IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i11p1761-d1507261.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of the Efficacy of Fuzzy Overlay and Random Forest Classification for Mapping and Shaping Perceptions of the Post-Mining Landscape of Gauteng, South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Samkelisiwe Khanyile

    (Gauteng City Region-Observatory, University of Johannesburg, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, Wits, Johannesburg 2050, South Africa)

Abstract

Post-mining landscapes are multifaceted, comprising multiple characteristics, more so in big metropolitan regions such as Gauteng, South Africa. This paper evaluates the efficacy of Fuzzy overlay and Random Forest classification for integrating and representing post-mining landscapes and how this influences the perception of these landscapes. To this end, this paper uses GISs, MCDA, Fuzzy overlay, and Random Forest classification models to integrate post-mining landscape characteristics derived from the literature. It assesses the results using an accuracy assessment, area statistics, and correlation analysis. The findings from this study indicate that both Fuzzy overlay and Random Forest classification are applicable for integrating multiple landscape characteristics at varying degrees. The resultant maps show some similarity in highlighting mine waste cutting across the province. However, the Fuzzy overlay map has higher accuracy and extends over a larger footprint owing to the model’s use of a range of 0 to 1. This shows both areas of low and high memberships, as well as partial membership as intermediate values. This model also demonstrates strong relationships with regions characterised by landscape transformation and waste and weak relationships with areas of economic decline and inaccessibility. In contrast, the Random Forrest classification model, though also useful for classification purposes, presents a lower accuracy score and smaller footprint. Moreover, it uses discrete values and does not highlight some areas of interaction between landscape characteristics. The Fuzzy overlay model was found to be more favourable for integrating post-mining landscape characteristics in this study as it captures the nuances in the composition of this landscape. These findings highlight the importance of mapping methods such as Fuzzy overlay for an integrated representation and shaping the perception and understanding of the locality and extent of complex landscapes such as post-mining landscapes. Methods such as Fuzzy overlay can support research, planning, and decision-making by providing a nuanced representation of how multiple landscape characteristics are integrated and interact in space and how this influences public perception and policy outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Samkelisiwe Khanyile, 2024. "A Comparison of the Efficacy of Fuzzy Overlay and Random Forest Classification for Mapping and Shaping Perceptions of the Post-Mining Landscape of Gauteng, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:11:p:1761-:d:1507261
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/11/1761/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/11/1761/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel G. Brown & Rick Riolo & Derek T. Robinson & Michael North & William Rand, 2005. "Spatial process and data models: Toward integration of agent-based models and GIS," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 25-47, October.
    2. Hana Vavrouchová & Petra Fukalová & Hana Svobodová & Jan Oulehla & Pavla Pokorná, 2021. "Mapping Landscape Values and Conflicts through the Optics of Different User Groups," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Brown, Greg & Helene Hausner, Vera & Lægreid, Eiliv, 2015. "Physical landscape associations with mapped ecosystem values with implications for spatial value transfer: An empirical study from Norway," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 19-34.
    4. Sonja Kivinen, 2017. "Sustainable Post-Mining Land Use: Are Closed Metal Mines Abandoned or Re-Used Space?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-18, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marco A. Janssen & Lilian N. Alessa & C. Michael Barton & Sean Bergin & Allen Lee, 2008. "Towards a Community Framework for Agent-Based Modelling," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 11(2), pages 1-6.
    2. Mohamed Marwan Al Heib & Christian Franck & Hippolyte Djizanne & Marie Degas, 2023. "Post-Mining Multi-Hazard Assessment for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-17, May.
    3. Katarzyna Pactwa & Justyna Woźniak & Michał Dudek, 2020. "Sustainable Social and Environmental Evaluation of Post-Industrial Facilities in a Closed Loop Perspective in Coal-Mining Areas in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, December.
    4. Yang Yu & Shen-En Chen & Ka-Zhong Deng & Peng Wang & Hong-Dong Fan, 2018. "Subsidence Mechanism and Stability Assessment Methods for Partial Extraction Mines for Sustainable Development of Mining Cities—A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    5. Andrew Hoegh & Frank T. Manen & Mark Haroldson, 2021. "Agent-Based Models for Collective Animal Movement: Proximity-Induced State Switching," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 26(4), pages 560-579, December.
    6. Arki, Vesa & Koskikala, Joni & Fagerholm, Nora & Kisanga, Danielson & Käyhkö, Niina, 2020. "Associations between local land use/land cover and place-based landscape service patterns in rural Tanzania," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    7. Christina G. Siontorou, 2023. "Fair Development Transition of Lignite Areas: Key Challenges and Sustainability Prospects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-14, August.
    8. Stephen M McCauley & John Rogan & James T Murphy & Billie L Turner & Samuel Ratick, 2015. "Modeling the Sociospatial Constraints on Land-Use Change: The Case of Periurban Sprawl in the Greater Boston Region," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 42(2), pages 221-241, April.
    9. Sonja Kivinen & Kaarina Vartiainen & Timo Kumpula, 2018. "People and Post-Mining Environments: PPGIS Mapping of Landscape Values, Knowledge Needs, and Future Perspectives in Northern Finland," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-23, December.
    10. Zhang, Chunxiao & Chen, Min & Li, Rongrong & Fang, Chaoyang & Lin, Hui, 2016. "What's going on about geo-process modeling in virtual geographic environments (VGEs)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 147-154.
    11. Izabela-Maria Apostu & Maria Lazar & Florin Faur, 2021. "A Suggested Methodology for Assessing the Failure Risk of the Final Slopes of Former Open-Pits in Case of Flooding," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-27, June.
    12. Lilian N. Alessa & Melinda Laituri & C. Michael Barton, 2006. "An "All Hands" Call to the Social Science Community: Establishing a Community Framework for Complexity Modeling Using Agent Based Models and Cyberinfrastructure," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 9(4), pages 1-6.
    13. István Valánszki & Lone Søderkvist Kristensen & Sándor Jombach & Márta Ladányi & Krisztina Filepné Kovács & Albert Fekete, 2022. "Assessing Relations between Cultural Ecosystem Services, Physical Landscape Features and Accessibility in Central-Eastern Europe: A PPGIS Empirical Study from Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-20, January.
    14. Karimi, Azadeh & Yazdandad, Hossein & Fagerholm, Nora, 2020. "Evaluating social perceptions of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and land management: Trade-offs, synergies and implications for landscape planning and management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    15. Degenne, P. & Lo Seen, D. & Parigot, D. & Forax, R. & Tran, A. & Ait Lahcen, A. & Curé, O. & Jeansoulin, R., 2009. "Design of a Domain Specific Language for modelling processes in landscapes," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(24), pages 3527-3535.
    16. Honglei Liu & Qiang Wu & Jianxin Chen & Mingjun Wang & Di Zhao & Cheng Duan, 2021. "Environmental Impacts Related to Closed Mines in Inner Mongolia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-19, December.
    17. Mahdi Hashemi & Ali Alesheikh, 2013. "GIS: agent-based modeling and evaluation of an earthquake-stricken area with a case study in Tehran, Iran," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 69(3), pages 1895-1917, December.
    18. Rianne Duinen & Tatiana Filatova & Wander Jager & Anne Veen, 2016. "Going beyond perfect rationality: drought risk, economic choices and the influence of social networks," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 57(2), pages 335-369, November.
    19. Verda Kocabas & Suzana Dragicevic, 2013. "Bayesian networks and agent-based modeling approach for urban land-use and population density change: a BNAS model," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 403-426, October.
    20. Thanasis Kizos & Tobias Plieninger & Theodoros Iosifides & María García-Martín & Geneviève Girod & Krista Karro & Hannes Palang & Anu Printsmann & Brian Shaw & Julianna Nagy & Marie-Alice Budniok, 2018. "Responding to Landscape Change: Stakeholder Participation and Social Capital in Five European Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:11:p:1761-:d:1507261. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.