Cited by 23Archaeological Research and ProtectionUrban Design and Spatial AnalysisArchaeology and Cultural Heritage

Issues in replication and stability of least-cost path calculations

Open access
Herzog, Irmela·2022·Studies in DIGITAL Heritage

Abstract

An important and frequently used tool in archaeological spatial analysis is least-cost path (LCP) analysis to compute routes connecting a set of targets. The outcome depends on the cost model chosen and the topographic data used. A slope-dependent cost model requires a digital elevation model (DEM) that should reflect the landscape in the past. It is often impossible to reconstruct the past terrain, and modern high-resolution elevation data results in problematic storage requirements and computation times. This article presents a case study that explores issues in replication and stability of LCP calculations for pairs of targets that are close to known old trade routes. A large number of cost models is tested based on two topographic data sets, including DEMs of two different resolutions (25 m and 50 m). The cost models use six different slope-dependent cost functions suggested by various authors for pedestrian movement. Moreover, a slope-dependent cost function is applied that results in LCPs including hairpin curves if the slope exceeds a predefined critical value. It is shown that the best-performing LCP sets for the two topographic data sets are closely related but not identical. Moreover, reasons for the failure of LCP reconstructions for some old route sections are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14434/sdh.v5i2.33796

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Authors
Herzog, I.
Venue
Studies in DIGITAL Heritage
Published
2022-04-05
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
131-155
ISSN
2574-1748 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4224240257
Cited by
23
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2
FWCI
9.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Studies in Digital Heritage (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Indiana Magazine of History (Indiana University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Space and Planetary Science › Archaeological Research and Protection
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Urban Design and Spatial Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
Keywords
least-cost path analysis, replication, numerical stability, cost model, digital elevation model, DEM resolution, trade routes, pedestrian movement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review