This article was downloaded by: [Florida Atlantic University]On: 22 November 2014, At: 11:07Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Digital EarthPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjde20

GIS- and RS-based spatial decisionsupport: structure of a spatialenvironmental information system(SEIS)G. Bareth aa University of Cologne, Geography Department , GIS & RSAlbertus-Magnus-Platz , Cologne, NRW, 50923, GermanyPublished online: 18 May 2009.

To cite this article: G. Bareth (2009) GIS- and RS-based spatial decision support: structure ofa spatial environmental information system (SEIS), International Journal of Digital Earth, 2:2,134-154, DOI: 10.1080/17538940902736315

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17538940902736315

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

GIS- and RS-based spatial decision support: structure of a spatialenvironmental information system (SEIS)

G. Bareth*

University of Cologne, Geography Department, GIS & RS Albertus-Magnus-Platz, Cologne,NRW 50923, Germany

(Received 19 March 2008; final version received 8 January 2009)

The development of spatial decision support for environmental resource manage-ment, e.g. forest and agroecosystem management, biodiversity conservation, orhydrological planning, started in the 1980s and was the focus of many researchgroups in the 1990s. The combined availability of spatial data and communica-tion, computing, positioning, geographic information system (GIS)- and remotesensing (RS)-technologies has been responsible for the implementationof complex SDSS since the late 1990s. The regional GIS-based modellingof environmental resources, and therefore ecosystems in general, requiressetting-up an extensive geo and model database. Spatial data on topography,soil, climate, land use, hydrology, flora, fauna and anthropogenic activities haveto be available. Therefore, GIS- and RS-technologies are of central importance forspatial data handling and analysis. In this context, the structure of spatialenvironmental information systems (SEIS) is introduced. In SEIS, the input datafor environmental resource management are organised in at least seven sub-information systems: base geodata information system (BGDIS), climateinformation system (CIS), soil information system (SIS), land use informationsystem (LUIS), hydrological information system (HIS), spatial/temporal biodi-versity information system (STBIS), forest/agricultural management informationsystem (FAMIS). The major tasks of a SEIS are to (i) provide environmentalresource information on a regional level, (ii) analyse the impact of anthropogenicactivities and (iii) simulate scenarios of different impacts.

Keywords: environmental information system; GIS; regional modelling; remotesensing; resource management; spatial decision support system

1. Introduction

A spatial decision support system (SDSS) is defined as a system which comprises a

decision support system (DSS), a geographic information system (GIS), and a model

base management system (MBMS). The latter, as well as the knowledge analysis, is

part of DSSs. In Figure 1, the general architecture of a SDSS is shown according to

Leung (1997) and Malczewski (1999). The idea of such a system is the overall SDSS

development environment. This development combines the state of the art in

software and knowledge engineering and in spatial data analysis. The latest

approaches are, for example, described by Laudien and Bareth (2007) using Java

and ESRI’s ArcGIS Engine for SDSS programming. The centre of the SDSS is

*Email: g.bareth@uni-koeln.de

ISSN 1753-8947 print/ISSN 1753-8955 online

# 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/17538940902736315

http://www.informaworld.com

International Journal of Digital Earth,

Vol. 2, No. 2, June 2009, 134�154

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the expert system shell, which coordinates the whole system. It is responsible for

the information flows and directs control flows. The communication between the

DBMS, the MBMS, the knowledge base, and the spatial data handling unit is

implemented by interfaces. The interface for a decision maker is usually a graphical

user interface (GUI) which provides access to the system for spatial decision support

(SDS).

For environmental resource management, models and the availability of spatial

data play an important role. Consequently, the development of such models is of

central importance for the whole approach. Therefore, the focus in this contribution

will be on (i) the structure of an adequate spatial database for SDSSs that focus on

environmental resource management, (ii) the integration of models into the SDS,

and (iii) the interfaces which are necessary for the whole system to ensure the

communication between the SDSS components as shown in Figure 1.In the last two decades, public interest in environmental issues owing to human

activities in forest and agricultural ecosystems has increased significantly. Therefore,

these topics became part of public policy. For policy decision making, information

for decision support is essential and derives from research activities (McCloy 2006,

Sharma et al. 2006). For generating information about related environmental

problems and resource management, the development of complex ecosystem models

during the last 30 years can be regarded as one of ‘the biggest revolutions in the

study of soil C/N cycling’ and related processes (Shaffer et al. 2001), which are

closely related to global and climate change research. Traditionally, these models

were developed and used for point or site-specific applications (Hartkamp et al.

1999). Independent from these studies, regional estimates were calculated on the

basis of the ecosystem approach, which multiplies the area of a defined ecosystem

with e.g. N2O-emissions (Matson and Vitousek 1990, Jungkunst et al. 2006).For complex regional modelling or decision support for agriculture and/or

forestry, the latter approach is not sufficient (Beauchamp 1997, Jones et al. 2003).

Therefore, using a GIS is necessary. Although, in some DSS approaches, spatial

Expert SystemShell

UserGUI

Experts

DBMS MBMS

KnowledgeDatabase

ModelBase

Attribute-Database

DecisionMakers:Demandfor SDS

Spatial Data Handling

Geo-Database

GIS-and RS-Analyses

linkagesplausible linkages

UserGUI

Experts

DBMS MBMS

KnowledgeDatabase

ModelBase

Attribute-Database

DecisionMakers:Demandfor SDS

Spatial Data Handling

Geo-Database

GIS-and RS-Analyses

Figure 1. Architecture of a spatial decision support system (SDSS) (modified from Leung,

1997).

International Journal of Digital Earth 135

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

analysis has been considered (Matthews and Knox 1999), it has been used less

frequently in ecosystem scenario simulation. Shaffer and Ma (2001) state that

process-based agro-ecosystem models interfaced with GIS will be the next ecosystem

model generation.

In general, a GIS provides methods for spatial data capture, storage, analysis,

and presentation (Bill 1999). The elements of a GIS are hardware, software, data,application, and user. GISs were introduced in the late 1960s (Burrough and

McDonnell 1998) and worked only on mainframes. The fast development of

computer hardware and software facilitated the rapid development of GIS in the

1980s for application on workstations. In the early 1990s, powerful GIS-software was

available for MS-Windows operating systems and supported the wide distribution of

applications of GIS-technologies. Nowadays, GIS-applications and -users are

increasing rapidly, facilitated by WebGIS applications such as VirtualEarth or

GoogleEarth and the GIS developments for personal location-based services,

routing and navigation. Latest developments are based on spatial web portal

(SWP) technologies introduced by Yang et al. (2007).

Until the late 1980s, the development of process-based ecosystem models and

GIS were separated. This changed significantly in the beginning of the 1990s. The

interfacing of such models with GIS was part of several research activities to satisfy

the increased demand for regional information for decision support (Engel et al.

1993, Hoogenboom et al. 1999). Still, owing to the limited data availability forregional applications, these applications were very restricted. In the late 1980s,

governmental bureaus and/or commercial companies started offering more and more

digital spatial data products. Interfaces for the import of these data into commercial

GIS software were implemented (Maidment 1996). Consequently, the increased

availability of spatial data lead to more regional and national GIS applications

interfaced with process-based ecosystem models (Falloon et al. 1998, Li et al. 2001,

Brown et al. 2002, Jones et al. 2003). Recently, the establishment of national

geodata infrastructure has become the focus of many research activities (Bilo and

Bernard 2005).

Nowadays, the limitation of process-based environmental decision support is still

the availability of spatial data. This problem derives from the fact that the process-

based models were developed for site or plot scales and input data for this scale are

not available on regional or national levels. There are three ways to solve this

problem: (i) to sample the necessary input data, e.g. management data, detailed land

use information etc., which is usually not possible for large areas, (ii) to aggregate

and generalise the inputs from available sources (Li 2000), which is sometimes not asatisfying approach, or (iii) to use GIS-, remote sensing (RS)-technologies and data

generation methodologies, and data mining techniques to create the lacking spatial

information for the regional applications (Bock and Kothe 2005, Eastman 2005,

Hansen 2005).

The availability of and the access to digital geodata is a key issue in macro, meso

and micro scale GIS modelling of environmental issues (Bareth and Yu 2002,

Bambacus et al. 2008) and consequently for SDS for resource management as well.

While it is still possible to collect necessary geodata with a limited amount of time

and money for micro scale modelling, it is essential to have secondary sources for

meso and macro scale modelling. Owing to the limitations of data availability and

data detail, the GIS- and RS-based production of new data becomes essential in

136 G. Bareth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

regional resource management (McCloy 2006). The generation of new data has to

satisfy the demand of the inputs for available process-based ecosystem models.

Therefore, to facilitate the technologies for data generation and data mining, setting-

up an extensive geodata infrastructure for serving regional ecosystem modelling

approaches is a precondition for spatial modelling in general (Goodchild 1996) and

this counts for resource management, too. Bill and Fritsch (1994) call a GIS for

environmental applications an environmental information system (EIS). However,the term EIS is often also used in a non-GIS context. Consequently, a GIS for

environmental applications in a spatial context can be regarded as a spatial

environmental information system (SEIS).

A SEIS is considered as an extensive geodatabase or rather a spatial data

infrastructure, which includes all data for modelling purposes, the model itself, as

well as the functions for data generation and data mining. Additionally, metadata

must be included in the SEIS for considering international standards defined by ISO

and OpenGIS (Guptill 1999, Bernhardsen 2002). Another important point is the

information about data quality in the decision making process (Veregin 1999). In

general, information about the data quality is lacking in many GIS applications

(Heuvelink 1999). However, knowledge of data quality is essential. ‘If data quality is

an important property of almost all geographical data, then it must affect the

decisions made with those data. In general, the poorer the quality of the data, the

poorer the decision. Bad decisions can have severe consequences’ (Longley et al.

1999). This is a very important issue because the SEIS serves as a SDSS for

environmental resource policies in managed and unmanaged ecosystems.

2. Spatial decision support systems

The development of SDS for environmental resource management, e.g. forest and

agro-ecosystem management, biodiversity conservation, or hydrological planning,

started in the 1980s and was the focus of many research groups in the 1990s (Wright

et al. 1993, Leung 1997, Naesset 1997, Crist et al. 2000). While the first developments

derived from the early enthusiastic attempts to develop decision models in the 1960s

and 1970s (Davis and McDonald 1993), the technological progress in electronical

computing, GIS- and RS-software development, and communication infrastructure

in the 1990s enabled the design and implementation of more complex SDSSs such as

NELUP, ArcForest, SARA, or RELMdss (O’Callaghan 1995, Mowrer 1997).

NELUP, the NERC-ESRC Land Use Programme, was developed for rural land

use planning on the basis of watershed modelling approaches (O’Callaghan 1996).Hydrological, agricultural, economical, and ecological sciences were included. It

comprises socio-economic and ecosystem modelling approaches. ArcForest was

developed by ESRI Canada to support forest management and planning (Mowrer

1997). It was developed using the software tools ArcInfo and Oracle for an UNIX

environment. SARA, the Spreadsheet Assisted Resource Analysis, was also

developed for forest management and includes linear programming models for

economic analysis to determine economic-ecological tradeoffs, too (Mowrer 1997).

It was interfaced with GIS on the input and output side. The Regional Ecosystem

and Land Management decision Support System (RELMdss) was developed by

Prof. Richard Church (NCGIA, UCSB) for a Windows environment (Church et al.

2000). The system was developed to generate and implement forest and land use

International Journal of Digital Earth 137

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

plans. Some of the systems of that period included complex economic-ecological

spatial modelling approaches for resource management (Dabbert et al. 1999,

Bouman et al. 2000). Bouman et al. (2000) describe ‘Tools for Land Use Analysis

on Different Scales’. In this paper, comprehensive economic-ecological modelling

approaches are described and interfaced with GIS for regional scenario creation for

Costa Rica. Statistical regression, linear programming, process-based and expert

knowledge modelling approaches were applied in this framework. The same is truefor the regional modelling approach for sustainable and environmentally compa-

tible land use in the state of Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany (Dabbert et al. 1999).

The hardcopy of this contribution comes with a CD-ROM which provides

a windows-based user interface for the regional modelling framework. The GIS

part is programmed with ESRI’s MapObjects and VBA. Several interfaces were

programmed to link the socio-economic and environmental models.

Simultaneously, governmental bureaus, e.g. for surveying and mapping, made

enormous efforts in the 1980s to establish digital databases for topography, geology,

soil, climate, etc. (Longley et al. 2005). These developments actually started in the

early 1970s and in this first stage, the focus was on pure spatial data (Bill and Fritsch

1994). At the same time, official and/or commercial companies started to provide

digital spatial data, e.g. remote sensing data. The launch of Landsat-1, formerly

known as ERTS-1 in 1972, was the start to involve satellite analysis in resource

management (McCloy 2006). Further milestones in remote sensing sensor develop-

ment were the development of radar systems (e.g. Seasat, ERS-1, JERS-1), thelaunch of SPOT-1 in 1986 with a linear array sensor, of IKONOS in 1999 with a

1 m resolution, and the latest launch of the radar sensor TerraSAR-X with a 1 m

resolution (http://www.infoterra.de) (Lillesand et al. 2004).

Finally, the availability of GPS technologies since 1988 (NAVSTAR-GPS) and

the full availability since 1995 can also be considered a milestone for decision support

of environmental resources. Accurate and mobile positioning and navigation

measurements are a precondition for spatial data capture and analysis. Especially

for environments with poor topographic data coverage, the positioning technologies

are a key method to capture environmental and socio economic data. Before the turn

off on 1 May 2000 of the SA (selective availability), the use of correction systems

in positioning was mandatory. Global DGPS providers such as Omnistar (www.

omnistar.com) were more important in that period. Nowadays, WAAS services

and/or regional DGPS services such as SAPOS in Germany (http://www.sapos.de)

enable cm accuracies in positioning with L1- and L2-GPS receivers.

Since the new millennium, a new generation of SDSSs is in the focus of theresearch community considering the latest developments in remote sensing, GIS, and

geodata infrastructure. The realisation of software developments, which are

independent of operating systems, but dependent on high-performance network

capabilities and partly grid computing environments, are in progress. The GLOWA

DANUBE (http://www.glowa-danube.de) and the GLOWA IMPETUS (http://

www.impetus.uni-koeln.de) projects for example represent such spatial modelling

approaches for water management decision support with extensive knowledge,

model and geo databases. The SDSSs are developed in Java including different

approaches of GIS and RS analyses for a network-based client-server environment.

Similar SDSS frameworks were introduced in the early 2000s. For example, David

et al. (2004) presented the GEOLEM approach as an interoperable modelling

138 G. Bareth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

framework. GEOLEM (Geospatial Object Library for Environmental Modelling)

aims for the elimination of GIS-specific knowledge in a modelling framework and

vice versa (David et al. 2004). The above mentioned GLOWA projects exactly follow

this new paradigm for SDS including a modelling framework. Additionally, it is

possible to integrate expert knowledge by using expert systems. Malczewski (1999)

describes expert systems in a spatial context as spatial expert systems (SES).

Integrated systems of SDSS combined with SES are considered ‘intelligent SDSSs

(ISDSSs) or spatial expert support systems (SESSs)’.

Finally, the combined availability of spatial data and communication, computing,positioning, GIS- and RS-technologies were utilised for the implementation of

complex SDSS since the late 1990s. The regional GIS-based modelling of

environmental resources and therefore of ecosystems in general requires setting-up

extensive geo and model databases. Spatial data about topography, soil, climate, land

use, hydrology, flora, fauna and anthropogenic activities have to be available. The

lack of adequate spatial databases is still a limiting factor in SDS and accordingly in

regional ecosystem modelling. Therefore, GIS- and RS-technologies are of central

importance for spatial data handling and analysis to implement the required

database. As introduced above, a GIS-based EIS is defined as a SEIS. It uses the

latest technology developments and can be considered as a spatial data infrastructure

for decision support that is related to questions and problems of environmental

resource management.

3. Structure of SEIS

The establishment of SEIS requires setting-up of a extensive geo- and attribute-

database. Especially modelling of C- and N-cycles of ecosystems requires numerous

input parameters e.g. pH, soil texture, fertilizer N-Input, animal waste input, use ofirrigation water, dates of sowing and harvest, yield, etc. (Charles-Edwards et al.

1996, Grant 2001, Seppelt 2003). In general, data about climate/weather, hydrology,

soils, land use, and management are essential and must be available in SEIS.

Furthermore, methods and models for data analysis and data presentation have to be

integrated.

The structure and elements of a SEIS are visualised in Figure 2. Owing to the

definition and the defined task of a SEIS, this computer based system is understood

as a GIS for environmental resource applications and includes seven different

information systems which are:

. Base Geo Data Information System (BGDIS)

. Soil Information System (SIS)

. Hydrological Information System (HIS)

. Climate Information System (CIS)

. Land Use Information System (LUIS)

. Spatial/Temporal Biodiversity Information System (STBIS)

. Forest/Agricultural Management Information System (FAMIS)

Most important for spatial matching and for georeference of all data in a SEIS is

the integration of framework datasets within a Base Geo Data Information System

(BGDIS) (Furst et al. 1996). The use of an available information system provided by

official sources, such as official bureaus for surveying and mapping, is recommended

International Journal of Digital Earth 139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

to meet this requirement. For example in Germany, there is an official digital

topographic database in vector format for different scales available (1:25,000;

1:250,000; 1:1,000,000) (http://www.atkis.de). The use of unique base geodata

enables the exchange of data between independent projects and applications. The

BGDIS needs to provide topographical data, elevation lines or a digital elevation

model (DEM), a set of ground control points (GCPs), and an administrative

boundary data set. The latter are important because statistical data for adminis-

trative units can be linked to GIS for the implementation of spatial information

systems (Bareth and Yu 2002). The integration of a DEM is important for relief

S-T Biodiv GDB

Spatio-Temp. Biodiv. Information System (STBIS)

F/A Managm.. GDB

F/A Management Information System (FAMIS)

• Plant communities• Div. invertebrates• Div higher plants• Div. protozoans• Expert knowledge

• Crop rotation maps (LUIS)• Agric. Mgmt. Maps • Agric. Statistics• Agric. Mgmt. Surveys• Expert Knowledge

SEIS GDB

ModelsINPUTS

Web-GISUser Interface

Soil GDB

Soil Information System (SIS)

Climate GDB

Climate Information System (CIS)

Land Use GDB

Land Use Information System (LUIS)

Hydrological GDB

Hydrological Information System (HIS)

Base GDB

Base Geo Data Information System (BGDIS)

• Soil maps (analog)• Soil maps (digital)• Soil surveys• Radar remote sensing• Expert knowledge

• Land Use maps (Analog)• Land Use maps (Digital)• Land cover change• Land use scenarios• DGPS Surveys

• Climate maps (analog)• Climate maps (digital)• Official weather data• Climate scenarios• Project Weather Stations

• Hydrology maps (analog)• Hydrology. Maps (digital) • Contamination/Quality• Recharge• Expert Knowledge

• Topographic maps (analog)• Topographic maps (digital)• Administrative boundaries • DEM• DGPS/tachymeter surveys

SEIS Maps

Base Maps

Soil Maps

Climate Maps

Land Use Maps

Hydro. Maps

S-T. Biodiv. Maps

F/A Managm.. Maps

Figure 2. Structure of a spatial environmental information system (SEIS).

140 G. Bareth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

analyses (e.g. computing aspect, inclination, etc.) and 3-D-visualisations. If digital

base geodata are not available or accessible, the establishment of a BGDIS is

necessary. For this task, aerial or satellite-based survey campaigns, digitisation

of topographical maps, and/or GPS/tachymeter surveys are standard methods

(Bill 1999).

The soil information system (SIS) is essential for providing soil parameters forthe agro-ecosystem modelling. Many applications of regional modelling of agricul-

tural issues use soil maps to derive spatial soil parameters for model inputs (e.g.

Falloon et al. 1998, Matthews and Knox 1999, Brown et al. 2002). Therefore, the SIS

has to include (i) spatial soil information and (ii) a detailed description of the soil

types including soil genesis, physical and chemical soil properties (see Figure 3)

(Le Bas et al. 1996). In case soil maps are not available, surveys have to be carried out

or methods of computed soil map generation (McBratney et al. 2003, Scull et al.

2003, Bock and Kothe 2005) have to be applied to create a SIS. If soil maps are

available but lack detailed descriptions of soil types, expert knowledge can be used to

generalise typical soil properties. Usually, soil data are not fully available for scales

ranging between 1:10,000 and 1:200,000. If these data exist, the information level

often does not fit to the model requirements. Therefore, methods of soil map

generation need to be considered for the establishment of a SIS. Examples of GIS-

based soil mapping are described e.g. by Bareth (2001a), Carre and Girard (2002)

and Zhu et al. (1997 2001). Bareth (2001a) describes a knowledge-based approach to

disaggregate available soil information on the basis of a computed relief analysis of aDEM. Carre and Girard (2002, Bock and Kothe 2005) use regression kriging for soil

mapping. In their analysis, they consider landform and land cover, derived from a

DEM and satellite image analysis. An expert knowledge-based fuzzy soil inference

scheme (soil�land inference model, SoLIM) was introduced by Zhu et al. (1997

2001). The authors combine techniques of GIS, fuzzy logic and inference for digital

soil mapping. Reviews on the state of digital soil mapping are given by McBratney

et al. (2003) and Scull et al. (2003). Finally, radar remote sensing can be additionally

applied to derive soil parameters such as soil moisture or soil bulk density (Dobson

and Ulaby 1998, Woodhouse 2005).

The climate information system (CIS) provides the necessary climate/weather

data (compare Figure 2). Available climate maps can be digitised if there are no

digital data available. Usually, weather data is obtainable from official meteoro-

logical bureaus and weather services (e.g. http://www.dwd.de). For the generation of

detailed weather maps from point data, GIS-interpolation methods can be applied

(Running and Thornton 1996, Matthews et al. 1999, Thomas 2002). Again, the basis

for using topography to interpolate weather data is a DEM, which should beavailable in the BGDIS, and land use information which should be available in the

LUIS. Additionally, weather data can be collected from weather stations of research

projects. In general, the availability and accessibility of daily weather data from

official and commercial sources are guaranteed. An important issue is the availability

of various climate scenario data in the CIS which is important to simulate the impact

agricultural systems in the future (Hansen 2005, Sarkar and Kar 2006).

Land use data also have to be available in a SEIS for regional modelling. These

data should be organised in a land use information system (LUIS) (compare

Figure 2). Usually, land use maps are available, but they lack the necessary

information detail. In official land use maps, agricultural land use is generally

International Journal of Digital Earth 141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Soil-ID Soil Type1 Cambisol2 Luvisol

Land Use-ID Land Use1 Grassland2 Arable Land

12

Land Use

12

Soil

1.

13

24

Soil - Land Use

Polygon Overlay2.

Result-ID Land Use-ID Land Use Soil-ID Soil Type

1 1 Grassland 1 Cambisol

2 1 Grassland 2 Luvisol

3 2 Arable Land 2 Luvisol

4 2 Arable Land 2 Cambisol

Tabular Overlay

Knowledge-Based Production Rules or Process-based Models (e.g. DNDC) 3.

13

24

Emission

Regional Farm ModelVisual Presentation4.

Result-ID Land Use-ID Land Use Soil-ID Soil Type

kg pro ha-1yr-1N 2

kg N 2 O-N ha-1yr-1

1 1 Grassland 1 Cambisol 150 2

2 1 Grassland 2 Luvisol 150 2

3 2 Arable Land 2 Luvisol 250 3

4 2 Arable Land 2 Cambisol 250 3

N-Fertilization O-Emission in

2 Luvisol

1

2 Luvisol

2

1.1.

13

24

Soil - Land Use

2.

4 2 2 Cambisol4 24 2

3.

13

24

Emission13

24

Emission

4.4.

Result-ID Land Use-ID Land Use Soil-ID Soil Type

kg pro ha-1yr-1N 2

kg N2 O-N ha-1yr-1

150 2

Grassland 2 Luvisol 150 2

3 2 Arable Land 2 Luvisol 250 3

Arable Land 2 Cambisol 250 3

N-Fertilization O-Emission in

kg pro ha-1yr-1N2

-1

150 2

150 2

250 3

250 3

N-Fertilization O-Emission in

Figure 3. Model integration into the GIS-based soil-land use-system approach (modified from Bareth 2005).

14

2G

.B

areth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

differentiated between arable land, grassland, orchards and some special land use

classes such as paddy fields. For detailed agro-ecosystem modelling, this information

resolution is rather poor. Detailed land use maps which provide information about

the major crops and crop rotations are necessary. The analysis of multispectral,

hyperspectral and/or radar data from satellite or airborne sensors is a standard

method to retrieve such information with remote sensing methodologies (Sommer

et al. 1998, Lillesand et al. 2004). By using a multidata approach, the retrievedinformation from multitemporal and multiannual remote sensing analysis can be

integrated into official land use maps to enhance both the information level (e.g. crop

rotation) of existing land use data and the quality of the land use classification

(Bareth 2001b, Rohierse and Bareth 2004, Bareth 2008). Besides the remote sensing

methods, digital land use data can be created by field surveys or by digitisation

of available land use maps. Additionally, land use data from agricultural statistics

have to be integrated into a SEIS. Information such as arable land per administrative

unit, total sown area, etc. can be retrieved from these sources (Bareth and Yu 2002).

In addition for the simulation of scenarios, the results of land-cover change models

have to be incorporated, which are reviewed by Eastman (2005). Another method to

provide land use change data for agricultural systems is the economic modelling of

regional farms considering environmental or political conditions (Bareth and

Angenendt 2003, Neufeldt et al. 2006).

Given the important controlling influence of water upon ecosystems, it is

essential that ecosystem models provide detailed knowledge of hydrologicalconditions. Therefore, data describing the dominant water cycle components have

to be integrated as a hydrological information system (HIS). These include

precipitation, evaporation, evapotranspiration, soil moisture, groundwater, and

runoff / river discharge. If such data are not available, they can be acquired through

a combination of approaches including field monitoring at reference sites and the use

of remote sensing techniques (e.g. for soil moisture, evapotranspiration, ground-

water), and/or modelling. The application and integration of hydrological models

into the MBMS is also an important task for the SEIS.

The spatio-temporal biodiversity information system (STBIS) finally forms the

key component for the establishment of the multi-trophic diversity models. As such,

the STBIS combines all multi-trophic diversity datasets in a central spatial sub-

information system, and should include high-resolution habitat-specific data

combining terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Data from all the other sub-

information systems have to be evaluated for correlations between biodiversity

patterns and the environmental parameters. It is obviously of high importance for

the creation of the SDSS focusing on sustainable resource management ande.g. biodiversity conservation.

Setting-up an agricultural management information system (FAMIS) (compare

Figure 2) is a crucial part of the implementation of a SEIS. For regional agro-

ecosystem modelling, farm management data on regional level e.g. fertilizer N-Input,

animal waste input, use of irrigation water, dates of sowing and harvest, yield, etc.

are a must. The regional availability of this kind of spatial information is rather poor

and research about how to regionalise management data has not yet been intensively

investigated, e.g. how to distribute animal waste and mineral fertilizer inputs in a

region. The application e.g. of average N-fertilizer input derived from agricultural

county statistics is not satisfying for the regional application of agro-ecosystem

International Journal of Digital Earth 143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

models (Li et al. 2002). Working on a regional scale, it is usually not possible to set

up a spatial database which provides this information for all fields of the farmers in

the region. Therefore, this kind of information has to be generated using results from

farm surveys, from agricultural statistics and from expert knowledge. Using all these

sources, it is possible to define typical farm management for distinct crops and crop

rotations in a special climate for a region which can be linked to the detailed land use

information in the LUIS and the spatial weather data of the CIS (Rohierse 2003).

Consequently, the LUIS combined with the CIS become the basis for the FAMIS

and so for the regionalisation of agricultural management within a region.

Finally, a SEIS is the sum of the described information systems. They are linked

to each other for further analysis and data mining using GIS technologies.

Additionally, models and methods for agricultural environmental modelling have

to be integrated in the SEIS (compare Figure 3). In the context of a SDSS, models

are organised in a Modelbase Management System (MBMS) (Leung 1997) and

interact with the spatial data by defined interfaces (Figure 4). Therefore, it is possible

SEIS GDB

Soil GDB

Agric. Mgmt. GDB

Climate GDB

Land Use GDB

Basis GDB

MBMS

User Interface:

WWW-Browser

Interface forModel Inputs

Web GISInterface

SEIS Maps

SEIS Maps

Interfacefor Simulation

Scenarios

Data flow in one direction

Data flow in two directions

Result n GDB

Result 2 GDB

Result 1 GDB

Interface forModel Outputs

SEIS Tables

S-T Biodiv. GDB

Hyrological GDB

SEIS Maps

Figure 4. Interfaces and data flow for model integration into a SEIS.

144 G. Bareth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

to link or even integrate complex agro-ecosystem models into GIS (Hartkamp et al.

1999, Seppelt 2003) and consequently into a SEIS as well. The selection of the

methods and models which are integrated into a SEIS has a further important

impact on the set-up of the geo- and attribute-database. The methods and models

require distinct input parameters. Consequently, the first step of setting-up a SEIS is

the selection of the methods and models which are integrated in the SEIS later. The

methods and models define the demand of the data and of the required interfaces of

a SEIS.

4. Integration of models in a SEIS

Traditionally, process based agro-ecosystem models or agronomic models are

generally developed and used for site or field scales (Ma and Shaffer 2001,

McGechan and Wu 2001). Therefore, interfacing GIS and remote sensing with

agro-ecosystem models is becoming more important (Schneider 2003). Shaffer et al.

(2001) state that ‘the linkage of process-level models to GIS will be the next

generation of model application for spatially distributed fields or watersheds’.

Hartkamp et al. (1999) describe four different ways to interface GIS with

agronomic models. They also introduce definitions for the different ways of

interfacing:

. Interface: the place at which diverse (independent) systems meet and act on or

communicate with each other.

. Link: to connect.

. Combine: to unite, to merge.

. Integrate: to unite, to combine, or incorporate into a larger unit; to endsegregation.

Linking GIS with models is basically just an exchange of files or data. In this

case, the model is independent from the GIS and vice versa. Only the results of each

system are exchanged. Often it is also described as loosely coupled (Longley et al.

2005). Combining GIS with models, also described as closely coupled (Longley et al.

2005), involves processing data and automatically exchanging data. Finally,

integrating GIS and models describes the real incorporation of one system into

the other. For the user, only one GUI is provided and the model is programmed in a

GIS framework (Laudien et al. 2007). This approach is also defined as embedded(Longley et al. 2005).

Especially for regional modelling of C-and N-dynamics in (agro-)ecosystems on a

regional scale, the integration of such models is important and can be regarded as a

key issue (Shaffer et al. 2001). Available approaches of GIS-model interfaces for

agro-ecosystem models hardly use the GIS-analysis capabilities. For example, the

denitrification and decomposition model (DNDC) (Li et al. 2001) has, in its latest

versions, a regional model part included. Spatial parameters such as land use and

soil are not considered in their spatial relation. GIS-functionalities are only used to

display the results on county levels using a county map. Plant and Bouman (1999)

described a GIS-DNDC-interface of the linking type for the Atlantic zone of Costa

Rica. The introduced approach is not automated and consequently very difficult to

use for other regions. Other examples of linking GIS and models are given e.g. by

Engel (1997), Falloon et al. (1998), Garnier et al. (1998), Ma and Shaffer (2001),

International Journal of Digital Earth 145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

McGechan and Wu (2001). These studies clearly show the importance of interfacing

agro-ecosystem models with GIS. Therefore, a method for integrating process-based

agro-ecosystem models into a GIS is described in Figure 3.

The method for the integration of agro-ecosystem models into GIS is based on

the soil-land use-system approach (SLUSA) (Bareth et al. 2001). SLUSA is based

on the ecosystem approach described by Matson and Vitousek (1990). Theecosystem approach was improved in order to estimate and visualise greenhouse

gas emissions (CH4, CO2, N2O) from agricultural soils for a distinct region (Bareth

2003). The improvement of the ecosystem approach described by Matson and

Vitousek (1990) was undertaken by using a GIS and available digital spatial data.

SLUSA is a GIS- and knowledge-based approach for environmental modelling. In

Figure 3, the methodology of SLUSA is shown. The first step consists of setting-up a

GIS which contains relevant data and represents the necessary geodata infrastruc-

ture for the modelling task. In the second step, GIS tools are used to overlay climate,

soil, land use, topography, farm management, and other data such as preserved areas

or biotopes (if available). This procedure is the basis for the spatially related

identification of different soil-land-use-systems which represents unique systems

similar to the introduced ecotopes or hydrotopes (Seppelt 2003). In the third step,

measurement data and process knowledge of the region of interest as well as from

literature are linked to these systems. For the linkage, knowledge based production

rules are programmed. The latter ones are commonly used to generate new

knowledge from expertise in knowledge based systems such as expert systems(Wright et al. 1993).

Based on SLUSA, Figure 3 describes the integration of agro-ecosystem models

into GIS. While the steps 1 2 and 4 remain in the method, the third step in SLUSA is

changed. The implementation of the knowledge based production rules of SLUSA is

replaced by the integration of an agro-ecosystem model. All input parameters for the

model are derived from the GIS-database. The advantage of this method is the

automatic spatial modelling. Huber et al. (2002) adapted e.g. the DNDC model

program code for that purpose and necessary interfaces were programmed using

COM (Microsoft component object model), which is also used for GIS-based spatial

data analysis by Ungerer and Goodchild (2002).

In Figure 4, the essential interfaces for model incorporation of and the dataflow

in SEIS are shown. In a SEIS geo-database (GDB), the described BGDIS, SIS, CIS,

LUIS, and AMIS are integrated. In the example of Figure 4, an agro-ecosystem

model can now retrieve the input parameters for a model run from the SEIS. For this

step, an interface for the communication between the model and the SEIS has to bedeveloped e.g. by Laudien et al. (2007) and Huber et al. (2002). Data flow between

the model and the SEIS is in both directions, because the information of what kind

of data the model needs for a model run goes to the SEIS and then the model

receives the input parameters. The modelling results are then stored via an interface

for model output in a new geo-databases of the SEIS. Data flow is in one way from

the model to the SEIS. Finally, it is then possible to use GIS-tools for data export

and visualisation, e.g. for map, table or graphic layout productions. An interface for

user defined creation of simulation scenarios should be implemented as well

(Laudien et al. 2007). This interface would enable the user to create new simulation

scenarios, for example for SDS to develop sustainable strategies in agriculture. Here,

the data flow is in one direction from the user interface via the interface for

146 G. Bareth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

simulation scenarios to the models. Finally, full or limited SEIS data access should

be provided to users via a WebGIS. A WebGIS represents the interface for users who

use standard browsers to access the SEIS.

All interfaces can be implemented by available technologies for a service oriented

architecture (SOA) (Stollberg and Zipf 2008). Latest approaches are based on

programming JAVA and/or AJAX interfaces (Baaser et al. 2006, Laudien and Bareth2007) or should be based on a spatial web portal (SMP) using portlet technologies,

web services for remote portlets, Java specification request, and OGC patial web

services (Yang et al. 2007). Additionally, the communication between the different

databases of the sub-information systems and the different components of a SDSS

can be solved using PHP, CGI and/or XML, too. Additionally, latest OGC standards

such as Web Processing Service (WPS) should be implemented. Thereby, it is possible

to link and integrate complex socio-economic biodiversity/ecosystem models into the

GIS with various methods (Hartkamp et al. 1999, Seppelt 2003) and consequently

into the proposed structure of a SEIS.

5. Discussion and conclusions

The importance of tools for spatial data handling in the framework of decisionmaking and regional resource management for managed and unmanaged forest and

agricultural ecosystems is obvious. Therefore, McCloy (2006) describes regional

resource management information systems (RMIS) in the context of spatial data

handling and analysis tools. The combined application of GIS, remote sensing and

DSS technologies are the keys for such systems (McCloy 2006). According to

Malczewski (1999), the establishment of a SESS integrates the methods of SDSS and

SES. Consequently, this also takes into account for the SDS for resource manage-

ment (Jones et al. 2003). GIS and remote sensing can be used to bridge the demands

from site-specific applications to regional and national ones (e.g. Plant and Bouman

1999, Brown et al. 2002, Chowdary et al. 2005). Shaffer et al. (2001) state the

importance of GIS interfaced agro-ecosystem models. The technical issues of how to

interface models with GIS are widely discussed in literature, e.g. by Hartkamp

(1999), Longley et al. (2005), Miller et al. (2005) or Seppelt (2003). In addition,

numerous solutions and applications are described (e.g. Ma and Shaffer 2001,

McGechan and Wu 2001, Jones et al. 2003), also in a spatial decision context (e.g.

Dabbert et al. 1999, Laudien et al. 2007).

While there is immense knowledge available about SOA and SWP technologies(Bambacus et al. 2007), SDSS implementation (Laudien et al. 2007, Stollberg and

Zipf 2008), model development, calibration and evaluation, there is still a need for

improvement to simulate e.g. the whole C- and N-cycle in forest and agro-ecosystems

on a regional level (Shaffer et al. 2001, Benbi and Richter 2002). McCloy (2006)

points out that the key level of management in terms of resource sustainability is the

regional level. For regional applications of GIS interfaced models, the problems are

more on the side of data availability and quality as well as on extrapolation of the

site-specific models (Heuvelink 1999, Bareth 2005). On the one hand, quality and

accuracy is a big issue for the development of models and the evaluation and

calibration is always discussed. On the other hand, regional applications of agro-

ecosystem models rarely discuss the quality of the regional input parameters and

their impact on simulation results. In particular, the quality of available soil type

International Journal of Digital Earth 147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

parameters, land use data, and agricultural management does not fit to the

philosophy of site specific process-based models which simulates what crop is grown

where, on which soil, in which climate, and with what kind of management (Bareth

2005). This is also stated by Kersebaum et al. (2007). By comparing different agro-

ecosystem models, the authors conclude that ‘applications of agro-ecosystem models

on a field or regional level are mostly characterised by a high uncertainty of input

data, especially regarding soil and management information’. Focusing on the latter

problem, the SEIS approach proposes a solution, the multidata approach (MDA) for

enhanced land use mapping (Bareth 2008), in the context of the LUIS and the

FAMIS. Here, the SEIS can significantly enhance the spatial modelling framework

by providing adequate spatial data. Consequently, the quality of the regional input

data is a key issue in spatial resource management and affects the decisions made

with those data: ‘the poorer the quality of the data, the poorer the decision’ (Longley

et al. 1999).

Regional modelling with agro-ecosystem models means the handling of an

extensive geodata infrastructure. Hence, GIS and remote sensing technologies have

to be applied. Those tools also provide measures for data quality for the

evaluation of the spatial input data. Additionally, concepts and standards for the

description of the data, the metadata, are integrated in many commercial GIS and

remote sensing software. Therefore, the regional modelling of agricultural-

environmental issues should be based on a strict architecture: the GIS- and

RS-based SEIS, which enables

. the data capture (also of spatial data),

. the data storage and management (also of spatial data),

. the data analysis and manipulation (also of spatial data),

. the generation of new data (for model input),

. the interfacing of GIS and models,

. the application of metadata standards, and

. the presentation (maps, tables, etc.) of the SEIS (including the modelling

results).

The proposed structure of the SEIS provides the necessary database

functionalities combined with the capability to deal with spatial data. Addition-

ally, the implementaion of open GIS standards such as Web Map Service (WMS),

Web Feature Service (WFS), Geography Markup Language (GML), Styled Layer

Descriptor (SLD), Web Coverage Service (WCS), Catalogue Service for the Web

(CSW), Web Coordinate Transformation Service (WCTS), and Web processing

Service (WPS) are important for future developments of object oriented modelling

approaches and the related data inputs in a SOA.

By combining this structure of a SEIS with modern software development tools,

such as Java and ArcGIS Engine or GeoTools (both for spatial data analysis and

handling), it is possible to implement powerful SDSSs for environmental resource

management including appropriate models and expert knowledge. With this

development framework, a SDSS developer can satisfy the requirements of a

modern SDSS according to Figure 1.

148 G. Bareth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Notes on contributor

Georg Bareth is a Professor of Geography at the University of Cologne, Germany, and theHead of the GIS & RS Group of the Geography Department. He received his Diploma degreefrom Technical University Stuttgart in Geography in 1995 and his PhD in AgriculturalInformatics from University of Hohenheim-Stuttgart in 2000. His habilitation was also donein Agricultural Informatics at the University of Hohenheim-Stuttgart in 2004. He is a co-chairof the ISPRS WG VII/5 ‘Methods for change detection and process modelling’. His currentresearch focuses on geographic information science, remote sensing, and 3D-analyses.

References

Baaser, U., Gnyp, M.L., Hennig, S., Hoffmeister, D., Kohn N., and Bareth, G., 2006. OnlineCampusGIS for the University of Cologne. Proc. AGIT’2006, Heidelberg: WichmannVerlag, 24�31. In German.

Bambacus, M., Yang, C., Evans, J. Li, Z., and Li, W., 2008. Sharing earth science informationto support the Global Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS). In: Proceedings ofIGARSS 2008, 6�11 July 2008, Boston, CD-ROM, IEEE International Geoscience andRemote Sensing Symposium.

Bambacus, M., Yang, P., Evans, J., Cole, M., Alameh, N., and Marley, S., 2007. Aninteroperable portal supporting prototyping geospatial applications. URISA Journal, 19 (2),15�21.

Bareth, G., 2008. Multi-data approach (MDA) for enhanced land use and land cover mapping.The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial InformationScience, Vol. XXXVI. Part B, 1059�1065.

Bareth, G., 2005. Uncertainty of regionalization with agro-ecosystem models and GIS, Proc.of the 4th International Symposium on Spatial Data Quality ’05, 212�220.

Bareth, G. and Angenendt E., 2003. Economic-ecological modeling of greenhouse gases fromagriculture at the regional level. Berichte uber Landwirtschaft, 81 (1), 29�56. In German withEnglish summary.

Bareth, G., 2001a. Disaggregation of a soil map 1.200,000 by using a relief analysis of a 50 mDEM. GIS, Journal for Spatial Information and Decision Making, 12/2001. Heidelberg:Wichmann Verlag, 33�40. In German with English abstract.

Bareth, G., 2001b. Integration of an IRS-1C land use classification in the officialtopographical information system (ATKIS) to enhance the quality of the information ofarable land and grassland for a dairy farm region in Southern Germany (In German withEnglish abstract). GIS, Journal for Spatial Information and Decision Making, 6/2001.Heidelberg: Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg, 40�45.

Bareth, G. and Doluschitz, R., 2003. Wissens- und GIS-basierte regionale Abschatzung vonKohlendioxid-, Methan- und Lachgas-Emissionen aus landwirtschaftlicher Landnutzung.Z. Agrarinformatik, 4, 52�64.

Bareth, G., Heincke, M., and Glatzel, S., 2001. Soil-Land-use-system approach to estimatenitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 60 (1�3),219�234.

Bareth, G. and Yu, Z., 2002. Agri-enviro-information-system for the North China Plain.Proceedings of International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS)Commission II Symposium of Integrated Systems for Spatial Data Production, Custodian andDecision Support, ISPRS, 23�29.

Beauchamp, E.G., 1997. Nitrous oxide emission from agricultural soils. Canadian Journal ofSoil Science, 77, 113�123.

Benbi, D.K. and Richter, J., 2002. A critical review of some approaches to modeling nitrogenmineralization. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 35, 168�183.

Bernhardsen, T., 2002. Geographic information systems: an introduction. New York: Wiley.Bill, R., 1999. Heidelberg: Wichmann Verlag.Bill, R. and Fritsch, D., 1994. Grundlagen der Geo-Informationssysteme, Band 1: Hardware,

Software und Daten. Heidelberg: Wichmann Verlag.

International Journal of Digital Earth 149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Bilo, M. and Bernard, L., 2005. INSPIRE � Aufbau einer Infrastruktur fur raumbezogeneInformationen in Europa. In: L. Bernard, J. Fitzke and R.M. Wagner, eds. Geodatenin-frastruktur � Grundlagen und Anwendungen. Heidelberg: Wichmann Verlag, 18�28.

Bock, M. and Kothe, R., 2005. Regionalisierung von Bodenkennwerten zur Ableitung vonfunktionalen Bodenkonzeptkarten. In: M. Moller and H. Helbig, eds. GIS-gestutzteBewertung von Bodenfunktionen. Heidelberg: Wichmann Verlag, 35�44.

Bouman, B.A.M., Jansen, H.G.P., Schipper, R.A., Hengsdijk, H., and Nieuwenhuyse, A.,2000. Tools for Land Use Analysis on Different Scales, With Case Studies for Costa Rica.Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Brown, L., Syed, B., Jarvis, C., Sneath, W., Phillips, R., Goulding, W.T., and Li, C., 2002.Development and application of a mechanistic model to estimate emission of nitrous oxidefrom UK agriculture. Atmospheric Environment, 36, 917�928.

Burkart, M.R. and James, D.E., 1999. Agricultural nitrogen contributions to hypoxia in theGulf of Mexico. Journal of Environmental Quality, 28, 850�859.

Burrough, P.A. and McDonnell, R.A., 1998. Principles of geographic information systems.Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998.

Carre, F. and Girard, M.C., 2002. Quantitative mapping of soil types based on regressionkriging of taxonomic distances with landform and land cover attributes. Geoderma, 110(3/4), 241�263.

Charles-Edwards, D.A., Doley, D., and Rimmington, G.M., 1986. Modelling plant growth anddevelopment. Sydney: Academic Press.

Chowdary, V.M., Rao, N.H., and Sarma, P.B.S., 2005. Decision support framework forassessment of non-point-source pollution of groundwater in large irrigation projects.Agricultural Water Management, 75 (3), 194�225.

Church, L.R., Murray, A.T., Figueroa, M.A., and Barber, K.H., 2000. Support systemdevelopment for forest ecosystem management. European Journal of Operational Research,121, 247�258.

Crist, P.J., Kohley, T.W., and Oakleaf, J., 2000. Assessing land-use impacts on biodiversityusing an expert tool. Landscape Ecology, 15 (1), 47�62.

Czeranka, M., 1996. Spatial Decision Support Systems in Naturschutz und Landschaftsp-flege? Umsetzungsaspekte fur die raumbezogene Planung. In: F. Dollinger and J. Strobl,Angewandte Geographische Informationsverarbeitung VIII�Salzburger GeographischeMaterialien, 24, 21�27.

Dabbert, S., Herrmann, S., Kaule, G., and Sommer, M., 1999. Landschaftsmodellierung fur dieUmweltplanung, Methodik, Anwendung und Ubertragbarkeit am Beispiel von Agrarlandschaf-ten. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.

David, O., Viger, R.J., Schneider, I.W. and Garcia, L., 2004. Geospatial Interoperability inModeling Frameworks � The’ GOLEM’ Approach [online]. International EnvironmentalModelling and Software Society iEMSs 2004 International Conference, June 2004.Available from: http://www.iemss.org/iemss2004/pdf/integratedmodelling/davigeos.pdf[Accessed 18 January 2008]

Davis, J.R. and McDonald, G., 1993. Applying a Rule Based Decision Support System toLocal Government Planning. In: J.R. Wright, L.L. Wiggins, R.K. Jain and T.J. Kim, eds.Expert Systems in Environmental Planning. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer, 23�46.

Dobson, M.C. and Ulaby, F.T., 1998. Mapping soil moisture distribution with imaging radar.In: F.M. Henderson and A.J. Lewis, eds. Principles & applications of imaging radar.New York: Wiley, 407�433.

Eastman, J.R., 2005. Transition potential modeling for landcover change. In: D.J. Maguire,M. Batty and M.F. Goodchild, eds. GIS, spatial analysis, and modelling. Redlands: ESRIPress, 357�385.

Engel, B.A., Srinivasan, R., and Rewerts, C., 1993. A spatial decision support system formodeling and managing agricultural non-point source pollution. In: M.F. Goodchild, B.O.Parks and L.T. Steyaert, eds. Environmental Modeling with GIS. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 231�237.

Engel, T., 1997. Nutzung von Informatik und Elektronik zur Systemanalyse und Unterstutzungeiner nachhaltigen Landbewirtschaftung., Professorial Dissertation. Fakultat fur Land-wirtschaft und Gartenbau, Technische Universitat Munchen.

150 G. Bareth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Falloon, P.D., Smith, P., Smith, J.U., Szabo, J., Coleman, K., and Marshall, S., 1998. Regionalestimates of carbon sequestration potential: linking the Rothamsted carbon model to GIS.Biology and Fertility of Soils, 27, 236�241.

Furst, D., Roggendorf, W., Scholles, F. and Stahl, R., 1996. Umweltinformationssyteme -Problemlosungskapazitaten fur den vorsorgenden Umweltschutz und politische Funktion.Beitrage zur raumlichen Planung, 46. Forschungsbericht, Haanover 1996, ISBN 3-923517-33-5.

Foody, G.M., 2003. Uncertainty, knowledge discovery and data mining in GIS. Progress inPhysical Geography, 27 (1), 113�121.

Garnier, M., Lo Porto, A., Marini, R., and Leone, A., 1998. Integrated use of GLEAMS andGIS to prevent groundwater pollution caused by agricultural disposal of animal waste.Environmental Management, 22 (5), 747�756.

Goodchild, M.F., 2005. GIS and modelling overview. In: D.J. Maguire, M. Batty and M.F.Goodchild, eds. GIS, spatial analysis, and modelling. Redlands: ESRI Press, 1�17.

Goodchild, M.F., 1996. The spatial data infrastructure of environmental modelling. In: M.F.Goodchild, D. Maidment, M. Crane and S. Glendinning, eds., 1996. GIS and environmentalmodelling: progress and research issues. Fort Collins: GIS World Books, 11�15.

Grant, R.F., 2001. A review of the Canadian ecosystem model � ecosys. In: M.J. Shaffer, L. Maand S. Hansen, eds. Modeling carbon and nitrogen dynamics for soil management. BocaRaton: Lewis Publishers, 173�264.

Guptill, S.C., 1999. Metadata and data catalogues. In: P.A. Longley, M.F. Goodchild,D.J. Maguire and D.W. Rhind, eds. , GIS, Vol. 2. New York: Wiley, 677�692.

Hansen, J.W., 2005. Integrating seasonal climate prediction and agricultural models forinsights into agricultural practice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 360(1463), 2037�2047.

Hartkamp, A.D., White, J.W., and Hoogenboom, G., 1999. Interfacing GIS with agronomicmodeling: A review. Agronomy Journal, 91, 761�772.

Heuvelink, G.B.M., 1999. Propagation of error in spatial modeling with GIS. In: P.A. Longley,M.F. Goodchild, D.J. Maguire and D.W. Rhind, eds., GIS, Vol. 1: New York: Wiley, 207�217.

Hoogenboom, G., Wilkens, P.W, Thornton, P.K., Jones, J.W., Hunt, L.A. and Imamura, D.T.,1999. Decision support system for agrotechnology transfer v3.5. In: G. Hoogenboom, P.W.Wilkens and G.Y. Tsuji, eds., DSSAT version 3, Vol. 4. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 1�3.

Huber, S., Bareth, G., Doluschitz, R., 2002. Integrating the process-based simulation modelDNDC into GIS. In: W. Pillman and K. Tochtermann, eds., Environmental communicationin the information society, Proc. EnviroInfo Vienna 2002. Vienna: International Society forEnvironmental protection, 649�654.

Jones, J.W., Hoogenboom, G., Porter, C.H., Boote, K.J., Batchelor, W.D., Hunt, L.A., Wilkens,P.W., Singh, U., Gijsman, A.J., and Ritchie, J.T., 2003. The DSSAT cropping system model,European. Journal of Agronomy, 18, 235�265.

Jungkunst, H.F., Freibauer, A., Neufeldt, H., and Bareth, G., 2006. A review on nitrous oxideemissions from agricultural land use in Germany. Journal of Plant Nutrition and SoilScience, 169 (3), 341�351.

Kersebaum, K.CH., Hecker, J.-M., Mirschel, W., and Wegehenkel, M., 2007. Modelling Waterand Nutrient Dynamics in Soil�Crop Systems. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.

Lal, H., Hoogenboom, G., Calixte, J.-P., Jones, J.W., and Beinroth, F.H., 1993. Using cropsimulation models and GIS for regional productivity analysis. Transactions of the ASAE, 36,175�184.

Laudien, R. and Bareth, G., 2007. Developing and programming Spatial Decision SupportSystems with Java and ArcGIS Engine (ESRI) (in German). GIS, 04/2007, 16�21.

Laudien, R., Rohrig, J., Bareth, G. and Menz, G., 2007. Spatial Decision Support System zurModellierung der agrarischen Marginalitat in Benin (Westafrika). Proc. AGIT’2007.Heidelberg: Wichmann.

Le Bas, C., King, D., Jamagne, M. and Daroussin, J., 1996. The European soil informationsystem. European Soil Bureau, Research Report (4), 33�42.

Leung, Y., 1997. Intelligent Spatial Decision Support Systems. Berlin Heidelberg New York:Springer.

International Journal of Digital Earth 151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Li, C., 2000. Modeling trace gas emissions from agricultural ecosystems. Nutrient Cycling inAgroecosystems, 58, 259�276.

Li, C., Zhuang, Y., Cao, M., Crill, P., Dai, Z., Frolking, S., Moore, B., Salas, W., Song, W., andWang, X., 2001. Comparing a process based agro-ecosystem model to the IPCCmethodology for developing a national inventory of N2O emissions from arable lands inChina. Nutrient Cycling Agroecosystems, 60, 159�175.

Li, C., Qiu, J., Frolking, S., Xiao, X., Salas, W., Moore, B., Boles, S., Huang, Y. and Sass, R.,2002. Reduced methane emissions from large-scale changes in water management of China’srice paddies during 1980�2000. Geophysical Research Letters, 29 (20) DOI: 10.1019/2002GL015370.

Lillesand, T.M., Kiefer, R.W., and Chipman, J.W., 2004. Remote sensing and imageinterpretation. New York: Wiley.

Longley, P.A., Goodchild, M.F., Maguire, D.J., and Rhind, D.W., 2005. GeographicInformation Systems and Science. New York: Wiley.

Longley, P.A., Goodchild, M.F., Maguire, D.J. and Rhind, D.W., 1999. Data quality �introduction. In: P.A. Longley M.F. Goodchild D.J. Maguire and D.W. Rhind, eds., GIS,Vol. 1. New York: Wiley, 175�176.

Ma, L. and Shaffer, M.J, 2001. A review of carbon and nitrogen processes in nine U.S. soilnitrogen dynamic models. In: M.J. Shaffer, L. Ma and S. Hansen, eds. Modeling carbon andnitrogen dynamics for soil management. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 55�102.

Maguire, D.J., 2005. Towards a GIS platform for spatial analysis and modeling. In: D.J.Maguire, M. Batty and M.F. Goodchild, eds. GIS, spatial analysis, and modelling. Redlands:ESRI Press, 19�39.

Maidment, D.R., 1996. Environmental modeling within GIS. In: M.F. Goodchild, D.Maidment, M. Crane and S. Glendinning, eds. GIS and environmental modelling: progressand research issues. Fort Collins: GIS World Books, 315�323.

Maidment, D.R., Robayo, O., and Merwade, V., 2005. Hydrologic modeling. In: D.J. Maguire,M. Batty and M.F. Goodchild, eds. GIS, spatial analysis, and modelling. Redlands: ESRIPress, Redlands, 319�332.

Malczewski, M., 1999. GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. New York: John Wiley & SonsInc.

Matson, P.A. and Vitousek, P.M., 1990. Ecosystem approach to a global nitrous oxide budget.Bioscience, 40 (9), 667�672.

Matthews, K.B., Sibbald, A.R., and Craw, S., 1999. Implementation of a spatial decisionsupport system for rural land use planning: integrating geographic information system andenvironmental models with search and optimisation algorithms. Computers and Electronicsin Agriculture, 23 (1), 9�26.

Matthews, R. and Knox, J., 1999. Up-scaling of methane emission-experimental results: finalreport. Department of Natural Resources Management. Silsoe, UK: Cranfield University.

McBratney, A.B., Mendonca Santos, M.L., and Minasny, B., 2003. On digital soil mapping.Geoderma, 117 (1�2), 3�52.

McCloy, K.R., 2006. Resource management information systems: remote sensing, GIS andmodeling. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.

McGechan, M.B. and Wu, L., 2001. A Review of carbon and nitrogen processes in Europeansoil nitrogen dynamic models. In: M.J. Shaffer, L. Ma and S. Hansen, eds. Modeling carbonand nitrogen dynamics for soil management. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 103�172.

Miller, D.R., 1996. Knowledge-based systems for coupling GIS and process-based ecologicalmodels. In: M.F. Goodchild, D. Maidment, M. Crane and S. Glendinning, eds. GIS andenvironmental modelling: progress and research issues. Fort Collins: GIS World Books,231�234.

Miller, I., Knopf, S., and Kossik, R., 2005. Linking general-purpose dynamic simulationmodels with GIS. In: D.J. Maguire, M. Batty and M.F. Goodchild, eds. GIS, spatialanalysis, and modelling. Redlands: ESRI Press, 113�129.

Moller, M., 2005. Disaggregierung von Bodeninformationen auf der Grundlage digitalerReliefdaten. In: M. Moller und and H. Helbig, eds. GIS-gestutzte Bewertung vonBodenfunktionen. Heidelberg: Wichmann Verlag, 67�89.

152 G. Bareth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Mowrer, T., 1998. Decision support systems for ecosystem management: An evaluation ofexisting systems. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-296. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Neufeldt, H., Schafer, M., Angenendt, E., Li, C., Kaltschmitt, M., and Zeddies, J., 2006.Disaggregated greenhouse gas emission inventories from agriculture via a coupledeconomic-ecosystem model. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 112, 233�240.

Naesset, E., 1997. Geographical information system in long-term forest management andplanning with special reference to preservation of biological diversity: A review. ForestEcology and Management, 93 (1�2), 121�136.

O’Callaghan, J.R., 1996. Land Use: The Interaction of Economics, Ecology and Hydrology.Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.

O’Callaghan, J.R., 1995. NELUP: An Introduction. Journal of Environmental Planning andManagement, 38 (1), 5�20.

Plant, R.A.J. and Bouman, B.A.M., 1999. Modeling nitrogen oxide emissions from currentand alternative pastures in Costa Rica. Journal of Environmental Quality, 28, 866�872.

Rohierse, A., 2003. Regionale Darstellung der Umweltbelastungen durch klimarelevante Gase inder Agrarlandschaft Kraichgau: Das Boden-Landnutzungs-Informations-System fur Treib-hausgasemissionen. Dissertation. Inst. Landw. Betriebslehre, Universitat Hohenheim.

Rohierse, A. and Bareth, G., 2004. Integration einer multitemporalen Satellitenbildklassifika-tion in ATKIS zur weiteren Differenzierung der Objektart Ackerland, GIS, 03/2004,abcverlag, Heidelberg, 35�41.

Running, S.W. and Thornton, P.E., 1996. Generating daily surfaces of temperature andprecipitation map using the PRISM model. In: M.F. Goodchild, L.T. Steyaert andB.O. Parks, eds. GIS and Environmental Modeling: Progress and Research Issues. FortCollins: GIS World Books, 93�98.

Sarkar, R. and Kar, S., 2006. Evaluation of management strategies for sustainable rice wheatcropping system, using DSSAT seasonal analysis. J. Agric. Sc., 144, 421�434.

Schneider, K., 2003. Assimilating remote sensing data into a land surface process model.International Journal of Remote Sensing, 24, 2959�2980.

Scull, P., Franklin, J., Chadwick, O.A., and McArthur, D., 2003. Predictive soil mapping: areview. Progress in Physical Geography, 27 (2), 171�197.

Seppelt, K., 2003. Computer-based environmental management. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.Shaffer, M.J., Ma, L., and Hansen, S., 2001. Introduction to simulation of carbon and

nitrogen dynamics in soils. In: M.J. Shaffer., L. Ma and S. Hansen, eds. Modeling carbonand nitrogen dynamics for soil management. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1�10.

Shaffer, M.J. and Ma, L., 2001. Carbon and nitrogen dynamics in upland soils. In: M.J.Shaffer, L. Ma and S. Hansen, eds. Modeling carbon and nitrogen dynamics for soilmanagement. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 11�26.

Sharma, T., Carmichael, J., and Klinkenberg, B., 2006. Integrated modeling for exploringsustainable agriculture futures. Futures, 38 (1), 93�113.

Sommer, S., Hill, J., and Megier, J., 1998. The potential of remote sensing for monitoring ruralland use changes and their effects on soil conditions. Agriculture, Ecosystems &Environment, 67 (2), 197�209.

Stollenberg, B. and Zipf, A., 2008. Geoprocessing services for spatial decision support in thedomain of housing market analyses. Proc. 11th AGILE Intern. Conf. GIS, Girona, Online-Proc. (http://plone.itc.nl/agile_old/Conference/2008-Girona/index.htm).

Tang, H.J., 2006. Estimations of soil organic carbon storage in cropland of China based onDNDC model. Geoderma, 134 (1�2), 200�206.

Thomas, A., 2002. Integration von Methoden der Geoinformatik fur die Klimaforschung:Relieforientierte Regionalisierung von Klimadaten Ostasiens. GIS Zeitschrift fur raumbe-zogene Informationen und Entscheidungen, 12/2002, 16�21.

Ungerer, M.J. and Goodchild, M.F., 2002. Integrating spatial data analysis and GIS: a newimplementation using the Component Object Model (COM). International Journal ofGeographical Information Science, 16 (1), 41�53.

Veregin, H., 1999. Data quality parameters. In: P.A. Longley, M.F. Gooodchild, D.J. Maguireand D.W. Rhind, eds., GIS, Vol. 1. New York. Wiley, 177�189.

International Journal of Digital Earth 153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Woodhouse, I.H., 2005. Introduction to microwave remote sensing. Boca Raton: Taylor &Francis.

Wright, J.R., 1993. GIS and spatial modeling. In: J.R. Wright, L.L. Wiggins, R.K. Jain and T.J.Kim, eds. Expert systems in environmental planning. Berlin: Springer, 83�84.

Wright, J.R., Wiggins, L.L., Jain, R.K., and Kim, T.J., 1993. Expert Systems in EnvironmentalPlanning. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.

Wright, J.R. and Buehler, K.A., 1993. Probabilistic Inferencing and Spatial Decision SupportSystems. In: J.R. Wright, L.L. Wiggins, R.K. Jain and T.J. Kim, eds. Expert Systems inEnvironmental Planning. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 119�144.

Wu, Q., Li, H.Q., Wang, R.S., Paulussen, J., He, Y., Wang, M., Wang, B.H., and Wang, Z.,2006. Monitoring and predicting land use change in Beijing using remote sensing and GIS.Landscape and Urban Planning, 78 (4), 322�333.

Yang, P., Evans, J., Cole, M., Marley, S., Alameh, N., and Bambacus, M., 2007. The emergingconcepts and applications of the Spatial Web Portal. PE&RS, 73 (6), 691�698.

Zhu, A.X., Band, L., Vertessy, R., and Dutton, B., 1997. Derivation of soil properties using asoil land inference model (SoLIM). Soil Science Society of America Journal, 61 (2), 523�533.

Zhu, A.X., Hudson, B., Burt, J., Lubich, K., and Simonson, D., 2001. Soil mapping using GIS,expert knowledge, and fuzzy logic. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 65, 1463�1472.

154 G. Bareth

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

1:07

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14