Document Open Access Logo

Genetic Programming for Computationally Efficient Land Use Allocation Optimization

Authors Moritz J. Hildemann , Alan T. Murray , Judith A. Verstegen

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.GIScience.2023.4.pdf
  • Filesize: 2.87 MB
  • 15 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Moritz J. Hildemann
  • Institute for Geoinformatics, University of Münster, Germany
Alan T. Murray
  • Department of Geography, University of California at Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Judith A. Verstegen
  • Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

Cite AsGet BibTex

Moritz J. Hildemann, Alan T. Murray, and Judith A. Verstegen. Genetic Programming for Computationally Efficient Land Use Allocation Optimization. In 12th International Conference on Geographic Information Science (GIScience 2023). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 277, pp. 4:1-4:15, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2023)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.GIScience.2023.4

Abstract

Land use allocation optimization is essential to identify ideal landscape compositions for the future. However, due to the solution encoding, standard land use allocation algorithms cannot cope with large land use allocation problems. Solutions are encoded as sequences of elements, in which each element represents a land unit or a group of land units. As a consequence, computation times increase with every additional land unit. We present an alternative solution encoding: functions describing a variable in space. Function encoding yields the potential to evolve solutions detached from individual land units and evolve fields representing the landscape as a single object. In this study, we use a genetic programming algorithm to evolve functions representing continuous fields, which we then map to nominal land use maps. We compare the scalability of the new approach with the scalability of two state-of-the-art algorithms with standard encoding. We perform the benchmark on one raster and one vector land use allocation problem with multiple objectives and constraints, with ten problem sizes each. The results prove that the run times increase exponentially with the problem size for standard encoding schemes, while the increase is linear with genetic programming. Genetic programming was up to 722 times faster than the benchmark algorithm. The improvement in computation time does not reduce the algorithm performance in finding optimal solutions; often, it even increases. We conclude that evolving functions enables more efficient land use allocation planning and yields much potential for other spatial optimization applications.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Computing methodologies → Discrete space search
Keywords
  • Land use planning
  • Spatial optimization
  • Solution encoding
  • Computation time reduction

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

Supplementary Materials

References

  1. Kai Cao, Bo Huang, Shaowen Wang, and Hui Lin. Sustainable land use optimization using boundary-based fast genetic algorithm. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 36(3):257-269, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2011.08.001.
  2. Kai Cao, Muyang Liu, Shu Wang, Mengqi Liu, Wenting Zhang, Qiang Meng, and Bo Huang. Spatial multi-objective land use optimization toward livability based on boundary-based genetic algorithm: A case study in singapore. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(1):40, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9010040.
  3. Richard L. Church and Alan T. Murray. Business Site Selection, Location Analysis and GIS. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470432761.
  4. Felix Creutzig, Christopher Bren d'Amour, Ulf Weddige, Sabine Fuss, Tim Beringer, Anne Gläser, Matthias Kalkuhl, Jan Christoph Steckel, Alexander Radebach, and Ottmar Edenhofer. Assessing human and environmental pressures of global land-use change 2000-2010. Global Sustainability, 2, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.15.
  5. Indraneel Das and John E. Dennis. Normal-boundary intersection: A new method for generating the pareto surface in nonlinear multicriteria optimization problems. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 8(3):631-657, 1998. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/S1052623496307510.
  6. Kalyanmoay Deb, Amrit Pratap, Sameer Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: Nsga-ii. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6(2):182-197, 2002. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.996017.
  7. Kalyanmoy Deb and Himanshu Jain. An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point-based nondominated sorting approach, part i: Solving problems with box constraints. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 18(4):577-601, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2013.2281535.
  8. Moritz Hildemann and Judith A. Verstegen. Quantifying uncertainty in pareto fronts arising from spatial data. Environmental Modelling & Software, 141:105069, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105069.
  9. Moritz Hildemann and Judith A. Verstegen. 3d-flight route optimization for air-taxis in urban areas with evolutionary algorithms and gis. Journal of Air Transport Management, 107:102356, 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2022.102356.
  10. John H. Holland. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: An introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. u Michigan Press, 1975. Google Scholar
  11. Vijay Ingalalli, Sara Silva, Mauro Castelli, and Leonardo Vanneschi. A multi-dimensional genetic programming approach for multi-class classification problems. In Miguel Nicolau, Krzysztof Krawiec, Malcolm I. Heywood, Mauro Castelli, Pablo García-Sánchez, Juan J. Merelo, Victor M. Rivas Santos, and Kevin Sim, editors, Genetic Programming, volume 8599 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 48-60. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44303-3_5.
  12. Konstantin Klemm, Anita Mehta, and Peter F. Stadler. Landscape encodings enhance optimization. PloS one, 7(4):e34780, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034780.
  13. John R. Koza. Genetic programming as a means for programming computers by natural selection. Statistics and Computing, 4(2), 1994. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00175355.
  14. Werner Kuhn. Core concepts of spatial information for transdisciplinary research. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26(12):2267-2276, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2012.722637.
  15. Arika Ligmann-Zielinska, Richard L. Church, and Piotr Jankowski. Spatial optimization as a generative technique for sustainable multiobjective land-use allocation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 22(6):601-622, 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810701587495.
  16. Hongjiang Liu, Fengying Yan, and Hua Tian. Towards low-carbon cities: Patch-based multi-objective optimization of land use allocation using an improved non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-ii. Ecological Indicators, 134:108455, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108455.
  17. Yaolin Liu, Jinjin Peng, Limin Jiao, and Yanfang Liu. Psola: A heuristic land-use allocation model using patch-level operations and knowledge-informed rules. PloS one, 11(6):e0157728, 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157728.
  18. Jamshid Maleki, Zohreh Masoumi, Farshad Hakimpour, and Carlos A. Coello Coello. Many-objective land use planning using a hypercube-based nsga-iii algorithm. Transactions in GIS, 26(2):609-644, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12876.
  19. Shahrul Badariah Mat Sah, Vic Ciesielski, Daryl D'Souza, and Marsha Berry. Comparison between genetic algorithm and genetic programming performance for photomosaic generation. In Xiaodong Li, Michael Kirley, Mengjie Zhang, David Green, Vic Ciesielski, Hussein Abbass, Zbigniew Michalewicz, Tim Hendtlass, Kalyanmoy Deb, Kay Chen Tan, Jürgen Branke, and Yuhui Shi, editors, Simulated Evolution and Learning, volume 5361 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 259-268. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89694-4_27.
  20. James McDermott, David R. White, Sean Luke, Luca Manzoni, Mauro Castelli, Leonardo Vanneschi, Wojciech Jaskowski, Krzysztof Krawiec, Robin Harper, Kenneth de Jong, and Una-May O'Reilly. Genetic programming needs better benchmarks. In Terence Soule and Jason H. Moore, editors, Proceedings of the 14th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, pages 791-798, New York, NY, USA, 07072012. ACM. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2330163.2330273.
  21. Ibrahim H. Osman and James P. Kelly, editors. Meta-Heuristics. Springer US, Boston, MA, 1996. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-1361-8.
  22. Tingting Pan, Yu Zhang, Fenzhen Su, Vincent Lyne, Fei Cheng, and Han Xiao. Practical efficient regional land-use planning using constrained multi-objective genetic algorithm optimization. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(2):100, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10020100.
  23. Edzer J. Pebesma. The role of external variables and gis databases in geostatistical analysis. Transactions in GIS, 10(4):615-632, 2006. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9671.2006.01015.x.
  24. Fernando Peres and Mauro Castelli. Combinatorial optimization problems and metaheuristics: Review, challenges, design, and development. Applied Sciences, 11(14):6449, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/app11146449.
  25. Riccardo Poli and W. B. Langdon. Genetic programming with one-point crossover. In P. K. Chawdhry, R. Roy, and R. K. Pant, editors, Soft Computing in Engineering Design and Manufacturing, pages 180-189. Springer London, London, 1998. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0427-8_20.
  26. Mostafizur Rahman and György Szabó. Multi-objective urban land use optimization using spatial data: A systematic review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 74:103214, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103214.
  27. Franz Rothlauf. Optimization methods. In Franz Rothlauf, editor, Design of Modern Heuristics, Natural Computing Series, pages 45-102. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72962-4_3.
  28. Mingjie Song and DongMei Chen. A comparison of three heuristic optimization algorithms for solving the multi-objective land allocation (mola) problem. Annals of GIS, 24(1):19-31, 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2018.1424736.
  29. Michael Strauch, Anna F. Cord, Carola Pätzold, Sven Lautenbach, Andrea Kaim, Christian Schweitzer, Ralf Seppelt, and Martin Volk. Constraints in multi-objective optimization of land use allocation - repair or penalize? Environmental Modelling & Software, 118:241-251, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.05.003.
  30. Daoqin Tong and Alan T. Murray. Spatial optimization in geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102(6):1290-1309, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2012.685044.
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact