IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i11p4002-d179951.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Observation Scale on Urban Growth Simulation Using Particle Swarm Optimization-Based CA Models

Author

Listed:
  • Yongjiu Feng

    (College of Marine Sciences, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China
    School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia)

  • Jiafeng Wang

    (College of Marine Sciences, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China)

  • Xiaohua Tong

    (College of Surveying and Geo-Informatics, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China)

  • Yang Liu

    (College of Marine Sciences, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China)

  • Zhenkun Lei

    (College of Marine Sciences, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China)

  • Chen Gao

    (College of Marine Sciences, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China)

  • Shurui Chen

    (College of Marine Sciences, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China)

Abstract

Cellular automata (CA) is a bottom-up self-organizing modeling tool for simulating contagion-like phenomena such as complex land-use change and urban growth. It is not known how CA modeling responds to changes in spatial observation scale when a larger-scale study area is partitioned into subregions, each with its own CA model. We examined the impact of changing observation scale on a model of urban growth at UA-Shanghai (a region within a one-hour high-speed rail distance from Shanghai) using particle swarm optimization-based CA (PSO-CA) modeling. Our models were calibrated with data from 1995 to 2005 and validated with data from 2005 to 2015 on spatial scales: (1) Regional-scale: UA-Shanghai was considered as a single study area; (2) meso-scale: UA-Shanghai was partitioned into three terrain-based subregions; and (3) city-scale: UA-Shanghai was partitioned into six cities based on administrative boundaries. All three scales yielded simulations averaging about 87% accuracy with an average Figure-of-Merit (FOM) of about 32%. Overall accuracy was reduced from calibration and validation. The regional-scale model yielded less accurate simulations as compared with the meso- and city-scales for both calibration and validation. Simulation success in different subregions is independent at the city-scale, when compared with regional- and meso-scale. Our observations indicate that observation scale is important in CA modeling and that smaller scales probably lead to more accurate simulations. We suggest smaller partitions, smaller observation scales and the construction of one CA model for each subregion to better reflect spatial variability and to produce more reliable simulations. This approach should be especially useful for large-scale areas such as huge urban agglomerations and entire nations.

Suggested Citation

  • Yongjiu Feng & Jiafeng Wang & Xiaohua Tong & Yang Liu & Zhenkun Lei & Chen Gao & Shurui Chen, 2018. "The Effect of Observation Scale on Urban Growth Simulation Using Particle Swarm Optimization-Based CA Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-20, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:11:p:4002-:d:179951
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/4002/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/4002/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yan Liu & Yongjiu Feng, 2016. "Simulating the Impact of Economic and Environmental Strategies on Future Urban Growth Scenarios in Ningbo, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.
    2. Robert Pontius & Wideke Boersma & Jean-Christophe Castella & Keith Clarke & Ton Nijs & Charles Dietzel & Zengqiang Duan & Eric Fotsing & Noah Goldstein & Kasper Kok & Eric Koomen & Christopher Lippitt, 2008. "Comparing the input, output, and validation maps for several models of land change," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 42(1), pages 11-37, March.
    3. Robert Gilmore Pontius & Yan Gao & Nicholas M. Giner & Takashi Kohyama & Mitsuru Osaki & Kazuyo Hirose, 2013. "Design and Interpretation of Intensity Analysis Illustrated by Land Change in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia," Land, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-19, July.
    4. Taher Osman & Prasanna Divigalpitiya & Takafumi Arima, 2016. "Driving factors of urban sprawl in Giza governorate of the Greater Cairo Metropolitan Region using a logistic regression model," International Journal of Urban Sciences, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 206-225, July.
    5. Yan Liu & Yongjiu Feng & Robert Gilmore Pontius, 2014. "Spatially-Explicit Simulation of Urban Growth through Self-Adaptive Genetic Algorithm and Cellular Automata Modelling," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-20, July.
    6. Rahel Hamad & Heiko Balzter & Kamal Kolo, 2018. "Predicting Land Use/Land Cover Changes Using a CA-Markov Model under Two Different Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-23, September.
    7. Ruci Wang & Ahmed Derdouri & Yuji Murayama, 2018. "Spatiotemporal Simulation of Future Land Use/Cover Change Scenarios in the Tokyo Metropolitan Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    8. Ye Zhou & Feng Zhang & Zhenhong Du & Xinyue Ye & Renyi Liu, 2017. "Integrating Cellular Automata with the Deep Belief Network for Simulating Urban Growth," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-19, October.
    9. Qing Zheng & Xuan Yang & Ke Wang & Lingyan Huang & Amir Reza Shahtahmassebi & Muye Gan & Melanie Valerie Weston, 2017. "Delimiting Urban Growth Boundary through Combining Land Suitability Evaluation and Cellular Automata," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-22, November.
    10. Guy Engelen & Roger White, 2008. "Validating and Calibrating Integrated Cellular Automata Based Models of Land Use Change," Springer Books, in: Sergio Albeverio & Denise Andrey & Paolo Giordano & Alberto Vancheri (ed.), The Dynamics of Complex Urban Systems, pages 185-211, Springer.
    11. Yingen Hu & Ye Zhang & Xinli Ke, 2018. "Dynamics of Tradeoffs between Economic Benefits and Ecosystem Services due to Urban Expansion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-13, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hongjie Peng & Lei Hua & Xuesong Zhang & Xuying Yuan & Jianhao Li, 2021. "Evaluation of ESV Change under Urban Expansion Based on Ecological Sensitivity: A Case Study of Three Gorges Reservoir Area in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-23, July.

    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. Cláudia M. Viana & Jorge Rocha, 2020. "Evaluating Dominant Land Use/Land Cover Changes and Predicting Future Scenario in a Rural Region Using a Memoryless Stochastic Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-28, May.
    2. Youjung Kim & Galen Newman, 2019. "Climate Change Preparedness: Comparing Future Urban Growth and Flood Risk in Amsterdam and Houston," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, February.
    3. Changqing Sun & Yulong Bao & Battsengel Vandansambuu & Yuhai Bao, 2022. "Simulation and Prediction of Land Use/Cover Changes Based on CLUE-S and CA-Markov Models: A Case Study of a Typical Pastoral Area in Mongolia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-21, November.
    4. Robert Gilmore Pontius, 2018. "Criteria to Confirm Models that Simulate Deforestation and Carbon Disturbance," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-14, September.
    5. Luoman Pu & Jiuchun Yang & Lingxue Yu & Changsheng Xiong & Fengqin Yan & Yubo Zhang & Shuwen Zhang, 2021. "Simulating Land-Use Changes and Predicting Maize Potential Yields in Northeast China for 2050," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-21, January.
    6. Markos Mathewos & Semaria Moga Lencha & Misgena Tsegaye, 2022. "Land Use and Land Cover Change Assessment and Future Predictions in the Matenchose Watershed, Rift Valley Basin, Using CA-Markov Simulation," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-28, September.
    7. Yongjiu Feng & Qianqian Yang & Xiaohua Tong & Jiafeng Wang & Shurui Chen & Zhenkun Lei & Chen Gao, 2019. "Long-Term Regional Environmental Risk Assessment and Future Scenario Projection at Ningbo, China Coupling the Impact of Sea Level Rise," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-19, March.
    8. Kun Zhou & Xinyi Wang & Zhihan Wang & Yecui Hu, 2022. "Systematicity and Stability Analysis of Land Use Change—Taking Jinan, China, as an Example," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, July.
    9. Siqin Tong & Zhenhua Dong & Jiquan Zhang & Yongbin Bao & Ari Guna & Yuhai Bao, 2018. "Spatiotemporal Variations of Land Use/Cover Changes in Inner Mongolia (China) during 1980–2015," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.
    10. Valentin Ouedraogo & Kwame Oppong Hackman & Michael Thiel & Jaiye Dukiya, 2023. "Intensity Analysis for Urban Land Use/Land Cover Dynamics Characterization of Ouagadougou and Bobo-Dioulasso in Burkina Faso," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, May.
    11. Youjung Kim & Galen Newman & Burak Güneralp, 2020. "A Review of Driving Factors, Scenarios, and Topics in Urban Land Change Models," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-22, July.
    12. Honglei Jiang & Xia Xu & Mengxi Guan & Lingfei Wang & Yongmei Huang & Yinghui Liu, 2019. "Simulation of Spatiotemporal Land Use Changes for Integrated Model of Socioeconomic and Ecological Processes in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-18, July.
    13. Juliana Mio de Souza & Paulo Morgado & Eduarda Marques da Costa & Luiz Fernando de Novaes Vianna, 2022. "Modeling of Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) Change Based on Artificial Neural Networks for the Chapecó River Ecological Corridor, Santa Catarina/Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-23, March.
    14. Yang, Yuanyuan & Bao, Wenkai & Liu, Yansui, 2020. "Scenario simulation of land system change in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    15. Sri Murniani Angelina Letsoin & David Herak & Fajar Rahmawan & Ratna Chrismiari Purwestri, 2020. "Land Cover Changes from 1990 to 2019 in Papua, Indonesia: Results of the Remote Sensing Imagery," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-18, August.
    16. Zhiyuan Ma & Xuejun Duan & Lei Wang & Yazhu Wang & Jiayu Kang & Ruxian Yun, 2023. "A Scenario Simulation Study on the Impact of Urban Expansion on Terrestrial Carbon Storage in the Yangtze River Delta, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, January.
    17. Aritta Suwarno & Meine van Noordwijk & Hans-Peter Weikard & Desi Suyamto, 2018. "Indonesia’s forest conversion moratorium assessed with an agent-based model of Land-Use Change and Ecosystem Services (LUCES)," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 211-229, February.
    18. Yuanyuan Yang & Shuwen Zhang & Jiuchun Yang & Xiaoshi Xing & Dongyan Wang, 2015. "Using a Cellular Automata-Markov Model to Reconstruct Spatial Land-Use Patterns in Zhenlai County, Northeast China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-21, May.
    19. Wafaa Majeed Mutashar Al-Hameedi & Jie Chen & Cheechouyang Faichia & Biswajit Nath & Bazel Al-Shaibah & Ali Al-Aizari, 2022. "Geospatial Analysis of Land Use/Cover Change and Land Surface Temperature for Landscape Risk Pattern Change Evaluation of Baghdad City, Iraq, Using CA–Markov and ANN Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-31, July.
    20. Milad Asadi & Amir Oshnooei-Nooshabadi & Samira-Sadat Saleh & Fattaneh Habibnezhad & Sonia Sarafraz-Asbagh & John Lodewijk Van Genderen, 2022. "Urban Sprawl Simulation Mapping of Urmia (Iran) by Comparison of Cellular Automata–Markov Chain and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Modeling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-16, November.

    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:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:11:p:4002-:d:179951. 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.