A comparison of GIS landscape modeling and traditional landscape mapping (by the example of the Elbrus region)

DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2022-1-28-523-539

View or download the article (Rus)

About the Authors

Evgenii Iu. Kolbovskii

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography,
Leninskie Gory 1, 119991, Moscow, Russia;
E-mail: kolbowsky@mail.ru

Alexey N. Gunya

Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, 119017,
Staromonetniy lane 29, Moscow, Russia;
E-mail: a.n.gunya@igras.ru

Marina N. Petrushina

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography,
Leninskie Gory 1, 119991, Moscow, Russia;
E-mail: mnpetrushina@mail.ru

Abstract

The theory of natural landscapes is one of the central and most complex concepts of modern physical geography. As is well known, in Western science, the concept of “landscape” is recognized only as a general one and is usually used to designate geosystems that have been exposed to anthropogenic influence for a long time. In this regard, geoinformation modeling all over the world (outside Russia) in recent decades has been mainly devoted to obtaining the so-called “landscape cover” Landuse-Landcover, which represents some kind of land use types, fragments of cultural landscape and urbanized areas mixture. Attempts at geoinformation modeling aimed at delimiting territorial natural complexes in the West and developing predictive maps of vegetation, soil cover and “habitats” are similar in content and algorithms to the approaches used for semi-automated mapping of natural landscapes. The development of synthetic geoinformation modeling methods was largely associated with overcoming the theoretical difficulties and controversial “plots” of Russian landscape science, which include ideas about the role of the morpholithogenic basis and biota of the landscape, taking into account the “leading” factors of differentiation, the presence of objective spatial hierarchical levels of landscape differentiation, and others. In this article, using the example of a key area of the Elbrus Region National Park, the capabilities of the traditional technique of expert-manual mapping are compared with mapping in a geoinformation environment. It is shown that the intuitive actions taken by an expert drawing a landscape map, although not strictly algorithmic in reality, are nevertheless close in content to complex variants of cluster analysis and decision trees. It is substantiated that the best option for landscape synthesis is not an overlay of finite classes of the morpholithogenic base and biota, but a joint analysis (cluster or isocluster classification) of many initial variables, in particular, geomorphometric parameters and landscape-vegetation indices. Supervised classifications with the creation of training files based on the author’s manual landscape maps give the worst result compared to uncontrolled ones, which, firstly, indicates the inaccuracy of the drawn maps, and secondly, the authors’ failure to comply with any strict algorithms and phenomena, which may be labeled as “changing the rules on the fly”.

Keywords

natural landscapes, state of art manual landscape mapping, GIS landscape modeling

References

  1. Atlas of specially protected natural territories of St. Petersburg, ed. V.N. Khramtsov, T.V. Kovaleva, N.Y. Natsvaladze. St. Petersburg: Marathon, 2013. 176 p. (in Russian).
  2. Bailey R.G. Ecoregions: The Ecosystem Geography of the Oceans and Continents. New York: Springer, 1998. 176 p. DOI: 10.2307/4003552.
  3. Bailey R.G. Ecosystem Geography. From Ecoregions to Sites. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2009. 251 p. DOI: 10.5860/choice.47-6222.
  4. Boehner J., Selige T. Spatial Prediction of Soil Attributes Using Terrain Analysis and Climate Regionalization. SAGA—Analysis and Modelling Applications, Goettinger Geographische Abhandlungen, 2006. V. 115. P. 13–27.
  5. Burrough P.A., van Gaans P.F.M., MacMillan R.A. High-resolution landform classification using fuzzy k-means. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2000. V. 113. No. 1 P. 37–52. DOI: 10.1016/S0165-0114(99)00011-1.
  6. De Reu J., Bourgeois J., Bats M., Zwertvaegher A., Gelorini V, De Smedt P., Chu W., Antrop M., De Maeyer P., Finke P. Application of the topographic position index to heterogeneous landscapes. Geomorphology, 2013. V. 186. P. 39–49. DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.12.015.
  7. Evans I.S. Geomorphology and landform mapping: What is a landform? Geomorphology, 2012. V. 137. No. 1. P. 94–106. DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.09.029.
  8. Evans I.S., Hengl T. Gorsevski P. Applications in Geomorphology. In: T. Hengl, H.I. Reuter (eds) Geomorphometry: Concepts, Software, Applications. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 2009. V. 33. P. 497–525. DOI: 10.1016/S0166-2481(08)00022-6.
  9. Florinsky I.V. An illustrated introduction to general geomorphometry. Progress in Physical Geography, 2017. V. 41. No. 6. P. 723–752. DOI: 10.1177/0309133317733667.
  10. Florinsky I.V. Computation of the third-order partial derivatives from a digital elevation model. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 2009. V. 23. No. 2. P. 213–231. DOI: 10.1080/13658810802527499.
  11. Grekousis G. Spatial Analysis Methods and Practice: Describe–Explore–Explain through GIS. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2020. 448 p. DOI: 10.1017/9781108614528.
  12. Gunya A.N. Monitoring of high-altitude territories using ground and aerospace images (on the example of the National Park “Elbrus”). PhD thesis in geography. Moscow, 1990. 180 p. (in Russian).
  13. Hansen M.C., Potapov P.V., Pickens A., Tyukavina A., Hernandez Sern A., Zalles V., Turubanova S., Kommareddy I., Stehman S.V., Song X-P. Global land use extent and dispersion within natural land cover using Landsat data. Environmental Research Letters, 2022. V. 17. No. 3. P. 33–74. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac46ec.
  14. Hengl T., MacMillan R.A. Geomorphometry—A Key to Landscape Mapping and Modelling. In Geomorphometry: Concepts, Software, Applications. Developments in Soil Science. Elsevier, 2009. V. 33. P. 433–460. DOI: 10.1016/S0166-2481(08)00019-6.
  15. Isachenko G.A. Methods of field landscape research and landscape-ecological mapping. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg University, 1999. 112 p. (in Russian)
  16. Isachenko G.A., Reznikov A.I. Dynamics of taiga landscapes of the North-West of European Russia. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg University, 1996. 166 p. (in Russian).
  17. Iwahashi J., Pike R. Automated classifications of topography from DEMs by an unsupervised nested-means algorithm and a three-part geometric signature. Geomorphology, 2007. V. 86. No. 3. P. 409-440. DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.09.012.
  18. Jasiewicz J., Netzel P., Stepinski T.F. Landscape similarity, retrieval, and machine mapping of physiographic units. Geomorphology, 2014. V. 221. P. 104–112. DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.06.011.
  19. Jasiewicz J., Stepinski T.F. Geomorphons—a pattern recognition approach to classification and mapping of landforms. Geomorphology, 2013. V. 182. P. 147–156. DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.11.005.
  20. Kheir R.B., Bøcher P.K., Greve M.B., Greve M.H. The application of GIS based decision-tree models for generating the spatial distribution of hydromorphic organic landscapes in relation to digital terrain data. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 2010, V. 14. No. 6. P. 847–857. DOI: 10.5194/HESS-14-847-2010.
  21. Kolbovsky E.Yu. Geoinformation modeling and mapping of landscape locations. Izvestia vuzov. Geodesy and Aerophotosurveying, 2016. V. 60. No. 5. P. 20–24 (in Russian).
  22. Kolbovsky E.Yu. GIS modeling in geoecology: experience, achievements, problems and prospects. The World Environmental Agenda and Russia: Materials of the All-Russian Scientific Conference with International Participation (November 16–18, 2020, Moscow), MSU, 2020. P. 269–275 (in Russian).
  23. Lastochkin A.N. System and morphological basis of Earth sciences: (Geotopology, structural geography and general theory of geosystems). St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University, 2002. 762 p. (in Russian),
  24. Lowell K.E. Differences between ecological land type maps produced using GIS or manual cartographic methods. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 1990. V. 56. No. 2. P. 169–173.
  25. Maxwell A.E., Warner T.A., Fang F. Implementation of machine-learning classification in remote sensing: an applied review. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 2018. V. 39. No. 9. P. 2784–2817. DOI: 10.1080/01431161.2018.1433343.
  26. Mayer-Schoenberger V, Kukier K. Big data. A revolution that will change the way we live, work and think. Moscow: LLC “Mann, Ivanov and Ferber”, 2014. 178 p. (in Russian).
  27. Memarsadeghi N., Mount D.M., Netanyahu N.S., Le Moigne J. A Fast Implementation of the ISODATA Clustering Algorithm. International Journal of Computational Geometry and Applications, 2007. V. 17. No. 1. P. 71–103. DOI: 10.1142/S0218195907002252.
  28. Sayre R., Comer P., Hak J., Josse C., Bow J., Warner H. et al. A New Map of Standardized Terrestrial Ecosystems of Africa. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers, 2013. 47 p.
  29. Schmidt J., Hewitt A. Fuzzy land element classification from DTMs based on geometry and terrain position. Geoderma, 2004. V. 121. No. 3–4. P. 243–256. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2003.10.008.
  30. Shary P.A., Sharaya L.S., Mitusov A.V. Fundamental quantitative methods of land surface analysis. Geoderma, 2002. V. 107. P. 1–32. DOI: 10.1016/S0016-7061(01)00136-7.
  31. Sharyy P.A. Geomorphometry in earth sciences and ecology, review of methods and applications. Proceedings of the Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2006. V. 8. No. 2. P. 458–473. (in Russian).
  32. Solntsev N.A. The doctrine of the landscape. Selected works. Moscow: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 2001. 384 p. (in Russian).
  33. Solntsev V.N. System organization of landscapes. Moscow: Mysl, 1981. 239 p. (in Russian).
  34. Stepanov I.N. Theory of relief plasticity and new thematic maps. Moscow: Nauka, 2006. 230 p. (in Russian).
  35. Temporary methodology for mapping relief plasticity of large and medium scale. Methodological recommendations. Stepanov I.N., Abdunazarov U.K., Brynskikh M.N. et al. Pushchino: ONTI NCBI of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1984. 20 p. (in Russian).
  36. Vinogradov B.V. Fundamentals of landscape ecology. Moscow: GEOS, 1998. 418 p. (in Russian).
  37. Wilson J.P., Gallant J.C. Primary Topographic Attributes. In: Wilson J.P., Gallant J.C. (Eds.): Terrain Analysis: Principles and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, 2000. P. 51–85.
  38. Wilson J.P. Environmental Applications of Digital Terrain Modeling. Oxford. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2018. 321 p. DOI: 10.1002/9781118938188.
  39. Zhang W., Miller P.A., Smith B., Wania R., Koenigk T., Döscher R. Tundra shrubification and tree-line advance amplify arctic climate warming: Results from an individual-based dynamic vegetation model. Environmental Research Letters, 2013. V. 8. No. 3. P. 1–10. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034023.
  40. Zhang Z., Zimmermann N.E., Kaplan J.O., Poulter B. Modeling spatiotemporal dynamics of global wetlands: Comprehensive evaluation of a new sub-grid TOPMODEL parameterization and uncertainties. Biogeosciences, 2016. V. 13. No. 5 P. 1387–1408. DOI: 10.5194/BG-13-1387-2016.

For citation: Kolbovskii E.Iu., Gunya A.N., Petrushina M.N. A comparison of GIS landscape modeling and traditional landscape mapping (by the example of the Elbrus region). InterCarto. InterGIS. GI support of sustainable development of territories: Proceedings of the International conference. Moscow: MSU, Faculty of Geography, 2022. V. 28. Part 1. P. 523–539. DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2022-1-28-523-539 (in Russian)