Spatial Analysis of Environmental Hazards

Spatial Analysis of Environmental Hazards

Risks assessment of forest project implementation in spatial density changes of forest under canopy vegetation using artificial neural network modeling approach

Author
Ali Jahani
College of Environment
10.29252/jsaeh.6.2.21
Abstract
Risks assessment of forest project implementation in spatial density changes of forest under canopy vegetation using artificial neural network modeling approach



Nowadays, environmental risk assessment has been defined as one of the effective in environmental planning and policy making. Considering the position and structure of vegetation on the forest floor, the main role of forest under canopy vegetation cover can be noted in attracting and preventing runoff in the forest floor and reducing subsequent environmental risks. The purpose of this article is forest under canopy vegetation density changes modeling considering forest ecosystem structure and forest management activities as an environmental risk. The main objectives of this study were to: (1) model forest under canopy vegetation density in forest ecosystem to elucidate the ecological and management factors affecting on under canopy vegetation density; (2) prioritize the impacts of model inputs (ecological and management factors) on under canopy vegetation density using model sensitivity analysis and (3) determining the trend model output changes in respond to model variables changes.

In this study, Land Management Units (LMUs) were formed in the region considering ecological characteristics of land. LMUs were mapped out based on Ian McHarg’s overlay technique by ARC GIS 9.3 software. Ecological factor classes of an LMU differ from ecological factor classes of adjacent LMUs (at least in one ecological factor class). The following types of data were solicited for each LMU:

(1) Ecological variables: Altitude or elevation (El), Slope (Sl), Aspect (As), soil depth (SD), Soil Drainage (SDr),Soil Erosion (SE), Precitipation (Pr), Temprature (Te), trees Diameter at Breast Height (DBH), Canopy Cover (CC), and forest Regeneration Cover (RC).

(2) Management variables: Cattle Density (CD), Animal husbandry Dsitance (AD), Road Dsitance (RD), Trail Dsitance (TD), logs Depot Dsitance (DD), Soil Compaction (SC), Torist impacts (To), Skidding impacts (Sk), Logging impacts (Lo), Harvested trees volume (Ha), artificial Regeneration (Re) and Seed Planting (SP).

(3) Forest under canopy vegetation density: The percentage of under canopy vegetation density in each LMU was estimated by systematic random sampling method. In each LMU, a one square meter sample was taken. The average percentage of under canopy vegetation density in sample units of each LMU was calculated and used in the modeling process.

ANN learns by examples and it can combine a large number of variables. In this study, an ANN is considered as a computer program capable of learning from samples, without requiring a prior knowledge of the relationships between parameters. To objectively evaluate the performance of the network, four different statistical indicators were used. These indicators are Mean-Squared Error (MSE), Root Mean-Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and coefficient of determination (R2).

Various MLFNs were designed and trained as one and two layers to find an optimal model prediction for the under canopy vegetation density and variables. Training procedure of the networks was as follows: different hidden layer neurons and arrangements were adapted to select the best production results. Altogether, many configurations with different number of hidden layers (varied between one and two), different number of neurons for each of the hidden layers, and different inter-unit connection mechanisms were designed and tested.

In this research, 129 LMUs were totally selected, then ecological and management variables were recorded in them. In the structure of artificial neural network, ecological and management variables were tagged as inputs of artificial neural network and the percentage of under canopy vegetation density was tagged as output layer. Considering trained networks (the structure of optimum artificial neural network has been summarized in Table1), Multilayer Perceptron network with one hidden layer and 4 neurons in each hidden layer created the best function of topology optimization with higher coefficient of determination of test data (which equals 0.857) and the lowest MSE and MAE (which are 0.866 and 0.736 respectively). Considering the results of sensitivity analysis, ecological and management variables like the forest canopy density, cattle density in forest, soil erosion and soil compaction respectively show the highest impact on forest under canopy vegetation density changes (Fig1).



Table1. The structure of optimum artificial neural network in forest under canopy vegetation density




Output Layer
First Hidden Layer
Network features


Linear
Hyperbolic tangent
Transmission Layer


Gradient descent
Gradient descent
Optimization Algorithm


0.7
0.7
Momentum


1
4
Number of Neurons


-0.9 up to 0.9
-0.9 up to 0.9
Normalization





Table2. The structure of optimum artificial neural network in test data




MSE
MAE
RMSE
R2
Data
The structure of network( the number of neurons)-epoch


0.716
0.678
0.846
0.931
Trainning
Tanh(4)-160


0.793
0.703
0.891
0.894
Validation


0.866
0.736
0.931
0.857
Test










Fig1. The results of sensitivity analysis of artificial neural network model



Nowadays, artificial neural network modeling in natural environments has been applied successfully in many researches such as water resources management, forest sciences and environment assessment. The results of research declared that designed neural network shows high capability in forest under canopy vegetation density modeling which is applicable in forest management of studied area. Sensitivity analysis identified the most effective variables which are influencing under canopy vegetation density.

So, to identify hazardous LMUs in study area, we should pay attention to the canopy density of LMUs as the variable with high priority in determination of under canopy vegetation density. We believe that, in hazardous LMUs in forests, we should pay attention to some modifiable factors of LMU, which is cattle density in forest, by timely plan for livestock elimination. The forest under canopy vegetation density assessment model, in forest projects impact assessment, could be a solution in decision making about forest plan structure and implementation of similar projects in similar locations.



Keywords: Forest plan, Environmental impact assessment, Multilayer perceptron, under canopy vegetation, artificial neural network
Keywords
Artificial neural network
Environmental Impact Assessment
Multilayer Perceptron
Sensitivity Analysis
Under canopy vegetation
1. آقاجانی، حامد؛ محمدرضا مروی مهاجر، علی جهانی، محمدرضا آصف، انوشیروان شیروانی و مجتبی آذریان. 1392. بررسی فاکتورهای موثر رویشگاهی بر فراوانی قارچ‌های ماکروسکوپی چوب‌زی و تحلیل حساسیت با استفاده از شبکه عصبی مصنوعی (مطالعه موردی: جنگل خیرود نوشهر)، تحقیقات جنگل و صنوبر ایران، 21(4): 617-628.
2. جهانی، علی. 1395. مدلسازی ریسک سقوط درختان چنار خطرآفرین در فضای سبز شهری. نشریه تحلیل فضایی مخاطرات محیطی، 3(4): 35-48.
3. گروه جنگلداری. 1385. طرح جنگلداری بخش پاتم، نمخانه و گرازبن جنگل خیرود، گروه جنگلداری دانشکده منابع طبیعی دانشگاه تهران
4. مخدوم، مجید. 1390. شالوده آمایش سرزمین، چاپ هشتم، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، تهران.
5. مخدوم، مجید؛ علی‌اصغر درویش‌صفت، هورفر جعفرزاده و عبدالرضا مخدوم. 1386. ارزیابی و برنامه‌ریزی محیط زیست با استفاده از سامانه اطلاعات جغرافیایی(GIS)، چاپ سوم، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، تهران.
6. منهاج، محمدباقر 1380. اصول شبکه‌های عصبی، چاپ اول، انتشارات دانشگاه امیر کبیر، تهران.

7. Arsene, C.T.C.; B. Gabrys and D. Al-Dabass. 2012. Decision Support System for Water Distribution Systems Based on Neural Networks and Graphs Theory for Leakage Detection. Expert Systems with Applications, 39: 13214_13224.
8. Atic, M.; S. Seleuk and O. Karaguzel. 2009. Impact of Recreational Trampling on the Natural Vegetation in Termessos National Park, Antalya-Turkey, Tarim Bilimeri Dergisi, 15(3): 249-258.
9. Barnes, B.V.; D.R. Zak; S.R. Denton and S.H. Spurr. 1998. Forest Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 773 p.
10. Benan,T. 2006. Characteristics of soil fauna community in the Dongjiao coconut plantation ecosystem in Hainan, China, ACTA ECOLOGICA SINICA, 26(1): 133-145.
11. Canter, L.W. 1997. Environmental Impact Assessment, Mc Graw Hill Book, Baltimore, 331 p.
12. Cole, E.C.; T.A. Hanley and M. Newton. 2010. Influence of precommercial thinning on understorey vegetation of young-growth Sitka spruce forests in southeastern Alaska, Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12(3): 619–628.
13. Fernandez, F.; J. Seco; A. Ferrer and M.A. Rodrigo. 2009. Use of Neurofuzzy Networks to Improve Wastewater Flow-rate Forecasting, Environmental Modelling & Software, 24: 686_693.
14. Gaare, E. 1997. A hypothesis to explain lichen-Rangifer dynamic relationships, Rangifer, 17: 3–7.
15. Gilliam, F.S. 2007. The ecological significance of the herbaceous layer in temperate forest ecosystems, Bioscience, 57: 845–858.
16. Guevara escobar, A.; E. González-Sosa; M. Ramos-Salinas and G.D. Hernández-Delgado. 2007. Experimental analysis of drainage and water storage of litter layers, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 11: 1703–1716.
17. Hanna, K.S.; I. Polonen and K. Raitio. 2011. A potential role for EIA in Finnish forest planning: learning from experiences in Ontario, Canada, Journal of Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 29(2): 99-108.
18. Hedwall, P.O.; A. Nordin; J. Brunet and J. Bergh. 2010. Compositional changes of forest-floor vegetation in young stands of Norway spruce as an effect of repeated fertilization, Forest Ecology and Management, 259: 2418–2425.
19. Hedwall, P.O.; J. Strengbom and A. Nordin. 2013. Can thinning alleviate negative effects of fertilization on boreal forest floor vegetation?, Forest Ecology and Management, 310: 382–392.
20. Jahani, A.; J. Feghhi; M.F. Makhdoum and M. Omid. 2016. Optimized forest degradation model (OFDM): an environmental decision support system for environmental impact assessment using an artificial neural network, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 59(2): 222-244.
21. Keith, D.M.; E.A. Johnson and C. Valeo. 2010. A hillslope forest floor (duff) water budget and the transition to local control. Hydrological Processes, 24: 2738–2751.
22. Koskela, M. 2011. Expert views on environmental impacts and their measurement in the forest industry, Journal of Cleaner Production, 19: 1365-1376.
23. Lindh, B.C. and P.S. Muir. 2004. Understory vegetation in young Douglas-fir forests: does thinning help restore old-growth composition?, Forest Ecology and Management, 192: 285–296.
24. Maier, H.; R.A. Jain; G.C. Dandy and K.P. Sudheer. 2010. Methods Used for the Development of Neural Networks for the Prediction of Water Resource Variables in River Systems: Current Status and Future Directions, Environmental Modelling & Software, 25(8): 891_909.
25. Manseau, M.; J. Huot and M. Crête. 1996. Effects of summer grazing by caribou on composition and productivity of vegetation: Community and landscape level, Journal of Ecology, 84: 503–513.
26. Olofsson, J.; J. Moen and L. Östlund. 2010. Effects of reindeer on boreal forest floor vegetation: Does grazing cause vegetation state transitions?, Basic and Applied Ecology, 11: 550–557.
27. Strengbom, J.; T. Nasholm, and L. Ericson 2004. Light, not nitrogen, limits growth of the grass Deschampsia flexuosa in boreal forests, Canadian Journal of Botany, 82: 430–435.
28. Sun, D. and M. Liddle. 1993. A Survey of Trampling Effects on Vegetation and Soil in Eight Tropical and Subtropical Sites, Environmental Management, 17(4): 497-510.
29. Vali, A.; M.H. Ramesht; A. Seif and R. Ghazavi. 2012. An assessment of the Artificial Neural Networks technique to geomorphologic modeling sediment yield (Case study Samandegan river system), Geography and Environmental Planning Journal, 44(4): 5-9.
30. Van der Wal, R. 2006. Do herbivores cause habitat degradation or vegetation state transitions? Evidence from the tundra, Oikos, 114: 177–186.
31. Widenfalk, O. and J. Weslien. 2009. Plant species richness in managed boreal forests – effects of stand succession and thinning, Forest Ecology and Management, 257: 1386–1394.