Table 5. Model results for Red River Delta, Wave 2 (December ‘04 –April ‘05).
GLMM | BRT | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | p | s.e. | Relative Influence (%) | s.e | Rank | |
Intercept | 68.171 | 0.142 | 46.439 | |||
Urbanicity: rural | 0 | 2.13 | 0.04 | 13 | ||
Urbanicity: peri-urban | 0.240 | 0.530 | 0.382 | |||
Urbanicity: urban | 0.041 | 0.033 | 1.245 | |||
Percentage land under rice* | -7.892 | 0.046 | 3.944 | 6.81 | 0.09 | 6 |
Percentage land under aquaculture* | -2.552 | 0.688 | 6.362 | 6.31 | 0.07 | 7 |
Land-use diversity (Gini-Simpson index) | 1.592 | 0.451 | 2.113 | 5.62 | 0.08 | 9 |
Chicken density* | 1.017 | 0.033 | 0.476 | 10.34 | 0.07 | 2 |
Duck-rice area density | -70.094 | 0.030 | 32.181 | 7.95 | 0.08 | 4 |
Chicken flock size diversity (Gini-Simpson Index) | 0.935 | 0.571 | 1.651 | 12.86 | 0.09 | 1 |
Duck & goose flock size diversity (Gini-Simpson Index) | 1.934 | 0.087 | 1.130 | 8.07 | 0.04 | 3 |
Annual precipitation* | -32.390 | 0.038 | 15.625 | 7.85 | 0.28 | 5 |
Compound Topographical Index* | 26.477 | 0.258 | 23.375 | 4.66 | 0.28 | 10 |
Shortest distance to nearest national highway* | -0.081 | 0.294 | 0.077 | 2.56 | 0.07 | 12 |
Shortest distance to nearest provincial highway* | -0.136 | 0.085 | 0.079 | 0.96 | 0.08 | 14 |
Shortest distance to nearest town* | 0.093 | 0.619 | 0.188 | 2.72 | 0.09 | 11 |
Shortest distance to nearest lake* | -0.262 | 0.054 | 0.136 | 6.27 | 0.04 | 8 |
Autoregressive term | n/a | 14.9 | 0.28 | |||
AUC-ROC | 0.902 | Trg = 0.987, Eval = 0.755 |
* Transform of the type log10(1+x) was used
s.e. = standard error, Rank = rank of relative influence excluding the rank of the autoregressive term, AUC-ROC = Area Under the Curve of the Receiver Operating Characteristic, Trg = Training, Eval = Evaluation