Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The role of landscape pattern analysis in understanding concepts of land cover change

  • Landscape Ecology
  • Published:
Journal of Geographical Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Landscape ecology and landscape pattern analysis are important components of national-scale programs to identify trends in land cover change because: 1) Statistics on changes in land cover proportions are not spatial. A change matrix derived from GIS provides useful information, but it does not show the spatial form of change in the landscape. Landscape pattern metrics reveal spatial pattern. 2) A growing body of literature has shown that a change in landscape pattern might indicate important changes in ecological functions: forest connectivity and species movements, number and size of farm patches, effects on water quality. Spatial pattern is important in structuring ecological communities and in maintaining existence of competitors. Spatial pattern may be determined by disturbance and may in turn, determine how disturbances propagate through the system. 3) Sometimes landscape pattern may not significantly change, even though land cover proportions do change. Or, vice-versa, sometimes landscape pattern can significantly change, even though land cover proportions don’t significantly change. 4) Landscape pattern is an inherent and important part of describing landscapes: based on the literature, one of the most important descriptive characteristics of a landscape is its texture. The objectives of this paper are to: 1) Explain the importance of the role of landscape ecology and landscape pattern analysis in land cover change studies; 2) Review the literature that specifically incorporates landscape ecology into land cover change studies; and 3) List the theoretical and technical issues involved and suggest solutions for them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Antrop M, 2000. Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe.Landscape Ecology, 15: 257–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attore F, A Rosetti, B Sbregraet al., 1998. Landscape changes in Rome, Italy.Coenoses, 13(2): 57–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbault R, 1995. Biodiversity dynamics: from population and community ecology approaches to a landscape ecology point of view.Landscape and Urban Planning, 31: 89–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson B, M Mackenzie, 1995. Effects of spatial sensor resolution on landscape structure parameters.Landscape Ecology, 10(2): 113–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown D, J Duh, S Drzyzga, 2000. Estimating error in an analysis of forest fragmentation change using North American Landscape Characterization (NALC) Data.Remote Sensing of Environment, 71: 106–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burel F, 1993. Time lags between spatial pattern changes and species distribution changes in dynamic landscapes.Landscape and Urban Planning, 24: 161–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain D, K Riitters, K Orvis, 1997. A multi-scale analysis of landscape statistics.Landscape Ecology, 12: 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairns J Jr, B Niederlehner, 1996. Developing a field of landscape ecotoxicology.Ecological Applications, 6(3): 790–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherril A, C McClean, 1995. An investigation of uncertainty in field habitat mapping and the implications for detecting land cover change.Landscape Ecology, 10(1): 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chuvieco E, 1999. Measuring changes in landscape pattern from satellite images: short-term effects of fire on spatial diversity.International Journal of Remote Sensing, 20(12): 2331–2346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman S, D Wallin, 2000. Rates and patterns of landscape change in the central Sikhhote-Alin Mountains, Russian Far east.Landscape Ecology, 15: 643–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan B, S Boyle, D Breiningeret al., 1999. Coupling past management practice and historic landscape change on John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida.

  • EPA (Updated). A Landscape Atlas of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

  • EPA, 1994. Landscape Monitoring and Assessment Research Plan. EPA 620/R-94/009. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV. 64 pp.

  • EPA, 1997. An ecological assessment of the U.S. Mid-Atlantic Region. EPA 600/R-97/130 Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

  • EPA, 1999. A National Assessment of Landscape Change and Impacts for Aquatic Resources: a 10-year Strategic Plan of the Landscape Sciences Program. U.S. EPA. Office of Research and Development. National Exposure Research Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division. Las Vegas, NV. 12.

  • Farina A, 1997. Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology. London: Chapman and Hall, 234 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson B, 1991. Landscape hydrology.Journal of Environmental Systems, 21(3): 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman R, 1995. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology.Landscape Ecology, 10(3): 133–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman R, 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman R, M Godron, 1986. Landscape Ecology. New York: Wiley, 619 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner R H, B T Milne, M G Turneret al., 1987. Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern.Landscape Ecology, 1: 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giles R Jr, M Trani, 1999. Key elements of landscape pattern measures.Environmental Management, 23(4): 477–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith J, 1998. Connecting ecological monitoring and ecological indicators: a review of the literature.Journal of Environmental Systems, 26(4): 325–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith J, E Martinko, K Price, 2000. Analyzing landscape structure of Kansas at three scales.Landscape and Urban Planning, 52(1): 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith J, S Stehman, T Sohlet al., 2003. Detecting trends in landscape pattern metrics over a 20-year period using a sampling-based monitoring programme.International Journal of Remote Sensing, 24(1): 175–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith J, S Stehman, T Loveland, In Press. Landscape trends in mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States ecoregions.Environmental Management.

  • Gustafson E, 1998. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state-of-the-art?Ecosystems, 1: 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R, 1999. Landscape pattern: context and process. Pages 33–37. In: J Wiens, M Moss (eds.), Issues in Landscape Ecology Pioneer Press of Greely, Inc. Greely, Co. 151 pp.

  • Haines-Young R, 1996. Quantifying landscape structure: a review of landscape indices and their applications to forested landscapes.Progress in Physical Geography, 20(4): 418–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog F, A Lausch, E Mulleret al., 2001. Landscape metrics for assessment of landscape destruction and rehabilitation.Environmental Management, 27(1): 91–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hessburg P, B Smith, R Salter, 1999. Detecting change in forest spatial patterns from reference conditions.Ecological Applications, 9(4): 1232–1252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hessburg P, B Smith, R Salteret al., 2000. Recent changes (1930s–1990s) in spatial patterns of interior northwest forests, USA.Forest Ecology and Management, 136: 53–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs R, 1997. Future landscapes and the future of landscape ecology.Landscape and Urban Planning, 37: 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunsaker C, R O’Neill, B Jacksonet al., 1994. Sampling to characterize landscape pattern.Landscape Ecology, 9: (3): 207–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunsaker C, S Timmins, B Jackson, 1994. Unpublished. Characterizing landsape pattern for the conterminous United States. Report submitted to the EPA Environmental Systems Analysis Laboratory. Las Vegas, NV.

  • Jones K, D Heggem, T Wadeet al., 2000. Assessing landscape condition relative to water resources in the western United States: a strategic approach.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 64: 227–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keane R, P Morgan, J White, 1999. Temporal patterns of ecosystem processes on simulated landscapes in Glacier National Park, Montana, USA,Landscape Ecology, 14(3): 311–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kepner W, C Watts, C Edmondset al., 2000. A landscape approach for detecting and evaluating change in a semi-arid environment.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 64: 179–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kupfer J, 1995. Landscape ecology and biogeography.Progress in Physical Geography, 19(1): 18–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loveland T R, J Merchant, D O Ohlenet al., 1991. Development of a land cover characteristics data base for the conterminous U.S.Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 57: 1453–1463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loveland T, A Gallant, J Vogelmann, 1999. Perspectives on the use of land cover data for ecological investigations. Pages 28–32. In: J Wiens, M Moss (eds), Issues in Landscape Ecology. Pioneer Press of Greely, Inc. Greely, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loveland T, T Sohl, S Stehmanet al., 2002. A strategy for estimating the rates of recent United States land cover change.Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 68(10): 1091–1099.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubchenco J, A Olsen, L Brubakeret al., 1991. The sustainable biosphere initiative: an ecological research agenda. A Report from the Ecological Society of America.Ecology, 72(2): 371–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luque S, R Lathrop, J Bognar, 1994. Temporal and spatial changes in an area of the New Jersey Pine Barrens landscape.Landscape Ecology, 9(4): 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, B Marks, 1995. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. PNW-GTR-351, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 122 pp.

  • McGarigal M, W McComb, 1995. Relationships between landscape structure and breeding birds in Oregon’s Coast Range.Ecological Monographs, 65(3): 235–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, 1999. FRAGSTATS 3.01.02. Software and User’s Manual. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/documents/fragstats_documents.html.

  • Medley K, B Okey, G Barrettet al., 1995. Landscape change with agricultural intensification in a rural watershed, southwestern Ohio, U.S.A.Landscape Ecology, 10(3): 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne B, 1988. Measuring the fractal geometry of landscapes. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 27: 67–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss M, 2000. Interdisciplinarity, landscape ecology, and the "Transformation of Agricultural Landscapes".Landscape Ecology, 15: 303–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Napton, D, T Sohl, R Auchet al., In Press. Land use and land cover change in the North Central Appalachians ecoregion.Pennsylvania Geographer.

  • Naveh Z, A Liebermann, 1994. Landscape Ecology: Theory and Application. 2nd edn. New York: Springer-Verlag, 360 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omernik J M, 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States.Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77: 118–125 (and map supplement).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omernik J M, 1995. Ecoregions: a framework for environmental management. Pages 49–62. In: W Davis, T Simon (eds.), Biological Assessment and Criteria, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Fla., USA. 432 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill R, J Krummel, R Gardneret al., 1988. Indices of landscape pattern.Landscape Ecology, 1: 153–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill R, K Riitters, J Wickhamet al., 1999. Landscape pattern metrics and regional assessment.Ecosystem Health, 5(4): 225–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill R, C Hunsaker, S Timminset al., 1996. Scale problems in reporting landscape pattern at the regional scale.Landscape Ecology, 113: 169–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill R, C Hunsaker, K Joneset al., 1997. Monitoring environmental quality at the regional scale.Bioscience, 47(8): 513–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qi Y, J Wu, 1996. Effects of changing spatial resolution on the results of landscape pattern analysis using spatial autocorrelation indices.Landscape Ecology, 11(1): 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riitters K H, J Wickham, R O’Neillet al., 2002. Fragmentation of continental United States forests.Ecosystems, 5: 815–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riitters K, R O’Neill, C Hunsakeret al., 1995. A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics.Landscape Ecology, 101: 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riitters K, J Wickham, 1995. Sensitivity of landscape metrics to pixels size.International Journal of Remote Sensing, 16(18): 3585–3594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risser P, J Karr, R Forman, 1984. Landscape ecology: directions and approaches. Special Publication #2. Illinois Natural History Survey.

  • Rogers C, 1993. Describing landscapes: indices of structure. Master’s Thesis. Department of Natural Resources Management. Simon Fraser University.

  • Sachs D, P Sollins, W Cohen, 1998. Detecting landscape changes in the interior of British Columbia from 1975 to 1992 using satellite imagery.Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 28: 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson J, R Boerner, M DeMerset al., 1994. Forty-eight years of landscape change on two contiguous Ohio landscapes.Landscape Ecology, 9(4): 261–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohl T, A Gallant, T Loveland, In Press. The characteristics and interpretability of land surface change and implications for project design.Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing.

  • Swenson J, J Franklin, 2000. The effects of future urban development on habitat fragmentation in the Santa Monica Mountains.Landscape Ecology, 15: 713–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stehman S, T Sohl, T Loveland, In Press. Statistical sampling to characterize recent United States land cover change.Remote Sensing of Environment.

  • Tinker D, C Resor, G Beauviset al., 1998. Watershed Analysis of forest fragmentation by clearcuts and roads in a Wyoming forest.Landscape Ecology, 13: 149–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trani M, R Giles, 1999. An analysis of deforestation: metrics used to describe pattern change.Forest Ecology and Management, 114: 459–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner M, 1987. Spatial simulation of landscape changes in Georgia: a comparison of three transition models.Landscape Ecology, 1: 29–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner M, 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 20: 171–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner M, R Carpenter, 1998. At last: a journal devoted to ecosystems.Ecosystems, 1(1): 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner M, R Gardner (eds.), 1991. Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology: The Analysis and Interpretation of Landscape Heterogencity. New York: Springer-Verlag, 536 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner M, Gardner R, O’Neill R V, 2001. Landscape Ecology. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner M, D Wear, R Flamm, 1996. Land ownership and land-cover change in the southern Appalachian Highlands and the Olympic Peninsula.Ecological Applications, 64(4): 1150–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban D, R O’Neill, H Shugart Jr, 1987. Landscape ecology.Bioscience, 37: 119–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitousek P, 1994. Beyond global warming: ecology and global change.Ecology, 75: 1861–1876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickham J, D Norton, 1994. Mapping and analyzing landscape patterns.Landscape Ecology, 9(1): 7–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickham J, R O’Neill, K Riitters, 1997. Sensitivity of landscape pattern metrics to land cover misclassification and differences in land cover composition.Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 63: 397–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickham J, R O’Neill, K Jones, 2000. Forest fragmentation as an economic indicator.Landscape Ecology.

  • Wickham J, K Riitters, 1995. Sensitivity of landscape metrics to pixel size.International Journal of Remote Sensing, 16: 3585–3594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickham J, K Riitters, R O’Neillet al., 2000. Land cover as a framework for assessing risk of water pollution.Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 36(6): 1417–1422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang W, J Merchant, 1997. Impacts of upscaling techniques on land cover representation in Nebraska, USA.GeoCarto International, 12(1): 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi Z, L Zhenguo, X Lan. 1996. Changes of landscape pattern and its influence on environment in Dongling District, Shenyang City, China.Journal of Environmental Sciences, 8(4): 466–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng D, D Wallin, Z Hao, 1997. Rates and patterns of landscape change between 1972 and 1988 in the Changbai Mountain area of China and North Korea.Landscape Ecology, 12: 241–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zonneveld I, 1995. Land Ecology: An Introduction to Landscape Ecology as a Basis for Land Evaluation, Land Management, and Conservation. Amsterdam: SPB Academic Publishing, 199.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, University of Southern Mississippi, Box 5051, 39406-5051, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA

    Jerry A Griffith

Authors
  1. Jerry A Griffith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jerry A Griffith.

Additional information

Foundation item: USGS Geographic Research and Applications Program, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Landscape Ecology Program in Las Vegas (Interagency Agreement DW14938108-01-0), and the NASA Land Cover/Land Use Change Program

Author: Jerry A Griffith, Ph.D.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Griffith, J.A. The role of landscape pattern analysis in understanding concepts of land cover change. J. Geogr. Sci. 14 (Suppl 1), 3–17 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02873085

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02873085

Key words

Search

Navigation