A Multiscale Cost–Benefit Analysis of Digital Soil Mapping Methods for Sustainable Land Management

Dorijan Radočaj (), Mladen Jurišić, Oleg Antonić, Ante Šiljeg, Neven Cukrov, Irena Rapčan, Ivan Plaščak and Mateo Gašparović
Additional contact information
Dorijan Radočaj: Faculty of Agrobiotechnical Sciences Osijek, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Vladimira Preloga 1, 31000 Osijek, Croatia
Mladen Jurišić: Faculty of Agrobiotechnical Sciences Osijek, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Vladimira Preloga 1, 31000 Osijek, Croatia
Oleg Antonić: Department of Biology, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Cara Hadrijana 8/A, 31000 Osijek, Croatia
Ante Šiljeg: Department of Geography, University of Zadar, Franje Tuđmana 24 i, 23000 Zadar, Croatia
Neven Cukrov: Ruđer Bošković Institute, Bijenička 54, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Irena Rapčan: Faculty of Agrobiotechnical Sciences Osijek, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Vladimira Preloga 1, 31000 Osijek, Croatia
Ivan Plaščak: Faculty of Agrobiotechnical Sciences Osijek, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Vladimira Preloga 1, 31000 Osijek, Croatia
Mateo Gašparović: Faculty of Geodesy, University of Zagreb, Kačićeva 26, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

Sustainability, 2022, vol. 14, issue 19, 1-18

Abstract: With the emergence of machine learning methods during the past decade, alternatives to conventional geostatistical methods for soil mapping are becoming increasingly more sophisticated. To provide a complete overview of their performance, this study performed cost–benefit analysis of four soil mapping methods based on five criteria: accuracy, processing time, robustness, scalability and applicability. The evaluated methods were ordinary kriging (OK), regression kriging (RK), random forest (RF) and ensemble machine learning (EML) for the prediction of total soil carbon and nitrogen. The results of these mechanisms were objectively standardized using the linear scaling method, and their relative importance was quantified using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). EML resulted in the highest cost–benefit score of the tested methods, with maximum values of accuracy, robustness and scalability, achieving a 55.6% higher score than the second-ranked RF method. The two geostatistical methods ranked last in the cost–benefit analysis. Despite that, OK could retain its place as the most frequent method for soil mapping in recent studies due to its widespread, user-friendly implementation in GIS software and its univariate character. Further improvement of machine learning methods with regards to computational efficiency could additionally improve their cost–benefit advantage and establish them as the universal standard for soil mapping.

Keywords: kriging; random forest; analytic hierarchy process (AHP); environmental covariates; prediction accuracy; land management (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12170/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12170/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:12170-:d:925372

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().