4.4 Article

Comparison of multinomial logistic regression and logistic regression: which is more efficient in allocating land use?

期刊

FRONTIERS OF EARTH SCIENCE
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 512-523

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11707-014-0426-y

关键词

multinomial logistic regression; land use change; logistic regression; land use suitability; land use allocation

资金

  1. National Basic Research of China [2010CB950900]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71225005, 41071343]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spatially explicit simulation of land use change is the basis for estimating the effects of land use and cover change on energy fluxes, ecology and the environment. At the pixel level, logistic regression is one of the most common approaches used in spatially explicit land use allocation models to determine the relationship between land use and its causal factors in driving land use change, and thereby to evaluate land use suitability. However, these models have a drawback in that they do not determine/allocate land use based on the direct relationship between land use change and its driving factors. Consequently, a multinomial logistic regression method was introduced to address this flaw, and thereby, judge the suitability of a type of land use in any given pixel in a case study area of the Jiangxi Province, China. A comparison of the two regression methods indicated that the proportion of correctly allocated pixels using multinomial logistic regression was 92.98%, which was 8.47% higher than that obtained using logistic regression. Paired t-test results also showed that pixels were more clearly distinguished by multinomial logistic regression than by logistic regression. In conclusion, multinomial logistic regression is a more efficient and accurate method for the spatial allocation of land use changes. The application of this method in future land use change studies may improve the accuracy of predicting the effects of land use and cover change on energy fluxes, ecology, and environment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据