Analysis
As we can see this is a dynamic system, we couldn't get an absolutely correct result based on the manipulation. Instead, we should do a sensitivity analysis every time to make the result more believable and practical.
Here is a comparison between the two methods:
Density With Population Field Calculated
Density Without Population Field Calculated
We can see the difference between the two. Broadly speaking, the birds distribute more densely when using population field than that doesn't. The problem comes out with the population field. If a population field setting other than NONE is used, each item's value determines the number of times to count the point. For example, a value of 3 would cause the point to be counted as three points.
Actually, the birds don’t
homogeneously
distribute in the area. In other words, the geography matters and there
is a
spatial correlation between the birds and the surroundings such as the
elevation and vegetation. So I put a weighted
value in the process.
As
we can see from the result, to protect the habitat of the birds, we could build
a nature reserve in the high density area. What's more, when transportation occurs in the
mountain, we should keep off the area.
As for the process of building path, when taking slope and land use into account, the weighted value can change, in this case, I have given the same value to them, but we also can make it unequal.
|
Raster |
Influence(1) |
Influence(2) |
Influence(3) |
|
Slope |
50% |
70% |
40% |
|
Land use |
50% |
30% |
60% |
In
reality, if it becomes more difficult building roads in high slope and less
impact on land type, we could add weighted value on slope and so forth.
In a word, essentially, analysis should combine with the reality and sensitivity analysis dose make sense for us to make a confident and optimal solution.