4.7 Article

Comparing landcover patterns in Tokyo, Kyoto, and Taipei using ALOS multispectral images

Journal

LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING
Volume 97, Issue 2, Pages 132-145

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.05.004

Keywords

Ladcover pattern; Remote sensing; Urbanization index; NDVI; Shannon diversity index

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Understanding the landcover pattern in a region is essential for landuse planning and resources management. In this study ALOS multispectral images were used to compare landcover patterns in three study areas, namely Tokyo. Kyoto, and Taipei, of different degrees of urbanization. From the results of landuse/landcover classification, Shannon diversity index at cell level was used for landcover pattern analysis. Existing landcover pattern of the three study areas were also compared by investigating cell distribution in a landcover coverage-ratio space. Both the landcover type richness and evenness are low in the Tokyo study area and built-up is the single dominant landcover type in almost all cells. In comparison, landcover patterns of the Kyoto and Taipei study areas are more diversified, with significant amount of cells having mixed and non-dominant landcover types. Kyoto is least urbanized and enjoys a good mixture of different landcover types. It was found that cell-average NDVI alone can be used for delineating areas of certain dominant landcover types. Implementation of such method does not require an a priori LULC classification, and thus is particularly useful when good training data for LULC classification are not available. An urbanization index which integrates the coverage ratio of built-up landcover type and the cell-average NDVI was proposed and used to explore the spatial variation of degree of urbanization. Area-average urbanization indices of the Tokyo. Kyoto, and Taipei study areas were calculated to be 0.91, 0.55, and 0.72, respectively. Such results are consistent with the results of qualitative evaluation using different landscape metrics. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available