| Literature DB >> 36211005 |
Guang Lyu1, Dan Zhang1, ZuoLin Liu1.
Abstract
As people's awareness of the environment gradually increases and their requirements for the comfort of living space become higher, landscape design has also ushered in a golden period of development. With the increasing investment in landscape construction in urban development, the area of park green space has been increasing. A park is a place that provides recreation and relaxation for the public. However, the mere pursuit of landscape quality and artistic effects without effective cost control will eventually lead to a rise in construction costs. Therefore, this study explores the main influencing factors that lead to high park landscape costs by analyzing the current development of park landscape design. Based on the comprehensive analysis, a park landscape cost prediction model based on recurrent neural networks is proposed in order to better control the construction costs of park landscapes. This study applies advanced deep learning technology to the project management of park landscapes, which effectively improves the accuracy of cost prediction. In addition, an artificial bee colony algorithm is introduced to update the weights of the recurrent neural network, resulting in a globally optimal ABC-RNN prediction model. The experimental results show that the proposed ABC-RNN prediction model has higher prediction accuracy and stability than the commonly used prediction models.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36211005 PMCID: PMC9546668 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2762554
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Comparison of project cost prediction methods.
| Prediction methods | Advantages | Disadvantages | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fuzzy mathematics | Very good logical reasoning and intellectual presentation skills | Highly subjective; lack of automatic access to rules | Low |
| Grey theory | No requirement for sample size | Failure to consider the dynamic nature of project costs | Low |
| Regression analysis | Simple models | Uncertain factors are not considered | Low |
| Bayes prediction | Greater flexibility | Highly subjective | Low |
| Time-series prediction | No requirement for sample size | High requirements for data reliability | High |
| Support vector machines | Fast prediction | Difficulties in training large samples | High |
| Neural networks | High precision | Stronger data dependency | High |
The proportion of land in the park landscape.
| Classification | Class A (m2) | Class B (m2) | Class C (m2) | Class D (m2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area of green space | >80 | 275 | >70 | >65 |
| Garden floor area | <2 | <2 | <3 | <3 |
| Paved site area | 6–12 | 6–15 | 10–18 | 12–20 |
| Road area | <7 | 7 | <8 | <8 |
Main surfacing materials for event venues.
| Classification | Durability | Initial cost | Postmaintenance costs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Concrete | High | Medium | Low |
| Natural stone | High | High | Low |
| Brick | High | Low | Medium |
| Synthetic resins | Medium | High | High |
Figure 1Components of the project cost.
Figure 2Factors influencing the cost of construction.
Project cost indexes for park landscape works.
| Serial number | Impact factor (prediction index) | Impact factor (subject of prediction) |
|---|---|---|
| l | Construction site | Unilateral cost |
| 2 | Project start/completion time | |
| 3 | Project cost index | |
| 4 | Area of green space | |
| 5 | Garden floor area | |
| 6 | Paved site area | |
| 7 | Road area | |
| 8 | Rate of change in average prices of concrete | |
| 9 | Rate of change in average prices of natural stone | |
| 10 | Rate of change in average price of bricks | |
| 11 | Rate of change in average prices of synthetic resin | |
| 12 | Rate of change in average price of vegetation | |
| 13 | Decoration standards |
Characteristic series of input indexes.
| Indexes | Project 1 | Project 2 | … | Project |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project cost index |
|
| … |
|
| Area of green space |
|
| … |
|
| Garden floor area |
|
| … |
|
| Paved site area |
|
| … |
|
| Road area |
|
| … |
|
| Rate of change in average prices of concrete |
|
| … |
|
| Rate of change in average prices of natural stone |
|
| … |
|
| Rate of change in average prices of bricks |
|
| … |
|
| Rate of change in average prices of synthetic resin |
|
| … |
|
| Rate of change in average price of vegetation |
|
| … |
|
| Decoration standard |
|
| … |
|
Figure 3RNN structure.
Figure 4ABC-RNN-based project cost prediction process.
Figure 5Soft landscape.
Figure 6Hard landscape.
Division of the sample dataset.
| Type | Training set | Test set | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Soft landscapes | 48 | 16 | 64 |
| Hard landscapes | 210 | 70 | 280 |
Normalized sample data.
| No. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Unilateral cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −0.60 | −0.19 | −1.00 | −1.00 | −0.30 | −0.63 | 0.338 | 1 | 1 | −0.98 | −0.98 | 0.00 |
| 2 | −1.00 | 0.45 | −0.82 | −0.33 | 0.74 | 0.81 | 0.615 | 0 | 1 | −0.99 | −0.98 | −0.46 |
| 3 | −0.17 | −0.53 | −0.78 | −0.33 | −0.39 | 0.63 | 0.362 | −1 | 0 | −0.93 | −0.99 | −0.89 |
| 4 | −0.01 | −0.18 | 0.68 | 1.00 | −0.03 | −1.00 | 0.386 | 0 | −1 | −0.92 | −0.98 | −0.49 |
| 5 | 0.00 | −0.81 | 0.10 | −1.00 | −0.91 | −0.81 | −0.847 | 1 | 0 | −0.95 | −0.99 | 0.03 |
| 6 | −0.01 | −0.14 | −0.84 | −0.33 | 0.39 | 0.81 | 0.230 | 0 | 0 | −0.91 | −0.98 | 0.38 |
| … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … | … |
| 344 | −0.01 | −0.11 | −0.83 | −0.33 | −0.30 | −0.81 | −0.23 | 1 | 1 | −0.93 | −0.98 | 0.23 |
Figure 7Training data output curve.
Figure 8Test data output curve.
Predicted and actual values.
| Sample projects | Actual value (¥/m2) | Prediction value(¥/m2) | Absolute error(¥/m2) | Relative error(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 51 | 1036.22 | 1022.7 | −13.52 | −0.65 |
| 52 | 1211.5 | 1238.5 | 27 | 2.23 |
| 53 | 1455.99 | 1469.3 | 13.31 | 0.91 |
| 54 | 1407 | 1408 | 1 | 0.07 |
Prediction results for different types.
| Type | Number of samplestested | Predictionaccuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Soft landscapes | 16 | 81.25 |
| Hard landscapes | 70 | 92.8 |
Prediction results for different time periods.
| Time period | Type of sample | Numberof samplestested | Predictionaccuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spring | Soft landscapes | 16 | 83.1 |
| Hard landscapes | 70 | 92.3 | |
|
| |||
| Summer | Soft landscapes | 16 | 88.6 |
| Hard landscapes | 70 | 92.9 | |
|
| |||
| Autumn | Soft landscapes | 16 | 80.9 |
| Hard landscapes | 70 | 93.2 | |
|
| |||
| Winter | Soft landscapes | 16 | 76.8 |
| Hard landscapes | 70 | 92.1 | |
Figure 9Prediction accuracy of the four models.
Figure 10AUC performances of the 4 models.