Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rough Set Rule Induction for Suitability Assessment

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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) ArticleTitleCombined 5 × 2 CV F-Test for comparing supervised classification learning algorithms. Neural Computation 11 1885–1982 Occurrence Handle10.1162/089976699300016007 Occurrence Handle10578036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. A. An N. Shan C. Chan N. Cercone W. Ziarko (1996) ArticleTitleDiscovering rules from data for water demand prediction. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 9 645–653 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0952-1976(96)00059-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Berger, P., Bolte, J. (2004) Evaluating the impact of policy options on agricultural landscapes: an alternative futures approach. Ecological Applications. 14: 342–354

    Google Scholar 

  5. I. Bruha (1997) Quality of decision rules: definitions and classification schemes for multiple rules. Pages 107–131 G. Nakhaeizadeh C. C. Taylor (Eds) Machine learning and statistics, the interface. John Wiley and Sons New York

    Google Scholar 

  6. C. Daly R. P. Neilson D. L. Phillips (1994) ArticleTitleA statistical-topographic model for mapping climatological precipitation over mountainous terrain. Journal of Applied Meteorology 33 140–158 Occurrence Handle10.1175/1520-0450(1994)033<0140:ASTMFM>2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. T. G. Dietterich (1998) ArticleTitleApproximate statistical tests for comparing supervised classification learning algorithms. Neural Computation 10 1895–1923 Occurrence Handle10.1162/089976698300017197 Occurrence Handle9744903

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. J. Dougherty R. Kohavi M. Sahami (1995) Supervised and unsupervised discretizations of continuous features. Pages 194–202 A. Prieditis S. Russell (Eds) Proceedings of the 12th international conference on machine learning (ML95) Morgan Kaufmann San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  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 (Eds) Rough sets in knowledge discovery 2: applications, case studies and software systems. Physica-Verlag Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  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) ArticleTitleApproximation algorithms for combinatorial problems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 9 256–278

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. Komorowski Z. Pawlak L. Polkowski A. Skowron (1999) Rough sets: a tutorial. Pages 3–98 S. K. Pal A. Skowron (Eds) Rough-fuzzy hybridization: a new trend in decision making. Springer-Verlag Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  13. A. Øhrn J. Komorowski A. Skowron P. Synak (1998) The ROSETTA software system L. Polkowski A. Skowron (Eds) Rough sets in knowledge discovery 2: applications, case studies and software systems. Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 572–576

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. M. Omernik (1987) ArticleTitleEcoregions of the conterminous United States: Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77 118–125 Occurrence Handle10.1111/j.1467-8306.1987.tb00149.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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) ArticleTitleRough sets. International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences 11 341–356 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF01001956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Z. Pawlak (1984) ArticleTitleRough classification. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 20 469–483

    Google Scholar 

  18. Z. Pawlak (1991) Rough sets: theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht 229

    Google Scholar 

  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 (Eds) Advances in soil science. Springer-Verlag New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. F. Wang (1994) ArticleTitleThe use of artificial neural networks in a geographical information system for agricultural land-suitability assessment. Environment and Planning A 26 265–284

    Google Scholar 

  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.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the United States Environmental Protection Agency through Cooperative Agreement CR 824682 with Oregon State University. This paper has not been subject to EPA review and thus no official Agency endorsement should be inferred. The author thanks Dr. Tom Dietterich of Oregon State University for clarification on the use of the 5 × 2 CV F-test.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bioengineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 97331, OR, USA

    Patricia A. Berger

Authors
  1. Patricia A. Berger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricia A. Berger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berger, P. Rough Set Rule Induction for Suitability Assessment. Environmental Management 34, 546–558 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0097-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0097-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation