|
|
|
Poster Session 2
|
Application of GIS and Remote Sensing to Analyses Landscape Structures
4.3 Method of Evaluation
A map of areas representing these 52 ecotopes was placed as an over-layer on the land-scape classi-cation map, and percentage of each ecotope in respective landscape areas were calculated. Tables 2-1 to 2-5 summarize the results for each landscape.
4.4 Discussions
For each landscape classi-ed in this study and the percentages of ecotopes which constitute such landscape, the following observations were made: In the marsh landscape, lowland open water area representing a wetland element accounts for more than 90% of the area. In the urban landscape, the urban element accounts for 70% of the area whereas there are topographic element variations in the relevant area. The reclaiming of the lowland by land-lling for urban development is considered a factor behind such variations. In the lowland rural landscape, a number of grasslands are found among the lowland paddy -eld elements and among the vegetation elements, caused by abondament of paddy -eld. The upland rural landscape is made up of diversi-ed elemens, including vegetation elements such as broad-leaved forests and conifer forests, as well as -eld and urban districts with lots of trees. It is interesting to note that Yatsuda which comprises of paddy -eld and vegetation elements are in fact a landscape made up of wet paddies and secondary forests remaining along the slopes. As shown, the landscape classi-cation method which is based on the classi-cation algorithm under this study proves to give rational classi-cations.
5. Conclusion
This study examined a method of landscape classi-cation which uses remote sensed data and GIS. We have shown that the classi-cation method based on our classi-cation algorithms can produce standardized classi-cation results. Our next step will be a comparision of this method with the existing methods including the ones utilizing the multi-variate analysis, with a view to develop a landscape classi-cation adaptable for use at diŽerent localities.
Acknowledgement
This study was conducted as part of Sakura City's Natural Environment Survey Project. We owe a lot to the staŽ members of the Department of Conservation of Natural Environment at Sakura City, the Chiba prefecture Environemtn Foundation and to the members of the Survey Team. Hereby we would like to make acknowledgement of their contribution and express our sincere thanks.
References
-
Blankson, E.J. & B.H. Green. 1991. Use of landscape classi-cation as an essential prerequisite to landscape evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 21: 149-162.
- Burnce R.G.H. 1996. ITE Merlewood Land classi-cation of Great Britain. Journal of Bio-geography, 23: 625-634.
- Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Landscape Mosaics, The Ecology of Landscape and Regions, 632 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Forman, R.T..T. & M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology, 619 pp. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York.
- Hara, K. 1997. Macroscale analysis of landscape pattern in Chiba City, In "Conservation of Regional Biodiversity - Surveys of Communities and Ecosystems in chiba City -" (ed M. Numata), 193-206. Shinzansha, Tokyo. (In Japanese with English summary Hara, K. 2000. Landscape of Sakura-city. In " Natural Environment ofSakura city" (ed. Sakura Natural Environment Survey Group), 585-591, +7pp Sakura City. (In Japanese)
| Ecotope Group | Landform |
| I | II | III | IV |
| Marsh element type |
| Open Water | water-1 | water-2 | water-3 | water-4 |
| Marsh | marsh-1 | marsh-2 | marsh-3 | marsh-4 |
| Paddy element type |
| Paddy | paddy-1 | paddy-2 | paddy-3 | paddy-4 |
| Vegetation element type |
| Grass | grass-1 | grass-2 | grass-3 | grass-4 |
| Scrub | scrub-1 | scrub-2 | scrub-3 | scrub-4 |
| Broadleaf tree forest | forest_b-1 | forest_b-2 | forest_b-3 | forest_b-4 |
| Conifer forest | forest_c-1 | forest_c-2 | forest_c-3 | forest_c-4 |
| Urban element type |
| Green Urban | urban_g-1 | urban_g-2 | urban_g-3 | urban_g-4 |
| Ordinary Urban | urban_o-1 | urban_o-2 | urban_o-3 | urban_o-4 |
| Factory | urban_r-1 | urban_r-2 | urban_r-3 | urban_r-4 |
| Field element type |
| Field | `eld-1 | `eld-2 | `eld-3 | `eld-4 |
| Bare element type |
| Ordinary Bare | bare_o-1 | bare_o-2 | bare_o-3 | bare_o-4 |
| Concrete | bare_c-1 | bare_c-2 | bare_c-3 | bare_c-4 |
I. Altitude(m) (0<=a<=10), Inclination(dgree)(0<=s<5)
II. Altitude(m) (10<=a<=20), Inclination(dgree) (0<=s<5)
III. Altitude(m) (20<=a<=45), Inclination(dgree) (0<=s<5)
IV. Altitude(m) (0<=a<=45), Inclination(dgree) (s=>5) |
Table1. Ecotope type based on tandform and landcover
| Ecotope Group | Area(ha) | % |
| Marsh element type | 239:58 | 96:67 |
| water-1 | 239:58 | 96:57 |
| Paddy element type | 4:25 | 1:71 |
| Vegetation element type | 1:58 | 0:64 |
| Urban element type | 0:91 | 0:37 |
| Field element type | 0:34 | 0:14 |
| Bare element type | 0:65 | 0:26 |
| Total | 247:85 | 100:00 |
Table 2-1 Composition of each ecotope element type in the marsh landscape
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
