Inductive pattern-based land use/cover change models: A comparison of four software packages

  • Authors:
  • Jean-François Mas;Melanie Kolb;Martin Paegelow;María Teresa Camacho Olmedo;Thomas Houet

  • Affiliations:
  • Centro de Investigaciones en Geografía Ambiental, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Antigua Carretera a Pátzcuaro No. 8701, Col. Ex-Hacienda de San José de L ...;Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), México D.F., Mexico;Department of Geography, University Toulouse II, GEODE UMR 5602 CNRS, France;Departamento de Análisis Geográfico Regional y Geografía Física, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain;Department of Geography, University Toulouse II, GEODE UMR 5602 CNRS, France

  • Venue:
  • Environmental Modelling & Software
  • Year:
  • 2014

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Land use/cover change (LUCC), as an important factor in global change, is a topic that has recently received considerable attention in the prospective modeling domain. There are many approaches and software packages for modeling LUCC, many of them are empirical approaches based on past LUCC such as CLUE-S, DINAMICA EGO, CA_MARKOV and Land Change Modeler (both available in IDRISI). This study reviews the possibilities and the limits of these four modeling software packages. First, a revision of the methods and tools available for each model was performed, taking into account how the models carry out the different procedures involved in the modeling process: quantity of change estimate, change potential evaluation, spatial allocation of change, reproduction of temporal and spatial patterns, model evaluation and advanced modeling options. Additional considerations, such as flexibility and user friendliness were also taken into account. Then, the four models were applied to a virtual case study to illustrate the previous descriptions with a typical LUCC scenario that consists of four processes of change (conversion of forest to two different types of crops, crop abandonment and urban sprawl) that follow different spatial patterns and are conditioned by different drivers. The outputs were compared to assess the quantity of change estimates, the change potential and the simulated prospective maps. Finally, we discussed some basic criteria to define a ''good'' model.