1971
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.1971.tb01624.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

THE RELATION BETWEEN COST AND UTILITY IN SOIL SURVEY (I–III)1

Abstract: A series of five papers compares the cost-eflectiveness of different procedures for soil survey at medium scale. The first three are presented here.The whole trial area of 120 km' in Berkshire, in south-central England, was mapped in soil series by free survey at I : 25 ooo for publication at I : 63 360.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

1986
1986
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Nevertheless, classification procedures in use often partition the landscape into homogeneous, discrete units, by assigning each unit into one attribute class and only one class (Jain et al 1999). This type of modeling has been criticized for its simplicity, its inherent loss of information (by ignoring spatial variability) and limited use for land evaluation (Beckett and Webster 1971;Burrough et al 1971Burrough et al , 1992.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Nevertheless, classification procedures in use often partition the landscape into homogeneous, discrete units, by assigning each unit into one attribute class and only one class (Jain et al 1999). This type of modeling has been criticized for its simplicity, its inherent loss of information (by ignoring spatial variability) and limited use for land evaluation (Beckett and Webster 1971;Burrough et al 1971Burrough et al , 1992.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Remote sensing imagery data (spectral data) were also considered along with terrain attributes in some studies 42,43 . The present study focused on covariates derived from terrain attributes from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) digital elevation model (DEM) with a 90 m resolution 44 , multi-temporal RapidEye and Landsat imagery bands, and indices calculated from them, along with maps of parent material, climate and land cover data, to unravel the complex soil environmental relations regarding spatial soil class distribution. However, in order to reduce the complexity of the covariate space and optimize prediction accuracy, a feature selection approach was used to exclude irrelevant and/or redundant information 39,45 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Brown & Huddleston (1991) suggested that this contrast reflects perhaps some disinclination to report the truth, but it seems more likely that impurities are underestimated because Soil Survey Staff (1993) suggests a biased method, namely to estimate the actual amount of inclusions from observations made during the survey and make adjustments in mapping if appropriate. Marsman & Gruijter (1984) and Burrough et al (1971) have argued that the concept of purity has little meaning, because it is conditioned by legend definitions, for example, stating that the soil of a mapping unit has a pH ranging between 1 and 14 gives 100% purity, but 0% information. Nevertheless, information on purity, in combination with other criteria, is thought to be helpful; not just for quantifying mapping errors, but rather for assessing the balance between the level of generalization in the legend of a map and real world complexity.…”
Section: Puritymentioning
confidence: 99%