Landscape Ecology

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 561–572 | Cite as

Derivation of a yearly transition probability matrix for land-use dynamics and its applications

  • Takenori Takada
  • Asako Miyamoto
  • Shigeaki F. Hasegawa
Research Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Abukuma Mountains (Japan) Computer program Multiple scenarios n-th power roots of matrices Observation interval 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

Supplementary material

10980_2009_9433_MOESM1_ESM.doc (66 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 66 kb)

References

  1. Baker WL (1989a) Landscape ecology and nature reserve design in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota. Ecology 70:23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker WL (1989b) A review of models of landscape change. Landscape Ecol 2:111–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braimoh AK (2006) Random and systematic land-cover transitions in Northern Ghana. Agric Ecosyst Environ 113(1–4):254–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braimoh AK, Vlek PLG (2004) Land-cover dynamics in an urban area of Ghana. Earth Interact 8:1–15Google Scholar
  5. Cinlar E (1975) Introduction to stochastic processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Flamenco-Sandoval A, Ramos MM, Masera OR (2007) Assessing implications of land-use and land-cover change dynamics for conservation of a highly diverse tropical rain forest. Biol Conserv 138:131–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gardner RH, Milne BT, Turner MG, O’Neill RV (1987) Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol 1:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gustafson EJ, Parker GR (1992) Relationships between landcover proportion and indices of landscape spatial pattern. Landscape Ecol 7(2):101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Kachi N, Yasuoka Y, Totsuka T et al (1986) A stochastic model for describing re-vegetation following forest cutting—an application of remote sensing. Ecol Model 32:105–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lambin EF, Geist HJ (2006) Land-use and land-cover change. Springer Verlag, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lewis HG, Brown M (2001) A generalized confusion matrix for assessing area estimates from remotely sensed data. Int J Remote Sensing 22(16):3223–3235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lipschutz S (1979) Probabilities, course et problems. Série Schaum, McGraw-Hill, ParisGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Mertens B, Lambin E (2000) Land-cover-change trajectories in southern Cameroon. Ann Ass Am Geogr 90(3):467–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Messerli B (1997) Geography in a rapidly changing world. Int Geogr Bull 47:65–75Google Scholar
  18. Meyer WB, Turner BL II (1991) Changes in land use and land cover: a global perspective. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Mundia CN, Aniya M (2005) Analysis of land use/cover changes and urban expansion of Nairobi City using remote sensing and GIS. Int J Remote Sensing 26:2831–2849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Petit C, Scudder T, Lambin E (2001) Quantifying processes of land-cover change by remote sensing: resettlement and rapid land-cover changes in south-eastern Zambia. Int J Remote Sensing 22:3435–3456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Pontius RG Jr, Cheuk ML (2006) A generalized cross-tabulation matrix to compare soft-classified maps at multiple resolutions. Int J Geogr Info Sci 20(1):1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pontius RG Jr, Shusas E, McEachern M (2004) Detecting important categorical land changes while accounting for persistence. Agric Ecosyst Environ 101(2–3):251–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Turner MG (1990) Spatial and temporal analysis of landscape patterns. Landscape Ecol 4(1):21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Turner MG, Dale VH, Gardner RH (1989) Predicting across scales: theory development and testing. Landscape Ecol 3(3/4):245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Usher MB (1981) Modeling ecological succession, with particular reference to Markovian models. Vegetatio 46–7:11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takenori Takada
    • 1
  • Asako Miyamoto
    • 2
  • Shigeaki F. Hasegawa
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Environmental Earth ScienceHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  2. 2.Forestry and Forest Products Research InstituteTsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations