Dear Maarten,
This is a fascinating topic. In the case of Ypres I am sure that the
locations of the various fighting have been well-documented by the war
historians, perhaps even the types and quantitites of shelling. I would
contact the Imperial War Museum (http://www.iwm.org.uk/
<http://www.iwm.org.uk/> ) in London and the equivalents in Belgium and
Germany (sorry, don't know which these are) to see if they have any GIS
coverages. They certainly have atlases. This would allow various kinds
of spatial modelling to see how much of the current variability can be
explained from the known military activity. It would complement your
geostatistical approach. This is a rare case where the presumed cause
(war) is very well documented, especially since Ypres (Passchendaele)
has become one of the defining moments in British self-identity and
therefore has been extensively studied.
Hope this helps,
D G Rossiter
Senior University Lecturer
Department of Earth Systems Analysis (DESA)
International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth
Observation (ITC)
Hengelosestraat 99
PO Box 6, 7500 AA Enschede, The Netherlands
Phone: +31 (0)53 4874 499
Fax: +31 (0)53 4874 336
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Internet: http://www.itc.nl/personal/rossiter
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Maarten De Boever
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 17:54
To: [email protected]
Subject: AI-GEOSTATS: war-related pollution
Dear all,
I'm doing research about the contamination of the soil around
Ypres in West-Flanders (Flanders Fields, Belgium) where I have to
investigate in a geostatistical way whether the present pollution is
caused by industrial or World War I activities. At the moment there are
only visual indications that the pollution is due to World War I
activities because of the following reasons:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1) A diffuse instead of a point
source pollution over a large area with a pattern that follows more or
less the frontlines situated in the warzone.<!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2) A copper and lead pollution
(caused by Shrapnell shells used during the war??) without the presence
of any other heavy metal pollution (for example zinc) which indicates
that the pollution is probably not industrial related.<!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3) There are no industrial
activities in the investigated region.<!--[endif]-->
My question is how I can prove in a geostatistical way that the
pollution is caused by war activities. I already thought of using
variography to compare the variogram of the Flanders Fields region with
the variogram of a typical industrial site for the heavy metals copper
and lead. Secondly I would compare the values, acquired by making the
difference between the concentration values of copper/zinc and lead/zinc
available at the same locations, of the Flanders Fields with these of
the industrial site. I don't know if I first have to classify the
concentration values and work further on with the classification numbers
to make a good comparison...
Are there any other and scientific more correct methods to make
a good discrimination between industrial and war-related heavy metal
soil pollution?
Thanks in advantage,
Ir. Maarten De Boever
Research Group Soil Spatial Inventory Techniques (ORBIT)
Department Soil Management and Soil Care
Faculty of Bioscience Engineering
Ghent University Coupure 653, 9000 Gent, Belgium
Tel. + 32 (0)9 264 6042
Fax + 32 (0)9 264 6247
e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.soilman.ugent.be/orbit
<http://www.soilman.ugent.be/orbit>
+ + To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected]
+ To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@ jrc.it with no subject and
"unsubscribe ai-geostats" in the message body. DO NOT SEND
Subscribe/Unsubscribe requests to the list + As a general service to
list users, please remember to post a summary of any useful responses to
your questions. + Support to the forum can be found at
http://www.ai-geostats.org/
