Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Next revision
Previous revision
determine_weights_of_evidence_coefficients [2011/08/01 21:01]
hermann created
determine_weights_of_evidence_coefficients [2026/08/28 03:17] (current)
hermann Sync from local documentation review
Line 1: Line 1:
-====== Determine Weights Of Evidence Coefficients ====== ​+====== Determine Weights Of Evidence Coefficients ======
  
 ===== Description ===== ===== Description =====
  
-This container determines the Weights of Evidence coefficients for selected spatial variables with respect to a transition or set of transitions.+This container determines the Weights of Evidence coefficients for selected spatial variables with respect to the transitions occurring between an initial and final map. Weights of Evidence is a Bayesian method, originally used in geology to point out favorable areas for phenomena such as mineralization,​ adapted here to measure the empirical relationship between spatial variables (represented by categorical or continuous maps) and land-use and land-cover change. For each transition ​and each variable, this container evaluates how much more (or less) likely the transition is within each of the variable'​s ranges than would be expected by chance, expressing that relationship as a weight and a contrast. 
 + 
 +This container accepts one or more [[Name Map]] hooks nested inside it, each assigning a name to a map. These named maps supply the values for the spatial variables referenced by Ranges.
  
 ===== Inputs ===== ===== Inputs =====
  
-^ Name ^ Type ^ Description ^ +^ Name  ^ Type  ^ Description ​ 
-| Initial Landscape ​ | [[ Categorical Map Type|Categorical Map]]  | Initial map of land use and cover classes. ​ | +| Initial Landscape ​ | [[Categorical Map Type]] ​ | Initial map of land use and cover classes. ​ | 
-| Final Landscape ​ | [[Categorical Map Type|Categorical Map]]  | Final map of land use and cover classes. ​ | +| Final Landscape ​ | [[Categorical Map Type]] ​ | Final map of land use and cover classes. ​ | 
-| Ranges ​ | [[Weights Type|Weights]]  | Pre-defined intervals for continuous ​gray-tone ​variable. ​ |+| Ranges ​ | [[Weights Type]] ​ | Pre-defined intervals for each continuous ​or categorical spatial ​variable, for each transition, for which the Weights of Evidence coefficients will be calculated.  |
  
 ===== Optional Inputs ===== ===== Optional Inputs =====
 +
 +^ Name  ^ Type  ^ Description ​ ^ Default Value  ^
 +| Fix Abnormal Weights ​ | [[Boolean Value Type]] ​ | If true, recalculates weights that would otherwise result in abnormal values, such as those arising from a division by zero. If false, those abnormal values are assumed to be zero. This is an advanced port.  | No  |
 +| Potential Transition Criteria ​ | [[Boolean Value Type]] ​ | Affects how a possible but unexecuted transition from class C to class P is identified. If true, any cell that transitions from C to some other class X (different from P) is considered a case where the C to P transition was possible but did not happen. If false, only a cell that stays in class C is considered such a case. This affects the analysis of concurrent transitions,​ and is an advanced port.  | Yes  |
  
 ===== Outputs ===== ===== Outputs =====
  
-^ Name ^ Type ^ Description ^ +^ Name  ^ Type  ^ Description ​ 
-| Weights ​ | [[ Weights Type|Weights]]  | Obtained ​coefficients for selected spatial variables with respect to transition or set of transitions. ​ |+| Weights ​ | [[Weights Type]] ​ | Weights of Evidence ​coefficients ​obtained ​for the selected spatial variableswith respect to the given transition or transitions.  | 
 +| Report ​ | [[Table Type]] ​ | Table with the same information reported to the message log during the calculation:​ for each transition, variable and range, the columns "​Transition_From",​ "​Transition_To",​ "​Variable",​ "​Range_Lower_Limit",​ "​Range_Upper_Limit",​ "​Possible_Transitions",​ "​Executed_Transitions",​ "​Weight_Coefficient",​ "​Contrast",​ and "​Significant"​.  |
  
 ===== Group ===== ===== Group =====
Line 23: Line 30:
 [[Functor List#​Calibration | Calibration]] [[Functor List#​Calibration | Calibration]]
  
-===== Notes ===== +===== Notes =====
  
-We have introduced ​the Weights of Evidence method to spatially model land-use change. Weights of Evidence is Bayesian method traditionally used by geologists to point out favorable areas for geological phenomena such as mineralization ​and seismicity (Agterberg & Bonham-Carter1990; Goodacre et al. 1993; Bonham-Carter 1994). The Weights of Evidence method was adapted from these authors to calculate empirical relationships ​of spatial variables, represented by either categorical or gray-tone (continuous variable) maps, with respect to land-use and cove change+For each range of a variable, this container compares how often the transition actually occurred within that range against how often it could have occurred, and expresses ​the difference as weight; the difference between the weight ​for the presence of the range and the weight for its absence is the contrastwhich reflects the overall strength ​of the association between that range and the transition. A contrast is considered statistically significant, with 95% probability,​ when its magnitude is larger than 1.96 times its standard deviation.
  
-The favorability for the occurrence of an event (//D//), such as land-cover change, given a binary map defining the presence or absence of a geographical pattern (//B//), such as a type of soil, can be expressed by the conditional or posterior probability (equation 1). This is determined ​by measuring the number of occurrences of (//D//) - usually, the number of cells (//D//) in raster map -, its overlap with the binary pattern, <​m>​P{delim{lbrace}{D inter B}{rbrace}}=(D inter B)/​D</​m>,​ and the fraction of area occupied by pattern (B) with respect to the entire study area (//A//); <​m>​P{delim{lbrace}{B}{rbrace}}=B/​A</​m>​+Reports ​an error if spatial variable named in Ranges ​is not provided ​by a nested Name Map hook.
  
-<​m>​P{delim{lbrace}{D|B}{rbrace}}={P{delim{lbrace}{D inter B}{rbrace}}}/​{P{delim{lbrace}{B}{rbrace}}}</​m> ​(1)+This method was adapted from Agterberg & Bonham-Carter ​(1990), Goodacre et al. (1993), and Bonham-Carter (1994).
  
-Algebraic manipulation allows us to represent the conditional probability in terms of its odds ratio em <​m>​P{delim{lbrace}{D|B}{rbrace}}/​{1-P{delim{lbrace}{D|B}{rbrace}}}</​m>,​ where (<​m>​overline{D}</​m>​) stands for the absence of (//D//). Equation (2) can be transformed into equation (3), in which //O{D}// represents the prior odds ratio of event (//D//) - equation (4). Prior probability of (//D//) is then calculated by dividing the total number of cells (//D//) by the number of cells of the entire study area (//A//).+**References**
  
-<​m>​O{delim{lbrace}{D|B}{rbrace}}={P{delim{lbrace}{D|B}{rbrace}}}/​{P{delim{lbrace}{overline{D}|B}{rbrace}}}</​m>​ (2) 
- 
-<​m>​O{delim{lbrace}{D}{rbrace}}={P{delim{lbrace}{D}{rbrace}}}/​{P{delim{lbrace}{overline{D}}{rbrace}}}</​m>​ (4) 
- 
-Equation (5) is obtained by rewriting equation (5) in a logit form, where //​W<​sup>​+</​sup>//​ is the positive weight of evidence for occurrence of (//D//) given (//B//). By analogy, //​W<​sup>​–</​sup>//​ is obtained - the corresponding negative weights of evidence -, where (<​em>​overline{B}</​m>​) is the absence of (//B//) in equation (6). 
- 
-<​m>​ln{delim{lbrace}{D vert B}{rbrace} 
-<p align="​center"><​img src="​images/​WeightsOfEvidence005.gif">​ <br> 
-(6) 
- 
- 
- 
-<​p>​For cases in which the occurrences of (<​i>​D</​i>​) on the binary pattern (<​i>​B</​i>​) are found more often than would be expected due to chance, ​ 
-<​i>​W<​sup>​+</​sup></​i>​ will be positive and <​i>​W<​sup>​-</​sup></​i>​ will be negative. The magnitude of the Contrast (<i>C = W<​sup>​+</​sup>​ - W<​sup>​-</​sup></​i>​) reflects the overall spatial association of the event (<​i>​D</​i>​) with the spatial pattern (<​i>​B</​i>​). The Contrast, indicating whether there is a relationship of (<​i>​B</​i>​) with (<​i>​D</​i>​),​ is considered statically significant with 95% probability if 
-<​i>​|C| > 1.96 S(C)</​i>,​ with the variance of the Contrast determined by: 
- 
- 
- 
-<p align="​center"><​img src="​images/​WeightsOfEvidence006.gif"><​br>​ 
-(7) 
- 
- 
- 
-<​p>​This method can be extended to handle multiple predictive maps, so that each weight of evidence represents the degree of association of a spatial pattern (<​i>​B,​ C, D, ...N</​i>​) with the occurrence of (<​i>​D</​i>​) as follows: ​ 
- 
-  
- 
-<p align="​center"><​img src="​images/​WeightsOfEvidence007.gif"><​br>​ 
-(8) 
- 
- 
- 
-<​p>​For modeling transition phenomena, in which (<​i>​D</​i>​) stands for a change from class 
-<​i>​i</​i>​ to <​i>​j</​i>,​ such as deforestation,​ is necessary to introduce some modifications to this calculation. First, instead of the entire study area that occupied by the class (i) before changes from <​i>​i</​i>​ to <​i>​j</​i>​ take place is used, for example, the former area of forest, as deforestation can only occur in a forested landscape. Second, as we focus on determining the influences of a set of spatial patterns on a modeled transition, we can assume that <​i>​O{D}</​i>​ is equal to 1. Note that the prior probability of a transition is equivalent to its transition rate, in other words, using the example of deforestation,​ the net deforestation rate calculated by dividing the number of deforestation cells by the number of forest cells prior to deforestation. In this manner, algebraic manipulation of equation (8),  
-replacing the odds ratio by&​nbsp;​ 
-<​i>​P{D|B}/​(1 - P{D|B}</​i>,​ leads to the post-probability of a transition <​i>​i</​i>​ to <​i>​j</​i>,​ given a particular combination of spatial patterns in a location <​i>​(x,​y)</​i>,​ as follows: 
- 
- 
- 
-<p align="​center"><​img src="​images/​WeightsOfEvidence008.gif"><​br>​ 
-(9) 
- 
- 
- 
-<​p>​This equation makes the use of GIS overlay analysis very convenient to derive favorability maps for a transition <​i>​i</​i>​ to <​i>​j</​i>​. Indeed, the Weights of Evidence method is easily implemented by cross-tabulating maps, considering that each location (x,y) represents a unique set of overlapping input map classes. 
-  
- 
-<​h2>​References</​h2>​ 
-  
 Agterberg, F.P. and Bonham-Carter,​ G.F., 1990: Deriving weights of evidence from geoscience contour maps for the prediction of discrete events. XXII Int. Symposium AP-COM, 381-395. Agterberg, F.P. and Bonham-Carter,​ G.F., 1990: Deriving weights of evidence from geoscience contour maps for the prediction of discrete events. XXII Int. Symposium AP-COM, 381-395.
  
 +Bonham-Carter,​ G., 1994: Geographic information systems for geoscientists:​ modelling with GIS. Pergamon, 398 pp.
  
 +Goodacre, C. M., Bonham-Carter,​ G. F., Agterberg, F. P., Wright, D. F., 1993: A statistical analysis of spatial association of seismicity with drainage patterns and magnetic anomalies in western Quebec. Tectonophysics,​ 217, 205-305.
  
-<​p>​Bonham-Carter,​ G., 1994: Geographic information systems for geoscientists:​ modelling with GIS. Pergamon, 398 pp.+===== Internal Name =====
  
 +DetermineWeightsOfEvidenceCoefficients
  
 +===== Usage examples =====
  
-<​p>​Goodacre C. M., Bonham-Carter G. F., Agterberg, F. P., Wright D. F., 1993: A statistical analysis of spatial association of seismicity with drainage patterns ​and magnetic anomalies in western Quebec. Tectonophysics,​ 217, 205-305. +See practical examples of this functor in [[lesson_18|Lesson 18: Building a land-use and land-cover change simulation model]]
- +
- +
- +
-===== Internal Name =====  +
- +
- +
-DetermineWeightsOfEvidenceCoefficients +
- +
-</​body>​+
  
-</​html>​