Upload
grant-manning
View
228
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Forest Fragmentation Index to Quantify the Rate of Forest
Change
A Forest Fragmentation Index to Quantify the Rate of Forest
Change
James D. Hurd, Emily H. Wilson,
Daniel L. Civco
Center for Land Use Education and Research (CLEAR)Department of Natural Resources Management & Engineering
The University of ConnecticutU-4087, Room 308, 1376 Storrs Road
Storrs, CT 06269-4087
OutlineOutlineOutlineOutline
• BackgroundBackground• ObjectivesObjectives• Study Area and DataStudy Area and Data• MethodsMethods
– Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation Model– State of Forest FragmentationState of Forest Fragmentation
• ResultsResults• ConclusionsConclusions• ERDAS Imagine GUIERDAS Imagine GUI
• BackgroundBackground• ObjectivesObjectives• Study Area and DataStudy Area and Data• MethodsMethods
– Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation Model– State of Forest FragmentationState of Forest Fragmentation
• ResultsResults• ConclusionsConclusions• ERDAS Imagine GUIERDAS Imagine GUI
Northeast Applications of Useable Technology In Land planning for
Urban Sprawl
Northeast Applications of Useable Technology In Land planning for
Urban Sprawl
A NASA Regional Earth Science
Applications Center (RESAC)
A NASA Regional Earth Science
Applications Center (RESAC)
To educate the general public on the value and utility of geospatial technologies, particularly RS information.
To educate the general public on the value and utility of geospatial technologies, particularly RS information.
Our RESAC MissionOur RESAC Mission
To make the power of remote sensing technology available, accessible and useable to local land use decision makers as they plan their communities.
NAUTILUS ResearchNAUTILUS Research
Better land cover mapping and Better land cover mapping and change detectionchange detection
Better land cover mapping and Better land cover mapping and change detectionchange detection
Urban growth models and Urban growth models and metricsmetrics
Urban growth models and Urban growth models and metricsmetrics
Forest fragmentation Forest fragmentation models and metricsmodels and metrics
Forest fragmentation Forest fragmentation models and metricsmodels and metrics
Improved Improved impervious cover impervious cover
estimatesestimates
Improved Improved impervious cover impervious cover
estimatesestimates
Research & Education Research & Education WatershedsWatersheds
Research & Education Research & Education WatershedsWatersheds
A range of land covers and issues
A range of land covers and issues
PresumpscotPresumpscot
SuAsCoSuAsCo
SalmonSalmon
StonybrookStonybrook
Salmon River Watershed, CTSalmon River Watershed, CT
140 Sq. Miles
• Focused watershed for NAUTILUS research
• Rapid Urbanization
• 5 out of 7 watershed towns are listed as the fastest growing towns in the State
• CES program and research already existing in watershed
• Key component of the lower Connecticut River Watershed
• State highway connects with major Hartford market
BackgroundBackgroundBackgroundBackground
• Need for effective methods for deriving information on
– Land use change– Forest fragmentation– Urban growth– Loss of agricultural lands– Increase in impervious surface area
• Need for effective methods for deriving information on
– Land use change– Forest fragmentation– Urban growth– Loss of agricultural lands– Increase in impervious surface area
ObjectiveObjectiveObjectiveObjective
To derive a forest fragmentation index that provides a more informational assessment of the state of forest fragmentation within a given area beyond that provided through binary forest/non-forest approaches.
To derive a forest fragmentation index that provides a more informational assessment of the state of forest fragmentation within a given area beyond that provided through binary forest/non-forest approaches.
Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation Model
• Developed by Riitters et al. (2000) to assess global forest fragmentation from 1 km data.
• Adapted for use on TM derived land cover information.
• Categorizes forest pixels into 6 types:• Interior forest• Edge forest• Perforated forest• Transition forest• Patch forest• Undetermined forest
• Developed by Riitters et al. (2000) to assess global forest fragmentation from 1 km data.
• Adapted for use on TM derived land cover information.
• Categorizes forest pixels into 6 types:• Interior forest• Edge forest• Perforated forest• Transition forest• Patch forest• Undetermined forest
Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation Model
Adapted from Riitters et al., 2000
64.025
16
pixelsnonwater all
pixelsforest of#Pf
5 x 5 roving window
Non-forest pixels
Forest pixels
Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation Model
64.025
16
pixelsnonwater all
pixelsforest of#Pf
72.032
23
forest is oneleast at direction cardinalin pairs pixel
forest pixelsboth direction cardinalin pairs pixelPff
Considering pairs of pixels in cardinal directions, the total number of adjacent pixel pairs in a 5 x 5 window is 40. In this example, 32 pixel pairs contain at least 1 forest pixel, and of those 23 pairs contain 2 forest pixels.
Considering pairs of pixels in cardinal directions, the total number of adjacent pixel pairs in a 5 x 5 window is 40. In this example, 32 pixel pairs contain at least 1 forest pixel, and of those 23 pairs contain 2 forest pixels.
5 x 5 roving window
Non-forest pixels
Forest pixels
Adapted from Riitters et al., 2000
Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation Model Interior forest - all of the pixels
surrounding the center pixel are forest.
Pf = 1.0
Interior forest - all of the pixels surrounding the center pixel are forest.
Pf = 1.0
Adapted from Riitters et al., 2000
Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation Model Interior forest - all of the pixels surrounding the center pixel are
forest. Pf = 1.0
Perforated forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are forested, but the center pixel appears to be part of the inside edge of a forest patch, such as would occur if a small clearing was made within a patch of forest.
Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff > 0.
Interior forest - all of the pixels surrounding the center pixel are forest. Pf = 1.0
Perforated forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are forested, but the center pixel appears to be part of the inside edge of a forest patch, such as would occur if a small clearing was made within a patch of forest.
Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff > 0.
Adapted from Riitters et al., 2000
Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation Model Interior forest - all of the pixels surrounding the center pixel are
forest. Pf = 1.0 Perforated forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are
forested, but the center pixel appears to be part of the inside edge of a forest patch, such as would occur if a small clearing was made within a patch of forest. Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff > 0
Edge forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are forested, but the center pixel appears to be part of the outside edge of forest, such as would occur along the boundary of a large urban area, or agricultural field.
Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff < 0
Interior forest - all of the pixels surrounding the center pixel are forest. Pf = 1.0
Perforated forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are forested, but the center pixel appears to be part of the inside edge of a forest patch, such as would occur if a small clearing was made within a patch of forest. Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff > 0
Edge forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are forested, but the center pixel appears to be part of the outside edge of forest, such as would occur along the boundary of a large urban area, or agricultural field.
Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff < 0
Adapted from Riitters et al., 2000
Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation Model Interior forest - all of the pixels surrounding the center pixel are
forest. Pf = 1.0 Perforated forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are
forested, but the center pixel appears to be part of the inside edge of a forest patch, such as would occur if a small clearing was made within a patch of forest. Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff > 0
Edge forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are forested, but the center pixel appears to be part of the outside edge of forest, such as would occur along the boundary of a large urban area, or agricultural field. Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff < 0
Undetermined forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are forested, but this center forest pixel could not be classified as a type of fragmentation in the surrounding area.
Pf > 0.6 and Pf = Pff
Interior forest - all of the pixels surrounding the center pixel are forest. Pf = 1.0
Perforated forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are forested, but the center pixel appears to be part of the inside edge of a forest patch, such as would occur if a small clearing was made within a patch of forest. Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff > 0
Edge forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are forested, but the center pixel appears to be part of the outside edge of forest, such as would occur along the boundary of a large urban area, or agricultural field. Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff < 0
Undetermined forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are forested, but this center forest pixel could not be classified as a type of fragmentation in the surrounding area.
Pf > 0.6 and Pf = Pff
Adapted from Riitters et al., 2000
Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation Model Interior forest - all of the pixels surrounding the center pixel are
forest. Pf = 1.0 Perforated forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are
forested, but the center pixel appears to be part of the inside edge of a forest patch, such as would occur if a small clearing was made within a patch of forest. Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff > 0
Edge forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are forested, but the center pixel appears to be part of the outside edge of forest, such as would occur along the boundary of a large urban area, or agricultural field. Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff < 0
Undetermined forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are forested, but this center forest pixel could not be classified as a type of fragmentation in the surrounding area.
Pf > 0.6 and Pf = Pff
Transitional forest - about half of the cells in the surrounding area are forested and the center forest pixel may appear to be part of a patch, edge, or perforation depending on the local forest pattern.
0.4 < Pf < 0.6
Interior forest - all of the pixels surrounding the center pixel are forest. Pf = 1.0
Perforated forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are forested, but the center pixel appears to be part of the inside edge of a forest patch, such as would occur if a small clearing was made within a patch of forest. Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff > 0
Edge forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are forested, but the center pixel appears to be part of the outside edge of forest, such as would occur along the boundary of a large urban area, or agricultural field. Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff < 0
Undetermined forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are forested, but this center forest pixel could not be classified as a type of fragmentation in the surrounding area.
Pf > 0.6 and Pf = Pff
Transitional forest - about half of the cells in the surrounding area are forested and the center forest pixel may appear to be part of a patch, edge, or perforation depending on the local forest pattern.
0.4 < Pf < 0.6Adapted from Riitters et al., 2000
Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation Model Interior forest - all of the pixels surrounding the center pixel are
forest. Pf = 1.0 Perforated forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are
forested, but the center pixel appears to be part of the inside edge of a forest patch, such as would occur if a small clearing was made within a patch of forest. Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff > 0
Edge forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are forested, but the center pixel appears to be part of the outside edge of forest, such as would occur along the boundary of a large urban area, or agricultural field. Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff < 0
Undetermined forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are forested, but this center forest pixel could not be classified as a type of fragmentation in the surrounding area.
Pf > 0.6 and Pf = Pff Transitional forest - about half of the cells in the surrounding
area are forested and the center forest pixel may appear to be part of a patch, edge, or perforation depending on the local forest pattern. 0.4 < Pf < 0.6
Patch forest - pixel is part of a forest patch on a non-forest background, such as a small wooded lot within an urban region. Pf < 0.4
Interior forest - all of the pixels surrounding the center pixel are forest. Pf = 1.0
Perforated forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are forested, but the center pixel appears to be part of the inside edge of a forest patch, such as would occur if a small clearing was made within a patch of forest. Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff > 0
Edge forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are forested, but the center pixel appears to be part of the outside edge of forest, such as would occur along the boundary of a large urban area, or agricultural field. Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff < 0
Undetermined forest - most of the pixels in the surrounding area are forested, but this center forest pixel could not be classified as a type of fragmentation in the surrounding area.
Pf > 0.6 and Pf = Pff Transitional forest - about half of the cells in the surrounding
area are forested and the center forest pixel may appear to be part of a patch, edge, or perforation depending on the local forest pattern. 0.4 < Pf < 0.6
Patch forest - pixel is part of a forest patch on a non-forest background, such as a small wooded lot within an urban region. Pf < 0.4 Adapted from Riitters et al., 2000
Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelExample Calculation 1Example Calculation 1Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelExample Calculation 1Example Calculation 1
Landsat DerivedLand Cover
White box represents 5X5 pixel area.
Identifies center forest pixel.
Forest Fragmentation(center forest pixel identified as perforated)
INTERIOR FOR.PERFORATED FOR.EDGE FORESTTRANSITIONAL FOR.PATCH FORESTUNDETERMINEDFOREST
IKONOS Imageof Area
Non-water pixels = 25Forest pixels = 24Pixel pairs, both forest = 36Pixel pairs, one forest = 4
Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelExample Calculation 1Example Calculation 1Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelExample Calculation 1Example Calculation 1
Forest Fragmentation
INTERIOR FOR.PERFORATED FOR.EDGE FORESTTRANSITIONAL FOR.PATCH FORESTUNDETERMINEDFOREST
Landsat Derived Land Cover
96.025
24Pf 9.0
40
36Pff
Perforated forest = Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff > 0Perforated forest = Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff > 0
Pf is greater than 0.6 andPf - Pff (0.06) is greater than 0.
Within 5x5 window
Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelExample Calculation 2Example Calculation 2Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelExample Calculation 2Example Calculation 2
Landsat DerivedLand Cover
Forest Fragmentation(center forest pixel identified as edge)
INTERIOR FOR.PERFORATED FOR.EDGE FORESTTRANSITIONAL FOR.PATCH FORESTUNDETERMINEDFOREST
IKONOS Imageof Area
White box represents 5X5 pixel area.
Identifies center forest pixel.
Non-water pixels = 25Forest pixels = 18Pixel pairs, both forest = 26Pixel pairs, one forest = 6
Forest Fragmentation
INTERIOR FOR.PERFORATED FOR.EDGE FORESTTRANSITIONAL FOR.PATCH FORESTUNDETERMINEDFOREST
Landsat Derived Land Cover
72.025
18Pf 81.0
32
26Pff
Edge forest = Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff < 0Edge forest = Pf > 0.6 and Pf - Pff < 0
Pf is greater than 0.6 andPf - Pff (-0.09) is less than 0.
Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelExample Calculation 2Example Calculation 2Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelExample Calculation 2Example Calculation 2
Within 5x5 window
Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelExample Calculation 3Example Calculation 3Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelExample Calculation 3Example Calculation 3
Landsat DerivedLand Cover
IKONOS Imageof Area
White box represents 5X5 pixel area.
Identifies center forest pixel.
Forest Fragmentation(center forest pixel identified as patch)
INTERIOR FOR.PERFORATED FOR.EDGE FORESTTRANSITIONAL FOR.PATCH FORESTUNDETERMINEDFOREST
Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelExample Calculation 3Example Calculation 3Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelExample Calculation 3Example Calculation 3
Non-water pixels = 25Forest pixels = 6Pixel pairs, both forest = 2Pixel pairs, one forest = 15
Forest Fragmentation
INTERIOR FOR.PERFORATED FOR.EDGE FORESTTRANSITIONAL FOR.PATCH FORESTUNDETERMINEDFOREST
Landsat Derived Land Cover
24.025
6Pf
Patch forest = Pf < 0.4 Patch forest = Pf < 0.4
Pf is less than 0.4.
Within 5x5 window
Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation Model
30 meter interior forest
buffer.
• Size of window determines width of fragmentation classes (5x5 window = 60 meter width).
• User option to buffer interior forest to generate 30 meter wide fragmentation classes.
• Size of window determines width of fragmentation classes (5x5 window = 60 meter width).
• User option to buffer interior forest to generate 30 meter wide fragmentation classes.
Forest Frag. Before Buffer Forest Frag. post-Buffer
Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation Model
1999 ForestFragmentation post-Buffer
1999 ForestFragmentation
1999 Land Cover
Salmon RiverWatershed
Forest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelForest Fragmentation ModelAugust 9, 1985 August 30, 1990 August 28, 1995 August 31, 1999
URBANNON-WOODY VEGDECIDUOUS FOR.CONIFEROUS FOR.WATERWETLANDBARREN
Land Cover
INTERIOR FOR.PERFORATED FOR.EDGE FORESTTRANSITIONAL FOR.PATCH FORESTUNDETERMINEDFOREST
Fragmentation
Landsat TM
RED = Band 4 (NIR)GREEN = Band 5 (MIR)BLUE = Band 6 (red)
State of Forest FragmentationState of Forest FragmentationState of Forest FragmentationState of Forest Fragmentation
• Input information is the result from the forest fragmentation model.
• Two components:– Proportion of forest area to total area (excluding water).
(TFP)– Forest continuity (FC)
• The product of:– the proportion of weighted area of fragmented forest to
total forest area, and…– …the proportion of the largest interior forest patch to
total forest area.
• Input information is the result from the forest fragmentation model.
• Two components:– Proportion of forest area to total area (excluding water).
(TFP)– Forest continuity (FC)
• The product of:– the proportion of weighted area of fragmented forest to
total forest area, and…– …the proportion of the largest interior forest patch to
total forest area.
State of Forest FragmentationState of Forest Fragmentationdetermining TFPdetermining TFPState of Forest FragmentationState of Forest Fragmentationdetermining TFPdetermining TFP
Interior forest 3624Patch forest 88Transitional forest 350Perforated Forest 346Edge Forest 318TOTAL FOREST 4,726
CLASS PIXELS
Non-water 5,980Water 94TOTAL WATERSHED 6,074
CLASS PIXELS
4,726/5,980 = 0.794,726/5,980 = 0.79
Proportion of Forest(non-water)
Proportion of Forest(non-water)
State of Forest FragmentationState of Forest Fragmentationdetermining FC, part 1: weighted forest areadetermining FC, part 1: weighted forest areaState of Forest FragmentationState of Forest Fragmentationdetermining FC, part 1: weighted forest areadetermining FC, part 1: weighted forest area
Interior forest 3,624 X 1.0 3,624.0Patch forest 88 X 0.2 17.6Transitional forest 350 X 0.5 175.0Perforated Forest 346 X 0.8 276.8Edge Forest 318 X 0.8 254.4TOTAL FOREST 4,726 4,347.8
CLASS PIXELS WEIGHT
The weighting values are based onthe Pf values of Riitters model.
1.0 -0.8 -
0.5 -
0.2 -
(4,347.8 / 4726)(4,347.8 / 4726)= 0.92= 0.92Weighted forest areaWeighted forest area
State of Forest FragmentationState of Forest Fragmentationdetermining FC, part 2: largest interior forestdetermining FC, part 2: largest interior forestState of Forest FragmentationState of Forest Fragmentationdetermining FC, part 2: largest interior forestdetermining FC, part 2: largest interior forest
Interior forest 3,624Patch forest 88Transitional forest 350Perforated Forest 346Edge Forest 318TOTAL FOREST 4,726
CLASS PIXELS
Largest Interior Forest Patch2,443 pixels
2443 / 4726 = 0.522443 / 4726 = 0.52
Largest interior forestpatch proportion
Largest interior forestpatch proportion
Proportion of weighted forest x Proportion of largest interior forest patch
= Forest Continuity
Forest Continuity = 0.92 * 0.52 = 0.48Forest Continuity = 0.92 * 0.52 = 0.48
State of Forest FragmentationState of Forest Fragmentationdetermining FCdetermining FCState of Forest FragmentationState of Forest Fragmentationdetermining FCdetermining FC
State of Forest FragmentationState of Forest FragmentationHypothetical Example 1Hypothetical Example 1State of Forest FragmentationState of Forest FragmentationHypothetical Example 1Hypothetical Example 1
Interior forest 2483Patch forest 0Transitional forest 15Perforated Forest 4Edge Forest 13
CLASS PIXELS
Urban 307Forest 2515Barren 1
CLASS PIXELS
0Proportion of Forest
For
est
Con
tinui
ty
1
1
Proportion of Forest = 0.89Proportion of Forest = 0.89
Forest Continuity = 0.98Forest Continuity = 0.98
Proportion of Forest = 0.89Proportion of Forest = 0.89
Forest Continuity = 0.37Forest Continuity = 0.37
Interior forest 2179Patch forest 14Transitional forest 202Perforated Forest 53Edge Forest 67
CLASS PIXELS
Urban 307Forest 2515Barren 1
CLASS PIXELS
State of Forest FragmentationState of Forest FragmentationHypothetical Example 2Hypothetical Example 2State of Forest FragmentationState of Forest FragmentationHypothetical Example 2Hypothetical Example 2
0Proportion of Forest
For
est
Con
tinui
ty
1
1
State of Forest FragmentationState of Forest FragmentationState of Forest FragmentationState of Forest Fragmentation
• Based on current literature, forest fragmentation becomes more severe at about 80% forest cover.
• The potential for improving forest connectivity by connecting adjacent forest patches is greatest between 60% and 80% forest cover.
• Below 60% forest cover there tends to be more numerous and smaller forest patches.
• Based on current literature, forest fragmentation becomes more severe at about 80% forest cover.
• The potential for improving forest connectivity by connecting adjacent forest patches is greatest between 60% and 80% forest cover.
• Below 60% forest cover there tends to be more numerous and smaller forest patches.
With regards to forest proportion:With regards to forest proportion:
State of Forest FragmentationState of Forest FragmentationState of Forest FragmentationState of Forest Fragmentation
• Analyzing only the forest area, forest will range from fully intact with little or no fragmentation to completely fragmented or non-existent forest.
• Analyzing only the forest area, forest will range from fully intact with little or no fragmentation to completely fragmented or non-existent forest.
With regards to forest continuity:With regards to forest continuity:
State of Forest FragmentationState of Forest FragmentationState of Forest FragmentationState of Forest Fragmentation
0Proportion of Forest
Fo
rest
Co
nti
nu
ity
1
1.8.6
.5
High amount of forest,High forest continuityHigh amount of forest,Low forest continuityModerate amount of forest,High forest continuityModerate amount of forest,Low forest continuityLow amount of forest,High forest continuityLow amount of forest,Low forest continuity
State of Forest FragmentationState of Forest FragmentationReal World Example 1Real World Example 1State of Forest FragmentationState of Forest FragmentationReal World Example 1Real World Example 1
Proportion of Forest= 0.76
Proportion of Forest= 0.76
Forest Continuity= 0.66
Forest Continuity= 0.66
Interior forest 2981Patch forest 56Transitional forest 174Perforated Forest 408Edge Forest 199
CLASS PIXELS
Urban 307Non-woody Veg 595Forest/Wetland 3818Water 14Barren 14
CLASS PIXELS
0Proportion of Forest
For
est
Con
tinui
ty
1
1.8.6
.5
State of Forest FragmentationState of Forest FragmentationReal World Example 2Real World Example 2State of Forest FragmentationState of Forest FragmentationReal World Example 2Real World Example 2
Proportion of Forest= 0.79
Proportion of Forest= 0.79
Forest Continuity= 0.46
Forest Continuity= 0.46
0Proportion of Forest
For
est
Con
tinui
ty
1
1.8.6
.5
Interior forest 3624Patch forest 88Transitional forest 350Perforated Forest 346Edge Forest 318
CLASS PIXELS
Urban 689Non-woody Veg 546Forest/Wetland 4726Water 94Barren 19
CLASS PIXELS
State of Forest FragmentationState of Forest FragmentationReal World Example 3Real World Example 3State of Forest FragmentationState of Forest FragmentationReal World Example 3Real World Example 3
Proportion of Forest= 0.43
Proportion of Forest= 0.43
Forest Continuity= 0.66
Forest Continuity= 0.66
0Proportion of Forest
For
est
Con
tinui
ty
1
1.8.6
.5
Interior forest 418Patch forest 21Transitional forest 36Perforated Forest 48Edge Forest 36
CLASS PIXELS
Urban 77Non-woody Veg 650Forest/Wetland 568Water 32Barren 6
CLASS PIXELS
ResultsResultsResultsResults
Town of Marlborough, CTand intersecting watershedsTown of Marlborough, CT
and intersecting watersheds
1985 State of Fragmentation1985 State of Fragmentation
High amount of forest,High forest continuityHigh amount of forest,Low forest continuityModerate amount of forest,High forest continuityModerate amount of forest,Low forest continuityLow amount of forest,High forest continuityLow amount of forest,Low forest continuity
ResultsResultsResultsResults
Town of Marlborough, CTand intersecting watershedsTown of Marlborough, CT
and intersecting watersheds
1990 State of Fragmentation1990 State of Fragmentation
High amount of forest,High forest continuityHigh amount of forest,Low forest continuityModerate amount of forest,High forest continuityModerate amount of forest,Low forest continuityLow amount of forest,High forest continuityLow amount of forest,Low forest continuity
ResultsResultsResultsResults
Town of Marlborough, CTand intersecting watershedsTown of Marlborough, CT
and intersecting watersheds
1995 State of Fragmentation1995 State of Fragmentation
High amount of forest,High forest continuityHigh amount of forest,Low forest continuityModerate amount of forest,High forest continuityModerate amount of forest,Low forest continuityLow amount of forest,High forest continuityLow amount of forest,Low forest continuity
ResultsResultsResultsResults
Town of Marlborough, CTand intersecting watershedsTown of Marlborough, CT
and intersecting watersheds
1999 State of Fragmentation1999 State of Fragmentation
High amount of forest,High forest continuityHigh amount of forest,Low forest continuityModerate amount of forest,High forest continuityModerate amount of forest,Low forest continuityLow amount of forest,High forest continuityLow amount of forest,Low forest continuity
Town of Marlborough, CTand 1 kilometer grid regionsTown of Marlborough, CT
and 1 kilometer grid regions
1985 State of Fragmentation1985 State of Fragmentation
High amount of forest,High forest continuityHigh amount of forest,Low forest continuityModerate amount of forest,High forest continuityModerate amount of forest,Low forest continuityLow amount of forest,High forest continuityLow amount of forest,Low forest continuity
ResultsResultsResultsResults
ResultsResultsResultsResults
Town of Marlborough, CTand 1 kilometer grid regionsTown of Marlborough, CT
and 1 kilometer grid regions
1990 State of Fragmentation1990 State of Fragmentation
High amount of forest,High forest continuityHigh amount of forest,Low forest continuityModerate amount of forest,High forest continuityModerate amount of forest,Low forest continuityLow amount of forest,High forest continuityLow amount of forest,Low forest continuity
ResultsResultsResultsResults
Town of Marlborough, CTand 1 kilometer grid regionsTown of Marlborough, CT
and 1 kilometer grid regions
1995 State of Fragmentation1995 State of Fragmentation
High amount of forest,High forest continuityHigh amount of forest,Low forest continuityModerate amount of forest,High forest continuityModerate amount of forest,Low forest continuityLow amount of forest,High forest continuityLow amount of forest,Low forest continuity
ResultsResultsResultsResults
Town of Marlborough, CTand 1 kilometer grid regionsTown of Marlborough, CT
and 1 kilometer grid regions
1999 State of Fragmentation1999 State of Fragmentation
High amount of forest,High forest continuityHigh amount of forest,Low forest continuityModerate amount of forest,High forest continuityModerate amount of forest,Low forest continuityLow amount of forest,High forest continuityLow amount of forest,Low forest continuity
ResultsResultsResultsResults
Town of Marlborough, CTand intersecting watershedsTown of Marlborough, CT
and intersecting watersheds
1985 Forest Fragmentation1985 Forest Fragmentation
CLASS
Interior Forest 6,481
Water 130Developed 807Non-woody Vegetation 930
Patch Forest 62Transitional Forest 373Perforated Forest 740Edge Forest 476
Town BoundaryWatershed Boundary
HECTARES1985
Total Forest 8,132
ResultsResultsResultsResults
Town of Marlborough, CTand intersecting watershedsTown of Marlborough, CT
and intersecting watersheds
1990 Forest Fragmentation1990 Forest Fragmentation
CLASS
Interior Forest 6,481 6,027
Water 130 139Developed 807 997Non-woody Vegetation 930 979
Patch Forest 62 83Transitional Forest 373 442Perforated Forest 740 836Edge Forest 476 496
Town BoundaryWatershed Boundary
HECTARES1985 1990
Total Forest 8,132 7,884
CLASS
Interior Forest 6,027 5,625
Water 139 139Developed 997 1,111Non-woody Vegetation 979 1,119
Patch Forest 83 103Transitional Forest 442 490Perforated Forest 836 879Edge Forest 496 533
Town BoundaryWatershed Boundary
HECTARES1990 1995
Total Forest 7,884 7,630
ResultsResultsResultsResults
Town of Marlborough, CTand intersecting watershedsTown of Marlborough, CT
and intersecting watersheds
1995 Forest Fragmentation1995 Forest Fragmentation
Town of Marlborough, CTand intersecting watershedsTown of Marlborough, CT
and intersecting watersheds
1999 Forest Fragmentation1999 Forest Fragmentation
ResultsResultsResultsResults
CLASS
Interior Forest 5,625 5,444
Water 139 139Developed 1,111 1,191Non-woody Vegetation 1,119 1,151
Patch Forest 103 113Transitional Forest 490 519Perforated Forest 879 892Edge Forest 533 551
Town BoundaryWatershed Boundary
HECTARES1995 1999
Total Forest 7,630 7,519
ResultsResultsResultsResults
State of Forest Fragmentation
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90
Total Forest Proprtion (excluding water)
Fo
rest
Co
ntin
uity
1985
1990
1995
1999
19851985
TFP = 0.81 FC = 0.60
Land CoverLand Cover
ForestFragmentationForestFragmentation
Landsat TMAug. 9, 1985 Landsat TMAug. 9, 1985
ResultsResultsResultsResults
State of Forest Fragmentation
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90
Total Forest Proprtion (excluding water)
Fo
rest
Co
ntin
uity
1985
1990
1995
1999
1985 19901990
TFP = 0.76 FC = 0.47
Land CoverLand Cover
ForestFragmentationForestFragmentation
Landsat TMAug. 30, 1990 Landsat TMAug. 30, 1990
ResultsResultsResultsResults
State of Forest Fragmentation
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90
Total Forest Proprtion (excluding water)
Fo
rest
Co
ntin
uity
1985
1990
1995
1999
1985 1990 19951995
TFP = 0.72 FC = 0.42
Land CoverLand Cover
ForestFragmentationForestFragmentation
Landsat TMAug. 28, 1995 Landsat TMAug. 28, 1995
ResultsResultsResultsResults
State of Forest Fragmentation
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90
Total Forest Proprtion (excluding water)
Fo
rest
Co
ntin
uity
1985
1990
1995
1999
1985 1990 1995 19991999
TFP = 0.69 FC = 0.38
Land CoverLand Cover
ForestFragmentationForestFragmentation
Landsat TMAug. 31, 1999 Landsat TMAug. 31, 1999
ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions
• The results of this research provide several forms of information:
• The results of this research provide several forms of information:
1. An easy to understand map that identifies the state of forest fragmentation for a region.1. An easy to understand map that identifies the state of forest fragmentation for a region.
Regions of highforest fragmentation
Regions of lowforest fragmentation
• The results of this research provide several forms of information:
• The results of this research provide several forms of information:
2. A way in which to easily identify regions undergoing land use change.2. A way in which to easily identify regions undergoing land use change.
ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions
1985 1999
ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions
• The results of this research provide several forms of information:
• The results of this research provide several forms of information:
3. A manner in which to quantify the severity of forest fragmentation.3. A manner in which to quantify the severity of forest fragmentation.
1985 1999
YEAR TFP FC1985 0.70 0.571990 0.67 0.521995 0.63 0.411999 0.60 0.32
ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions
• The results of this research provide several forms of information:
• The results of this research provide several forms of information:
4. And a way in which to identify the cause and amount of forest fragmentation.4. And a way in which to identify the cause and amount of forest fragmentation.
1999
ERDAS Imagine GUIERDAS Imagine GUIERDAS Imagine GUIERDAS Imagine GUI
AcknowledgementAcknowledgementAcknowledgementAcknowledgement
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Grant NAG13-99001/NRA-98-OES-08 RESAC-NAUTILUS, Better Land Use Planning for the Urbanizing Northeast: Creating a Network of Value-Added Geospatial Information, Tools, and Education for Land Use Decision Makers.
Northeast Applications of Useable Technology In Land planning for Urban Sprawl
This presentationis available at
resac.uconn.edu
A Forest Fragmentation Index to Quantify the Rate of Forest
Change
A Forest Fragmentation Index to Quantify the Rate of Forest
Change
James D. Hurd, Emily H. Wilson,
Daniel L. Civco
Center for Land Use Education and Research (CLEAR)Department of Natural Resources Management & Engineering
The University of ConnecticutU-4087, Room 308, 1376 Storrs Road
Storrs, CT 06269-4087