It is important to consider all of the various factors when determining the suitability analysis. This article explains and compares the various methods for producing land suitability maps. Gestalt method does not allow combination of varying factors and is figured as a whole. Factors found in analysis are not used to manipulate. It can be argued that gestalt is used in any preliminary land suitability analysis maps, but it only allows the study of one particular area i.e. vegetation from an aerial map. The gestalt method is hard to explain to others. The “McHarg” method does not always hold true because the numbers of the areas added up may not represent the correct type of suitability, i.e. preserving land vs. building a shopping mall. The linear combination method is more accurate than the “McHarg method,” but in the end it still presents the case of being off numbers. Also, students would not want to sit and calculate the various scales of factors for each map. The most logical way to produce suitability maps is to use logical combination. We strive to achieve this method because it combines the interdependence of factors, the explicit identification of regions, and the explicit determination of ratings. Each method works best at different scales.
1 comment:
There is a place and time to use the different methods. Gestalt is better for the smaller scales, while linear combination is better for larger scales. I agree the McHarg method isn't very accurate because I believe it is the map makers personal opinion. A map using this method created by different students can end of being polar opposites of each other, and neither will tell us the suitability of development because who are we to say someone's values are wrong.
Post a Comment