Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dorothy Furberg
Printed by
Universitetsservice US AB
Stockholm, Sweden, 2014
ii
Abstract
iii
Stockholm County revealed that urban areas increased ten times as much in
Shanghai as they did in Stockholm, at 120% and 12% respectively. The
landscape metrics results show that fragmentation in both study regions
occurred mainly due to the growth of high density built-up areas in
previously more natural environments, while the expansion of low density
built-up areas was for the most part in conjunction with pre-existing patches.
The growth in urban areas resulted in ecosystem service value losses of
approximately 445 million USD in Shanghai, mostly due to the decrease in
natural coastal wetlands, while in Stockholm the value of ecosystem services
changed very little.
This study demonstrates the utility of urban and environmental indicators
derived from remote sensing data via GIS techniques in assessing both the
spatio-temporal dynamics of urban growth and its environmental impact in
different metropolitan regions. High accuracy classifications of optical
medium resolution remote sensing data are achieved thanks in part to the
incorporation of texture features for both object- and pixel-based
classification methods, and to the use of urban/rural masks with the latter.
The landscape metrics calculated based on the classifications are useful in
quantifying urban growth trends and potential environmental impact as well
as facilitating their comparison. The environmental indicator results
highlight the challenges in terms of sustainable urban growth unique to each
landscape, both spatially and temporally. The next phase of this PhD
research will involve finding valid methods of comparing and contrasting
urban growth patterns and estimated environmental impact in different
regions of the world and further exploration of how to link urbanizing
landscapes to changes in ecosystem services via environmental indicators.
iv
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council for
Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS). This
research is also part of the project Satellite Monitoring of Urbanization for
Sustainable Urban Development within the European Space Agency (ESA)
and Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) Dragon 2
program.
I would first of all like to thank my supervisor, Professor Yifang Ban, for
giving me the opportunity to pursue doctoral studies in Geoinformatics. I am
very grateful for her guidance, instruction, resourcefulness, support and
flexibility over the years, especially when circumstances change.
I would also like to thank Jan Haas for a great teamwork experience as we
studied/compared Stockholm and Shanghai and for his hard work on the
article. Thank you to past and present staff at Geoinformatics for good
discussions, exchange and comradery. Thanks especially to Alexander Jacob
for current (and sometimes long distance) tech-support and assistance and to
Irene Rangel for past tech-support and cheerful instruction. Many thanks
also go to Hans Hauska for his guidance, support and helpfulness throughout
the years.
In addition, I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer of the GTA paper.
Their thoughtful questions and constructive critique were very instructive
and helped to improve the quality of that paper. They were regrettably not
mentioned in the acknowledgments of the article and so I take the
opportunity here.
Finally, I am very grateful for my family and especially to my husband,
Richard, who has given much to support my studies and has been flexible,
patient and a voice of reason. I could not have come this far without him.
Dorothy Furberg
Stockholm, November 2014
Table of contents
Abstract
Acknowledgements
iii
v
1
Introduction ................................................................................ 13
1.1
Rationale ............................................................................... 13
1.2
Research objectives ............................................................... 14
1.3
Thesis structure ..................................................................... 15
1.4
Statement of contributions ..................................................... 16
2
Background and literature review ............................................ 17
2.1
Classification techniques of medium- and high-resolution
multispectral remote sensing data over urban areas ..................... 17
2.1.1
Pixel-based classification ............................................... 19
2.1.2
Object-based image analysis and classification ............. 20
2.2
Combining indicators and remote sensing/GIS for assessment
of environmental impact and landscape change monitoring ......... 22
2.2.1
Landscape metrics as indicators of landscape change and
environmental impact ................................................................. 24
2.2.2
Remote sensing and the use of ecosystem service
indicators .................................................................................... 25
3
Study areas and data description .............................................. 27
3.1
Greater Toronto Area............................................................ 27
3.2
Stockholm region and County ............................................... 28
3.3
Shanghai ................................................................................ 31
4
Methodology ............................................................................... 32
4.1
Image processing................................................................... 32
4.1.1
Image pre-processing ..................................................... 32
4.1.2
Texture analysis with Grey-Level-Co-occurrence-Matrix
features ....................................................................................... 32
4.2
Image classification............................................................... 33
4.2.1
Maximum Likelihood Classification .............................. 33
vi
vii
List of figures
Figure 1 The DPSIR framework for Reporting on Environmental
Issues .......................................................................................... 23
Figure 2 2005 Landsat TM images and study extent of the Greater
Toronto Area .............................................................................. 28
Figure 3 Study areas from Papers I, III and IV ................................ 30
Figure 4 Flowchart comparing image processing and classification
methodologies for each study area ............................................. 33
Figure 5 Flowchart comparing environmental indicator calculations
for each study area ...................................................................... 35
Figure 6 Land cover classification results for the GTA in 1985 and
2005 ............................................................................................ 44
Figure 7 Land cover classification results for Stockholm region in
1986 and 2006 ............................................................................ 45
Figure 8 Land cover classification results for Shanghai and
Stockholm County in 1989/90, 2000 and 2010 .......................... 46
Figure 9 Growth trends for urban vs. non-urban land cover in the
GTA, Shanghai, Stockholm County and region during the period
1985-2010................................................................................... 48
Figure 10 Contagion trends for the GTA, Stockholm County and
Shanghai during the period 1985-2010 ...................................... 49
viii
List of tables
Table 1 Compiled set of landscape metrics used in the current
research....................................................................................... 35
Table 2 Table indicating in which studies each LM was used ........ 37
Table 3 Urban indicators used in the GTA study ............................ 39
Table 4 Enviornmental impact indicator specifications used in Paper
III ................................................................................................ 40
Table 5 Comparison of overall classification accuracies and kappa
coefficients for all classifications performed ............................. 43
ix
List of abbreviations
AHP
ANN
AVHRR
AWDI
CART
CICES
SPOT
SVM
TRCA
USGS
VHR
xi
1 Introduction
1.1 Rationale
Urbanization poses numerous challenges for those working towards
sustainable development. While cities may experience internal problems as
they grow, their impact on the surrounding external natural environment
upon which they depend is of critical importance. Lambin et al. (2001)
describe this relationship as follows:
In reality, urbanization affects land change elsewhere through the
transformation of urban-rural linkages. For example, urban inhabitants
within the Baltic Sea drainage depend on forest, agriculture, wetland,
lake and marine systems that constitute an area about 1000 times
larger than that of the urban area proper (Folke et al., 1997). Given
that urban life-styles tend to raise consumption expectations and that
60% of the worlds population will be urban by 2025 (United Nations
Population Fund, 1991), the ruralurban linkage or the urban
ecological footprint is critical to land change assessments.
Mapping and analysis of land use/land cover (LULC) change in urban
regions is therefore crucial to tracking this ecological footprint and
deciding policy options and/or remedies for future growth and environmental
conservation. Wentz et al. (2009) also emphasize the importance of this task:
Urbanization represents one of the most significant alterations that
humankind has made to the surface of the Earth It is essential that we
document, to the best of our ability, the nature of land transformations and
the consequences to the existing environment.
Past research has demonstrated the utility of remote sensing data and
geographic information systems (GIS) to capture and map urban LULC
change (e.g., Cihlar 2000; Barnsley and Barr 2000; Franklin and Wulder
2002; Zhou et al. 2008; Yang 2011; Qin et al. 2013; Ban et al. 2014a;
2014b). Tracking the environmental impact of these changes has often been
undertaken with the help of landscape metrics (Forman and Godron 1986;
ONeill et al. 1988; Turner 1990; Haines-Young et al. 1993; Hargis et al.
1998; Botequilha Leitao and Ahern 2002; and e.g., McGarigal and McComb
1995; Narumalani et al. 2004; Kamusoko and Aniya 2007; Li et al. 2010;
Haas and Ban 2014). But the use of environmental indicators in conjunction
with remote sensing and GIS techniques for estimation of potential
13
14
15
16
17
and the information classes that are desired (Franklin and Wulder 2002). The
choice of classification method will depend on physical characteristics and
prior knowledge of the study area, the distribution of the remote sensing data
and the nature of the classification problem itself.
The focus of this research is on a regional metropolitan scale (thousands of
square kilometers) in order to take into account the whole of an urban area
and its surrounding natural environment. This is also an important extent for
assessing environmental impact since detrimental effects of fragmentation
on biodiversity and ecosystem services are generally found at intermediate
(regional) spatial scales (Olff and Ritchie 2002). While there have been
numerous studies conducted on a local, city or district level (Alberti and
Marzluff 2004; Lvenhaft et al. 2004; Mrtberg et al. 2007; Bino et al. 2008;
Li et al. 2010) and the global, continental or national level (Petit et al. 2001;
Gerard et al. 2005; Halada et al. 2009; Sthl et al 2011; Seto et al. 2012;
Gneralp and Seto 2013), there is a lack of studies on a regional
metropolitan level linking urbanization to its region-specific environmental
impact, and more that include a landscape perspective are needed
(Lfvenhaft et al. 2004; Seto et al. 2012). This research examines study sites
at this particular scale.
The choice of remote sensing data must be well-suited to the spatial extent of
the study area (Ban et al. 2014b). Low-resolution, large extent data such as
MODIS or AVHRR work well for studies over continental or global regions.
VHR data such as Quickbird or Ikonos favor more detailed, smaller-scale
studies, such as at the sub-city level or for examining specific habitat types.
For an intermediate regional approach, medium- to high-resolution satellite
data offers the best compromise between spatial coverage and level of detail
and is therefore employed.
The three classification methods used in this research - supervised pixelbased classification using the maximum likelihood classifier (MLC)
algorithm with texture as well as spectral data inputs (parametric), objectand knowledge-based classification (non-parametric), and pixel-based
support vector machines (SVM) classification (non-parametric) also with
textural inputs - were selected based on appropriateness for the study area,
degree of prior knowledge and remote sensing data available, as well as the
experience and degree of success of other authors in using them to conduct
studies of LULC change over urban areas.
18
19
20
of the human analyst rather than computer algorithms (Franklin and Wulder
2002) and there is the possibility of incorporating diverse types of data to
improve accuracy (Stefanov et al. 2001). Li et al. (2014) in their comparison
of 13 supervised algorithms found that object-based classification slightly
outperformed the pixel-based approaches in all instances based only on
spectral data. Wentz et al. (2009) point out the often higher classification
accuracy achieved with OBIA for urban areas thanks to its consideration of
shape, neighbourhood relations and contextual information. Darwish et al.
(2003) did a comparative study in which they tested object-based
classification against statistical classifiers using Landsat and IRS data over
urban areas. They showed that the object-oriented technique yields better
results with an increased number of land cover classes (11 vs. 5). On the
other hand, Duro et al. (2012) have found when comparing pixel- and objectbased approaches that they worked equally well when used with supervised
machine learning algorithms on SPOT data in agricultural environments.
More specifically, a number of studies have demonstrated the successful
application of OBIA to SPOT data for various purposes (e.g., Radoux and
Defourny 2007; Tiede et al. 2007; Conchedda et al. 2008; Su et al. 2008; Su
et al. 2009; Boggs 2010; Dimitrakopoulos et al. 2010; Lisita et al. 2013).
Tehrany et al. 2014 found that both of the object-based classification
approaches they tested (KNN and SVM) performed better than the pixelbased method (DT) for LULC mapping. Chen et al. (2009) made clear the
advantages of employing an object-oriented knowledge-based classification
method with SPOT 5 imagery in an urban environment over a pixel-based
approach. The former yielded the highest accuracy of several compared
methods and could create and distinguish between meaningful objects such
as roads and buildings, while providing a convenient way of incorporating
ancillary data such as DEM and textural information for the classification.
Jacquin et al. (2008) revealed OBIAs improved capacity to delineate urban
extent at regional scales with SPOT data. Newman et al. (2011)
demonstrated the advantages of an object-based approach over pixel-based
with regard to forest fragmentation assessment. Statistics Sweden (2008) has
used rule-based OBIA with SPOT 5 data for classification of urban green
areas and the Swedish Environmental Agency employs a rule-based objectoriented approach with SPOT data to classify nature types (Metria
GeoAnalys 2009).
21
22
23
24
25
Groot et al. 2002; Troy and Wilson 2006; Willemen et al. 2008; Burkhard et
al. 2009; Nelson et al. 2009; Tallis and Polasky 2009). Development of a
standardized ES classification system has become a priority: the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005) proposed a widely used classification
system of ES under the headings of supporting, regulating, provisioning and
cultural services and consultations organized by the European Environment
Agency are underway for the development of a common international
classification of ecosystem services or CICES (Haines-Young and Potschin
2013). Urban areas are heavily reliant on ES to meet the needs of the
populations they contain and yet the expansion of urban regions can have
serious detrimental effects on ecosystem services provided by the
surrounding natural landscape. Bolund and Hunhammar (1999) applied the
concept specifically to urban areas and Haase et al. (2014) have performed a
quantitative review of urban ES assessments dating up to 2012.
Remote sensing data has increasingly been used to gauge the extent and
condition of ecosystem services. Alcaraz-Segura et al. (2013) have reviewed
the use of remote sensing to quantify and monitor ES, particularly in relation
to carbon and water cycles, biodiversity and energy balance. Tallis et al.
(2012) have proposed a conceptual framework for global monitoring of
changes in ES based on remote sensing data in addition to other types of
regularly updated information. Feng et al. (2010) outlined the use of remote
sensing to monitor land cover, biodiversity and carbon-, water- and soilrelated ecosystem services and noted that monitoring can be done directly,
indirectly or in combination with ecosystem models. Specific efforts to map
and monitor urban ES based on or in connection with remote sensing data
are beginning to emerge (Lakes and Kim 2012; Raciti et al. 2014).
When used in conjunction with remote sensing data and especially Landsat,
ES indicators are often linked to LULC types as the main tool for
measurement of their status. Of most relevance to this research is the use of
land cover as a proxy measure of ecosystem services thanks to its multiple
linkages to a range of services such as watershed protection and carbon
storage (Konarska et al. 2002). Most often, the services provided by the
ecosystem in each land cover type are identified and assigned a monetary
value based on calculations and previous research and these are summed
based on the extent of the particular LULC (Ayanu et al. 2012; and e.g.,
Costanza et al. 1997; Wu et al. 2013). In this way, LULC change can
function as an indicator of change in ecosystem value and to some extent
condition. But the question of how to assign value to ES is problematic and
the focus of much research and debate (Costanza and Folke 1997; Ludwig
2000; Turner et al. 2003; Chee 2004; De Groot et al. 2010; Turner et al.
2010). The study and development of remote sensing indicators to monitor
26
27
Figure 2 2005 Landsat TM images and study extent of the Greater Toronto
Area (Red: TM4, Green: TM5, Blue: TM3) shown with regional municipal
boundaries in yellow, the Oak Ridges Moraine outlined in white and TRCA
watersheds (within which environmentally significant areas were designated)
outlined in dark gray.
28
a green big city region (RTK 2002). The citys unique structure with builtup areas along the radial transport network and non-built up green wedges in
between make convenient connections between work and home possible as
well as providing good access to green areas. Greater Stockholms green
wedges that lead from the countryside in towards the more central parts of
the city and the green links between these wedges comprise the framework
of the regions green structure. These green wedges also provide several of
the Stockholm regions essential ecosystem services. The city of Stockholm
won the title of Green Capital in 2010 from the European Union and has a
vested interest in preserving the balance between its green and built-up
spaces. Yet the regions population continues to grow, putting added
pressure on the natural environment and increasing demand for built-up
areas.
Two separate investigations of the greater Stockholm area were performed.
They were each based on different types of remote sensing imagery and
examined different study area extents, which will hereafter be referred to as
Stockholm region (study area for Paper III) and Stockholm County (one of
two study areas in Paper IV). Paper I, which was limited to Stockholm
municipality as study area, functioned as a methodological test-run for Paper
IIIs expanded study area. Papers I and III present the results from the first
SPOT image-based Stockholm investigation. Four scenes of SPOT imagery
with green, red and near-infrared bands over the Stockholm area were
acquired for this study: two on 13 June 1986, one on 5 August 2006 and one
on 4 June 2008. The images were selected from the peak of the vegetation
growth season to maximize the spectral differences between built-up areas
and vegetation and to avoid detection of unreal changes caused by seasonal
differences between years. Two scenes from 2006 were sought but an
appropriate 2006 growing season image over the northern parts of
Stockholm County was simply not available. The scene from 2008 is
therefore used as a substitute. The SPOT imagery from 1986 was from
SPOT 1 with a resolution of 20m, while that of 2006 and 2008 was from
SPOT 5 with a resolution of 10m.
The specific study area in Paper III is based on the extent of the satellite
images and, excluding an edge buffer, includes all or part of the territory of
18 municipalities in Stockholm County (see lefthand image in Figure 3). The
total land area covered by the satellite images is approximately 2 220 km2.
The major land cover classes in the area are low-density residential areas
(LDB), high-density residential built-up areas (HDB), industrial/commercial
areas, forest, open land, forest and open land mixed, and water. The HDB
class is somewhat unique in this study since much of the high density builtup areas in the city center of Stockholm are composed of buildings that
have businesses on the ground floor but residences on the above floors.
29
Figure 3 Study areas from Papers I, III and IV: To the left, the Stockholm
County municipalities included in the study in Paper III are outlined and
labeled in yellow with 2006 and 2008 SPOT imagery as backdrop.
Stockholm Municipality (labeled simply as Stockholm) comprises the
study area in Paper I. To the right, the boundary of Stockholm County is
outlined in yellow with 2009 and 2010 Landsat imagery as backdrop. This is
the extent of the study area in Paper IV.
A number of GIS datasets were collected from several national and regional
Swedish sources, namely Lantmteriet (The Swedish National Land Survey),
Regionplanekontoret Stockholms Lns Landsting (RTK) and Storstockholms
Lokaltrafik (SL). These included data on land cover and transportation
networks (Lantmateriet), public transport stops/stations (Lantmteriet and
SL), and large parks and noise-disturbed areas (RTK). This data was used in
the construction of environmental indicators for the greater Stockholm area.
30
3.3 Shanghai
Shanghai is located on the eastern seabord of China and is a major financial
center for the country. Greater Shanghai is also a productive agricultural area
(Zhang et al. 2011). Population growth in the region has been tremendous
over the past few decades, with an increase of 72% between 1990 and 2010.
From 23.03 million in 2010, its total population is expected to reach 28.4
million by 2025 (United Nations 2012). The rapid urbanization that has
accompanied this impressive growth has put pressure, specifically in the
form of pollution, on the surrounding ecosystem (Ren et al. 2003).
One of the two study areas in Paper IV is the total area of Shanghai, which
measures about 6 340 km2. Land use types in this region include HDB areas,
commercial and industrial areas, ports, airports and residential areas.
Agriculture tends to border the urban areas, with strips of rural areas
including villages and farms. There are varying forms of water such as sea,
lakes, rivers, aquacultures and wetlands. Trees and forests tend to be scarce
and connected stands are found almost exclusively in managed urban parks.
Landsat was chosen as image data for the joint study over Stockholm and
Shanghai given its standardized high quality and immediate availability.
Here again six scenes of Landsat 5 and 7 imagery, two for each decade to
cover the entire Shanghai area, were acquired on the following dates: 18
May 1987, 11 August 1989, 14 June 2000, 3 July 2001, and two on 17 July
2009.
31
4 Methodology
Each study presented here was composed of several methodological steps
ranging from pre-processing of satellite imagery to calculation of
environmental indicators based on classification results. The general
approach in each research was to process the imagery, classify it, assess
classification accuracy, calculate environmental indicators and indices and
evaluate the results. Figure 4 illustrates how the image processing and
classification methodologies compare for each study area. The flowchart in
Figure 5 compares environmental indicator calculation for each study area.
32
33
34
Description
The percentage or proportion of each class in
the landscape. The Class Area (CA)
calculated by Fragstats is divided by the total
landscape area to obtain this percentage.
Number of patches per square kilometer
(Area-weighted) average patch size of a class
of patches
A simple measure of dominance; quantifies
at the class level the percent of landscape
area comprised by the largest patch.
35
Landscape
Configuration Metrics
Mean Patch Shape Index
(PSI_MN) or Areaweighted Mean Shape
Index (AWMSI)
Area-weighted mean
perimeter to area ratio
(AWMPAR)
Total Edge Contrast Index
(TECI)
Contrast-weighted Edge
Density (CWED)
Area-weighted Mean
Proximity Index (AMPI)
Area-weighted Mean
Similarity Index (AMSI)
Cohesion
Connectance index
(CONNECT)
Contagion (CONTAG)
Description
(Area-weighted) average of the ratio of
perimeter to minimum possible perimeter
given the number of cells in the patch;
measure of shape complexity.
The sum of the ratios of patch perimeter to
area multiplied by proportional patch
abundance
Quantifies edge contrast (degree of contrast
between a patch and its neighbors) as a
percentage of maximum possible
Measured in meters per hectare: CWED = 0
when there is no class edge in the landscape.
CWED increases as the amount of class edge
in the landscape increases and/or as the
contrast along the class edges increases.
Measures relative area-weighted distance
between patches of the same class
measures degree of isolation of
corresponding patch type
Also measures area-weighted distance but
considers size, proximity and similarity of all
patches within a specified search radius of
the focal patch
Measures the physical connectedness of the
corresponding patch type; cohesion increases
as the class becomes more clumped or
aggregated in its distribution.
Measures connectivity of the land cover type
and is defined based on the number of
functional joinings between patches of the
corresponding patch type, where each pair of
patches is either connected or not based on a
user-specified distance criterion. Reported as
percentage of the maximum possible
connectance given the number of patches in
the land cover class
A measure of the relative aggregation of
different patch types at the landscape level:
Contagion approaches 0 when the patch types
are maximally disaggregated and
36
Used in
All studies
All studies
GTA
Stockholm/Shanghai
Stockholm/Shanghai
37
Mean Patch Shape Index (PSI_MN) or Areaweighted mean shape index (AWMSI)
All studies
Stockholm region
GTA
Stockholm/Shanghai
GTA
GTA
Cohesion
Stockholm/Shanghai
Stockholm region
GTA
Stockholm/Shanghai
Contagion (CONTAG)
38
Description
Measures the mean weighted
distance of residential area patches
from the city center
Proportions of urban versus nonurban areas in 5 km rings spreading
out from the city center are
measured
Border length of built-up areas in
each municipality is divided by the
minimum possible length given the
surface area
Degree of overlap of expanding
urban areas with ESAs is calculated
Increase in urban perimeter of ESAs
between 1985 and 2005 is
calculated
39
Amount of
green areas
important for
ecosystem
services
Definition/
description
For larger forested
areas (min 3 km2),
minimum width
should be 500m
(RTK 2008). All
meet the criteria of
min. 500m width.
Ranked according to
their area (larger is
better).
Calculation method
Unit
Square
kilometers
No unit
(index lower is
better)
No unit
(index higher is
better,
represen
ts an
LFA
which is
not as
stressed)
Condition of
green areas
important for
ecosystem
services
Degree of intactness
of forested areas
(how much have the
forests been
disturbed? Clear cut
areas, roads, etc.)
Use perimeter as
indication of perforation
in green areas
(calculated with both
external and internal
boundaries). Compare
this to min. poss. length
given area. P or Cmin =
2Pi*sqrt(A/Pi)
Iperf = Preal/Pmin.poss
(C = circumference, P =
perimeter, A = area, Pi =
3.14...)
Promixity of
green areas
to intense
urban land
use
Area Weighted
Distance between
green areas defined
above and all HDB
and industrial/
commerical areas,
with size of the LFA
and urban areas
taken into account.
The nearness of
dense urban and
industrial areas
places pressure on
green areas. This
Iprox = ALFA *
(D2/ADU)
(A = area, D= distance,
DU = dense urban
patch)
Use centroids of LFAs
and HDB/IC areas. Use
"Point distance" in
ArcMap.
40
index is intended as a
rough measure of
that pressure.
Degree of
urban
perimeter
surrounding
LFAs
Noise level
Percent
urban
perimeter
Area of
LFA
affected
by >55
dB (km)
41
Stockholm/Shanghai study. The Urban Land Index is the ratio of urban land
to total land and the Urban Expansion Index is the difference in urban land
over a period of time as calculated by Hu et al. (2009). An Urban Green
Index was also devised to quantify the development of urban green spaces
(UGS) in comparison to simultaneous urban development. The index is
calculated as the ratio of UGS increase divided by the sum of increases in
HDB and LDB. For details on the calculation of these indices, please refer to
section 3.5 of Paper IV.
42
normally distributed images are easier to classify. The quantity and quality
of the training data are also important for achieving high accuracy
classification results, even more so than the choice of algorithm (Li et al.
2014). The classes to be defined for each region also varied slightly: golf
courses and parks each had their own class in the GTA whereas UGS
covered both of these in the Stockholm/Shanghai study. The GTA also had a
class for construction sites and for the Stockholm region industrial areas
were distinguished from HDB. For more details on the respective
classification accuracy results, see section 4b of Paper I, the Classification
section under Results and Discussion in Paper II and sections 4.2 of Papers
III and IV.
Table 5 Comparison of overall classification accuracies and kappa
coefficients for all classifications performed
Classification type,
Overall accuracy in
location and year
percent
MLC with urban/rural masks:
GTA 1985
94.9
GTA 1995
92.9
GTA 2005
94.3
Object- and rule-based classification:
Stockholm region 1986
92.4
Stockholm region 2006
92.1
SVM:
Stockholm County 1989
90.0
Stockholm County 2000
89.0
Stockholm County 2010
88.2
Shanghai 1990
88.1
Shanghai 2000
87.8
Shanghai 2010
89.4
Kappa coefficient
0.94
0.92
0.94
0.91
0.91
0.88
0.87
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.88
For the GTA classification, the use of the agricultural and urban masks
significantly improved the classification of agriculture and parks for all three
decades, as well as construction sites vs. bare soil. See the Results and
Discussion section of Paper II for comparison with the original
classifications (without urban/agricultural masks). The landcover
classifications for the GTA in 1985 and 2005 are shown in Figure 6.
43
Figure 6 Land cover classification results for the GTA in 1985 and 2005
44
The landcover classification results for the Stockholm region are shown in
Figure 7. In regard to the lower resolution of the 1986 SPOT imagery over
the greater Stockholm area, the objects generated by the segmentation for
1986 were for the most part of a similar size as those for 2006, but the 2006
segmentation did have a greater amount of smaller objects which led to a
slightly more detailed classification, especially when it came to correctly
isolating forest and open land mixed, and to identifying very small green
areas (trees, grass, parks, etc.) within LDB areas.
Figure 7 Land cover classification results for Stockholm region in 1986 and
2006
The landcover classification results for Stockholm County and Shanghai are
shown in Figure 8. For Stockholm County, there was a slight over-detection
of LDB and UGS in the 2000 classification as well as an under-detection of
HDB areas. This was mainly attributable to noise in the 2000 image, which
dampened the spectral differences between these areas. Agricultural areas
were slightly under-detected in 1989 and 2010 and forested areas slightly
over-detected for these years due to a certain type of bright vegetation that
was confused with forest. UGS was also consistently difficult to classify
because of its spectral similarity to agricultural and LDB areas. The use of
rural and urban masks helped to improve the classification of UGS
somewhat.
45
Figure 8 Land cover classification results for Shanghai (top row) and
Stockholm County (bottom row) in (from left to right) 1989/90, 2000 and
2010
46
47
6000
Square kilometers
5000
GTA urban
GTA non-urban
4000
Shanghai urban
Shanghai non-urban
Stockholm Co. urban
3000
2000
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Figure 9 Growth trends for urban vs. non-urban land cover in the GTA,
Shanghai, Stockholm County and region during the period 1985-2010
Figure 10 shows the trend of contagion values for the GTA, Stockholm
County and Shanghai. All decreased signifying that each landscape was
becoming more disaggregated and patch types were more interspersed. Here
again the different rates at which this was occurring are of interest. The GTA
landscape shows the fastest, steadiest and most dramatic shift towards
dissaggregation. Shanghais trend picks up speed after the year 2000 while
the rate for Stockholm County slows down following that year. Indeed the
rates for these two landscapes appeared to be very similar to begin with but
later clearly diverged, with Shanghais rate nearing that of the GTA in the
second decade. The information contained in this chart points generally to
how quickly these landscapes are becoming fragmented. More specific
information about landscape change results in each of the study areas is
reported in the following sections.
48
64
Contagion value
62
60
GTA
Stockholm Co.
58
Shanghai
56
54
52
50
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Year
Figure 10 Contagion trends for the GTA, Stockholm County and Shanghai
during the period 1985-2010
5.2.2 GTA
Urban areas in the GTA grew by about 39% between 1985 and 2005. With
regard to the landscape composition metrics, the most significant
proportional results in the GTA as a whole are in regard to loss of
agricultural lands and parks in favor of low-density built-up areas and golf
courses. Forested areas remained relatively unchanged, comprising around
one-fifth of the landscape over the twenty year period. Only agricultural
areas decreased, while nearly all other categories increased over the same
time period, most significantly LDB areas and golf courses. The most
relevant LM results are presented graphically in the Landscape Metrics
section under Results and Discussion in Paper II.
It is positive that the amount and size of forested areas remained fairly
constant over the two decades since forest constitutes the most natural
habitat available in this landscape and is crucial to its ecological function.
But the trend of smaller and fewer patches of agriculture and parks/grassy
fields (the two semi-natural land cover types in the landscape) may have a
negative effect on species diversity and persistence. Moreover the trend of
low-density built-up areas replacing agricultural areas can directly impact
species populations in relation to connectivity. So while it is positive that
forest areas remain relatively unchanged, isolation of this important habitat
increased due to the replacement of agricultural patches with low-density
49
built-up areas. This occurrence may hinder how natural processes operate
across the whole landscape.
The landscape configuration metric results confirm increased fragmentation
of the landscape due to urban development and generally indicated increased
vulnerability for natural and semi-natural land cover types and the
biodiversity that depends on them through, for example, greater edge,
contrast and lowered connectivity. For more detailed discussion of the LM
results and what they mean for the GTA landscape and the ORM in
particular, please see the Landscape Metrics section under Results and
Discussion in Paper II.
50
often protected, while those outside are more plentiful and frequently carry
fewer restrictions when it comes to development.
Of note is that the difference in resolution in the Stockholm SPOT imagery
limited the use of LM for comparison purposes since it gave rise to an
inconsistent delineation of the forest and open land mixed class between
classifications. This by extension caused problems for comparability of LM
results for the forest, open land, and forest and open land mixed LC classes.
Future research will seek to rectify this situation (see Section 6 below).
51
52
ring density analysis indicated that urban proportions increased in nearly all
areas outside of the metropolitan center over the two decades, including on
portions of the ORM. Dispersion of settlements increased on the ORM
between 1985 and 1995, while for the GTA and on a municipal average the
more significant increase occurred between 1995 and 2005. The majority of
ESAs were increasingly surrounded by urban areas between 1985 and 2005,
furthering their isolation from other natural areas and exposure to negative
impacts from adjacent development. For more details and graphic
representations of these results, see the Urban Compactness Indicator and
ESA sub-sections under Results and Discussion in Paper II.
53
to the fact that the urban expansion occurred mostly in the suburban areas.
For graphic depictions of the index, more specific information about the
changes and discussion of their causes, see section 4.3.3 of Paper III.
54
55
56
Stockholm and have a two-fold impact: they create high demand for limited
housing and discourage the construction of more. Urban growth is in this
sense freer due to a more competitive market in the GTA (and Shanghai?)
than in Stockholm.
Whatever the urban growth pattern or cause of it, the nature of the
environmental impact was varied in the different study areas. There was
similarity in the location of new urban areas along the outskirts of existing
urban areas, since the center of each city did not leave much room for urban
expansion. Urban expansion in the GTA tended to repossess solely
agricultural land, while open/agricultural land and forest was converted in
Stockholm. Far more land was converted to urban use in the GTA and
Shanghai, which also have much larger urban areas and populations to begin
with. The environmental impact that occurred in the GTA was characterized
by urban expansion onto the ORM and by increased urban surroundings for
nearly all ESAs, in essence furthering their isolation from the larger
ecosystem. Loss of wetlands and already sparse forest comprised the bulk of
negative environmental impact in Shanghai whose ES values dropped
dramatically. Environmental impact in the Stockholm region was mainly
characterized by fragmentation and loss of portions of LFAs due to
construction of roads and expansion of LDB areas. At the county level,
forests appeared to remain more or less intact while mainly open land was
converted (as was the case in the GTA). The choice of environmental
indicators for impact assessment was tailored to the very different
characteristics of these urban areas. Their selection was heavily influenced
by what local planning authorities regarded as important in terms of
environmental quality. The EI indicators were designed based on
environmental information and goals for the Stockholm region, which
rendered their results site-specific and hopefully more useful. To
complement these place-specific analyses, landscape metrics were used to
gain an overview of the spatial-temporal changes in all three areas and are
slightly more comparable, although there were limitations for the Stockholm
region study.
LM were most successfully used to evaluate potential environmental impact
in the GTA study due to the establishment of their connection with regional
environmental conditions and ecological principles as laid out by the TRCA
(see the Methodology and Results sections of Paper II). Estimation of
probable environmental impact in the Stockholm/Shanghai study was
weaker due to the lack of specific regional ecological information and
principles to which the LM results could be tied. LM can be applied to any
landscape with a high quality classification but credible inferences about
potential environmental impact are more difficult to make from their results
unless sufficient general information about region-specific environmental
57
58
59
analysis units were close to the central Stockholm area. The shift in the
northeast was mainly due to construction of new LDB areas. While these
changes are subtler than those in the GTA, information about them may help
inform future policy choices by Stockholms regional planning authorities.
The Stockholm County/Shanghai comparative study demonstrated that SVM
classified multitemporal Landsat imagery can be used to map spatiotemporal patterns of urban expansion with high accuracy with the aid of
texture measures and urban/rural mask refinements. Urban areas increased
ten times as much in Shanghai as they did in Stockholm, at 120% and 12%
respectively. Between 1989 and 2010, both HDB and LDB areas in
Stockholm County grew mainly at the expense of agricultural areas. The
landscape metrics results show that fragmentation in both study regions
occurred mainly due to the growth of high density built-up areas in
previously more natural environments, while the expansion of low density
built-up areas was for the most part in conjunction with pre-existing patches.
The growth in urban areas resulted in ecosystem service value losses of
approximately 445 million USD in Shanghai, mostly due to the decrease in
natural coastal wetlands, while in Stockholm the value of ecosystem services
changed very little. The Shanghai landscape has undergone swifter urban
growth and a resulting heavier environmental impact on the regional
ecosystem than has Stockholm.
Some general conclusions can be drawn from analysis of the results. Pixelbased classification methods such as MLC and SVM can work well at a
regional scale and are applicable to different landscapes when used in
conjunction with GLCM texture measures and urban/rural masks. Objectand rule-based classification also appears to perform well at this scale with
the use of texture but further research is needed to evaluate temporal and
geographical comparability. LM work well for EIA in different locations as
long as they can be tied to region-specific environmental information,
principles and/or goals. Environmental indicators should whenever possible
be tailored to the site in question in order to provide meaningful results.
Evaluation of change in ESV as applied here seems to work well for
dramatically urbanizing landscapes but is not specific enough for application
to areas undergoing modest urban expansion.
60
61
et al. 2012; Jacobs et al. 2014). CICES (Haines-Young and Potschin 2013)
and conceptual monitoring frameworks may prove helpful in linking land
cover types to provisioning and regulation ecosystem services. Yet local
environmental information is still indispensable for meaningful linkages and
ecological field data would be a welcome addition to future research as
reference and evaluation information when drawing conclusions about
potential environmental impact of urban growth. But as discussed earlier its
availability can be highly variable.
62
References:
Alberti, M. and Marzluff, J.M., 2004. Ecological resilience in urban
ecosystems: linking urban patterns to human and ecological functions.
Urban ecosystems 7(3): 241-265.
Alcaraz-Segura, D., Di Bella, C.M., and Straschnoy, J.V. (eds), 2013. Earth
Observation of Ecosystem Services. CRC Press.
Aplin, P., 2005. Remote sensing: ecology. Progress in Physical Geography
29(1): 104-113.
Aspinall, R. and Pearson, D., 2000. Integrated geographical assessment of
environmental condition in water catchments: Linking landscape ecology,
environmental modelling and GIS. Journal of Environmental Management
59: 299-319.
Ayanu, Y.Z., Conrad, C., Nauss, T., Wegmann, M., and Koellner, T., 2012.
Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services supplies and demands: a
review of remote sensing applications. Environmental science & technology
46(16): 8529-8541.
Ban, Y., Hu, H. and Rangel, I. 2010. Fusion of QuickBird MS and
RADARSAT-1 SAR Data for Land-Cover Mapping: Object-based and
Knowledge-Based Approach. International Journal of Remote Sensing
31(6): 1391-1410.
Ban, Y., and Jacob, A., 2013. Object-based fusion of multitemporal
multiangle ENVISAT ASAR and HJ-1B multispectral data for urban landcover mapping. Geoscience and Remote Sensing, IEEE Transactions on,
51(4): 1998-2006.
Ban, Y., Jacob, A., and Gamba, P., 2014(a). Spaceborne SAR data for global
urban mapping at 30m resolution using a robust urban extractor. ISPRS
Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (in press).
Ban, Y., and Wu, Q., 2005. RADARSAT SAR data for landuse/land-cover
classification in the rural-urban fringe of the Greater Toronto Area. In
Proceedings of 8th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science:
26-28.
Ban, Y., Yousif, O. and Hu, H., 2014(b). Fusion of SAR and Optical Data
for Urban Land Cover Mapping and Change Detection. In Global Urban
63
64
Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Mller, F., and Windhorst, W., 2009. Landscapes
capacities to provide ecosystem servicesa concept for land-cover based
assessments. Landscape online 15(1): 22.
Butusov, O.B., 2003. Textural classification of forest types from Landsat 7
imagery, Mapping Sciences and Remote Sensing 40: 91104.
Chee, Y.E., 2004. An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem
services. Biological conservation 120(4): 549-565.
Chen, M., Su, W., Li, L., Zhang, C., Yue, A., and Li, H., 2009. Comparison
of Pixel-based and Object-oriented knowledge-based Classification Methods
using SPOT5 Imagery. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and
Applications 3(6): 477-489.
Cihlar, J., 2000. Land cover mapping of large areas from satellites: status
and research priorities. International Journal of Remote Sensing 21: 10931114.
Clausi, D.A., 2002. An analysis of co-occurrence texture statistics as a
function of grey level quantization. Canadian Journal of remote sensing
28(1): 45-62.
Cleve, C., Kelly, M., Kearns, F.R., and Moritz, M., 2008. Classification of
the wildlandurban interface: A comparison of pixel- and object-based
classifications using high-resolution aerial photography. Computers,
Environment and Urban Systems 32: 317326.
Conchedda, G., Durieux, L., and Mayaux, P., 2008. An object-based method
for mapping and change analysis in mangrove ecosystems. ISPRS Journal of
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 63(5): 578-589.
Cortes, C. and Vapnik, V.N., 1995. Support-Vector Networks. Machine
Learning 20(3): 273-297.
Costanza, R., dArge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B.,
Limburg, K. Naeem, S., ONeill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P.
and van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the worlds ecosystem services and
natural capital. Nature 387(15): 253260.
Costanza, R., and Folke, C., 1997. Valuing ecosystem services with
efficiency, fairness, and sustainability as goals. In Daily, G. (ed), Natures
65
66
67
68
TM, and GIS data in North Columbia Mountains, British Columbia, Canada.
Remote Sensing of Environment 77(1): 50-65.
Haralick, R.M., Shanmugam, K., and Dinstein, I.H., 1973. Textural features
for image classification. IEEE Transactions on systems, man and cybernetics
3(6): 610621.
Hargis, C.D., Bissonette, J.A., and David, J.L., 1998. The behavior of
landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation.
Landscape Ecology 13(3): 167186.
Herold, M., 2009. Some Recommendations for Global Efforts in Urban
Monitoring and Assessments from Remote Sensing. In Global Mapping of
Human Settlement: Experiences, Datasets, and Prospects. Gamba, P., and
Herold, M. (eds). Taylor and Francis Press.
Herold, M., Couclelis, H., and Clarke, K.C., 2005. The role of spatial metrics
in the analysis and modeling of urban land use change. Computers,
Environment and Urban Systems 29(4): 369399.
Herold, M., Liu, X., and Clarke, K.C., 2003. Spatial metrics and image
texture for mapping urban land use. Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote Sensing 69(9): 9911002.
Herold, M., Schiefer, S., Hostert, P. and Roberts D.A., 2007. Applying
Imaging Spectrometry in Urban Areas. In Urban Remote Sensing. Weng, Q.
and Quattrochi, D.A. (eds). CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Hu, H., and Ban, Y., 2012. Multitemporal RADARSAT-2 ultra-fine beam
SAR data for urban land cover classification. Canadian Journal of Remote
Sensing 38(1): 1-11.
Hu, Y., Ban, Y., Zhang, Q. and Liu, J., 2009. The Trajectory of Urbanization
Process in the Yangtze River Delta During 1990 to 2005. 2009 Joint Urban
Remote Sensing Event 18.
Huang, C., Davis, L.S. and Townshend, J.R.G., 2002. An assessment of
support vector machines for land cover classification. International Journal
of Remote Sensing 23(4): 725-749.
Huang, Y.C., Li, P., Zhang, L., and Zhong, Y., 2009. Urban land cover
mapping by spatial-spectral feature analysis of high resolution hyperspectral
data with decision directed acyclic graph SVM. In Urban Remote Sensing
Event, 2009 Joint IEEE 1-7.
69
Imhoff, M.L., Zhang, P., Wolfe, R.E., and Bounoua, L., 2010. Remote
sensing of the urban heat island effect across biomes in the continental USA.
Remote Sensing of Environment 114(3): 504-513.
Jacobs, S., Burkhard, B., Van Daele, T., Staes, J., and Schneiders, A., 2014.
The Matrix Reloaded: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping
ecosystem services. Ecological Modelling 295: 21-30.
Jacquin, A., Misakova, L. and Gay, M., 2008. A hybrid object-based
classification approach for mapping urban sprawl in periurban environment.
Landscape and Urban Planning 84: 152165.
Jebur, M.N., Mohd Shafri, H.Z., Pradhan, B., and Tehrany, M.S., 2013. Perpixel and object-oriented classification methods for mapping urban land
cover extraction using SPOT 5 imagery. Geocarto International 29(7): 792806.
Jensen, J.R., 2005. Introductory Digital Image Processing, 3rd Ed., Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 526 pp.
Jin, S., Li, D. and Gong, J., 2005. A comparison of SVMs with MLC
algorithms on texture features. In MIPPR 2005 Image Analysis Techniques
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6044 60442B-1.
Kamusoko, C., and Aniya, M., 2007. Land Use/Cover Change and
Landscape Fragmentation Analysis in the Bindura District, Zimbabwe. Land
Degradation & Development 18: 221-233.
Kasanko, M., Sagris, V., Lavalle, C., 2007(a). Analysing the compactness of
urban areas by using indicators derived from data acquired by remote
sensing. IEEE: 2007 Urban Remote Sensing Joint Event.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4234438. Accessed
2014-11-19
Kasanko, M., Sagris, V., Lavalle, C., Barredo, J.I., Petrov, L., Steinnocher,
K., Loibl, W., Hoffmann, C., 2007(b). GEOLAND spatial planning
observatory: How remote sensing data can serve the needs of urban and
regional planning. IEEE: 2007 Urban Remote Sensing Joint Event.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4234404. Accessed
2014-11-19
70
71
Li, S., Sui, Y., Sun, Z., Wang, F., and Li, Y., 2005. Landscape pattern and
fragmentation of natural secondary forests in the eastern mountainous
region, northeast China: A case study of Mao'ershan forests in Heilongjiang
Province. Journal of Forestry Research 16(1): 35-38.
Li, Y., Zhu, X., Sun, X. and Wang, F., 2010. Landscape effects of
environmental impact on bay-area wetlands under rapid urban expansion and
development policy: a case study of Lianyungang, China. Landscape and
urban planning 94(3): 218-227.
Liang, B. and Weng, Q., 2011. Assessing urban environmental quality
change of Indianapolis, United States, by the remote sensing and GIS
integration. Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote
Sensing, IEEE Journal of, 4(1): 43-55.
Lindenmayer, D.B., and Fischer, J., 2006. Habitat Fragmentation and
Landscape Change. Island Press, Washington.
Lisita, A., Sano, E.E., and Durieux, L., 2013. Identifying potential areas of
Cannabis sativa plantations using object-based image analysis of SPOT-5
satellite data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 34(15): 5409-5428.
Liu, X.H., Skidmore, A.K., and Van Oosten, H., 2002. Integration of
classification methods for improvement of land-cover map accuracy. ISPRS
Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 56(4): 257268.
Lo, C.P., 1998. Application of Landsat TM Data for Quality of Life
Assessment in an Urban Environment. Computers, Environment and Urban
Systems 21(3/4): 259-276.
Long, J.A., Nelson, T.A., and Wulder, M.A., 2010. Characterizing forest
fragmentation: Distinguishing change in composition from configuration.
Applied Geography 30(3): 426-435.
Lfvenhaft, K., Runborg, S. and Sjgren-Gulve, P., 2004. Biotope patterns
and amphibian distribution as assessment tools in urban landscape planning.
Landscape and urban planning 68(4): 403-427.
Lu, D., and Weng, Q., 2005. Urban classification using full spectral
information of Landsat ETM+ imagery in Marion County, Indiana.
Photogrammetric engineering and remote sensing 71(11): 12751284.
Ludwig, D., 2000. Limitations of economic valuation of ecosystems.
Ecosystems 3(1): 31-35.
72
73
R., Ricketts, T.H., and Shaw, M.R., 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem
services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at
landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(1): 4-11.
Newman, M.E., McLaren, K.P., and Wilson, B.S., 2011. Comparing the
effects of classification techniques on landscape-level assessments: pixelbased versus object-based classification. International Journal of Remote
Sensing 32(14): 4055-4073.
Newton, A. C., Hill, R. A., Echeverra, C., Golicher, D., Benayas, J. M. R.,
Cayuela, L., and Hinsley, S. A., 2009. Remote sensing and the future of
landscape ecology. Progress in Physical Geography 33(4): 528-546.
Nichol, J.E., and Wong, M.S., 2007. Assessing Urban Environmental
Quality with Multiple Parameters. In Urban Remote Sensing. Weng, Q., and
Quattrochi, D.A. (eds), CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Niemeijer, D., and de Groot, R.S., 2008. A conceptual framework for
selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecological indicators 8(1): 14-25.
Niu, X., and Ban, Y., 2013. Multi-temporal RADARSAT-2 polarimetric
SAR data for urban land-cover classification using an object-based support
vector machine and a rule-based approach. International Journal of Remote
Sensing 34(1): 1-26.
NRC, 2007. Geoscape Toronto: Oak Ridges Moraine. Natural Resources
Canada (NRC), Government of Canada.
http://geoscape.nrcan.gc.ca/toronto/moraine_e.php (accessed on 2011-0421).
Olff, H. and Ritchie, M.E., 2002. Fragmented nature: consequences for
biodiversity. Landscape and urban planning 58(2): 83-92.
O'Neill, R.V., Krummel, J.R., Gardner, R.H., Sugihara, G., Jackson, B.,
DeAngelis, D.L., Milne, B.T., et al., 1988. Indices of landscape pattern.
Landscape ecology 1(3): 153162.
Petit, S., Firbank, L., Wyatt, B., & Howard, D. (2001). MIRABEL: models
for integrated review and assessment of biodiversity in European landscapes.
AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 30(2): 81-88.
Qin, Y., Niu, Z., Chen, F., Li, B., and Ban, Y., 2013. Object-based land
cover change detection for cross-sensor images. International Journal of
Remote Sensing 34(19): 6723-6737.
74
Raciti, S.M., Hutyra, L.R., and Newell, J.D., 2014. Mapping carbon storage
in urban trees with multi-source remote sensing data: Relationships between
biomass, land use, and demographics in Boston neighborhoods. Science of
The Total Environment 500: 72-83.
Radoux, J., and Defourny, P., 2007. A quantitative assessment of boundaries
in automated forest stand delineation using very high resolution imagery.
Remote Sensing of Environment 110(4): 468-475.
Regionplane- och Trafikkontoret (RTK), 2008. Grnstruktur och landskap i
regional utvecklingsplanering. Rapport 9:2008. Accessed on 2014-11-19
from
http://www.tmr.sll.se/publikationer/2008/2008-9-Gronstruktur-ochlandskap-i-regional-utvecklingsplanering/
Regionplane- och Trafikkontoret (RTK), 2002. Regional Utvecklingsplan
2001 fr Stockholmsregionen. Program & frslag 2. ISSN 1402-1331. ISBN
91-86-57462-0. Accessed on 2014-11-18 from http://www.tmr.sll.se/MOSSdokument/Publikation/Publikationer_PoF_2002_2_RUFS_2001_sid_112.pdf
Reis, J.P., Silva, E.A., and Pinho, P., 2014. A review of spatial metrics for
urban growth and shrinkage. In De Silva, E., Healey, P., Harris, N., and Van
den Broeck, P. (eds). Research Methods in Spatial and Regional Planning,
Routledge: 279-292.
Ren, W., Zhong, Y., Meligrana, J., Anderson, B., Watt, W.E., Chen, J., and
Leung, H.L., 2003. Urbanization, land use, and water quality in Shanghai:
19471996. Environment International 29(5): 649-659.
Revenga, C., 2005. Developing indicators of ecosystem condition using
geographic information systems and remote sensing. Regional
Environmental Change 5(4): 205-214.
Riitters, K.H., O'Neill, R.V., Hunsaker, C.T., Wickham, J.D., Yankee, D.H.,
Timmins, S.P., Jones, K.B., and Jackson, B.L., 1995. A factor analysis of
landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecology 10(1): 2339.
Rodriguez-Galiano, V.F., Chica-Olmo, M., Abarca-Hernandez, F., Atkinson,
P. M., and Jeganathan, C., 2012. Random Forest classification of
Mediterranean land cover using multi-seasonal imagery and multi-seasonal
texture. Remote Sensing of Environment 121: 93-107.
75
Rozenstein, O., and Karnieli, A., 2011. Comparison of methods for land-use
classification incorporating remote sensing and GIS inputs. Applied
Geography 31(2): 533-544.
Saaty, T.L., 2001. Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy
Process for Decisions in a Complex World. 3rd ed., RWS Publications,
ISBN 0-9620317-8-X.
Seto, K. C., Gneralp, B., and Hutyra, L. R., 2012. Global forecasts of urban
expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(40): 16083-16088.
Seto, K.C., Sanchez-Rodriguez, R., and Fragkias, M., 2010. The New
Geography of Contemporary Urbanization and the Environment. Annual
Review of Environment and Resources 35: 167194.
Shaban, M.A., and Dikshit, O., 2001. Improvement of classification in urban
areas by the use of textural features: the case study of Lucknow city, Uttar
Pradesh, International Journal of Remote Sensing 22: 565593.
Smeets, E. and Weterings, R., 1999. Environmental Indicators: Typology
and Overview. EEA Technical Report no. 25. Copenhagen: European
Environment Agency.
Srivastava, P.K., Han, D., Ramirez, M.R., Bray, M., and Islam, T., 2012.
Selection of classification techniques for land use/land cover change
investigation. Advances in Space Research 50: 1250-1265.
Stefanov, W.L., Ramsey, M.S., and Christensen, P.R., 2001. Monitoring
urban land cover change: An expert system approach to land cover
classification of semiarid to arid urban centers. Remote Sensing of
Environment 77: 173-185.
Sthl, G., Allard, A., Esseen, P.-A., Glimskr, A., Ringvall, A., Svensson, J.,
Sundquist, S., Christensen, P., Gallegos Torell, ., Hgstrm, M.,
Lagerqvist, K., Marklund, L., Nilsson, B. and Inghe, O., 2011. National
Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden (NILS) scope, design, and
experiences from establishing a multiscale biodiversity monitoring system.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 173(14): 579595.
Statistics Sweden, 2008. Grnytor i ttort. Satellitdata som std vid kartering
av grnytor i och omkring ttorter. DNR (Rymdstyrelsen): 180/06.
76
77
http://www.trca.on.ca/planning-services-permits/regulation-and-policydevelopment.dot
Troy, A., and Wilson, M.A., 2006. Mapping ecosystem services: practical
challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological
economics 60(2): 435-449.
Turner, M.G., 1989. Landscape Ecology: The Effect of Pattern on Process.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 171-197.
Turner, M.G., 1990. Spatial and temporal analysis of landscape patterns.
Landscape Ecology 4(1): 2130.
Turner, R.K., MorseJones, S., and Fisher, B., 2010. Ecosystem valuation.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1185(1): 79-101.
Turner, R.K., Paavola, J., Cooper, P., Farber, S., Jessamy, V., and Georgiou,
S., 2003. Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions.
Ecological economics 46(3): 493-510.
Uuemaa, E., Antrop, M., Roosaare, J., Marja, R., and Mander, ., 2009.
Landscape metrics and indices: an overview of their use in landscape
research. Living Reviews in Landscape Research 3(1): 1-28.
Uuemaa, E., Mander, ., and Marja, R., 2013. Trends in the use of landscape
spatial metrics as landscape indicators: a review. Ecological Indicators 28:
100-106.
UNEP/RIVM, 1994. An Overview of Environmental Indicators: State of the
art and perspectives. UNEP/EATR.94-01; RIVM/402001001. Environmental
Assessment Sub-Programme, UNEP, Nairobi.
United Nations, 2012. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision,
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs/Population
Division.
van Oudenhoven, A.P., Petz, K., Alkemade, R., Hein, L., & de Groot, R.S.,
2012. Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land
management on ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators 21: 110-122.
Vapnik, V.N., 1995. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
78
79
80
81
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
ID parish/
municipality
Huddinge_
Botkyrka
Haninge
Boo
West sterker
West
Norrsunda
North
sterker
Trngsund
Skarpnck
East Nacka
Lov
Vaxholm
Sollentuna_
Jrflla
Danderyd_
Tby
Central
sterker
Ed_Kallhll
Area 2
km
Thickness
(m - radius)
500m width
(250m radius)?
Perforation
Indicator
Prox. to Intense
Urban land use
Indicator
% Urban
Perimeter
Noise (area
affected 2
km )
>189.4
128.4
11.5
883
1269
390
yes
yes
yes
20.45
15.53
7.97
615.6
425.6
19.5
0.069
0.20
0.185
20.34
1.55
1.18
17.0
976
yes
5.38
33.6
0.053
0.68
6.2
444
yes
3.76
24.1
0.070
3.92
>146.0
10.5
1159
467
yes
yes
15.40
5.29
703.8
22.0
0.074
0.138
4.28
0.65
3.2
14.7
4.4
20.8
371
793
420
615
yes
yes
yes
yes
4.76
5.97
4.46
9.43
5.3
24.0
6.3
31.1
0.12
0.1801
0.012
0.016
0.24
1.55
0.00
0.26
12.9
529
yes
6.92
19.6
0.008
2.81
9.0
382
yes
7.07
11.2
0.19
0.43
10.3
9.6
603
745
yes
yes
5.29
4.55
30.0
21.3
0.063
0.03
0.002
3.56
82
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Ed
Norrsunda_
Vallentuna
Central
Vallentuna
6.5
515
yes
4.06
17.1
0.011
0.75
3.9
364
yes
4.76
13.0
0.00
2.55
10.6
497
yes
6.38
33.3
0.056
0.05
Sankt Mikael
East sterker
Flemingsberg
Huddinge
West Nacka
Sollentuna_
Fresta
North
Norrsunda
North
Vallentuna
10.2
12.2
4.0
3.7
7.0
720
607
357
445
534
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
4.15
4.40
4.47
4.61
4.72
15.6
44.8
7.2
6.8
9.3
0.39
0.10
0.15
0.04
0.36
0.80
1.80
0.07
0.09
0.16
6.0
504
yes
4.44
9.4
0.11
1.06
18.0
598
yes
7.81
76.1
0.023
15.14
14.3
657
yes
6.97
64.6
0.00
0.53
Viksj
Jakobsberg_
Kallhll
Tby_
Vallentuna
East Vallentuna
4.4
447
yes
3.88
7.8
0.142
0.18
3.2
668
yes
2.24
5.8
0.1796
0.52
20.5
24.8
707
717
yes
yes
7.48
8.68
42.7
81.0
0.13
0.050
1.54
0.34
83
Table 2. Environmental Impact Ranking per Indicator and Average Rank for 1986
ID
ID parish/municipality
1
2
3
4
5
Prox. to Intense
Urban land use
Indicator
Perforation
Indicator
Area
Urban
Perimeter
Noise (area
affected)
Average Rank
Huddinge_Botkyrka
Haninge
Boo
West sterker
West Norrsunda
1
3
13
8
22
30
29
25
17
2
2
3
18
9
13
14
28
26
11
15
30
22
19
15
27
15.4
17.0
20.2
12.0
15.8
6
7
8
9
10
North sterker
Trngsund
Skarpnck
East Nacka
Lov
1
15
30
9
24
28
16
14
18
8
1
15
30
14
28
16
21
19
25
5
28
14
8
21
1
14.8
16.2
20.2
17.4
13.2
11
12
13
14
Vaxholm
Sollentuna_Jrflla
Danderyd_Tby
Central sterker
5
11
19
16
27
20
22
15
11
17
22
12
6
3
27
13
9
25
11
2
11.6
15.2
20.2
11.6
15
16
17
18
19
Ed_Kallhll
Ed
Norrsunda_Vallentuna
Central Vallentuna
Sankt Mikael
18
21
27
14
17
10
4
13
19
5
16
19
21
10
20
8
4
1
12
30
26
16
24
3
17
15.6
12.8
17.2
11.6
17.8
20
21
East sterker
Flemingsberg
12
26
6
9
7
26
17
23
23
4
13.0
17.6
84
22
23
24
25
Huddinge
West Nacka
Sollentuna_Fresta
North Norrsunda
28
20
23
7
11
12
7
24
27
24
23
5
9
29
18
7
5
6
18
29
16.0
18.2
17.8
14.4
26
27
28
29
30
North Vallentuna
Viksj
Jakobsberg_Kallhll
Tby_Vallentuna
East Vallentuna
10
25
29
6
4
21
3
1
23
26
6
25
29
8
4
1
22
24
20
10
13
7
12
20
10
10.2
16.4
19.0
15.4
10.8
85
Table 3. Environmental Impact Index Results in 2006 (Note that LFA 1.1 and 6 have greater areas than those given here. They extend
beyond the classification boundary and thus their full areas are not calculable. Due to this circumstance, they are given the same highest rank for area.)
Noise (area
affected 2
km )
>178.4
922
yes
22.41
3087
0.130
16.11
West Haninge
Haninge
Boo
West sterker
6.1
126.9
9.9
16.9
552
996
372
676
yes
yes
yes
yes
6.51
18.38
10.80
6.16
105
1081
76
131
0.303
0.298
0.475
0.248
0.31
1.62
0.87
0.61
5
6
7
8
9
West Norrsunda
North sterker
Trngsund
Skarpnck
East Nacka
7.6
>135.6
12.2
3.7
15.2
551
1127
1044
412
656
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
3.89
20.10
5.28
5.06
7.27
79
1807
160
52
232
0.084
0.127
0.125
0.118
0.282
4.98
3.97
0.53
0.45
1.64
10
11
Lov
Vaxholm
Sollentuna_
Jrflla
Danderyd_Tby
5.7
24.7
624
760
yes
yes
5.60
8.22
96
350
0.056
0.058
0.00
0.49
13.1
10.5
542
417
yes
yes
6.81
7.67
156
113
0.052
0.232
2.97
0.53
6.7
7.1
3.3
7.4
593
602
364
609
yes
yes
yes
yes
4.69
4.15
4.804
4.468
61
69
30
56
0.410
0.207
0.032
0.018
0.00
3.63
0.30
0.67
3.6
371
yes
4.801
28
0.016
2.67
14
15.1
15.2
16
17
Central sterker
Ed_Kallhll
South Ed
Ed
Norrsunda_
Vallentuna
500m width
(250m radius)?
% Urban
Perimeter
1.2
2
3
4
12
13
Thickness
(m - radius)
Prox. to Intense
Urban land use
Indicator
1.1
ID
Area 2
km
Perforation
Indicator
ID parish/
municipality
Huddinde_
Botkyrka
86
18
19
20
21
Central Vallentuna
Sankt Mikael
East sterker
Flemingsberg
9.2
9.1
11.4
3.5
534
794
504
420
yes
yes
yes
yes
6.492
4.373
7.376
4.633
68
62
73
19
0.029
0.437
0.239
0.182
0.05
0.65
2.06
0.13
22
23
24
25
26
Huddinge
West Nacka
Sollentuna_Fresta
North Norrsunda
North Vallentuna
4.3
6.9
6.7
15.5
17.8
442
496
650
602
784
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
4.630
6.37
3.96
7.54
8.13
36
58
93
148
188
0.038
0.306
0.075
0.068
0.001
0.10
0.22
1.21
12.67
0.22
27
3.5
447
yes
5.04
40
0.107
0.11
28
29
30.1
Viksj
Jakobsberg_
Kallhll
Tby_Vallentuna
East Vallentuna
3.1
10.2
12.4
607
535
467
yes
yes
yes
3.00
5.69
9.04
36
107
98
0.208
0.059
0.119
0.47
0.25
0.02
30.2
NE Vallentuna
7.7
462
yes
6.65
48
0.012
0.30
For comparability with 1986: (these values are used when comparing rankings between 1986 and 2006, instead of the true values for
LFA 1.1, 1.2, 15.1, 15.2, 30.1 and 30.2. These LFAs are penalized for becoming divided or fragmented by dropping one ranking spot in
the overall ranking, see below.)
ID
1
15
30
ID
parish/municipality
Huddinge_Botkyrka
Ed_Kallhll
East Vallentuna
(sum)
2
Area - km
184.5
(avr)
Perforation
Indicator
14.46
(avr) Prox. to
Intense Urban
land use Indicator
1595.8
10.4
20.1
4.48
7.85
49.5
73.0
87
0.22
0.12
0.07
3.93
0.33
(avr) % Urban
Perimeter
Table 4. Environmental Impact Ranking per Indicator and Average Rank for 2006
ID
1.1
1.2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15.1
15.2
16
17
18
19
20
1
25
Perforation
Indicator
33
20
Haninge
Boo
West sterker
West Norrsunda
North sterker
3
15
6
19
1
Trngsund
Skarpnck
East Nacka
Lov
Vaxholm
Prox. to Intense
Urban land use
Indicator
1
13
20
29
Noise (area
affected)
33
13
31
30
17
2
32
3
18
10
17
2
28
33
26
14
19
24
22
19
31
30
17.80
23.60
15.60
16.60
16.80
11
28
8
26
4
14
13
23
15
28
7
26
5
15
4
18
16
27
9
10
17
14
25
1
16
13.40
19.40
17.60
13.20
12.40
Sollentuna_Jrflla
Danderyd_Tby
Central sterker
Ed_Kallhll
South Ed
9
13
23
21
32
22
26
9
4
11
8
11
23
20
31
8
24
31
22
6
28
18
2
29
11
15.00
18.40
17.60
19.20
18.20
Ed
Norrsunda_Vallentuna
Central Vallentuna
Sankt Mikael
East sterker
20
29
16
17
12
6
10
19
5
24
25
32
21
22
19
4
3
5
32
25
21
27
4
20
26
15.20
20.20
13.00
19.20
21.20
ID parish/municipality
Huddinde_Botkyrka
West Haninge
Area
88
Urban
Perimeter
Average Rank
17.60
20.00
21
22
23
24
Flemingsberg
Huddinge
West Nacka
Sollentuna_Fresta
30
27
22
24
8
7
18
3
33
29
24
16
21
7
30
13
7
5
9
23
19.80
15.00
20.60
15.80
25
26
27
28
29
North Norrsunda
North Vallentuna
Viksj
Jakobsberg_Kallhll
Tby_Vallentuna
7
5
31
33
14
25
27
12
1
16
9
6
28
30
12
12
1
15
23
11
32
8
6
15
10
17.00
9.40
18.40
20.40
12.60
East Vallentuna
NE Vallentuna
10
18
29
21
14
27
17
2
3
12
14.60
16.00
30.1
30.2
ID
1
15
30
ID parish/
municipality
Huddinge_
Botkyrka
Ed_Kallhll
East Vallentuna
Area
1
14
5
Perforation
28
6
24
Prox. to
Intense Urban
land use
2
25
18
89
Urban
Perimeter
21
16
10
Noise (area
affected)
30
26
10
Average
Rank
16.4
17.4
13.4
Adjusted Average
Rank (division
penalty)
17.4
18.4
14.4
Table 5. Change in indicator rankings and average ranking for Environmental Impact between 1986 and 2006
ID parish/
municipality
ID
1
Huddinge_Botkyrka
Haninge
Boo
4
5
Area 2
km
0
Perforation
Indicator
Prox. to Intense
Urban land use
Indicator
% Urban
Perimeter
Average
ranking
change
Noise (area
2
affected - km )
-7
Average ranking
change with
deduction for division
-1
-2
-3
-2
-4
-1
-1
West sterker
-1
-13
-1
-3
-3
West Norrsunda
-2
-1
North sterker
-2
-2
-1
-1
Trngsund
Skarpnck
-3
East Nacka
-2
-1
10
Lov
-6
15
-2
11
Vaxholm
-2
-4
12
Sollentuna_Jrflla
-3
13
Danderyd_Tby
-1
11
-4
14
Central sterker
-6
-9
-15
-5
-5
15
Ed_Kallhll
-9
-8
-2
-3
16
-1
-4
-2
-1
-1
17
Ed
Norrsunda
Vallentuna
-8
-1
-1
-1
18
Central Vallentuna
-3
-9
-1
-1
19
Sankt Mikael
-1
20
East sterker
-15
-10
-6
-6
-6
21
Flemingsberg
-2
-4
-2
-1
-1
22
Huddinge
90
23
West Nacka
-1
-5
24
Sollentuna_Fresta
25
North Norrsunda
-1
26
North Vallentuna
-4
27
-4
28
Viksj
Jakobsberg_
Kallhll
29
30
-2
-2
-4
-4
-1
-1
-8
-1
-1
-1
-1
Tby_Vallentuna
-9
-4
11
11
East Vallentuna
-1
-14
-3
-4
91
-1
-1
92