Landscape Ecology vol. 10 no.

2 pp 113-120 (1995)
SPB Academic Publishing bv, The Hague

Effects of sensor spatial resolution on landscape structure parameters

Barbara J. Benson 1 and Mark D. MacKenzie 1,2

1Center for Limnology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 680 N. Park Street, Madison, Wisconsin
53706, USA; 2Environmental Remote Sensing Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1225 W.
Dayton Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA

Keywords: remote sensing, grain, landscape pattern, texture, scale

Abstract

We examined the effects of increasing grain size from 20 m to 1100 m on landscape parameters characterizing
spatial structure in the northern Wisconsin lake district. We examined whether structural parameters remain
relatively constant over this range and whether aggregation algorithms permit extrapolation within this range.
Images from three different satellite sensors were employed in this study: (1) the SPOT multispectral high
resolution visible (HRV), (2) the Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM), and (3) the NOAA Advanced Very High
Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR). Each scene was classified as patches of water in a matrix of land. Spatial
structure was quantified using several landscape parameters: percent water, number of lakes (patches), aver-
age lake area and perimeter, fractal dimension, and three measures of texture (homogeneity, contrast, and
entropy). Results indicate that most measures were sensitive to changes in grain size. As grain size increased
from 20 m using HRV image data to 1100 m (AVHRR), the percent water and the number of lakes decreased
while the average lake area, perimeter, the fractal dimension, and contrast increased. The other two texture
measures were relatively invariant with grain size. Although examination of texture at various angles of ad-
jacency was performed to investigate features which vary systematically with angle, the angle did not have
an important effect on the texture parameter values. An aggregation algorithm was used to simulate addition-
al grain sizes. Grain was increased successively by a factor of two from 20 m (the HRV image) to 1280 m.
We then calculated landscape parameter values at each grain size. Extrapolated values closely approximated
the actual sensor values. Because the grain size has an important effect on most landscape parameters, the
choice of satellite sensor must be appropriate for the research question asked. Interpolation between the grain
sizes of different satellite sensors is possible with an approach involving aggregation of pixels.

Introduction and broad-scale landscape measures offer new

Ecologists are being confronted with scale prob-
lems as they address global issues (O'Neill 1988,
Woodmansee 1988). H u m a n effects on the environ-
ment have resulted in a globalization of environ-
mental problems entailing disturbances occurring
on broader spatial scales over shorter temporal
scales (di Castri and Hadley 1988). Remote sensing
methods to "scale u p " or extrapolate (Hall et al.
1988; O'Neill 1988) as ecologists attempt to use
knowledge based on analyses at finer spatial scales
to meet this challenge.
Remote sensing satellite sensors provide synoptic
image data that are useful for ecologists working at
global scales. In this study we use imagery from
three satellite sensors which have different levels of
114
spatial resolution. The high resolution visible mul-
tispectral sensor (HRV) onboard the French Sys-
tkme P o u r l'Observation de la Terre (SPOT) satel-
lite has a spatial resolution of 20 m, the Thematic
Mapper (TM) sensor onboard the US Landsat - 4
and - 5 satellites has a spatial resolution of 30 m,
and the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiome-
ter (AVHRR) sensor onboard the US NOAA satel-
lites has a spatial resolution of 1.1 km (Lillesand
and Kiefer 1994). Our objective was to investigate
the effect of the spatial resolution of satellite sen-
sors on landscape structure as revealed by various
landscape parameters.
Much attention has been focused on the impor-
tance of spatial and temporal scale in studying eco-
logical phenomena (Allen and Starr 1982; Delcourt
et al. 1983; O'Neill et al. 1986; Meentemeyer and
Box 1987; Urban et al. 1987). Spatial scale has two
components: grain, the finest resolution possibile
within a data set, and extent, the size of the study
area (Turner et al. 1989a). Turner et al. (1989a) give
as one definition of extrapolation " t o transfer in-
formation from one scale to another (either grain
size or extent)." Landscapes are generated by
processes occurring at different spatial and tem-
poral scales (e.g., microtopography, edaphic varia-
tion, major landforms). Hence, when the scale
of analysis is changed, different structure may
emerge. Extrapolation of structural measures will
only be possible over limited ranges of scale. Sever-
al previous studies have examined the effect of scale
change on measures of spatial structure (Woodcock
and Strahler 1987; Nellis and Briggs 1989; Turner
et al. 1989b).
Woodcock and Strahler (1987) depicted a change
in local variance as grain increased for several
different environments (forested, agricultural, and
urban/suburban). Each environment was viewed at
two different initial grains (fine resolution aerial
photography and Landsat-TM) and then the images
were degraded to coarser grain. Their primary con-
clusions were directed toward specifying, based on
the amount of local variance in a scene, which in-
formation extracting technique is appropriate for
thematic classification.
Nellis and Briggs (1989) applied textural contrast
algorithms to a series of digital images ranging in
grain from 5-m aerial photography to 80-m Land-
sat multispectral scanner (MSS) data. They assessed
the degree of homogeneity vs. heterogeneity of
study sites in the Konza Prairie Research Natural
Area and evaluated the appropriateness of mea-
sures at different scales for this assessment. Their
results suggested that heterogeneous areas must be
measured at finer grain sizes.
Turner et al. (1989b) framed their study as a con-
tribution to the science of scale. They attempted to
derive some general rules for effects of scale change
by examining the effects of grain and extent on
three measures of landscape structure: diversity,
dominance, and contagion. Analytical results,
based on simple artificial maps of a two-phase land-
scape (both random and with contagion, i.e.,
clusters of the same land cover type), were generat-
ed for the proportion of each cover type in a land-
scape as grain increased. They also examined the ef-
fects of scale change by aggregating actual land-
scape data from USGS land use data. Diversity
decreased linearly with increasing grain whereas
dominance and contagion were sensitive to the
decrease in the number of cover types as grain in-
creased.
Much remains to be explored about the effect of
changes in scale. In this study, we examined the ef-
fects of changing grain on parameters characteriz-
ing spatial structure over the range of grain sizes
represented by HRV, TM, and AVHRR satellite
imagery. We investigated whether structural
parameters remain relatively constant and whether
aggregation algorithms permit extrapolation within
this range.
Methods
Images from three satellite sensors, each with a
different spatial resolution, were analyzed to study
the effects of scale change on measures of land-
scape structure. The grain of the sensors (i.e., pixel
size) varies from 20 m for HRV, 30 m for TM, and
1.1 km for AVHRR. Images from each satellite
which contained the North Temperate Lakes Long-
Term Ecological Research (LTER) site (located in
northern Wisconsin) were acquired. The dates for
 115

each image were: June 10, 1988 for HRV; June 9,

1988 for TM; May 30, 1990 for A V H R R . These im-
ages were processed using the Erdas PC-based soft-
ware package (Erdas 1990).
The areal extent of the study area was held
constant by using the H R V image to define the
boundaries for subscenes of T M and A V H R R
imagery. The H R V image used represented an area
of 3,614 km 2. Each of the images, HRV, TM, and
A V H R R , was georectified to the Universal Trans-
verse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system using
nearest neighbor resampling.
We then classified each subscene into two
categories: land and water (Fig. 1). The choice of
these two categories was dicated by our broader
research goals. These two cover categories repre-
sent a simple but ecologically meaningful system
for considering landscape structure. We used the
near infrared band of each sensor because this band
is appropriate for separating land from water
(Lillesand and Kiefer 1994). All three satellites
record image data in this portion of the electromag-
netic spectrum. The wavelengths for each near in-
frared band are: 0 . 7 9 - 0 . 8 9 ~tm for HRV, 0 . 7 6 -
0.90 ~tm for TM, and 0 . 7 2 - 1 . 1 0 ~m for A V H R R
(Lillesand and Kiefer 1994). The separation of land
from water was based on a histogram of the raw
(i. e., no atmospheric or radiometric corrections) in-
C. frared band digital numbers (DN). The histogram
for this band is bimodal (Fig. 2) with the first mode
' ' == i" .=" corresponding to water, the second to land. The
m= in m
~. 9 =.= cutoff value between water and land was deter-
mined subjectively based on examination of in-
dividual DN values.
lI m Accuracy of classification based on the near in-
frared (Band 4) of TM was assessed using a digi-
, tized coverage of lake boundaries f r o m USGS 7.5'
topographic quadrangles of a 44,467 ha area within
the T M subscene. The agreement between the digi-
tized coverage and the classified subscene was de-
termined using an overlay module in Erdas. Using
the digitized coverage as a reference, 92 percent of
0 10 20 30 40 50 KM
the water and 99 percent of the land were correctly
Fig. 1. Patches of water (shown in black) in a matrix of land classified by the TM band 4 cutoff value.
(white) based on classification of satellite imagery with the near After classifying an image into land and water
infrared band from A) HRV; B) TM; and C) AVHRR. The
categories, various landscape parameters were cal-
scenes represent a 3,614 km2 area surrounding the North Tem-
perate Lake LTER site in northern Wisconsin and illustrate the culated using Erdas routines or Fortran programs
effect of satellite resolution on spatial structure. written for this study. The landscape parameters in-
116

2 land

T
1.5lwater
g
"" 1
9
o

0.5

0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r CO ~" LO r I~- CO O~ 0 ~ 04 CO ~"

Digital Number (DN)

Fig. 2. Histogram of the near infrared band from the HRV image showing the bimodal distribution of digital number values.

cluded percent water, number of patches (i.e., of adjacency can be done for various angles ena-
lakes), average area of patches, average perimeter bling one to look for features which vary systemati-
of patches, fractal dimension, and three measures cally with angle.
of texture (homogeneity, contrast, and entropy). We chose to use three of these texture measures
For all calculations except percent water, water because they were interpretable as aspects of land-
patches which intersected the boundary of the sub- scape heterogeneity. Our use of these measures was
scene were eliminated f r o m the analysis. based on class values (water, land) rather than DN
The fractal dimension (Mandelbrot 1982, Bur- values. Let p(i,j) represent the frequency of ad-
rough 1986) for area/perimeter relations is given by jacency of a pixel of value i with one of value j in
the spatial dependence matrix normalized to a
P = k A D/2 proportion. Homogeneity (or the second angular
moment) measures the extent to which there are few
where P is the perimeter, A is the area, D is the frac- dominant gray-tone transitions.
tal dimension and k is a constant. For areas and
perimeters based on raster data, the fractal dimen- homogeneity = ).7, 12 {p(i,j) }2
sion is two times the slope of the regression of log i j
(perimeter/4) against log(area) (Turner 1987). Contrast is a measure of local variation in the
Haralick et al. (1973) presented fourteen meas- image.
ures of texture derived f r o m a spatial dependence
matrix which summarizes the adjacency of all pos- Ng-1 INg Ng 1
contrast = n2 ~ ~ p(i,j)
sible DN values. To calculate texture, one starts n=0 i=l j=l
with an image where DN values are expressed on a li-jl =n
gray scale and constructs the gray-tone spatial de-
pendence matrix by looking at the frequency of where Ng equals the number of distinct gray levels.
values adjacent to one another. This examination Note that the sum is weighted by n 2 which indicates
 117

Table 1. Comparison of landscape parameters from HRV, TM, cent water decreased by 44 percent and only two
and AVHRR. percent of the lakes remained. The patterns of in-
crease or decrease in parameters with increasing
Parameter HRV TM AVHRR
grain were not monotonic, however. Unexpected
resolution (m) 20 30 1100 deviations from monotonic changes included the
percent water 11.9 10.9 6.7 average patch area and perimeter decreasing as
number of patches 3428 2829 63
grain increased from HRV to TM.
average patch area (ha) 11.7 7.8 360
average patch perimeter (m) 1324 1123 8600
Extrapolation from HRV to coarser grain size,
fractal dimension 1.23 1.25 1.36 based on aggregation, predicted relations between
homogeneity 0.77 0.79 0.80 parameter value and grain size (Fig. 3). For exam-
entropy 0.43 0.42 0.46 ple, the number of lakes decreases rapidly as grain
contrast 0.013 0.017 0.079
size increases while the percent water declines in an
approximately linear fashion. The mean lake area
increases in an approximately linear fashion with
how much the gray tone i differs from the gray tone increasing grain size while the mean lake perimeter
j. Thus this measure is appropriate for images with increases more gradually. In this way, aggregation
gray-tone values rather than cover types. In our based on a "majority rules" algorithm provided a
case with just two values, land and water, the mea- reasonable method for extrapolating landscape
sure reduces to the proportion of transitions of land parameters from fine to coarse grain. The actual
to water times two. Entropy is a measure of the landscape parameter values based on the A V H R R
complexity of the image. image support the extrapolated values with the best
correspondence (based on percent difference) being
entropy = - ]~ ]~ p(i,j) log (p(i,j)) for percent water (Fig. 3).
i j Two texture measures were relatively invariant
Homogeneity and entropy are negatively related. over changes in grain (Fig. 4). Homogeneity varies
Contrast is a more independent measure. It is possi- over the range of grain sizes by less then four per-
ble to construct landscapes in which decreasing cent; entropy varies by nine percent. However, con-
homogeneity can either decrease or increase con- trast of the A V H R R subscene was more than six
trast. times greater than for HRV. Texture parameters
In order to examine the feasibility of extrapolat- are calculated from a matrix of frequencies of
ing across scales, an aggregation algorithm was values being adjacent to one another. It was possi-
used to extrapolate from the fine grain HRV image ble to examine adjacency along horizontal and ver-
(20 m) to coarser grains of 40, 80, 160, 320, 640, tical directions as well as 45 degrees and 135
and 1280 m pixel sizes. The aggregation algorithm degrees. Angle did not have an important effect on
("majority rules") assigns the value of the majority the values of texture parameters (Fig. 4).
pixel values to the aggregated pixel. We compared
the extrapolated values of various landscape para-
meters to the computed parameter values based on Discussion
classified TM and A V H R R images.
Our results support the view that scaling issues must
be addressed when using satellite imagery to derive
Resulls landscape parameters since most landscape para-
meters are sensitive to changes in grain. We ex-
Most, but not all, landscape parameters were sensi- plored the feasibility of estimating parameters at
tive to changes in grain over the range in spatial different scales and found the estimation of para-
resolution from HRV to A V H R R (Table 1). As the meters at coarser grain sizes using an aggregation
pixel sixe increased from 20 m to 1.1 kin, the per- algorithm was reasonably accurate. The reverse
118
a)
4000 14-

9 aggregated value
0 satellite value
12
3000 ' 9 aggregated value
0 satellite value

10

"6
2000 9

~
8
E
E

1000 "

~ - - - - - .' -. - - .'~----~-1. . ,
0 . . . . j . .
4 . . . . i . . . . f . . . . i

0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500

grain (m) grain (m)

c) d)
4 0 0 84 10000'

0
0
~. 8000 '
300" v

*~ 6000 '
._E
200"

-~ 4000 '

E ted value
100-
0 satellite value E 2000.
alue
0 satellite value

. . . . i . . . . i . . . . i 0
500 1000 1500 500 1000 1500

grain (m) grain (m)

Fig. 3. The relation of a) number of lakes, b) percent water, c) mean lake area, and d) mean lake perimeter to grain (pixel size) for ag-
gregated images and actual satellite images.

estimation, however, from coarse-grain to fine- meters. Our results suggest that due to the depen-
grain may be more problematic unless an empirical dence of landscape parameters on grain size, use of
relation has been established since fine-scale fea- satellite sensors with coarser spatial resolutions is
tures m a y not be recoverable from coarse grain in- not a simple solution to investigating questions
formation. related to broader spatial scale phenomena.
While the spatial extent, increased temporal fre- The decrease in the number of lakes and the per-
quency, and accessibility of A V H R R images make centage of water in the landscape as grain increases
them useful for regional and global scale research is consistent with the results of Turner et al. (1989b)
(Goward et al. 1985; Iverson et al. 1989; Running that non-dominant cover types decrease as grain in-
and Nemani 1988), scaling issues must be consid- creases. This decrease was less rapid for our land-
ered in their use for estimating landscape para- scape than for the r a n d o m two-phase landscape
 119

a 9o peared to remain relatively constant. Because tex-

120 60 ture measures quantify landscape and regional spa-
D spot
A tm
tial heterogeneity, such measues may be important
avhrr parameters for regional or global process modeling.
We considered the effect of the angle used for
proximity of pixels in texture parameter calcula-
18o +-- o8 - o.~ - 04 - o.2- o - o.2 - o.4- 06 -[~ --I- o
tions. Angle did not appear to have an effect. In the
homogeneity
study area, the pattern of glacial moraines is in two
orthogonal directions (north-south and east-west).
b The two distinct directions seem to cancel each
9O
other in the examination of an effect of angle.
Aggregation results which used HRV imagery to
[]
150 120 l 60 3O
A
spot
tm extrapolate to the grain of A V H R R scenes provided
avhrr reasonable estimates of landscape parameters at
coarser grains. Wiens and Milne (1989) discussed
the concept of domains of scale. A domain is a
o
range of scale values over which extrapolation is
entropy adequate. For the landscape parameters we studied,
the range of spatial resolutions from HRV to
A V H R R appeared to be within such a domain.
~; 90
120 60 Some caveats are in order, however. The land-
scape we analyzed was relatively simple. Variability
[] spot
within the landscape will be a major determinant of
150 30 =.
tm
avhrr the possibility of "scaling u p " . For landscapes with
greater local variability, the results of aggregation
might be less adequate.
1 8 0 ~ 0
contrast In addition, our aggregation results are depen-
dent on the aggregation algorithm we used which
Fig. 4. Texture values for HRV, TM, and A V H R R as a function was based on "majority rules". Milne (1992)
of angle for three texture parameters: a) homogeneity, b) entro- describes properties of various aggregation al-
py, and c) contrast.
gorithms and suggests that important properties of
landscapes are not preserved under some aggrega-
Turner et al. (1989b) analyzed because of the ag- tion algorithms. An extension of our research
gregated arrangement of water pixels in the land- would be to modify the aggregation algorithm
scape. Because the A V H R R image was not taken in either to more closely approximate the actual physi-
the same year as the HRV and TM images, differ- cal aggregation of radiance by a satellite sensor or
ences between the images could be due to an inter- to explore aggregation algorithms such as Milne in-
annual difference in the proportion of land to vestigates which preserve properties of the land-
water. However, when one considers the 1.1 km scape (such as fractal dimension).
grain size of the AVHRR, we feel this possible An additional caveat as we explore aggregation
inter-annual difference had no significant effect on as a method of scaling up is that there may be a sig-
the A V H R R classification results. nificant difference between extrapolating and scal-
Our expectation was that texture parameters ing up. Extrapolation is based on a function which
would be scale dependent. However, two texture allows one to predict values outside the measured
parameters were relatively invariant with changes in range of scale. Scaling up can involve qualitative
grain size. Over the range of grain represented from shifts when the dominant processes structuring pat-
HRV to AVHRR, homogeneity and entropy ap- terns change as scale changes.
120
Studies which examine how landscape para-
meters change with scale (e.g., the effect of satellite
resolution) can provide a better understanding of
the usefulness of remote sensing and large scale
landscape measures. However, satellite imagery
predetermines grain and, therefore, the choice of
satellite sensor must be appropriate for the research
question asked. We show that grain has an impor-
tant effect on most landscape parameters. There is
a large gap between the grain size of a TM image
and that of AVHRR. We demonstrate that an ap-
proach involving aggregation of pixels can be used
to interpolate between sensor grains.
Acknowledgments
We appreciate the comments on drafts of the
manuscript by John Magnuson and two anony-
mous reviewers. The research is part of the North
Temperate Lakes Long-Term Ecological Research
project funded by the National Science Founda-
tion, Grants BSR9011660.
References
Allen, T.F.H. and Starr, T.B. 1982. Hierarchy: perspectives for
ecological complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Burrough, P.A. 1986. Principles of geographical information
systems for land resources assessment. Clarendon Press,
Oxford.
Delcourt, H.R., Delcourt, P.A. and Webb, T. 1983. Dynamic
plant ecology: the spectrum of vegetational change in space
and time. Quaternary Science Reviews 1: 153-175.
di Castri, F. and Hadley, M. 1988. Enhancing the credibility of
ecology: interacting along and across hierarchical scales.
GeoJournal 17" 5-35.
Erdas, Inc. 1990. Erdas User's Manual. Erdas, Inc. Atlanta,
GA.
Goward, S.N., Tucker, C.J. and Dye, D.G. 1985. North Ameri-
can vegetation patterns observed with the NOAA-7 advanced
very high resolution radiometer. Vegetatio 64: 3-14.
Hall, F.G., Strebel, D.E. and Sellers, P.J. 1988. Linking
knowledge among spatial and temporal scales: vegetation,
atmosphere, climate and remote sensing. Landsc. Ecol. 2:
3-22.
Haralick, R.M., Shanmugam, K. and Dinstein, I. 1973. Textur-
al features for image classification. IEEE Transactions on
systems, man, and cybernetics. SMC-3" 610-621.
Iverson, L.R., Cook, E.A. and Graham, R.L. 1989. A tech-
nique for extrapolating and validating forest cover across
large regions: calibrating AVHRR data with TM data. Int. J.
Rem. Sens. 10: 1805-1812.
Lillesand, T.M. and Kiefer, R.W. 1994. Remote sensing and im-
age interpretation. 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Mandelbrot, B.B. 1982. The fractal geometry of nature. Free-
man, New York.
Meentemeyer, V. and Box, E.O. 1987. Scale effects in landscape
studies. In Landscape heterogeneity and disturbance, pp.
15-34. Edited by M.G. Turner. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Milne, B.T. 1992. Indications of landscape condition at many
scales. In Ecological indicators. Vol. 2. pp. 8 8 3 - 8 9 . Edited
by D.H. McKenzie, D.E. Hyatt, and V.J. McDonald. El-
sevier Applied Science, London and New York.
Nellis, M.D. and Briggs, J.M. 1989. The effect of spatial scale
on Konza landscape classification using textural analysis.
Landsc. Ecol. 2: 93-100.
O'Neill, R.V, 1988. Hierarchy theory and global change. In
Scales and global change, pp. 29-45. Edited by R. Rosswall,
G. Woodmansee and P. Risser. John Wiley and Sons, New
York.
O'Neill, R.V., DeAngelis, D.L., Waide, J.B. and Allen, T.F.H.
1986. A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Running, S.W. and Nemani, R.R. 1988. Relating seasonal pat-
terns of the AVHRR vegetation index to simulated pho-
tosynthesis and transpiration of forests in different climates.
Rem. Sens. Env. 24: 347-367.
Turner, M.G. 1987. Spatial simulation of landscape changes in
Georgia: a comparison of 3 transition models. Landsc. Ecol.
1: 29-36.
Turner, M.G., Dale, V.H. and Gardner, R.H, 1989a. Predicting
across scales: theory development and testing. Landsc. Ecol.
3: 245-252.
Turner, M.G., O'Neill, R.V., Gardner, R.H. and Milne, B.T.
1989b. Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of
landscape pattern. Landsc. Ecol. 3: 153-162.
Urban, D.L., O'Neill, R.V. and Shugart, H.H., Jr. 1987. Land-
scape ecology. Bioscience 37:119-127.
Wiens, J.A. and Milne, B.T. 1989. Scaling of 'landscapes' in
landscape ecology, or landscape ecology from a beetle's per-
spective. Landsc. Ecol. 3:87 96.
Woodcock, C.E. and Strahler, A.H. 1987. The factor of scale
in remote sensing. Remote Sensing of Environment 21:
311-332.
Woodmansee, R.G. 1988. Ecosystem processes and global
change. In Scales and global change, pp. 11-27. Edited by R.
Rosswall, G. Woodmansee and P. Risser, John Wiley and
Sons, New York.