فایل ورد کامل روش های تهیه نقشه های تناسب اراضی ( شایستگی): یک ارزیابی تفصیلی

توجه : به همراه فایل word این محصول فایل پاورپوینت (PowerPoint) و اسلاید های آن به صورت هدیه ارائه خواهد شد

این مقاله، ترجمه شده یک مقاله مرجع و معتبر انگلیسی می باشد که به صورت بسیار عالی توسط متخصصین این رشته ترجمه شده است و به صورت فایل ورد (microsoft word) ارائه می گردد

متن داخلی مقاله بسیار عالی، پر محتوا و قابل درک می باشد و شما از استفاده ی آن بسیار لذت خواهید برد. ما عالی بودن این مقاله را تضمین می کنیم

فایل ورد این مقاله بسیار خوب تایپ شده و قابل کپی و ویرایش می باشد و تنظیمات آن نیز به صورت عالی انجام شده است؛ به همراه فایل ورد این مقاله یک فایل پاور پوینت نیز به شما ارئه خواهد شد که دارای یک قالب بسیار زیبا و تنظیمات نمایشی متعدد می باشد

توجه : در صورت مشاهده بهم ریختگی احتمالی در متون زیر ،دلیل ان کپی کردن این مطالب از داخل فایل می باشد و در فایل اصلی فایل ورد کامل روش های تهیه نقشه های تناسب اراضی ( شایستگی): یک ارزیابی تفصیلی،به هیچ وجه بهم ریختگی وجود ندارد

تعداد صفحات این فایل: ۳۶ صفحه

نقطه صفر تناسب یا شایستکی را می توان حداقل به سه طریق تعیین کرد. یک روش رتبه بندی مزایا به صورت مثبت و اثرات و هزینه ها به صورت منفی می باشد طوری که نقطه صفر جایی است که هیچ گونه مزایا و معایبی وجود نداشته باشد. دومین روش فرض این است که نقطه صفر معرف وجود همه هزینه ها و عدم مزیت ها باشد. سومین روش عدم وجود مزایا به عنوان هزینه ضرب در -۱ است. لذا در این سومین روش، نقطه صفر بیانگر عدم وجود هزینه و وجود همه مزایا است.
مفهوم هزینه افزوده اشاره به چهارمین روش موقتی تعیین صفر برای رتبه های ارزیابی است. در این مورد یک سایت ایده ال در منطقه از نظر کاربری خاص به صورت صفر تعیین می شود طوری که کاربری و فراوانی هزینه ای مربوط به ایده ال باشد زیرا هزینه های اضافی برای عدم وجود مزایا و وجود اثرات هزینه ای تعیین شود. در افزودن هزینه های پایه ایده ال و از این رو در بررسی هزینه های کل و مقیاس نسبتی مناسب باید قبل از استفاده از معیار های نسبتی سود به هزینه برای طرح ها احتیاط کرد.

عنوان انگلیسی:Methods for Generating Land Suitability Maps: A Comparative Evaluation~~en~~

A suitability map shows the spatial pattern of requirements, preferences, or predictors of some activity. Although the use of the word suitability is often restricted to analyses related to development, the analytical concepts involved are much more general. Using the word loosely, a suitability map for natural hazards (Patri, Streatfield, and Ingmire 1970) identifies the pattern of and characteristics associated with some hazard, such as earthquakes. A suitability map for vulnerability to impact (Murray, et al. 1971) shows the pattern of characteristics that portend varying degrees or likelihoods of damage from some action elsewhere. For example, low lying lands near flood plains are vulnerable to flooding if there is additional development upstream. Suitability maps for natural hazards, vulnerability to impacts, or off-site impacts are usually preliminary steps in the development of suitability maps for the location of land uses, which might range from nature preserves to nuclear power plants. All of these applications of suitability mapping rest on the same general analytical base. The methods described here might be applied to any of them. For simplicity in this article, most of the discussion focuses on land use rather than in terms of hazard, vulnerability, or impact. Determining the levels of particular costs or impacts is not the central issue here. The primary issue is how such cost or impact information can be manipulated and combined to generate suitability maps for land uses. In this article suitability will be assumed to include market, nonmarket, and nonmonetary costs and impacts. The difficulties in obtaining such measures in practice, of course, remain; but discussing these difficulties simultaneously would muddle the attempt to distinguish among methods for generating suitability maps. MacDougall and Brandes (1974) provide a bibliography covering many of the aspects of land resource analysis not covered in this article. The output of a land suitability analysis is a set of maps, one for each land use, showing which level of suitability characterizes each parcel of land. This output requirement leads directly to two necessary components of any method: (1) a procedure for identifying parcels of land that are homogeneous and (2) a procedure for rating these parcels with respect to suitability for each land use. The next section describes a method in which each of these components is carried out directly without any consideration of the factors that determine the homogeneity of regions and the suitability of land uses. This method sets the stage for considering other methods that explicitly combine factors. Gestalt method The essence of the gestalt method is that the homogeneous regions are determined directly through field observation, or perhaps aerial photographs or topographic maps, without consideration of individual factors such as slope, soils, vegetation, and so on. A gestalt is a whole that cannot be derived through consideration of its parts. A strict interpretation of gestalt would mean that individual factors that could be manipulated to provide understanding of the whole do not even exist. The gestalt method of suitability analysis can be described in three steps and is diagramed in Figure 1. First, the study area is partitioned by implicit judgment into homogeneous regions, such as uplands and valley floors. Second, a table is developed that verbally describes the effects or problems that will occur in each of the regions if each of the potential land uses is located there-e.g., this region presents no construction problems, but has no amenities that would render it a pleasant place in which to live. Note from Figure 1 that some regions identified in step 1 may be determined in step 2 to be of equal suitability for some uses, because the homogeneous regions in step 1 are based on perceived natural land types, not on suitabilities for any one land use. Third, a set of maps, one for each land use, is drawn to show the homogeneous regions in terms of their suitability. Graphic presentation of the map requires that each descriptive suitability comment be represented by some color or symbol as in Figure 1. It can be argued that any land suitability analysis must rely on gestalt judgments at some level of specificity. For example, vegetation cover types might be observed in the field and noted on aerial photographs. The determination of cover type is thus based on implicit judgment rather than on explicit rules. Cover types can be thought of as a combination of various lower level factors-age, understory species, canopy species, and management practices.

$$en!!