Earth Science Informatics

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 77–86 | Cite as

Quantifying and analyzing neighborhood configuration characteristics to cellular automata for land use simulation considering data source error

RESEARCH ARTICLE
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Cellular Automata (CA) simulation models have been increasingly used in land use studies. However, neighborhood configuration, an essential element of CA model, remarkably impacts the accuracy of simulated results. Moreover, errors from data source may propagate through the CA modeling process. The objective of this study is to analyze the effect of neighborhood configuration to CA model and further on to explore its capacity of resisting disturbance from data source error. With statistic-based CA model and several neighborhood configurations respectively, the land use changes of Wuhan, China were analyzed. It is demonstrated that there are significant differences on the simulated results produced by different neighborhoods. Besides, different neighborhoods respond differently to data source error. In light of these results, we find out that (1) neighborhood configurations with larger neighborhood size and planar neighborhood type, introduced in this paper, contribute to higher prediction accuracy; and (2) the neighborhood configurations above also have higher capacity of resisting disturbance from data source error and give rise to more stable simulated results. This study provides a comprehensive basis for scale selection of CA model with a meaningful consideration of data source error and thus will improve the research on land use change.

Keywords

Land use change Cellular automata model Neighborhood configuration Data source error Resisting error disturbance 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are greatly thankful to anonymous reviewers for the constructive suggestions for improving the manuscript. And special thanks to Prof. Diansheng Guo (the Editorial Board of The Professional Geographer) for linguistic advice. This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant NO.40901214), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant NO.2010-Ia-015) and the Youth Chenguang Project of Science and Technology of Wuhan City of China (Grant NO.201150431093).

References

  1. Batty M, Xie Y, Sun Z (1999) Modeling urban dynamics through GIS-based cellular automata. Comput Environ Urban Syst 23(3):203–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen Q, Mynett AE, Minns AW (2002) Application of cellular automata to modelling competitive growths of two underwater species Chara aspera and Potamogeton pectinatus in Lake Veluwe. Ecol Model 147(3):253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke KC, Gaydos LJ (1998) Loose-coupling a cellular automaton model and GIS: long-term urban growth prediction for San Francisco and Washington/Baltimore. Int J Geogr Inform Sci: IJGIS 12(7):699–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Couclelis H (1985) Cellular worlds - a framework for modeling micro–macro dynamics. Environ Plann 17(5):585–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Craig PD (2010) Imposed and inherent scales in cellular automata models of habitat. Ecol Model 221(20):2425–2434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cushman SA, Landguth EL (2010) Scale dependent inference in landscape genetics. Landsc Ecol 25(6):967–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deng JS, Wang K, Hong Y, Qi JG (2009) Spatio-temporal dynamics and evolution of land use change and landscape patteern in response to rapid urganization. Landsc Urban Plann 92:187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fonstad MA (2006) Cellular automata as analysis and synthesis engines at the geomorphology-ecology interface. Geomorphology 77(3–4):217–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gaucherel C (2009) Self-similar land cover heterogeneity of temperate and tropical landscapes. Ecol Complex 6(3):346–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hagoort M, Geertman S, Ottens H (2007) Spatial externalities, neighbourhood rules and CA land-use modelling. Ann Reg Sci 42(1):39–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hecht B, Moxley E (2009) Terabytes of Tobler: evaluating the first law in a massive. Domain-neutral representation of world knowledge. Spatial Inform Theory 5756:88–105, SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karssenberg D, De Jong K (2005) Dynamic environmental modelling in GIS: 2. Modelling error propagation. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 19(6):623–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kavzoglu T (2009) Increasing the accuracy of neural network classification using refined training data. Environ Model Softw 24(7):850–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keith CC, Leonard JG (1998) Loose-coupling a cellular automata model and GIS: long-term urban growth prediction for San Francisco and Washington/Baltimore. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 12(7):699–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kocabas V, Dragicevic S (2006) Assessing cellular automata model behaviour using a sensitivity analysis approach. Comput Environ Urban Syst 30(6):921–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lai T, Dragicevic S (2011) Development of an urban landslide cellular automata model: a case study of North Vancouver, Canada. Earth Sci Informatics 4(2):69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li X, Yeh AG (2002) Neural-network-based cellular automata for simulating multiple land use changes using GIS. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 16(4):323–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li X, Yang QS, Liu XP (2008) Discovering and evaluating urban signatures for simulating compact development using cellular automata. Landsc Urban Plann 86(2):177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu X, Li X, Shi X, Wu S, Liu T (2008) Simulating complex urban development using kernel-based non-linear cellular automata. Ecol Model 211(1–2):169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Menard A, Marceau DJ (2005) Exploration of spatial scale sensitivity in geographic cellular automata. Environ Plann Plann Des 32(5):693–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Myint SW, Wang L (2006) Multicriteria decision approach for land use land cover change using Markov chain analysis and a cellular automata approach. Can J Remote Sens 32(6):390–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Myint SW, Jain J, Lukinbeal C, Lara-Valencia F (2010) Simulating urban growth on the US-Mexico border: Nogales, Arizona, and Nogales, Sonora. Can J Remote Sens 36(3):166–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Overmars KP, de Koning GHJ, Veldkamp A (2003) Spatial autocorrelation in multi-scale land use models. Ecol Model 164:257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pan Y, Roth A, Yu Z, Doluschitz R (2010) The impact of variation in scale on the behavior of a cellular automata used for land use change modeling. Comput Environ Urban Syst 34(5):400–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Santé I, García AM, Miranda D, Crecente R (2010) Cellular automata models for the simulation of real-world urban processes: A review and analysis. Landsc Urban Plann 96(2):108–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sun T, Wang J (2007) A traffic cellular automata model based on road network grids and its spatial and temporal resolution’s influences on simulation. Simulat Model Pract Theor 15(7):864–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tobler WR (1970) A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Econ Geogr 46:234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tobler WR (1979) Cellular geography. In Philosophy in geography. D. Reidel Publishing Company, pp 379–386Google Scholar
  29. Veldkamp A, Verburg PH, Kok K, de Koning GHJ, Priess J, Bergsma AR (2001) The need for scale sensitive approaches in spatially explicit land use change modeling. Environ Model Assess 6(2):111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Verburg PH, Nijs TCM, Eck JR, Visser H, Jong K (2004) A method to analyse neighborhood characteristics of land use patterns. Comput Environ Urban Syst 28(6):667–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang Y, Li S (2011) Simulating multiple class urban land-use/cover changes by RBFN-based CA model. Comput Geosci 37(2):111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang J, Chen YQ, He T, Lv CY, Liu AX (2010) Application of geographic image cognition approach in land type classification using Hyperion image: a case study in China. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinform 12:S212–S222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. White R, Engelen G (1993) Cellular automata and fractal urban form: a cellular modelling approach to the evaluation of urban land-use patterns. Environ Plann 25:1175–1199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. White R, Engelen G (1997) Cellular automata as the basis of integrated dynamic regional modeling. Environ Plann Plann Des 24:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wu DQ, Liu J, Zhang GS, Ding WJ, Wang W, Wang RQ (2009) Incorporating spatial autocorrelation into cellular automata model: an application to the dynamics of Chinese tamarisk (Tamarix chinensis Lour.). Ecol Model 220(24):3490–3498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wu H, Chen X, Li Z, Wang S, Cui W, Meng Q (2010) Identifying spatial patterns of land use and cover change at different scales based on self-organizing map. Adv Neural Netw Res Appl 67:355–361, SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yang Q, Li X, Shi X (2008) Cellular automata for simulating land use changes based on support vector machines. Comput Geosci 34(6):592–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yeh A, Li X (2006) Errors and uncertainties in urban cellular automata. Comput Environ Urban Syst 30(1):10–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Resources and Environmental EngineeringWuhan University of TechnologyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations