Cercone, N., Ziarko, W. 1996 Discovering rules from data for water demand prediction. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 9 645 653 CrossRef Google Scholar
Berger, P., Bolte, J. (2004) Evaluating the impact of policy options on agricultural landscapes: an alternative futures approach.
Bruha, I. 1997 Quality of decision rules: definitions and classification schemes for multiple rules. Pages 107–131 Nakhaeizadeh, G. Taylor, C. C. eds. Machine learning and statistics, the interface. John Wiley and Sons New York Google Scholar
Daly, C., Neilson, R. P., Phillips, D. L. 1994 A statistical-topographic model for mapping climatological precipitation over mountainous terrain. Journal of Applied Meteorology 33 140 158 CrossRef Google Scholar
Dietterich, T. G. 1998 Approximate statistical tests for comparing supervised classification learning algorithms. Neural Computation 10 1895 1923 CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Dougherty, J., Kohavi, R., Sahami, M. 1995 Supervised and unsupervised discretizations of continuous features. Pages 194–202 Prieditis, A. Russell, S. eds. Proceedings of the 12th international conference on machine learning (ML95) Morgan Kaufmann San Francisco Google Scholar
Furuta, H., Hirokane, M., Mikumo, Y. 1998 Extraction method based on rough set theory of rule-type knowledge from diagnostic cases of slope-failure danger levels. Pages 178–192 Polkowski, L. Skowron, A. eds. Rough sets in knowledge discovery 2: applications, case studies and software systems. Physica-Verlag Heidelberg Google Scholar
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.
Johnson, D. S. 1974 Approximation algorithms for combinatorial problems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 9 256 278 Google Scholar
Komorowski, J., Pawlak, Z., Polkowski, L., Skowron, A. 1999 Rough sets: a tutorial. Pages 3–98 Pal, S. K. Skowron, A. eds. Rough-fuzzy hybridization: a new trend in decision making. Springer-Verlag Singapore Google Scholar
Øhrn, A., Komorowski, J., Skowron, A., Synak, P. 1998 The ROSETTA software system Polkowski, L. Skowron, A. eds. Rough sets in knowledge discovery 2: applications, case studies and software systems. Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 572 576 Google Scholar
Omernik, J. M. 1987 Ecoregions of the conterminous United States: Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77 118 125 CrossRef Google Scholar
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.
Pawlak, Z. 1982 Rough sets. International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences 11 341 356 CrossRef Google Scholar
Pawlak, Z. 1984 Rough classification. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 20 469 483 Google Scholar
Pawlak, Z. 1991Rough sets: theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht 229 Google Scholar
Soil Survey Staff. 2001. National Soil Survey Handbook, title 430-VI. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1998. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. Fort Worth, Texas.
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.
van Diepen, C. A., van Keulen, H., Wolf, J., Berkhout, J. A. A. 1991 Land evaluation: from intuition to quantification. Pages 139–204 Stewart, B. A. eds. Advances in soil science. Springer-Verlag New York Google Scholar
Wang, F. 1994 The use of artificial neural networks in a geographical information system for agricultural land-suitability assessment. Environment and Planning A 26 265 284 Google Scholar
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.
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.
© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 2004