3.9 Article

Quantitative land evaluation based on fuzzy-multi-criteria spatial model for sustainable land-use planning

期刊

MODELING EARTH SYSTEMS AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 1341-1353

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s40808-018-0478-1

关键词

Land capability; Land forms; Soil data; Spatial analysis; Land use planning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evaluating land according to its suitability and soil mapping is an important contribution for agricultural land use planning. Therefore FAO system was used to produce suitability sub classes for horticultural and field crops. Land capability map was produced at a scale of 1:10,000 using soil information according to USDA criteria. All attributed insight analysis were ranked according to them priority and performed with analysis criteria to provide the spatial extent of soil suitability and capability. Also a new dimension was added in the spatial model to determine capability index for soil suitability to different irrigation methods. The overall accuracy of used spatial model is 89% and the validation was carried out through field work. The significance of the created model for mapping is being at a detailed survey level. The landforms were mapped using SRTM combined with sentinel satellite image of the studied area. Accordingly landforms were represented by 33 soil profiles collected in 2015. Another 32 auger profile samples were dug to identify the boundaries among landform units. The capability units were produced in association with geomorphology units. The study shows that 662.4km(2) (33%), 715.9km(2) (35.6%), 85.8km(2) (4.3%), 25.4km(2) (1.3%), 490.6km(2) (24.4%) and 30.0km(2) (1.5%) of the area were categorized in II, III, IV, and V, VI (sand dunes and quarries (and VII (Rock outcrops) land classes respectively. The produced suitability subclasses demonstrates that the land use must be planned for according to identified land capability classes (LCC) to maximize agricultural productivity and sustain the land resources for future generations.

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

3.9
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