1 / 17

Visualising spatial archaeological data

Visualising spatial archaeological data. The Aboriginal Sites Decision Support Tool (ASDST). Mal Ridges. Aboriginal sites decision support tool ASDST:. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/licences/AboriginalSitesDecisionSupportTool.htm. AHIMS. All modelled Feature types. GRASP. Pre1750

eilis
Download Presentation

Visualising spatial archaeological data

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Visualising spatial archaeological data The Aboriginal Sites Decision Support Tool (ASDST) Mal Ridges

  2. Aboriginal sites decision support tool ASDST: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/licences/AboriginalSitesDecisionSupportTool.htm

  3. AHIMS All modelled Feature types GRASP Pre1750 model Muti-resolution Segmentation ASLUs Feature Data Spatial variables All modelled Feature types SGA algorithm Model reliability Reliability model Land-Use Layer Survey Priority calculator All modelled Feature types Survey priority model Vulnerability parameters Current Condition calculator Current model All modelled Feature types Accum. impact calculator Accum. Impact model KEY: GIS layer Data Tool or algorithm Corp. database

  4. Model testing using withheld data: • Models were built with 2007 site data • Since then ~10,000 sites have been added to the database • Independent data, but also suffers the same inherent recording biases Scarred trees: Stone artefacts:

  5. Comparison with Pardoe / Martin model: Predictive accuracy comparison: NOTE:Measured against current AHIMS data (including RERP data not used to build either model) Predictions for AHIMS sites Low likelihood High likelihood CONCLUSION:Both models perform well, predicting high likelihood for the majority of sites. The ASDST model performs slightly better (fewer sites with low likelihood)

  6. Survey priority Survey priority Survey priority combines: • large data gap • low impact • high current likelihood Mined areas that have been the focus of much assessment are LOW survey priority Data gaps and low impact areas are HIGH survey priority

  7. Scarred tree model pre1750 Scarred tree model current Impacts in the Hunter Valley

  8. http://www.gbif.org/ These tools can be automated Providing users with custom results for defined regions Result: better contextual data for decision making

  9. Accumulated impacts Accumulated impacts • Using the difference between the pre1750 and current version of each model, the level of impact can be mapped • This maps some impacts across all feature types modelled • Highest impacts occur in mined areas, irrigated cropping and urban extent

  10. Segmentation for CMA • Multi-resolution segmentation on current models • 53,386 segments mapped for the CMA • Average area is 190 Ha • Information can be tagged to each segment • The information can be used for property scale planning

  11. Take home message All this is possible just from using site type + location BUT…its focused on generating landscape scale data that supports decision making It also provides simple information that can be used by non-archaeologists in order to trigger appropriate assessment Derived information from the ASDST is easy to deliver through on-line tools: eg regional profiling

More Related