Abstract
Quantification of landscape patterns in a correct way is an important issue in landscape ecology, which has recently attracted much attention from landscape ecologists. It is believed that Patch-Corridor-Matrix or discrete model does not take into account the continuous heterogeneity and has limitations and problems that undermine the validity of the results. Various continuous methods have been developed to overcome the problems associated with the discrete approach for measuring landscape fragmentation. Continuous methods use remotely sensed data directly for quantifying landscape pattern changes. In this regard, the purpose of this study is to compare landscape metrics obtained from the discrete model and alternative continuous metrics, including spatial autocorrelation indices, Fourier transforms, and surface metrics. To achieve this goal, we used two subsets that were different in terms of urban and agricultural changes. We measured temporal changes of three subsets between the years 2013 and 2020. Results showed that percentage of landscape (PLAND) as a landscape metric had a good statistical relationship with Getis of the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) (R2 = 95.9%) and a moderate relationship with Getis of the built-up index (PNBI) (R2 = 43.7%) as alternative metrics. The results of discrete metrics showed that in 2013, the spatial patterns of urban and cultivated farms patches were more fragmented than in 2020. Also, the area of cultivated farms increased by 3 to 6 percent and urban areas between 1 and 8 percent in 2020. All continuous metrics showed that the subsets in the study changed in 2020. However, Fourier transforms could not determine the magnitude of these changes. Our results also showed that landscape metrics have some drawbacks for measuring landscape patterns that some of them can be resolved by continuous metrics. Generally, the use of discrete and continuous metrics depends on factors like the scale of the study, time and budget available, desired ecological processes, and the degree of heterogeneity of the landscape of interest.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of Data and Material
Data are available on request from the authors only based on logical requests.
Code Availability
Not applicable.
References
Anselin, L. (1995). Local indicators of spatial association—LISA. Geographical Analysis, 27(2), 93–115.
Bolliger, J., Wagner, H. H., & Turner, M. G. (2007). Identifying and quantifying landscape patterns in space and time. In A Changing World, Springer, pp. 177–194.
Buyantuyev, A., Wu, J., & Gries, C. (2010). Multiscale analysis of the urbanization pattern of the Phoenix metropolitan landscape of USA: Time, space and thematic resolution. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(3–4), 206–217.
Chettry, V., & Surawar, M. (2021). Urban sprawl assessment in eight mid-sized indian cities using RS and GIS, Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing 1–20.
Cockx, K., Van de Voorde, T., & Canters, F. (2014). Quantifying uncertainty in remote sensing-based urban land-use mapping. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 31, 154–166.
Fan, C., & Myint, S. (2014). A comparison of spatial autocorrelation indices and landscape metrics in measuring urban landscape fragmentation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 121, 117–128.
Forman, R. T. (2014). Land mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions (1995). Berlin: Springer.
Fourier, J. (1822). Theorie analytique de la chaleur, par M. Fourier, Chez Firmin Didot, père et fils.
Frazier, A. E. (2016). Surface metrics: Scaling relationships and downscaling behavior. Landscape Ecology, 31(2), 351–363.
Frazier, A. E., & Kedron, P. (2017). Landscape metrics: Past progress and future directions. Current Landscape Ecology Reports, 2(3), 63–72.
Getis, A., & Ord, J. K. (1992). The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Geographical Analysis, 24(3), 189–206.
Gustafson, E. J. (2019). How has the state-of-the-art for quantification of landscape pattern advanced in the twenty-first century? Landscape Ecology, 34(9), 2065–2072.
Hagen-Zanker, A. (2016). A computational framework for generalized moving windows and its application to landscape pattern analysis. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 44, 205–216.
Kedron, P., Zhao, Y., & Frazier, A. E. (2019). Three dimensional (3D) spatial metrics for objects. Landscape Ecology, 34(9), 2123–2132.
Kedron, P. J., Frazier, A. E., Ovando-Montejo, G. A., & Wang, J. (2018). Surface metrics for landscape ecology: A comparison of landscape models across ecoregions and scales. Landscape Ecology, 33(9), 1489–1504.
Kulhanek, K., Steinhauer, N., Rennich, K., Caron, D. M., Sagili, R. R., Pettis, J. S., Ellis, J. D., Wilson, M. E., Wilkes, J. T., & Tarpy, D. R. (2017). A national survey of managed honey bee 2015–2016 annual colony losses in the USA. Journal of Apicultural Research, 56(4), 328–340.
Lanorte, A., Danese, M., Lasaponara, R., & Murgante, B. (2013). Multiscale mapping of burn area and severity using multisensor satellite data and spatial autocorrelation analysis. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 20, 42–51.
Lausch, A., Blaschke, T., Haase, D., Herzog, F., Syrbe, R.-U., Tischendorf, L., & Walz, U. (2015). Understanding and quantifying landscape structure–A review on relevant process characteristics, data models and landscape metrics. Ecological Modelling, 295, 31–41.
Li, H., & Wu, J. (2004). Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landscape Ecology, 19(4), 389–399.
Liu, D., Hao, S., Liu, X., Li, B., He, S., & Warrington, D. (2013). Effects of land use classification on landscape metrics based on remote sensing and GIS. Environmental Earth Sciences, 68(8), 2229–2237.
McGarigal, K., & Cushman, S. (2005). The gradient concept of landscape structure. In J. Weins & M. Moss (Eds.), Issues and perspectives in landscape ecology (pp. 112–119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McGarigal, K., Cushman, S. A., Neel, M. C., & Ene, E. (2002). FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps.
McGarigal, K., Tagil, S., & Cushman, S. A. (2009). Surface metrics: An alternative to patch metrics for the quantification of landscape structure. Landscape Ecology, 24(3), 433–450.
Metrology, I. (2002). The scanning probe image processor, SPIPTM, user’s and reference guide version 4.
Mondal, P. (2011). Quantifying surface gradients with a 2-band Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI2). Ecological Indicators, 11(3), 918–924.
Nolè, G., Lasaponara, R., Lanorte, A., & Murgante, B. (2014). Quantifying urban sprawl with spatial autocorrelation techniques using multi-temporal satellite data. International Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Information Systems (IJAEIS), 5(2), 19–37.
Park, Y., & Guldmann, J.-M. (2020). Measuring continuous landscape patterns with Gray-Level Co-Occurrence Matrix (GLCM) indices: An alternative to patch metrics? Ecological Indicators, 109, 105802.
Rahimi, E., Barghjelveh, S., & Dong, P. (2021). Quantifying how urban landscape heterogeneity affects land surface temperature at multiple scales. Journal of Ecology and Environment, 45(1), 1–13.
Rocchini, D., Foody, G. M., Nagendra, H., Ricotta, C., Anand, M., He, K. S., Amici, V., Kleinschmit, B., Förster, M., & Schmidtlein, S. (2013). Uncertainty in ecosystem mapping by remote sensing. Computers & Geosciences, 50, 128–135.
Rocchini, D., Metz, M., Ricotta, C., Landa, M., Frigeri, A., & Neteler, M. (2013). Fourier transforms for detecting multitemporal landscape fragmentation by remote sensing. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 34(24), 8907–8916.
Shao, G., & Wu, J. (2008). On the accuracy of landscape pattern analysis using remote sensing data. Landscape Ecology, 23(5), 505–511.
Funding
There are no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Ethics Approval
Not applicable.
Consent to Participate
All authors consent to participate in writing this paper.
Consent for Publication
All authors consent to publish this paper.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Rahimi, E., Barghjelveh, S. & Dong, P. A Comparison of Discrete and Continuous Metrics for Measuring Landscape Changes. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 50, 1257–1273 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-022-01526-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-022-01526-7