Derivation of a yearly transition probability matrix for land-use dynamics and its applications
- 815 Downloads
Transition matrices have often been used in landscape ecology and GIS studies of land-use to quantitatively estimate the rate of change. When transition matrices for different observation periods are compared, the observation intervals often differ because satellite images or photographs of the research site taken at constant time intervals may not be available. If the observation intervals differ, the transition probabilities cannot be compared without calculating a transition matrix with the normalized observation interval. For such calculation, several previous studies have utilized a linear algebra formula of the power root of matrices. However, three difficulties may arise when applying this formula to a practical dataset from photographs of a research site. We examined the first difficulty, namely that plural solutions could exist for a yearly transition matrix, which implies that there could be multiple scenarios for the same transition in land-use change. Using data for the Abukuma Mountains in Japan and the Selva el Ocote Biosphere Reserve in Mexico, we then looked at the second difficulty, in which we may obtain no positive Markovian matrix and only a matrix partially consisting of negative numbers. We propose a way to calibrate a matrix with some negative transition elements and to estimate the prediction error. Finally, we discuss the third difficulty that arises when a new land-use category appears at the end of the observation period and how to solve it. We developed a computer program to calculate and calibrate the yearly matrices and to estimate the prediction error.
KeywordsAbukuma Mountains (Japan) Computer program Multiple scenarios n-th power roots of matrices Observation interval
We express our sincere thanks to Masahiro Ichikawa, Takashi Kohyama, Toru Nakashizuka, and Ken-Ichi Akao for their helpful suggestions. Prof. Ichikawa encouraged us to continue this study. Profs. Kohyama and Nakashizuka provided the opportunity to solve the mechanism of the dynamics of land use. Prof. Akao provided mathematical advice at an early stage of our study. This research was funded in part by Grants-in-Aid from the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) for Scientific Research (nos. A-21247006, B-20370006 and B-21310152) and project 2–2 “Sustainability and Biodiversity Assessment on Forest Utilization Options” and D-04 of the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature.
- Braimoh AK, Vlek PLG (2004) Land-cover dynamics in an urban area of Ghana. Earth Interact 8:1–15Google Scholar
- Cinlar E (1975) Introduction to stochastic processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
- Ehlers M, Jadkowski MA, Howard RR et al (1990) Application of SPOT data for regional growth analysis and local planning. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 56:175–180Google Scholar
- Hathout S (2002) The use of GIS for monitoring and predicting urban growth in East and West St. Paul, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Can J Environ Manag 66:229–238Google Scholar
- Lipschutz S (1979) Probabilities, course et problems. Série Schaum, McGraw-Hill, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Lo CP, Yang X (2002) Drivers of land-use/land-cover changes and dynamic modeling for the Atlanta, Georgia metropolitan area. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 68(10):1073–1082Google Scholar
- Messerli B (1997) Geography in a rapidly changing world. Int Geogr Bull 47:65–75Google Scholar
- Meyer WB, Turner BL II (1991) Changes in land use and land cover: a global perspective. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Pontius RG Jr (2002) Statistical methods to partition effects of quantity and location during comparison of categorical maps at multiple resolutions. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 68(10):1041–1049Google Scholar
- Turner BL II, Lambin EF, Reenberg A (2007) The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. PNAS 104:2066–2071Google Scholar