Advertisement

Using fuzzy logic to generate conditional probabilities in Bayesian belief networks: a case study of ecological assessment

  • K. F.-R. Liu
  • J.-Y. Kuo
  • K. Yeh
  • C.-W. Chen
  • H.-H. Liang
  • Y.-H. Sun
Original Paper

Abstract

The survival of rare animals is an important concern in an environmental impact assessment. However, it is very difficult to quantitatively predict the possible effect that a development project has on rare animals, and there is a heavy reliance on expert knowledge and judgment. In order to improve the credibility of expert judgment, this study uses Bayesian belief networks (BBN) to visually represent expert knowledge and to clearly explain the inference process. For the case study, the primary difficulty is in determining a large amount of conditional probabilities in the BBN, because there is a lack of sufficient data concerning rare animals. Therefore, a new method that uses fuzzy logic to systematically generate these probabilities is proposed. The combination of the BBN and the fuzzy logic system is used to assess the possible future population status of the Pheasant-tailed jacana and the associated probabilities, which have been affected by the construction of the Taiwan High-Speed Rail. The analysis shows that a restoration program would successfully preserve the species, because in the restoration area, the BBN model predicts that there is a 75.49 % probability that the species will flourish in the future.

Keywords

Pheasant-tailed jacana Future population status Expert judgment Artificial intelligence 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the National Science Council of the Republic of China (Taiwan) for financially supporting this research under Contract NSC 99-2221-E-131-010-MY2. The author also appreciates the editorial assistance provided by Dr. Michael McGarrigle.

Supplementary material

13762_2013_459_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (9.3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 9498 kb)

References

  1. Aguilera PA, Fernández A, Fernándeza R, Rumíb R, Salmerónb A (2011) Bayesian networks in environmental modelling. Environ Model Softw 26(12):1376–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker S, Mendes E (2010) Evaluating the weighted sum algorithm for estimating conditional probabilities in Bayesian networks. In: Proceedings of the Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering Conference (SEKE 2010): 319–324Google Scholar
  3. Bangian AH, Ataei M, Sayadi A, Gholinejad A (2012) Optimizing post-mining land use for pit area in open-pit mining using fuzzy decision making method. Int J Environ Sci Technol 9(4):613–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bashari H, Smith C, Bosch OJH (2008) Developing decision support tools for rangeland management by combining state and transition models and Bayesian belief networks. Agric Syst 99(1):23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borsuk ME, Stow CA, Reckhow KH (2003) Integrated approach to total maximum daily load development for Neuse River Estuary using Bayesian probability network model (Neu-BERN). J Water Resour Plann Manag-ASCE 129(4):271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borsuk ME, Stow CA, Reckhow KH (2004) A Bayesian network of eutrophication models for synthesis, prediction, and uncertainty analysis. Ecol Model 173(2–3):219–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borsuk ME, Reichert P, Peter A, Schager E, Burkhardt-Holm P (2006) Assessing the decline of brown trout (Salmo trutta) in Swiss rivers using a Bayesian probability network. Ecol Model 192(1–2):224–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chan TU, Hart BT, Kennard MJ, Pusey BJ, Shenton W, Douglas MM, Valentine E, Patel S (2012) Bayesian network models for environmental flow decision making in the Daly River, Northern Territory, Australia. River Res Appl 28(3):283–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen TC (2008) Breeding Biology of Pheasant-tailed jacana Hydrophasianus chirurgus in Taiwan. Doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan University, TaipeiGoogle Scholar
  10. Chiu MX (2004) The habitat management of jacana restoration area. Technical report of the Jacana Restoration CommissionGoogle Scholar
  11. Das B (2004) Generating conditional probabilities for Bayesian networks: easing the knowledge acquisition problem. arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0411034v1. Accessed in 2013Google Scholar
  12. Deng BL (2002) Introduction of jacana. Jacana Restor 75:40–45 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  13. Deng BL (2010) The habitats management models for the breeding of the Pheasant-tailed jacana in Guan-Tian Jacana Restoration Area, Tainan County, Master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, KaohsiungGoogle Scholar
  14. Dlamini WM (2010) A Bayesian belief network analysis of factors influencing wildfire occurrence in Swaziland. Environ Model Softw 25(2):199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dlamini WM (2011) Bioclimatic modeling of southern African bioregions and biomes using Bayesian networks. Ecosystems 14(3):366–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dubois D, Prade H (2010) Formal representations of uncertainty. In: Bouyssou D, Dubois D, Prade H, Pirlot M (eds) Decision making process: concepts and methods. Wiley-ISTE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Eleye-Datubo AG, Wall A, Wang J (2008) Marine and offshore safety assessment by incorporative risk modeling in a fuzzy-Bayesian network of an induced mass assignment paradigm. Risk Anal 28(1):95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibbs MT (2007) Assessing the risk of an aquaculture development on shorebirds using a Bayesian belief model. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 13(1):156–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grech A, Coles RG (2010) An ecosystem-scale predictive model of coastal seagrass distribution. Aquat Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 20(4):437–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamilton GS, Fielding F, Chiffings AW, Hart BT, Johnstone RW, Mengersen KL (2007) Investigating the use of a bayesian network to model the risk of Lyngbya majuscula bloom initiation in deception bay, Queensland. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 13(6):1271–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hammond TR, Ellis JR (2002) Ameta-assessment for elasmobranchs based on dietary data and Bayesian networks. Ecol Indic 1(3):197–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hart BT, Pollino CA (2008) Increased use of Bayesian network models will improve ecological risk assessments. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 14(5):851–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Helle I, Lecklin T, Jolma A, Kuikka S (2011) Modeling the effectiveness of oil combating from an ecological perspective—a Bayesian network for the Gulf of Finland; the Baltic Sea. J Hazard Mater 185(1):182–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Howes AL, Maron M, McAlpine CA (2010) Bayesian networks and adaptive management of wildlife habitat. Conserv Biol 24(4):974–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson S, Mengersen K, de Waal A, Marnewick K, Cilliers D, Houser AM, Boast L (2010) Modelling cheetah relocation success in southern Africa using an iterative Bayesian network development cycle. Ecol Model 221(4):641–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kao HY, Huang CH, Hsu CL, Huang CL (2011) Diagnosis from Bayesian networks with fuzzy parameters—a case in supply chains. J Internet Technol 12(1):49–55Google Scholar
  27. Karimi AR, Mehrdadi N, Hashemian SJ, Nabi Bidhendi GR, Tavakkoli Moghaddam R (2011) Selection of wastewater treatment process based on the analytical hierarchy process and fuzzy analytical hierarchy process methods. Int J Environ Sci Technol 8(2):267–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li HL, Kao HY (2005) Constrained abductive reasoning with fuzzy parameters in Bayesian networks. Comput Oper Res 32(1):87–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Li PC, Chen GH, Dai LC, Zhang L (2012) A fuzzy Bayesian network approach to improve the quantification of organizational influences in HRA frameworks. Saf Sci 50(7):1569–1583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu KFR, Lai JH (2009) Decision support for environmental impact assessment: a hybrid approach using fuzzy logic and fuzzy analytic network process. Expert Sys Appl 36(3):5119–5136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu KFR, Lu CF, Chen CW, Shen YS (2012) Applying Bayesian belief networks to health risk assessment. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 26(3):451–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liu KFR, Chen CW, Shen YS (2013) Using Bayesian belief networks to support health risk assessment for sewer workers. Int J Environ Sci Technol 10(2):385–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mandal SN, Choudhury JP, Bhadra Chaudhuri SR (2012) In search of suitable fuzzy membership function in prediction of time series data. Int J Comput Sci 9(3):293–302Google Scholar
  34. Marcot BG, Holthausen RS, Raphael MG, Rowland MM, Wisdom MJ (2001) Using Bayesian belief networks to evaluate fish and wildlife population viability under land management alternatives from an environmental impact statement. Ecology Manag 153(1–3):29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marcot BG, Hohenlohe PA, Morey S, Holmes R, Molina R, Turley MC, Huff MH, Laurence JA (2006) Characterizing species at risk II: using Bayesian belief networks as decision support tools to determine species conservation categories under the northwest forest plan. Ecol Soc 11(2):12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martin TG, Burgman MA, Fidler F, Kuhnert PM, Low-Choy S, Mcbride M, Mengersen K (2012) Eliciting expert knowledge in conservation science. Conserv Biol 26(1):29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McNay RS, Marcot BG, Brumovsky V, Ellis R (2006) A Bayesian approach to evaluating habitat for woodland caribou in north-central British Columbia. Can J For Res 36(12):3117–3133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Newton AC (2010) Use of a Bayesian network for red listing under uncertainty. Environ Model Softw 25(1):15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nicholson AE, Flores MJ (2011) Combining state and transition models with dynamic Bayesian networks. Ecol Model 222(3):555–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nyberg JB, Marcot BG, Sulyma R (2006) Using Bayesian belief networks in adaptive management. Canadian J For Res 36(12):3104–3116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oteniya L (2008) Bayesian belief networks for dementia diagnosis and other applications: a comparison of hand-crafting and construction using a novel data driven technique, PhD thesis of University of Stirling, Scotland. https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/handle/1893/497
  42. Pearl J (1988) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  43. Penz CA, Flesch CA, Nassar SM, Flesch RCC, de Oliveira MA (2012) Fuzzy-Bayesian network for refrigeration compressor performance prediction and test time reduction. Expert Sys Appl 39(4):4268–4273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Petts J (1999) Handbook of environmental impact assessment volume 2: environmental impact assessment in practice: impact and limitations. Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Pollino CA, White AK, Hart BT (2007a) Examination of conflicts and improved strategies for the management of an endangered Eucalypt species using Bayesian networks. Ecol Model 201(1):37–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pollino CA, Woodberry O, Nicholson A, Korb K, Hart BT (2007b) Parameterisation and evaluation of a Bayesian network for use in an ecological risk assessment. Environ Model Softw 22(8):1140–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Radliński Ł (2013) An expert-driven Bayesian network model for simulating and predicting software quality. In: Proceedings Fifth International Conference on information, process, and knowledge management, Nice, France, 26–31Google Scholar
  48. Raphael MG, Wisdom MJ, Rowland MM, Holthausen RS, Wales BC, Marcot BG, Rich TD (2001) Status and trends of habitats of terrestrial vertebrates in relation to land management in the interior Columbia River Basin. For Ecol Manag 153(1):63–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ren J, Jenkinson I, Wang J, Xu DL, Yang JB (2009) An offshore risk analysis method using fuzzy Bayesian network. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng-Trans ASME 131:041101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Renken H, Mumby PJ (2009) Modelling the dynamics of coral reef macroalgae using a Bayesian belief network approach. Ecol Model 220(9–10):1305–1314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rieman B, Peterson JT, Clayton J, Howell P, Thurow R, Thompson W, Lee D (2001) Evaluation of potential effects of federal land management alternatives on trends of salmonids and their habitats in the interior Columbia River basin. For Ecol Manag 153(1):43–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sadoddin A, Letcher RA, Jakeman AJ, Newhamb LTH (2005) A Bayesian decision network approach for assessing the ecological impacts of salinity management. Math Comput Simul 69(1–2):162–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shenton W, Hart BT, Brodie J (2010) A Bayesian network model linking nutrient management actions in the Tully catchment (northern Queensland) with Great Barrier Reef condition. Mar Freshw Res 61(5):587–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shenton W, Hart BT, Chan T (2011) Bayesian network models for environmental flow decision-making: 1. Latrobe River Australia. River Res Appl 27(3):283–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith CS, Howes AL, Price B, McAlpine CA (2007) Using a Bayesian belief network to predict suitable habitat of an endangered mammal—the Julia Creek dunnart (Sminthopsis douglasi). Biol Conserv 139(3–4):333–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Steventon JD, Sutherland GD, Arcese P (2006) A population-viability-based risk assessment of Marbled Murrelet nesting habitat policy in British Columbia. Canadian J For Res 36(12):3075–3086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tuzkaya G (2013) An intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral operator based methodology for environmental criteria integrated supplier evaluation process. Int J Environ Sci Technol. doi: 10.1007/s13762-013-0180-9 Google Scholar
  58. Tuzkaya G, Gulsun B (2008) Evaluating centralized return centers in a reverse logistics network: an integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach. Int J Environ Sci Technol 5(3):339–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tuzkaya G, Ozgen A, Ozgen D, Tuzkaya UR (2009) Environmental performance evaluation of suppliers: a hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach. Int J Environ Sci Technol 6(3):477–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ueng YT (2008) Analysis of jacanas conservation plan in Tainan County. Technical report of Taiwan Forestry BureauGoogle Scholar
  61. Uusitalo L (2007) Advantages and challenges of Bayesian networks in environmental modeling. Ecol Model 203(3–4):312–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Uusitalo L, Kuikka S, Romakkaniemi A (2005) Estimation of Atlantic salmon smolt carrying capacity of rivers using expert knowledge. ICES J Mar Sci 62(4):708–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vilizzi L, Price A, Beesley L, Gawne B, King AJ, Koehn JD, Meredith DL, Nielsen CP, Sharpe CP (2012) The belief index: an empirical measure for evaluating outcomes in Bayesian belief network modelling. Ecol Model 228:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Walton A, Meidinger D (2006) Capturing expert knowledge for ecosystem mapping using Bayesian networks. Canadian J For Res 36(12):3087–3103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wang Y, Xie M (2012) Approach to integrate fuzzy fault tree with Bayesian network. Procedia Eng 45:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wang Y, Xie M, Ming K, Meng YF (2011) Quantitative risk analysis model of integrating fuzzy fault tree with bayesian network. In: IEEE international conference on intelligence and security informatics (ISI): 267–271Google Scholar
  67. Wilson DS, Stoddard MA, Puettmann KJ (2008) Monitoring amphibian populations with incomplete survey information using a Bayesian probabilistic model. Ecol Model 214(2–4):210–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wooldridge S, Done T (2004) Learning to predict large-scale coral bleaching from past events: a Bayesian approach using remotely sensed data, in situ data, and environmental proxies. Coral Reefs 23(1):96–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Young WA, Millie DF, Weckman GR, Anderson JS, Klarer DM, Fahnenstiel GL (2011) Modeling net ecosystem metabolism with an artificial neural network and Bayesian belief network. Environ Model Softw 26(10):1199–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zadeh LA (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-I. Inf Sci 8:199–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zadeh LA (1996) Fuzzy logic= computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 4(2):103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zadeh LA (2002) From computing with numbers to computing with words. From manipulation of measurements to manipulation of perceptions. Int J Appl Math Comput Sci 12(3):307–324Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. F.-R. Liu
    • 1
  • J.-Y. Kuo
    • 2
  • K. Yeh
    • 3
  • C.-W. Chen
    • 4
  • H.-H. Liang
    • 5
  • Y.-H. Sun
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Safety, Health and Environmental EngineeringMing Chi University of TechnologyNew TaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and Information EngineeringNational Taipei University of TechnologyTaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of Construction Science and TechnologyDe-Lin Institute of TechnologyNew TaipeiTaiwan
  4. 4.Institute of Maritime Information and TechnologyNational Kaohsiung Marine UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan
  5. 5.Department of ArchitectureNational United UniversityMiaoliTaiwan
  6. 6.Institute of Wildlife ConservationNational Pingtung University of Science and TechnologyPingtungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations