Mediterranean urban-forest interface classification (MUFIC): A quantitative method combining SPOT5 imagery and landscape ecology indices

Abstract Due to demographic growth over the last few decades, urban development and its impacts on wildland areas (diversity loss, fire risk) has become a major concern in developed communities and among others in Mediterranean France. We aim to classify urban-forest interfaces types in order to discuss the impact of urban landscape development on wildland areas. Urban-forest interface types were computed using landscape pattern metrics. We used 3 landscape indices, which quantified both the proportion and configuration of land-cover classes, to classify various relationships between houses and forests: percentage of landscape (PLAND), landscape shape index (LSI) and Shannon diversity (SHDI). Results consisted of an aggregated map of landscape indices which differentiated five urban-forest interface types as follows: houses without forest contact (type I), compact subdivisions (type II), compact subdivisions in forested areas (type III), dispersed subdivisions in forested areas (type IV), and scattered houses in forested area (type V). Types III–V urban-forest interfaces representing 65% of urban interfaces. It supposes that major part of urbanization is dispersed in forest area while only 38% of urban areas were in contact with other land-cover classes (agricultural and schrubland).

[1]  M. Mcdonnell,et al.  Selecting independent measures to quantify Melbourne's urban–rural gradient , 2006 .

[2]  Douglas A. Stow,et al.  Sensitivity of multitemporal NOAA AVHRR data of an urbanizing region to land-use/land-cover changes and misregistration , 2002 .

[3]  C. N. Hewitt,et al.  Urban land classification and its uncertainties using principal component and cluster analyses: A case study for the UK West Midlands , 2006 .

[4]  J. P. Collins,et al.  A New Urban Ecology , 2000, American Scientist.

[5]  Alain Dervieux,et al.  MEDITERRANEAN LANDSCAPE CHANGES : EVIDENCE FROM OLD POSTCARDS , 1999 .

[6]  J. Brueckner.  Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies , 2000 .

[7]  R. B. Jackson,et al.  Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. , 2000, Science.

[8]  Christiane Weber,et al.  Urbanization pressure and modeling of urban growth: example of the Tunis Metropolitan Area , 2003 .

[9]  D. Simberloff,et al.  Eradication revisited: dealing with exotic species. , 2000, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[10]  W. Zipperer,et al.  Urban ecological systems: linking terrestrial ecological, physical, and socioeconomic components of metropolitan areas , 2001 .

[11]  Mark Mulligan,et al.  Recent Dynamics of Mediterranean Vegetation and Landscape , 2004 .

[12]  N. Nakagoshi,et al.  Spatial- temporal gradient analysis of urban green spaces in Jinan, China , 2006 .

[13]  R. Mittermeier,et al.  Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities , 2000, Nature.

[14]  C. Elvidge,et al.  A Technique for Using Composite DMSP/OLS "City Lights"Satellite Data to Map Urban Area , 1997 .

[15]  I. Vanha-Majamaa,et al.  Anthropogenic effects on understorey vegetation in Myrtillus type urban forests in southern Finland , 2002 .

[16]  Xiaoling Chen,et al.  Remote sensing image-based analysis of the relationship between urban heat island and land use/cover changes , 2006 .

[17]  Taylor H. Ricketts,et al.  Biodiversity, Urban Areas, and Agriculture: Locating Priority Ecoregions for Conservation , 2003 .

[18]  M. Antrop.  Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe , 2000, Landscape Ecology.

[19]  S. Godefroid,et al.  Distribution pattern of the flora in a peri-urban forest: an effect of the city–forest ecotone , 2003 .

[20]  John N. DiBari,et al.  Evaluation of five landscape-level metrics for measuring the effects of urbanization on landscape structure: the case of Tucson, Arizona, USA , 2007 .

[21]  T. Tatoni,et al.  The Impact of Changes in Land Use on Ecological Patterns in Provence (Mediterranean France) , 2005 .

[22]  W. B. Clapham.  Continuum-based classification of remotely sensed imagery to describe urban sprawl on a watershed scale , 2003 .

[23]  Tenley M. Conway,et al.  Alternative land use regulations and environmental impacts: assessing future land use in an urbanizing watershed , 2005 .

[24]  A. Lausch,et al.  Native and alien plant species richness in relation to spatial heterogeneity on a regional scale in Germany , 2003 .

[25]  J. Wiens,et al.  HOW DOES HABITAT PATCH SIZE AFFECT ANIMAL MOVEMENT? AN EXPERIMENT WITH DARKLING BEETLES , 1999 .

[26]  R. O'Neill,et al.  A geography of ecosystem vulnerability , 2000, Landscape Ecology.

[27]  R. Forman.  Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions , 1995 .

[28]  Matthew E. Kahn,et al.  Sprawl and Urban Growth , 2003 .

[29]  M. McKinney,et al.  Do human activities raise species richness? Contrasting patterns in United States plants and fishes , 2002 .

[30]  J. Wiens,et al.  Interactions between habitat abundance and configuration: experimental validation of some predictions from percolation theory , 1999 .

[31]  J. Thomlinson,et al.  Suburban growth in Luquillo, Puerto Rico: some consequences of development on natural and semi-natural systems. , 2000 .

[32]  Giles M. Foody,et al.  Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment , 2002 .

[33]  E. R. Hobbs.  Species richness of urban forest patches and implications for urban landscape diversity , 1988, Landscape Ecology.

[34]  Deepak Khare,et al.  Monitoring and modelling of urban sprawl using remote sensing and GIS techniques , 2008, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinformation.

[35]  M. Salling,et al.  Biological integrity in urban streams: Toward resolving multiple dimensions of urbanization , 2007 .

[36]  Bond,et al.  Predicting extinction risks for plants: environmental stochasticity can save declining populations. , 2000, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[37]  Glenn R. Matlack,et al.  MICROENVIRONMENT VARIATION WITHIN AND AMONG FOREST EDGE SITES IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES , 1993 .