Comparison of Landscape Metrics for Three Different Level Land Cover/Land Use Maps

This research aims to investigate how different landscape metrics are affected by the enhancement of the thematic classes in land cover/land use (LC/LU) maps. For this aim, three different LC/LU maps based on three different levels of CORINE (Coordination of Information on The Environment) nomenclature were created for the selected study area using GEOBIA (Geographic Object Based Image Analysis) techniques. First, second and third level LC/LU maps of the study area have five, thirteen and twenty-seven hierarchical thematic classes, respectively. High-resolution Spot 7 images with 1.5 m spatial resolution were used as the main Earth Observation data to create LC/LU maps. Additional geospatial data from open sources (OpenStreetMap and Wikimapia) were also integrated to the classification in order to identify some of the 2nd and 3rd level LC/LU classes. Classification procedure was initially conducted for Level 3 classes in which we developed decision trees to be used in object-based classification. Afterwards, Level 3 classes were merged to create Level 2 LC/LU map and then Level 2 classes were merged to create the Level 1 LC/LU map according to CORINE nomenclature. The accuracy of Level 1, Level 2, Level 3 maps are calculated as; 93.50%, 89.00%, 85.50% respectively. At the last stage, several landscape metrics such as Number of Patch (NP), Edge Density (ED), Largest Patch Index (LPI), Euclidean Nearest Neighbor Distance (ENN), Splitting Index (SPLIT) and Aggregation Index (AI) metrics and others were calculated for different level LC/LU maps and landscape metrics values were compared to analyze the impact of changing thematic details on landscape metrics. Our results show that, increasing the thematic detail allows landscape characteristics to be defined more precisely and ensure comprehensive assessment of cause and effect relationships between classes.

[1]  Qihao Weng,et al.  Remote sensing of impervious surfaces in the urban areas: Requirements, methods, and trends , 2012 .

[2]  Douglas A. Stow,et al.  Land cover and land use change analysis using multi-spatial resolution data and object-based image analysis , 2018, Remote Sensing of Environment.

[3]  Weiqi Zhou,et al.  An Object-Based Approach for Urban Land Cover Classification: Integrating LiDAR Height and Intensity Data , 2013, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters.

[4]  Jochen A. G. Jaeger Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation , 2000, Landscape Ecology.

[5]  Dazhong Wen Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions , 1997 .

[6]  Thomas Blaschke,et al.  Geographic Object-Based Image Analysis – Towards a new paradigm , 2014, ISPRS journal of photogrammetry and remote sensing : official publication of the International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.

[7]  K. McGarigal,et al.  FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. , 1995 .

[8]  Jorge Stolfi,et al.  A Multiscale Method for the Reassembly of Two-Dimensional Fragmented Objects , 2002, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[9]  Qunshan Zhao,et al.  Assessing validation methods for building identification and extraction , 2015, 2015 Joint Urban Remote Sensing Event (JURSE).

[10]  Arthur S. Lieberman,et al.  Landscape Ecology , 1994, Springer New York.

[11]  Elif Sertel,et al.  High resolution mapping of urban areas using SPOT-5 images and ancillary data , 2015 .

[12]  Toby N. Carlson,et al.  The impact of land use — land cover changes due to urbanization on surface microclimate and hydrology: a satellite perspective , 2000 .

[13]  Patricia Gober,et al.  Per-pixel vs. object-based classification of urban land cover extraction using high spatial resolution imagery , 2011, Remote Sensing of Environment.

[14]  Stephan Pauleit,et al.  Modeling the environmental impacts of urban land use and land cover change—a study in Merseyside, UK , 2005 .

[15]  Athanassios I. Sfougaris,et al.  electing landscape metrics as indicators of spatial heterogeneity — A omparison among Greek landscapes , 2013 .

[16]  Kevin McGarigal,et al.  Parsimony in landscape metrics: Strength, universality, and consistency , 2008 .

[17]  Elif Sertel,et al.  Identification of Crop Areas Using SPOT - 5 Data , 2010 .

[18]  Thomas Blaschke,et al.  Object based image analysis for remote sensing , 2010 .

[19]  L. Tischendorf Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently? , 2001, Landscape Ecology.

[20]  S. Pauleit,et al.  Assessing the environmental performance of land cover types for urban planning , 2000 .

[21]  D. Joly,et al.  Urban-rural-natural gradient analysis with CORINE data: An application to the metropolitan France , 2018 .

[22]  D. Goodin,et al.  Mapping land cover and land use from object-based classification: an example from a complex agricultural landscape , 2015 .

[23]  Jing Wang,et al.  Surface metrics for landscape ecology: a comparison of landscape models across ecoregions and scales , 2018, Landscape Ecology.

[24]  Fivos Papadimitriou,et al.  Modelling spatial landscape complexity using the Levenshtein algorithm , 2009, Ecol. Informatics.

[25]  M. Brady Methodology for Assessing the Regional Environmental Impacts of Decoupling: A Focus on Landscape Values , 2005 .

[26]  Elif Sertel,et al.  ASSESSMENT OF CLASSIFICATION ACCURACIES OF SENTINEL-2 AND LANDSAT-8 DATA FOR LAND COVER / USE MAPPING , 2016 .

[27]  W. Dramstad Spatial metrics – useful indicators for society or mainly fun tools for landscape ecologists? , 2009 .

[28]  Elif Sertel,et al.  Parcel-Level Identification of Crop Types Using Different Classification Algorithms and Multi-Resolution Imagery in Southeastern Turkey , 2013 .

[29]  E. Uuemaa,et al.  Trends in the use of landscape spatial metrics as landscape indicators: A review , 2013 .

[30]  Amy E. Frazier,et al.  Landscape Metrics: Past Progress and Future Directions , 2017, Current Landscape Ecology Reports.

[31]  Elif Sertel,et al.  Comparison of pixel and object-based classification for burned area mapping using SPOT-6 images , 2016 .

[32]  Jianguo Wu Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations , 2004, Landscape Ecology.

[33]  Bruce T. Milne,et al.  Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern , 1989, Landscape Ecology.

[34]  Mariana Belgiu,et al.  Quantitative evaluation of variations in rule-based classifications of land cover in urban neighbourhoods using WorldView-2 imagery , 2014, ISPRS journal of photogrammetry and remote sensing : official publication of the International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing.

[35]  Kevin McGarigal,et al.  Surface metrics: an alternative to patch metrics for the quantification of landscape structure , 2009, Landscape Ecology.

[36]  Sinasi Kaya,et al.  Determination of the Olive Trees with Object Based Classification of Pleiades Satellite Image , 2018, International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics.

[37]  R. Gardner,et al.  Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice , 2015, Springer New York.

[38]  Xiaoxiao Li,et al.  Object-based land-cover classification for metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona, using aerial photography , 2014, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinformation.

[39]  Robert Hecht,et al.  Measuring Completeness of Building Footprints in OpenStreetMap over Space and Time , 2013, ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf..

[40]  Robin Fuller,et al.  Mapping of Land use classes within the CORINE Land Cover Map of Great Britain , 2002 .

[41]  S. K. McFeeters The use of the Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI) in the delineation of open water features , 1996 .