2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.01.057
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intensity Analysis and the Figure of Merit’s components for assessment of a Cellular Automata – Markov simulation model

Abstract: Some popular metrics to evaluate land change simulation models are misleading. Therefore, land change scientists have called for the development of methods to evaluate various aspects of modelling applications. This article answers the call by giving novel methods to compare three types of land change: 1) reference change during the calibration time interval, 2) simulation change during the validation time interval, and 3) reference change during the validation time interval. We compare these changes by using … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
45
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 101 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
(58 reference statements)
1
45
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It refers to the fact that the simulation model in the case of the L1 group explains less change. While the FOM is not enough to qualify model performance, as stated in Varga et al 2019 [37], four FOM components-Wrong Hits, False Alarms, Misses and Hits-return lower values in L1 group, where lower ratios of observed changing areas were also present in either calibration or validation intervals. However, we do not know about any papers focusing on the statistical relationship between FOM components and observed changes.…”
Section: Effects Of Fom and Fom Componentsmentioning
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It refers to the fact that the simulation model in the case of the L1 group explains less change. While the FOM is not enough to qualify model performance, as stated in Varga et al 2019 [37], four FOM components-Wrong Hits, False Alarms, Misses and Hits-return lower values in L1 group, where lower ratios of observed changing areas were also present in either calibration or validation intervals. However, we do not know about any papers focusing on the statistical relationship between FOM components and observed changes.…”
Section: Effects Of Fom and Fom Componentsmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…If the FOM is 100%, then there is a complete overlap between predicted and observed change. The FOM components provide a deeper insight into the similarity of changes [37]. The FOM components show all types of incorrectly and correctly predicted change as a percentage of the size of the combination of the extent and zoom level, as follows:…”
Section: Metrics Concerning Calibration and Validation Intervalsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The figure of merit (FOM)-which consists of misses, hits, wrong hits and false alarms-is a popular metric for model validation by using three-map comparison, whose range is from 0 to 1. The closer the value is to 1, the more similar the simulated change is to the actual changes [56,57]. In this experiment, we used FOM to determine parameters and judge the simulation results.…”
Section: Model Parameter Estimation and Accuracy Verificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The allocation disagreement measures the mismatch in the spatial allocation. Equation 6shows how the quantity disagreement is derived from the FOM components, while Equation 7shows how the allocation disagreement is derived from the FOM components [49,50]. The total disagreement can be calculated using Equation (8).…”
Section: Validation Of the Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%