<trans-title>Optimization of Rural Primary and Secondary School Location based on Traffic Network</trans-title>

Yulong CHEN; Zhizhu LAI; Zheng WANG

doi:10.12082/dqxxkx.2020.190443

Journal of Geo-information Science, Volume. 22, Issue 5, 1120(2020)

Optimization of Rural Primary and Secondary School Location based on Traffic Network

Yulong CHEN1...1,2,2, Zhizhu LAI3,3, and Zheng WANG2,2,33,* |Show fewer author(s)

Author Affiliations

¹.河南大学黄河文明与可持续发展研究中心暨黄河文明传承与现代文明建设河南省协同创新中心,开封 475001

¹Key Research Institute of Yellow River Civilization and Sustainable Development & Collaborative Innovation Center on Yellow River Civilization of Henan Province, Henan University, Kaifeng 475001, China

².河南大学环境与规划学院,开封 475004

²College of Environment and Planning, Henan University, Kaifeng 475004, China

³.华东师范大学地理信息科学教育部重点实验室,上海 200241

³Key Laboratory of Geographical Information Science, Ministry of Education of China, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200241, China

show less

Abstract Get PDF(in Chinese)

Figures & Tables(13)

Fig. 1. Flow chart of improved multi-objective simulated annealing algorithm

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 2. The 21-node network

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 3. Flow chart of facility location-network design system calculation process

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 4. Operation interface of rural schools optimized layout system

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 5. Road network map containing potential roads

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 6. School locations results for scenario 1

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 7. School locations and road upgrade results for scenario 2

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 8. School locations, road upgrades and construction results for scenario 3

Download full size

View in Article

Fig. 9. The spatial distribution of students' time to school at each village for different scenarios

Download full size

View in Article

Table 1. Comparisons of performance indicators of three algorithms

View table

View in Article

Table 1. Comparisons of performance indicators of three algorithms

算法	NN		MGD		SP		平均时间/s
算法	平均值/个	总和/个	平均值	标准方差	平均值	标准方差	平均时间/s
MOSA	7	216	537.41	246.30	924.29	639.11	84.77
NSGA-II	15	456	276.30	106.20	726.30	315.65	68.62
IMOSA	22	647	130.60	40.12	525.14	170.04	59.53

Table 2. Scheme and objective function value of Pareto optimal solution in scenario 1

View table

View in Article

Table 2. Scheme and objective function value of Pareto optimal solution in scenario 1

方案编号	新建设施个数 $(p)$	设施选址位置	旅行成本（第一目标值）	设施建设成本（第二目标值）
1	$1$	1	1 642 335	400 000
2	$1$	15	1 488 424	450 000
3	$2$	1,22	1 495 064	800 000
4	$2$	1,15	1 331 460	850 000
5	$2$	15,21	1 315 524	900 000
6	$2$	15,17	1 303 802	1 000 000
7	$3$	15,17,21	1 130 902	1 450 000
8	$3$	1,15,21	1 158 560	1 300 000
9	$3$	1,11,22	1 379 636	1 200 000
10	$3$	1,11,15	1 216 032	1 250 000
11	$3$	9,15,17	1 121 438	1 550 000
12	$3$	1,15,17	1 146 838	1 400 000

Table 3. Scheme and objective function value of Pareto optimal solution in scenario 2

View table

View in Article

Table 3. Scheme and objective function value of Pareto optimal solution in scenario 2

方案编号	新建设施个数 $(p)$	设施选址位置	旅行成本（第一目标值）	建设成本（第二目标值）
1	$1$	15	1 295 687	559 000
2	$1$	15	1 132 810	787 155
3	$1$	15	1 068 135	890 765
4	$1$	15	1 002 049	991 840
5	$1$	15	864 630	1 271 470
6	$1$	15	807 618	1 431 305
7	$2$	15,17	1 000 392	1 267 605
8	$2$	15,17	855 648	1 466 570
9	$2$	15,17	742 158	1 687 960
10	$2$	15,17	713 800	1 736 255
11	$2$	15,17	655 768	1 865 215
12	$2$	15,17	622 996	1 981 305
13	$2$	15,17	610 746	2 078 610
14	$2$	15,17	593 241	2 195 025
15	$2$	15,17	553 786	2 313 000
16	$3$	1,15,17	857 898	1 712 325
17	$3$	1,15,17	750 337	1 874 305
18	$3$	1,15,17	692 305	2 003 265
19	$3$	1,15,17	580 291	2 118 835
20	$3$	1,15,17	548 536	2 199 760
21	$3$	1,15,17	536 285	2 297 065
22	$3$	1,15,17	508 400	2 458 200

Table 4. Scheme and objective function value of Pareto optimal solution in scenario 3

View table

View in Article

Table 4. Scheme and objective function value of Pareto optimal solution in scenario 3

方案编号	新建设施个数 $(p)$	设施选址位置	旅行成本（第一目标值）	建设成本（第二目标值）
1	$1$	15	969 011	1 049 911
2	$1$	15	909 984	1 176 466
3	$1$	15	797 970	1 292 036
4	$1$	15	764 372	1 420 996
5	$1$	15	752 155	1 479 340
6	$1$	15	720 408	1 560 265
7	$1$	15	689 716	1 781 031
8	$2$	15,17	861 953	1 458 445
9	$2$	15,17	805 014	1 580 320
10	$2$	15,17	717 808	1 753 675
11	$2$	15,17	650 227	1 782 035
12	$2$	15,17	567 661	1 932 035
13	$2$	15,17	549 277	2 012 960
14	$2$	15,17	521 388	2 174 095
15	$2$	15,17	506 368	2 292 070
16	$3$	15,17,21	897 560	1 859 931
17	$3$	15,17,21	736 467	2 098 156
18	$3$	15,17,21	646 687	2 308 041
19	$3$	15,17,21	522 456	2 481 955
20	$3$	15,17,21	515 037	2 549 215
21	$3$	15,17,21	400 220	2 724 416
22	$3$	15,17,21	372 331	2 885 551

Tools

Get Citation

Copy Citation Text

Yulong CHEN, Zhizhu LAI, Zheng WANG. Optimization of Rural Primary and Secondary School Location based on Traffic Network[J]. Journal of Geo-information Science, 2020, 22(5): 1120

Download Citation

EndNote(RIS)BibTex Plain Text

Set citation alerts for article

Save article for my favorites

Paper Information

Received: Aug. 13, 2019

Accepted: --

Published Online: Nov. 12, 2020

The Author Email: WANG Zheng (wangzheng@casipm.ac.cn)

DOI:10.12082/dqxxkx.2020.190443

Topics

Resource Economy

Research Articles

Table 1. Comparisons of performance indicators of three algorithms

Table 1. Comparisons of performance indicators of three algorithms

Table 2. Scheme and objective function value of Pareto optimal solution in scenario 1

Table 2. Scheme and objective function value of Pareto optimal solution in scenario 1

Table 3. Scheme and objective function value of Pareto optimal solution in scenario 2

Table 3. Scheme and objective function value of Pareto optimal solution in scenario 2

Table 4. Scheme and objective function value of Pareto optimal solution in scenario 3

Table 4. Scheme and objective function value of Pareto optimal solution in scenario 3

微信扫一扫：分享