Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparison of Discrete and Continuous Metrics for Measuring Landscape Changes

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Fig.1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig.7

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, R. T. (2014). Land mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions (1995). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, A. E., & Kedron, P. (2017). Landscape metrics: Past progress and future directions. Current Landscape Ecology Reports, 2(3), 63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Getis, A., & Ord, J. K. (1992). The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Geographical Analysis, 24(3), 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kedron, P., Zhao, Y., & Frazier, A. E. (2019). Three dimensional (3D) spatial metrics for objects. Landscape Ecology, 34(9), 2123–2132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, H., & Wu, J. (2004). Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landscape Ecology, 19(4), 389–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shao, G., & Wu, J. (2008). On the accuracy of landscape pattern analysis using remote sensing data. Landscape Ecology, 23(5), 505–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There are no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

    Ehsan Rahimi

  2. Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

    Shahindokht Barghjelveh

  3. Department of Geography and the Environment, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

    Pinliang Dong

Authors
  1. Ehsan Rahimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shahindokht Barghjelveh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pinliang Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ehsan Rahimi.

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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-022-01526-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation