Landscape Ecology

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 311–327 | Cite as

Land-use and land-cover change processes in the Upper Uruguay Basin: linking environmental and socioeconomic variables

  • Marcos Wellausen Dias de Freitas
  • João Roberto dos Santos
  • Diógenes Salas Alves
Research Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Land-use and land-cover change affects both ecological and socioeconomic processes, motivating the integration of environmental and socioeconomic data to help understand this change. In this study, we propose a method for the characterisation and spatial analysis of land use and cover change in the Upper Uruguay River Basin (Brazil) based on (i) the characterisation of six LUCC processes—degradation, regeneration, intensification, extensification, silviculture expansion and urbanisation—by the combination of 2002 and 2008 land-use and land-cover classifications of Landsat/TM imagery and on (ii) the investigation of the relationships between the LUCC processes and environmental and socioeconomic variables via the combination of canonical correspondence analysis, linear and local spatial regression models (OLS and GWR) and spatial clustering procedures (SKATER), using environmental data, including geomorphometric data, landscape metrics and census socioeconomic statistics. The LUCC processes could be explained in terms of the associations between the selected physical, ecological and social variables that allowed the terrain, landscape fragmentation and socioeconomic characteristics to be related to various LUCC processes.

Keywords

Land use and cover change Geographically weighted regression Canonical correspondence analysis Spatial clustering Landscape structure Nature and society 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alves DS (2012) Two cultures, multiple theoretical perspectives: the problem of integration of natural and social sciences in earth system research. In: Young SS, Silvern SE (eds) International perspectives on environmental global change. InTech, RijekaGoogle Scholar
  2. Anselin L (2002) Under the hood: issues in the specification and interpretation of spatial regression models. Agric Econ 27:247–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Assunção RM, Neves MC, Câmara G, Freitas CC (2006) Efficient regionalization techniques for socio-economic geographical units using minimum spanning trees. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 20(7):797–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batistella M, Valladares GS (2009) Farming expansion and land degradation in Western Bahia, Brazil. Biotaneotropica 9(3):61–76Google Scholar
  5. Bivand R (2011) Spatial dependence: weighting schemes; statistics and models. R package version 0.5-40. Available online at: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/spdep/spdep.pdf. Accessed 19 Oct 2011
  6. Bivand R, Yu D (2011). spgwr: Geographically weighted regression. R package version 0.6-13. Available online at: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/spgwr/spgwr.pdf. Accessed 19 Oct 2011
  7. Braak CJF (1986) Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector method for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67:1167–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buyantuyev A, Wu J (2010) Urban heat islands and landscape heterogeneity: linking spatiotemporal variations in surface temperatures to land-cover and socioeconomic patterns. Landscape Ecol 25(1):17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chevan A, Sutherland M (1991) Hierarchical partitioning. Am Stat 45(2):90–96Google Scholar
  10. Cliff AD, Ord JK (1981) Spatial processes: models and applications. Pion, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Cunha MCL, Monguilhott M, Saldanha DL, Guasselli LA, Pereira G (2011) Quantificação da dinâmica dos remanescentes florestais no Município de Jaquirana, RS, em imagens de satélite. Rev Árvore 35(4):867–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DEFINIENS (2007) Definiens Developer 7 reference book. Definiens AG, MunichGoogle Scholar
  13. ESRI (2011) ArcGIS desktop: release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans IS (1972) General geomorphometry, derivations of altitude and descriptive statistics. In: Chorley RJ (ed) Spatial analysis in geomorphology. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Farina A (1998) Principles and methods in landscape ecology. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton M (2002) Geographically weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying relationships. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox J, Rindfuss RR, Walsh S, Mishra V (2003) People and the environment: approaches for linking household and community surveys to remote sensing and GIS. Kluwer, NorwellGoogle Scholar
  18. Grohmann CH, Smith MJ, Riccomini C (2011) Multiscale analysis of topographic surface roughness in the Midland Valley, Scotland. IEEE T Geosci Remote 49(4):1200–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hietel E, Waldhardt R, Otte A (2004) Analysing land-cover changes in relation to environmental variables in Hesse, Germany. Landscape Ecol 19(5):473–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hudson WD, Ramm CW (1987) Correct formulation of the kappa coefficient of agreement. Photogram Eng Remote Sens 53:421–422Google Scholar
  21. IBGE (2000) Censo demográfico: resultados do universo. IBGE, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  22. Kupfer JA, Farris CA (2007) Incorporating spatial non-stationarity of regression coefficients into predictive vegetation models. Landscape Ecol 22(6):837–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lepš J, Smilauer P (2003) Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Lesschen JP, Verburg PH, Staal SJ (2005) Statistical methods for analyzing the spatial dimension of changes in land use and farming systems. The International Livestock Research Institute/LUCC Focus 3 Office, Nairobi/WageningenGoogle Scholar
  25. Leung Y, Mei CL, Zhang WX (2000) Testing for spatial autocorrelation among the residuals of the geographically weighted regression. Environ Plan A 32(5):871–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liverman DM, Cuesta RMR (2008) Human interactions with the Earth system: people and pixels revisited. Earth Surf Proc Land 33:1458–1471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liverman DM, Moran EF, Rindfuss RR, Stern PC (eds) (1998) People and pixels, linking remote sensing and social science. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. Lloyd CD (2011) Local models for spatial analysis. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  29. Machado LO (1998) A fronteira agrícola na Amazônia brasileira. In: Christofoletti A et al (eds) Geografia e Meio Ambiente no Brasil. Hucitec, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  30. Matricardi EAT, Skole DL, Pedlowski MA, Chomentowski W, Fernandes LC (2010) Assessment of tropical forest degradation by selective logging and fire using Landsat imagery. Remote Sens Environ 114(5):1117–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) Fragstats: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. US Department of Agriculture, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  32. Meyer WB, Turner BL II (1992) Human population growth and global land-use/cover change. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 23:39–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Munyati C, Makgale D (2009) Multitemporal Landsat TM imagery analysis for mapping and quantifying degraded rangeland in the Bahurutshe communal grazing lands, South Africa. Int J Remote Sens 30(14):3649–3668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Navulur K (2007) Multispectral image analysis using object-oriented paradigm. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  35. Neter J, Kutner MH, Wasserman W, Nachtscheim CJ (1996) Applied linear regression models. McGraw-Hill College, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Olofsson P, Foody GM, Stehman SV, Woodcock CE (2013) Making better use of accuracy data in land change studies: estimating accuracy and area and quantifying uncertainty using stratified estimation. Remote Sens Environ 129:122–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Overmars KP, Koning GHJ, Veldkamp A (2003) Spatial autocorrelation in multi-scale land use models. Ecol Model 164(2–3):257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. R Development Core Team (2008) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  39. Shimabukuro YE, Smith JA (1991) The least-square mixing models to generate fraction images derived from remote sensing multispectral data. IEEE T Geosci Remote 29(1):16–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Soares-Filho BS, Garcia RA, Rodrigues H, Moro S, Nepstad D (2008) Nexos entre as dimensões socioeconômicas e o desmatamento: a caminho de um modelo integrado. In: Batistella M et al (eds) Amazônia: natureza e sociedade em transformação. Edusp, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  41. Sturges HA (1926) The choice of a class interval. J Am Stat Assoc 21(153):65–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Valbuena D, Verburg PH, Bregt AK, Ligtenberg A (2010) An agent-based approach to model land-use change at a regional scale. Landscape Ecol 25(2):185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Valeriano MM, Rosseti DF (2011) Topodata: Brazilian full coverage refinement of SRTM data. Appl Geogr 32(2):300–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vannier C, Vasseur C, Hubert-Moy L, Baudry J (2011) Multiscale ecological assessment of remote sensing images. Landscape Ecol 26(8):1053–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Verburg PH (2006) Simulating feedbacks in land use and land cover change models. Landscape Ecol 21(8):1171–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Walsh C, MacNally R (2011) Hierarchical partitioning. R package version 1.0-3. Available online at: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/hier.part/hier.part.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2011

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcos Wellausen Dias de Freitas
    • 1
  • João Roberto dos Santos
    • 1
  • Diógenes Salas Alves
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute for Space Research (INPE)Av. Dos Astronautas, 1758São José dos CamposBrazil

Personalised recommendations