Difference between revisions of "EX2 Lim Zhong Zhen Timothy"

From Geospatial Analytics for Urban Planning
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 90: Line 90:
 
After combining all the various factors. A small part of Gombak is found suitable for the land. (Rainbow coloured) <br>
 
After combining all the various factors. A small part of Gombak is found suitable for the land. (Rainbow coloured) <br>
 
On further analysis, this area is found to be around 40,000m<sup>2</sup>
 
On further analysis, this area is found to be around 40,000m<sup>2</sup>
Although marked suitable, a key thing to note is that this area is not only high in terms of elevation between 70m
+
Although marked suitable, a key thing to note is that this area is high in steepness. This can be seen from the change in elevation, ranging from below '''60m to above 120m.'''
  
 +
===Reflection:===
 +
Thinking back, maybe i should not have given such a large deviation in weightage(importance) for the factors as there were only 4 factors. This might have skewed the data too much. Almost making Economic factor barely noticeable.
 
<!--MAIN HEADER -->
 
<!--MAIN HEADER -->
 
{|style="background-color:#32CD32;" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" valign="top" border="0"  |
 
{|style="background-color:#32CD32;" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" valign="top" border="0"  |

Revision as of 00:54, 11 November 2019

About

Analysis

Criterion Maps

Overview of all components
Overview of all components
Overview of all components
Overview of all components


Data preparation

In order to do a ranked analysis, the layer data have to be normalised as the data now vary in scale. To that, Min-Max normalisation was used.
For example, To normalise road proximity, we take the (current_data - min_of given layer)/(max_of given layer - min_of given layer):" "Prox_road@1" - 0 / (703.28" - 0)
Another thing to note, is that the results for roads and steepness needs to be inversed. As the closer the roads or less steep the land the better! Thus, I took (1 - normalised data) to get the correct comparison.

Next step

Factor Priority Reason AHP Scoring



Health Risk 1 CDQC's top priority is to keep the diseased away from the general population, this is prevent the virus from spreading and causing an epidemic. Thus, this factor is highest

priority

9
Accessibility 2 Transportation is the key issue in swiftly getting the patient away from the masses. Thus, accessibility is also given a very high priority. 7
Natural Conservation 3 Although important, Parks and water beds and forests is not as populated as the buildings. 3
Economic 4 Singapore has limited land space, and do not have a lot of non-steep land. Thus, I believe it is worth investing on a place which poses less health risk, has good transportation and further away from natural conservation. 1

Using the AHP template given by prof Kam, I performed a PairWise Comparison matrix to calculate weightage comparison of each factor.

AHP template


AHP template


The results show the weightage of each Factor, with 4.7% assigned to Economic, 36.6% to Accessibility, 47.9% to Health Risk and 10.9% to Natural Conservation

Suitability Map

Data prepartion

Using the data from the AHPmatrix, I created a ranked model for the suitability of the land for CDQC.
To do so, I had to take the each factor multiplied by its percentage weightage.


Suitability map


After combining all the various factors. A small part of Gombak is found suitable for the land. (Rainbow coloured)
On further analysis, this area is found to be around 40,000m2 Although marked suitable, a key thing to note is that this area is high in steepness. This can be seen from the change in elevation, ranging from below 60m to above 120m.

Reflection:

Thinking back, maybe i should not have given such a large deviation in weightage(importance) for the factors as there were only 4 factors. This might have skewed the data too much. Almost making Economic factor barely noticeable.

About

Analysis