Advertisement

Land Use Fragmentation Analysis Using Remote Sensing and Fragstats

  • Sudhir Kumar Singh
  • Avinash Chandra Pandey
  • Dharamveer Singh
Chapter
Part of the Society of Earth Scientists Series book series (SESS)

Abstract

This study present the results of a set of landscape metrics derived from remotely sensed data aiming to characterize the historical trends of landscape changes in the Allahabad district in the period 1990–2010. However, the identified trends in landscape changes and its effects in the region have potential policy implications. The land use and land cover were estimated from sensors viz. for the period 1990 (LANDSAT TM), 2000 (LANDSAT ETM+) and 2010 (IRS 1D LISS III) through the maximum likelihood classification (MLC) method. The land use land cover change was quantified with the help of ERDAS imagine 9.1. Further, landscape level and class level metrics were derived from the classified satellite images in FRAGSTATS 3.3. Total four metrics for landscape level viz. total area (TA), number of patch (NP), patch density (PD), area mean (AREA MN) and four metrics for class level viz. core area (CA), number of patch (NP), patch density (PD) and percentage of land (PLAND), respectively to uncover the influence of land use change which can be correlated to the degree of urbanization, development and water quality. The different class level metrics of study area has revealed internal exchange of four land use classes given as agricultural land (65.32 % in 1990, 67.13 % in 2000, 68.1 % in 2010), builtup area (9.98 % in 1990,11.63 % in 2000,13.36 % in 2010), cultivable land (4.42 % in 1990, 3.47 % in 2000, 2.1 % in 2010) forest (6.03 % in 1990, 4.47 % in 2000, 5.6 % in 2010), and water body (5.89 % in 1990, 5.82 % in 2000, 5.35 % in 2010). The study showed that the notable changes had occurred in the last 20 years in this landscape, hence there is need of appropriate measures to mitigate these negative impacts of changes.

Keywords

Landscape pattern Fragmentation LISS III LANDSAT Ecological metrics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research works is supported by K. Banerjee Centre of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies, IIDS, Nehru Science Centre University. Authors also thanks to the Landsat (http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/aerial.html#satellite) programme for providing the satellite data. Authors are also thankful to the University Grant Commission, Delhi, for providing the financial grant for this research [Grant No. F. No. 42-74/2013 (SR)].

References

  1. Anderson JR, Ernest HE, John RT, Richard WE (1976) A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. Geological survey professional paper No. 964, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, p 28Google Scholar
  2. Central Pollution Control Board (Ministry of Environment and Forests) (2006) Water quality status of Yamuna River (1999–2005). Assessment and Development of River Basin Series: ADSORBS/41/2006-07Google Scholar
  3. Dale VH, King AW, Mann LK, Washington-allen RA, Mccord RA (1998) Assessing land-use impact on natural resources. Environ Manage 22(2):203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ERDAS Field Guide (1999) Earth resources data analysis system. ERDAS Inc. Atlanta, Georgia, p 628Google Scholar
  5. Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape Ecology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Forney W, Richards L, Adams KD, Minor TB, Rowe TG, Smith JL, Raumann CG (2001) Land use change and effects on water quality and ecosystem health in the Lake Tahoe Basin, Nevada and California. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-418Google Scholar
  7. Gonzalez-Abraham CE, Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Hawbaker TJ, Stewart SI, Clayton MK (2007) Building patterns and landscape fragmentation in northern Wisconsin, USA. Landscape Ecol 22(2):217–230. doi: 10.1007/s10980-006-9016-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Griffith JA (2002) Geographic techniques and recent applications of remote sensing to landscape-water quality studies. Water Air Soil Pollut 138(1–4):181–197. doi: 10.1023/A:1015546915924 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Herold M, Scepan J, Clarke KC (2002) The use of remote sensing and landscape metrics to describe structures and changes in urban land uses. Environ Plann A 34(8):1443–1458. doi: 10.1068/a3496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jones KB, Neale AC, Nash MS, Van Remortel RD, Wickham JD, Riitters KH, O’Neill RV (2001) Predicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from landscape metrics: a multiple watershed study from the United States Mid-Atlantic Region. Landscape Ecol 16(4):301–312. doi: 10.1023/A:1011175013278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kearns FR, Kelly NM, Carter JL, Resh VH (2005) A method for the use of landscape metrics in freshwater research and management. Landscape Ecol 20(1):113–125. doi: 10.1007/s10980-004-2261-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. King RS, Baker ME, Whigham DF, Weller DE, Jordan TE, Kazyak PF, Hurd MK (2005) Spatial considerations for linking watershed land cover to ecological indicators in streams. Ecol Appl 15(1):137–153. doi: 10.1890/04-0481 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lal R (1998) Soil erosion impact on agronomic productivity and environment quality. Crit Rev Plant Sci 17:319–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR Google Scholar
  15. Morley SA, Karr JR (2002) Assessing and restoring the health of urban streams in the puget sound basin. Conserv Biol 6(16):1498–1509Google Scholar
  16. Narumalani S, Mishra DR, Rothwell RG (2004) Analyzing landscape structural change using image interpretation and spatial pattern metrics. GISci Remote Sens 41(1):25–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pimentel D, Harvey C, Resosudarmo P, Sinclair K, Kurz D, McNair M, Crist S, Shpritz L, Fitton L, Saffouri R, Blair R (1995) Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science 267:2671117–2671123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Singh M, Müller G, Singh IB (2002) Heavy metals in freshly deposited stream sediments of Rivers associated with urbanization of the Ganga plain, India. Water Air Soil Pollut 141:35–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Szabó S, Csorba P, Szilassi P (2012) Tools for landscape ecological planning–scale, and aggregation sensitivity of the contagion type landscape metric indices. Carpath J Earth Env 7(3):127–136Google Scholar
  20. Tomlinson DC, Wilson JG, Harris CR, Jeffrey DW (1980) Problems in the assessment of heavy metal levels in estuaries and the formation of a pollution index. Helgel Meeresuntters 33:566–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol 20:171–197Google Scholar
  22. Turner RE, Rabalais NN, Justic D, Dortch Q (2003) Global patterns of dissolved N, P and Si in large rivers. Biogeochemistry 64(3):297–317. doi: 10.1023/A:1024960007569 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Uuemaa E, Roosaare J, Mander U (2005) Scale dependence of landscape metrics and their indicatory value for nutrient and organic matter losses from catchments. Ecol Ind 5(4):350–369. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.03.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Uuemaa E, Roosaare J, Mander U (2007) Landscape metrics as indicators of river water quality at catchment scale. Nord Hydrol 38(2):125–138. doi: 10.2166/nh.2007.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weng YC (2007) Spatiotemporal changes of landscape pattern in response to urbanization. Landscape Urban Plann 81(4):341–353. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.01.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wickham JD, Wade TG, Riitters KH, O’Neill RV, Smith JH, Smith ER, Jones KB, Neale AC (2003) Upstream-to-downstream changes in nutrient export risk. Landscape Ecol 18(2):193–206. doi: 10.1023/A:1024490121893 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Xiao HG, Ji W (2007) Relating landscape characteristics to non-point source pollution in mine waste-located watersheds using geospatial techniques. J Environ Manage 82(1):111–119. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.12.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zubair AO (2006) Change detection in land use and land cover using Remote Sensing data and GIS (A case study of Ilorin and its environs in Kwara State), Department of Geography, University of Ibadan, October 2006Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sudhir Kumar Singh
    • 1
  • Avinash Chandra Pandey
    • 1
  • Dharamveer Singh
    • 1
  1. 1.K. Banerjee Centre of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies, IIDSNehru Science Centre, University of AllahabadAllahabadIndia

Personalised recommendations