000 00595nab|a22002177a|4500
999 _c61727
_d61719
001 61727
003 MX-TxCIM
005 20200430181533.0
008 200423s1997||||xxu|||p|op||||00||0|eng|d
022 _a0022-4561
022 _a1941-3300 (Online)
040 _aMX-TxCIM
041 _aeng
100 1 _aHarris, R.R.
_912521
245 1 0 _aComparison of a Geographical Information System versus manual techniques for land cover analysis in a riparian restoration project
260 _aUSA :
_bSoil and Water Conservation Society,
_c1997.
500 _aPeer review
520 _aFew studies have addressed the benefits and costs of computerized geographical information systems (GIS) as compared to manual methods of cartographic analysis. However, GIS require substantial investment in equipment and personnel which is of particular importance to small or financially strapped resource management agencies. In this case study, land cover maps created as part of a riparian restoration research project were used to compare the time-costs involved in calculating land cover areas with a GIS and manually with a planimeter and dot-grid. Simple modeling of riparian forest restoration potential was also performed to investigate the GIS value for restoration planning. While estimates of land cover areas were similar for the two methods, GIS time-costs were many times higher than manual technique time-costs. Development of even a simple modeling procedure for restoration planning proved difficult and time-consuming. Modeling results, although useful, also require validation. As the complexity of modeling increases, the need for technical expertise and analyst time increases without negating the need for validation. Natural resource managers should carefully evaluate long-term benefits and costs before adopting a GIS for riparian restoration planning.
546 _aText in English
650 7 _2AGROVOC
_95260
_aGeographical information systems
650 7 _2AGROVOC
_912522
_aRiparian zones
650 7 _2AGROVOC
_911710
_aModelling
650 7 _2AGROVOC
_912523
_aWatersheds
700 1 _912524
_aHopkinson, P.
700 1 _912525
_aMcCaffrey, S.
700 1 _912526
_aHuntsinger, L.
773 0 _tJournal of Soil and Water Conservation March
_gv. 52, no. 2, p. 112-117
_dUSA : Soil and Water Conservation Society, 1997.
_x0022-4561
_wu447076
942 _cJA
_n0
_2ddc