Urban Climate 39 (2021) 100931

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Climate
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/uclim

Evaluation of land use and land cover Spatio-temporal change

during rapid Urban sprawl from Lahore, Pakistan
Shah Fahad a, b, Wei Li a, *, Akhtar Hussain Lashari a, Akhtar Islam a, b,
Lubna Hashim Khattak a, Umair Rasool a
a
School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
b
School of Environment, University of Swat, Swat 19200, Pakistan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study evaluates land use/cover changes and urban expansion in Lahore, Pakistan from 2000
Intensity analysis to 2020 using satellite images and socio-economic data. Spatial and temporal dynamics of land
Urbanization use/cover changes were quantified using five Landsat images, a supervised classification algo­
Land use/cover change
rithm post-classification change detection and the intensity analysis technique in GIS. Landsat
Spatio-temporal change
images 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020 were classified into four dominant land use categories
Driving forces
in the study area: built up area, agricultural land, barren land and water bodies. The intensity
analysis of time interval revealed that the annual change rate during 2000–2005, and 2010–2015
was 28.76% and 16.45% respectively, while during the 2005–2010 and 2015–2020 was 11.49%
and 6.04%. The transition level of intensity analysis indicated that the built-up area is expanded
at agricultural land and gained area 886 km2 and 861 km2 in the period from 2000 to 2005, and
2010–2015, respectively. The built up area significantly growth from 22.99% to 47.17% of total
study area 2000 and 2020 respectively. The driving force behind this change was economic
development and population growth and climate change. The rapid population growth and rapid
urbanization resulted in a wide range of environmental impacts, including degraded habitat
quality.

1. Introduction

Land use/cover change (LUCC) occurs due to direct or indirect human intervention, as one of the main factors causing environ­
mental changes on a local, national and global level (Etter et al., 2006; Manandhar et al., 2009; Rasool et al., 2020). LUCC affects
climate and weather at both regional and global levels by modifying the interaction of natural resources, water bodies, and greenhouse
gases among land and atmosphere (Sleeter et al., 2017). Land-use and ecosystem changed of land patterns and distribution are affected
directly or indirectly through climate change (Turner and Gardner, 2015). The combination, of land-use changes such as rapid ur­
banization, cropland expansion, and deforestation have tremendous impacts on the water cycle such as rainfall pattern, penetration,
runoff, and evapotranspiration (Liverman and Cuesta, 2008; Loveland and Mahmood, 2014; Scanlon et al., 2005).
Urban expansion is one of the most significant of all geographical phenomena that can be detected internationally, especially in
cities in developing countries (Eckert, 2011). Urban expansion is one of the key factors in transition of the land-use (Soffianian et al.,
2010). LUCC the climate change and natural habitats affect by rapid urbanization growth (Huang et al., 2014; Lin and Ben, 2009). In

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Fahadkahn333@mail.bnu.edu.cn (S. Fahad), weili@bnu.edu.cn (W. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2021.100931
Received 17 March 2021; Received in revised form 13 June 2021; Accepted 19 July 2021
2212-0955/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Fahad et al. Urban Climate 39 (2021) 100931

the context of rapid urbanization, it impacts mesoscale biodiversity, water supply, carbon cycling, weather pattern, and change in local
climate (Bajocco et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2011; Tian et al., 2012). Some researchers have examined the effects of LUCC by urbanization
on environmental factors, such as biodiversity, social conditions, atmospheric and water (Shi et al., 2008; Zhao et al., 2010).
Pakistan is the fastest urbanizing country in South Asia, with an urban population share growing from 17% in 1951 to 37% in 2010
and 39.7% in 2017, with a 2.77% of urban growth rate, have recorded annually. The next 10 to 15 years estimate shows that the half of
country's populace will be live in an urbanized area (Safdar, 2018). In term of population, Punjab is the largest populated Province in
Pakistan, has witnessed population growth and economic development over the last few periods have the main contribution to the
acceleration of rapid urbanization. In the period from 1951 to 1998 and 1998 to 2010, the population has grown by 258% and 26%
respectively. In the term of population density in 1951 and 2010, it was recorded 100 persons/km2 and 492 persons/km2 respectively
(CDPR, 2011). In terms of population and economy, Lahore is the 2nd largest metropolitan city after Karachi., (Pakistan Bureau of
Statistics, 2017), the Lahore populace was more than 6.3 million in 1998, and 11.2 million in 2017. Annually 3% growth was recorded
in these 20 years.
LUCC in Pakistan in general and particularly in Lahore, Punjab, are not highly researched. For example, (Ali and Nitivattananon,
2012) led a study in Lahore, Punjab, and used a remote sensing technique. The study was conducted from 1975 to 2009, the results
showed built-up areas increased, while agriculture, grasses, and rare forests sharply declined. (Bhatti et al., 2015), conducted study in
Lahore, metropolitan city projected maps for 2021 and 2035. The result indicates that the urban area expanded, while vegetation and
agriculture declined.
Therefore, very limited studies are conducted on LUCC in Lahore, Pakistan. But none of those studies had focused on the in-depth
land-use transition analysis in the last few decades. In this article, an attempt is made to fill the gap in the analysis of the relationship
between LUCC and social driving forces, especially in fast-growing urban areas, using satellite images, and driving force data, and GIS
techniques. The study investigates the rapid urban expansion of Lahore, Pakistan, from 2000 to 2020. Using methodology named
intensity analysis to the time scale of decades were applied on multi-temporal satellite images and other driving forces data to
investigate spatial land-use changes in Lahore, Pakistan.
The main objectives of the study are; 1) to ascertain and evaluate Spatio-temporal changes in land-use/land-cover from 2000 to
2020; 2) to investigate the driving forces of the land-use and land-cover changes from 2000 to 2020. The theme of this research is to
help municipal government and local developers to develop sustainable strategies for urban growth and land-use planning in the
future.

Fig. 1. The study area Map.

2
S. Fahad et al. Urban Climate 39 (2021) 100931

2. Methods and data

2.1. Study area

Lahore is the capital of Punjab Province, Pakistan. In 1998 the total population was 6.3 million, while according to 2017 census it
reached 11.2 million, while 3% annual growth was recorded (Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, 2017). The total area is 1842 km2, located
at the left bank of river ravi, situated within the geographic extents of 31◦ 13′ -31◦ 43′ N latitude and 74◦ 0′ - 74◦ 39.5′ E longitude. In
terms of population, Lahore is the megacity of Punjab Province, Pakistan, more than 98% of people live in urban areas. Lahore is
known as the heart of Pakistan, the center of cultural activities, economic and academic, and the place of interaction b/w people across
the country. Famous for tourism many foreigners and national tourists visit every year, the center of Pakistan with a history of the old
cultural heritage of more than then centuries (Punjab Bureau of Statistics, 2016).
The Lahore city is divided into nine administration towns which are managed by (Town Municipal administration) TMA and Lahore
cantonment under army control (Punjab Bureau of Statistics, 2016). The winter start from November to March, the coldest months are
December and January, with temperatures from 0 ◦ C to 3 ◦ C. The summer season is continuous from April to September the hottest
months are May and June, with a maximum temperature reach to 48 ◦ C and mean daytime temperature is b/w 40 ◦ C to 45 ◦ C. During
the monsoon season, annual rainfall is 600 mm approximately, is often highest rainfall in July and August (Qureshi et al., 2012), while
the rest of the year the city remains almost dry (Fig. 1).

2.2. Data acquisition and pre-processing of images

With less than 10% cloud cover, five Landsat images were downloaded from (USGS) during the spring season from 2000 to 2020.
The spring season's choice is to discern best the spectral signatures of the different land cover categories. The images were of path 149
and row 38 with a spatial resolution of 30 × 30 m. The LandScan™, which is global population data 2019, was downloaded from
(www. LandScan™.com). The detail of the acquired data is given below in (Table 1).
The first step was a radiometric correction that adjusted the DN value of the image to the radiance value. The second step was an
atmospheric correction that corrected radiation errors due to the atmospheric dispersion and reflection in remote sensing images (Song
et al., 2001). The Landsat 7 ETM+ satellite images have scan line error problem, which have fixed and used ENVI v 5.3 software and fill
this missing data .Using Lahore administrative map to obtain the pictorial data of the study area was the last step.

2.3. Image classification and accuracy assessment

The ArcGIS v10.5 software, and supervised classification algorithm method was used to classify the study area into the four major
land classes: barren land, water bodies, built-up area and agriculture land. The water bodies refer to rivers, hydraulic structures,
ditches, and swamps. The agriculture land refers to crops cultivation land, fallow fields, paddy fields and irrigated land. The built-up
area refers to public management service land, commercial service land, transportation and residential land, while the barren land
refers to bare land and bare rocks. The description is shown in (Table 2).
The accuracy assessment of the satellite image was determined by the accuracy of the user's and producer's, the overall accuracy of
classification, and coefficient of kappa determined by the confusion matrices. The user's accuracy is the number of pixels predicted in
each LULC type as a percentage of pixels that the LULC type uses as a series of training. Similarly, producer's accuracy consistency is the
number of pixels classified properly for each land use type as a proportion of the total number of pixels classified as a class. The overall
accuracy is the proportion of the total number of pixels properly defined as the entire pixel. The coefficient of Kappa (K) is defined by
(Eq. 1). The unique number of points was 200 to determine each image accuracy.
∑ ∑m
N mi xii − i (xi+ x+i )
Kappa coefficient = ∑m (1)
i (xi+ x+i )

In Eq. (1), N represents the total number of pixels used for accuracy assessment, m represents the number of rows in the confusion
matrix, Xi+is the total number of pixels in the i-th row, Xii is the number of pixels on the i-th row in the i-th column, X+iis the total
number of pixels in the i-th column.

Table 1
Showing Landsat data set for the years of 2000 to 2020.
Data used Acquisition date Resolution Sensor Path / Row

Landsat 5 11-Mar-2000 30 m TM 149/038

Landsat 7 02-Apr-2005 30 m ETM+ 149/038
Landsat 5 07-Mar-2010 30 m TM 149/038
Landsat 8 21-Mar-2015 30 m OLI_TIRS 149/038
Landsat 8 02-Mar-2020 30 m OLI_TIRS 149/038
Land Scan ™ 2019 30 m TM –

3
S. Fahad et al. Urban Climate 39 (2021) 100931

Table 2
LULC classification scheme.
Land class Description

Agriculture land Dense and sparse vegetation cover, Crops cultivation land, fallow fields
Barren land Bare grounds and bare rocks
Built-up area Buildings, roads, parks, commercial areas
Water bodies Streams, rivers, swamps

2.4. Change analysis of land use land cover (LULC)

2.4.1. Analysis of LULC conversions at overall scale

The symmetry of each of LULC in the study area is determined as:
Aic = Ai /At (2)
The symmetry of each LULC in the study are is determined as:
Aic = Ait2 − Ait1 (3)
The rate of change/year for each from LULC for a given time period is deliberated as:
Air = Aic /(t2 − t1 ) (4)

where Ai and At are the area of the i-th LULC type and the study area. Ait1 and Ait2 signify the total area of the LULC type i at times t1 and
t2; Aic is the change area of the i-th type in a given time; and Air is the change rate/year for each LULC type from time t1 to time t2.

2.4.2. Analysis of the Main LULC transitions

In a certain transition matrix of LULC, the net change (i.e., ai) for LULC type j altering to type i in a given time and its contribution
rate (ai%)of type i are determined as follows:
air = Aji − Aij (5)

Aji − Aij
ai% = × 100% (6)
Aic

where Aji is the converting area of type j to type i and Aij is the converting area of type i to type j. Aic is the change area of type i in a
given time.

2.5. Intensity analysis

Intensity analysis is a methodology to investigate the LULC maps from different aspect to show cross-tabulation matrixes for
location and time, where one matrix describes changes at each time. Because the intensity analysis techniques that count the intensity
of land changes, when reacting to the following three interconnected questions are examined by evaluating the extent to which the
non-uniform region varies at three levels: the level of interval, the level of category and transition level, answer to the below three
questions, respectively. (1) In which time periods the annual change is comparatively slow versus rapid change? (2) In the context of
the answer to question 1, which land classes are relatively dormant as compared to active at a given time? (3) In the context the
answers to questions 1 and 2, which land transformation is evaded as opposed to targeted by a given land category over a given period?
The maximum change size and rate of each time period calculation by time interval intensity analysis, and compared the rate of
changes with the average change rate (Aldwaik and Pontius Jr., 2012, Sun et al., 2016). This is calculated by Eqs. (7) and (8).
∑T− 1 {[( ∑J ) ] }/[∑J ∑J ]
t=1 i=1 Ctij − Ctjj j=1 i=1 Ctij
U= × 100% (7)
YT − Y1

where U is the value of a uniform intensity line for time intensity analysis, Ctij represents the areas that change from category i at time
Yt to category j at time Yt + 1 (the same below), J is the number of land use categories (the same below), T is the number of time points,
t is the index for a time point, which ranges from 1 to T - 1, Yt is the year at time point t (the same below), i is the index for a LULC type
at an incentive time, and j is the index for a LULC type at a final time. This is sustained as consideration of the following:
∑J {[( ∑J ) ] }/[∑J ∑J ]
j=1 i=1 Ctij − Ctjj j=1 i=1 Ctjj
St = × 100% (8)
Yt+1 − Y1

where St is the annual intensity of change for time interval [Yt, Yt + 1].
Investigation of intensity analysis of LULC types, how the LULC change varies from each other. Intensity analysis is the calculations
of the annual gross gains and losses for individual LULC type and then related these analyses with a uniform intensity. Deliberated by

4
S. Fahad et al. Urban Climate 39 (2021) 100931

Eqs. (9) and (10), as follow.

[( ∑J ) ]/
i=1 Ctij − Ctij (Yt+1 − Yt )
Gtj = ∑J × 100% (9)
i=1 Ctij

where Gtj is the annual intensity of gross gain of LULC type j for time interval [Yt, Yt + 1], and
[( ∑J ) ]/
i=1 Ctij − Ctii (Yt+1 − Yt )
Lti = ∑J × 100% (10)
j=1 Ctij

where Lti is the annual intensity of gross loss of LULC type i for time interval [Yt, Yt + 1]. The intensity analysis of transition level
investigates the intensity of any given changes from one LULC type to different LULC types and examine it for a specific time interval
level when transition is robust. This is intended by Eqs. (11)–(13).
[( ∑J ) ]/
i=1 Ctin − Ctnn (Yt+1 − Yt )
Wtn = ∑J [( ∑J ) ] × 100% (11)
j=1 i=1 Ctij − Ctnj

where Wtn is the value of uniform intensity of conversion to LULC type n from non-n LULC types at time Yt throughout the time interval
[Yt, Yt + 1], and n is the LULC types that other LULC types have changed into (i, n). In addition,
Ctin/(Yt+1 − Yt )
Rtin = ∑J × 100% (12)
j=1 Ctij

where Rtin is the annual intensity of conversion from LULC types i to LULC types n during interval of time [Yt, Yt + 1], and
[(∑ ) ]/
J
j=1 Ctmj − Ctmm (Yt+1 − Yt )
Vtm = ∑J [(∑J ) ] × 100% (13)
i=1 j=1 Ctij − Ctim

where Vtm is the value of uniform intensity of change from LULC type m to all non-m LULC types at time Yt + 1 throughout time
interval [Yt, Yt + 1], and m is the LULC types that conversion into other LULC types. Finally
/
Ctmj (Yt+1 − Yt )
Qtmj = ∑J × 100% (14)
i=1 Ctij

where Qtmj is the annual intensity of conversion from LULC type m to LULC type j throughout interval of time [Yt, Yt + 1] (j, m).

3. Results

3.1. Accuracy assessment of LULC classification

The degree of error on a map created from remote sensing data depends on several factors, along with the accuracy of the in­
vestigator's data expertise. If uninvestigated the map error, so it reduces the reliability of decisions taken based on such maps (Shao and
Wu, 2008). It is usually claimed that the commission error level of not more than 15% (Foody, 2002), while kappa coefficient level is
not less than 0.85% (Cleve et al., 2008; Xiao et al., 2007), is an acceptable standard for maps used in environmental observation and
surveillance (Table 3).

3.2. Land use land cover (LULC) results

(Fig. 2) shows the result of LULC in Lahore from 2000 to 2020, representing that the prevailing LULC types were agricultural land
and built-up area. The structure of LULC types changed significantly in different time periods.

Table 3
Summary of classification error (%) and kappa coefficient in land use land cover maps.
Land Cover EC EO EC EO EC EO EC EO EC EO

Types 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Water bodies 11.32 2.08 0.00 15.38 0.00 22.19 0.00 5.08 2.53 1.28
Agriculture land 15.62 12.90 15.38 3.5 9.72 4.41 13.04 1.69 2.32 12.5
Barren land 5.55 22.73 0.00 30.76 5.88 5.88 8.33 15.38 6.8 10
Built-up area 8.33 13.16 12.28 9.09 15.09 2.08 13.84 1.64 10.9 2.0
Overall accuracy 89.20 89.63 90 0.95 94.66
Kappa coefficient 0.85 0.89 0.85 0.93 0.92

Legends: EC (%) = Error of commissions, EO (%) = Error of omission.

5
S. Fahad et al. Urban Climate 39 (2021) 100931

Fig. 2. Land use spatial distribution maps of Lahore, Pakistan, (a) 2000, (b) 2005, (c) 2010, (d) 2015 and (e) 2020.

During 2000–2005, the agricultural land and built-up areas rise significantly, while the barren land decreased sharply. In
2000–2005, the dominant LULC classes in Lahore were built-up areas, agricultural land, and barren land is cover more than 98% of the
total study area. From 2000 to 2020, the rapid urbanization growth and socio-economic development are playing a key role in land-use
transition in Lahore, at the cost of losing the barren land and agricultural land. In the year of 2000, the barren land was 22.14%, of the
total area and sharply decreased 4.88% in 2020, while built-up areas gained significantly from 22.99% and 47.17% in 2000 and 2020
respectively. The 2010–2015, the built up area growth was very slow down 36.06% to 37.77%, from 2010 and 2015 respectively. The
main reason this slow down have two major flood in 2010 and 2012, these two flood have badly damage overall country economy, so
that's why the government have cut the development budgets and used that money for rehabilitation purposes (Federal Flood com­
mission, 2014). In 2015–2020 again the built-up area have gained momentum and sharply increased from 37.77% to 47.17 (Table 4).

Table 4
LULC overall result in Lahore, Pakistan from 2000 to 2020.
Land cover types Percent of total area (%) in different time periods

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Net changed

Water bodies 1.66 2.62 1.28 2.44 1.79 0.13

Agriculture land 53.21 65.04 53.75 57.69 46.16 − 7.05
Barren land 22.14 4.62 8.9 2.11 4.88 − 17.26
Built up area 22.99 27.72 36.06 37.77 47.17 24.18

6
S. Fahad et al. Urban Climate 39 (2021) 100931

3.3. Spatial-temporal change analysis of LULC

3.3.1. Change detection analysis of LULC

Landscape change detection analysis involved change analysis methods and quality variations among images of the same landscape
at two different time periods. The pattern of urban growth, as shown in Fig. 3, indicates the LULC types from 2000 to 2020, and the
spatial distribution of LULC rises in a built-up area. The other LULC types such as water bodies, agricultural land, and barren land
continuously show a declined trend.
For the understanding of the spatial-temporal pattern of urban development in Lahore, five Landsat images were mapped out from
2000 to 2020 and divided into four time periods as shown in (Fig. 3). From the period of 2000–2005, 2005–2010, 2010–2015, and
2015–2020 were named first to the fourth periods, respectively. From 2000 to 2005 and 2010 to 2015 seems to have slow built-up area
expansion as a compared to 2005–2010 and 2015 to 2020 which seems to have fast increased in built-up area.
The rapid population growth can be related, to some degree the expansion of the built-up area, especially during the third and
fourth periods, from 2010 to 2020 where the population was very sharply increased. The built-up area gain is 1.2% land/year of the
total area from 2000 to 2020.

3.3.2. Analysis of LUCC at different time periods

During the study time periods, the change rate/year for each land-use category within a specific period in Lahore was investigated

Fig. 3. LUCC Maps (a) 2000–2005 (b) 2005–2010 (c) 2010–2015 and (d) 2015–2020.

7
S. Fahad et al. Urban Climate 39 (2021) 100931

as the LUCC.
From 2000 to 2015, the mean growth rate of the built-up area is reached to value of 85.61 km2/year, while during 2015–2020 the
maximum growth rate value reached 34.63 km2/year, which was the fastest growth rate during study time periods. The rapid urban
and rural infrastructure, and construction industries, and the growth of secondary and tertiary industries are the main contribution to
the growth of the built-up area.
During 2000–2005 and 2010–2015, the barren land rate declined significantly, getting more than − 138.63 km2/year. Especially,
the barren land decline to − 107.60 km2/year during 2000–2005, (Table 5).

3.3.3. Analysis of main LULC types transition

Lahore LULC transition matrix for 2000–2020. For further analysis were chosen built-up area, barren land, and agricultural land,
because these three types are dominant in the study area. During the study time periods, built-up area and water bodies gain 445.45
km2 and 2.45 km2, respectively, while the agricultural land and barren land have negative changes from 2000 to 2020, barren land and
agricultural land lost 317.91 km2 and 129.95 km2 respectively, (Table 6).
(Table 7), shows that the barren land during the first and third period has negatively changed, mostly barren land converted from
different land-use types. Barren land was mainly changed into agriculture land, accounting for − 496.54 km2, change to the built-up
area is accounting for − 407.71 km2 from 2000 to 2005. In the meanwhile, other types of LULC, such as water sources, barren land
makeup of the remainder of the conversion; the rise in agricultural land and built-up area offsets the barren land loss to some degree.
The built-up area and agricultural land continuously gained area from barren land in the period from 2010 to 2015.
Agriculture land and water bodies have positively changed during 2000 to 2005, and 2010–2015, while during 2005 to 2010 and
2015–2020 has been changed negatively. The barren land gained area from agriculture land was 176.53 km2, from water bodies 42.22
km2, while the built-up area gained was 531.45 km2, 51.46 km2 from agriculture and water bodies respectively, and this two period's
agricultural land and water bodies have negatively changed and mostly area changed into to built-up area and barren land (Table 7).

3.4. Intensity analysis of land-use change

3.4.1. Interval level of intensity analysis

It highlights that the constant intensities of LUCC in Lahore uniform intensity value were 15.68% throughout the study periods.
LULC changes were very fast during 2000–2005, while it became the lowest during 2015–2020. The fastest growth rate in the period of
2000–2005 was 86.29% including the total change accounted for 28.76 km2/year, while 80.47% change occurred and accounted for
11.49 km2/year in 2005–2010, but the growth rate was slow in this period. During the periods 2010–2015 the total change rate was
82.29% accounted for 16.45 km2/year, while the lowest total change (30.24%) with 6.04 km2/year of the area changed. The built-up
area has gained significantly, while barren land and agricultural land has declined (Fig. 4).

3.4.2. Category level of intensity analysis

Intensity analysis of category level results during 2000–2005, 2005–2010, 2010–2015, and 2015–2020. In 2000–2005, the built-up
area and agriculture land suffered active losses and gains, while water bodies have active gains, but losses are dormant and barren land
has dormant gains and active losses. During 2005–2010, water bodies, barren land, agricultural land, and built-up area have suffered
active losses and gains. During 2010–2015 the agricultural land and built-up area have experienced active gains and losses, while the
water bodies have active gains and dormant losses and barren land have dormant gains, but active losses. And during 2015–2020,
built-up area, water bodies, barren land, and agricultural land has faced active losses and gains (Fig. 5).

3.4.3. Intensity analysis of transition level

This study measured the significant gross gains to count patterns of LUCC. (Fig. 6), illustrations result from transition level of
intensity analysis for the Lahore. During 2000–2005, uniform intensity values for water bodies, built-up area, barren land, and
agricultural land were recorded as 11.65%, 551.62%, 5.66%, and 145.09% respectively. Agriculture land gain avoids water bodies and
barren, while gains targets to the built-up area, the barren land gain avoids agriculture land water bodies, while gains targets to the
built-up area. The Built-up area gain avoids the barren land, while gains target agriculture land and water bodies, the water bodies gain
target agriculture land and barren land, while gains avoid the built-up area. The barren land is a mostly targeted area in this period,
while agriculture land, water bodies, and the built-up area gained area from barren land, while barren land lost has area.
During 2005–2010, the uniform intensity values of the agricultural land, water bodies, barren land, and built-up area were
recorded as, 62.51%, 2.14%, 16.85%, and 130.27% respectively. Agriculture land gain targets built-up area, while gain avoids to water
bodies and barren land, barren land gain targets a built-up area and agriculture land, while gain avoids water bodies. In a built-up area,

Table 5
LULC transition during the time periods (km2/year).
Years Water bodies Agriculture land Barren land Built-up area

2000–2005 5.93 72.63 − 107.60 29.02

2005–2010 − 3.53 − 29.70 11.27 21.96
2010–2015 4.25 14.5 − 31.03 6.28
2015–2020 − 2.3 − 42.29 10.23 34.63

8
S. Fahad et al. Urban Climate 39 (2021) 100931

Table 6
LULC change transition matrix in Lahore from 2000 to 2020 (km2).
2000–2020 Water bodies Agriculture land Barren land Built-up area Net Changed

Water bodies 7.31 8.84 0.45 13.95 2.45

Agriculture land 10.20 626.30 45.88 297.95 − 129.95
Barren land 4.96 147.84 33.30 221.79 − 317.91
Built up area 10.53 67.41 10.33 335.35 445.45

Table 7
Transition and its contribution rate of different land use classes with each other's during these four periods.
Types Changes NC CR NC CR NC CR NC CR

2000–2005 2005–2010 2010–2015 2015–2020

BA to BL 85 97.61 76.13 49.52 44.89 142.82 97.19 56.12

BA to WB 32.3 37.09 1.94 1.26 8.61 27.39 25.22 14.56
BA to AL 290.26 333.32 25.58 16.63 66.44 211.39 285.03 164.58
BL to WB − 44.89 − 13.90 14.48 18.35 − 24.94 − 19.92 1.84 3.59
BL to BA − 407.71 − 126.30 57.47 72.83 − 196.94 − 157.33 67 130.98
BL to AL − 496.54 − 153.82 53.96 68.39 − 278.62 − 222.59 30.16 58.96
AL to BL 19.92 9.14 − 191.85 − 92.27 24.06 33.18 − 64.34 − 30.28
AL to BA 195.44 89.68 − 110.28 − 53.04 196.77 271.40 − 421.17 − 198.24
AL to WB 35.49 16.28 − 23.66 − 11.37 21.32 29.40 − 30.43 − 14.32
WB to BL 1.35 7.58 − 36.6 − 148.05 1.45 7.94 − 5.62 − 47.30
WB to BA 24.06 135.09 − 14.98 − 60.59 16.71 91.56 − 36.48 − 307.07
WB to AL 15.29 85.85 − 36.47 − 147.65 21.22 116.27 − 22.43 − 188.80

Legends: WB = Water bodies, BL = Barren Land, AL = Agriculture land, BU=Built-up area, NC (km2) = Net Change and CR (%) = Contribution Rate.

Fig. 4. Intensity analysis of time interval of land use change in Lahore from 2000 to 2020.

gain avoids to water bodies and barren land, and gain target to agriculture land. The Built-up area gain avoids barren land, while water
bodies gain target agricultural land. In this period, the water bodies and agricultural land has lost area, while built-up area and barren
land have gained area from agricultural land and water bodies.
During 2010–2015, the uniform intensity value of water bodies, agriculture land, barren land, and the built-up area was recorded
as, 6.32, 117.14, 2.81, and 176.92% respectively. Water bodies have gain avoids barren land, while gain target agricultural land and
built-up area, agricultural land have gain targets built-up area and barren land, while gain avoids the water bodies. The barren land
gain avoids water bodies, while gain target to the agriculture land and built-up area, built-up area gains targets agriculture land, while

9
S. Fahad et al. Urban Climate 39 (2021) 100931

Fig. 5. Intensity Analysis of Category level showing active gaining and losses categories in the Lahore for (a) 2000–2005 (b) 2005–2010 (c)
2010–2015 and (d) 2015–2020 time interval.

gain avoids to water bodies and barren land. The built-up area, agricultural land, and water bodies gained area from barren land, while
the barren land has lost area in this period.
During 2015–2020, the uniform intensity values of agriculture land built-up area, water bodies, and barren land were recorded as,
24.84%, 38.36%, 4.74%, and 13.47% respectively.
Barren land has gain target agricultural land, and built-up area and gain avoids water bodies, the water bodies have gain avoids
barren land, while gaining targets to the agriculture land and built-up area. In built-up area have gain target agriculture land, while
gain avoids to barren land and water bodies, in agriculture land have to gain avoids barren land and water bodies, while gaining targets
to the built-up area. In this period, water bodies and agricultural land have lost their area, and built-up areas and barren land have
gained area from water bodies and agricultural land.

4. Discussion

Post classification statistical analysis of 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 land use maps revealed a continuous increase in a built-
up area, while agriculture, barren land, and water bodies continuously decreased. During the study time period from 2000 to 2020, the
built-up area had increased from covering 22.99% to 47.17% of the total study area, with main the contributor being barren land and
agricultural land as shown in (Table 2).
The extensive growth in built-up areas can be associated with the rapid population growth in Lahore, Pakistan, from 2000 to 2017
the rapid population growth is increased by 90% with the population growing at a rate of 3.0% per-year (Pakistan Bureau of Statistics,
2017). The population growth rate is marginally reduced to 3.5% per year, from 1981 to 1998. The rate is calculated to be around 3.0%
for the period between 2005 and 2015. However, the rate of urban expansion was so fast that it outpaced the rate of population growth.
In 2005–2010, the water bodies and built-up area his slightly high omission error shows in the study results. Land use classification
error may be due to difficulties in distinguishing built-up areas and water sources with identical spectral signatures, such as grassland

10
S. Fahad et al. Urban Climate 39 (2021) 100931

Fig. 6. Transition level of intensity analysis in Lahore, Pakistan (a) 2000–2005 (b), 2005–2010 (c), 2010–2015 and (d) 2015–2020.

11
S. Fahad et al. Urban Climate 39 (2021) 100931

Fig. 6. (continued).

12
S. Fahad et al. Urban Climate 39 (2021) 100931

and agricultural land (Enaruvbe and Atafo, 2019). The accuracy assessment of Landsat imageries. The overall classification accuracy
values achieved a better result almost 90%, while the kappa coefficient achieves more 85% to meet the acceptability standard of the
accuracy assessment as shown in (Table 1).

4.1. Intensity analysis

Interval intensity analysis in the periods 2000–2005 and 2010–2015 the annual land-use intensity is high than uniform intensity
value. In the period 2000–2005, the annual change occurred 28.76% of the total area the fastest growth in this period, while from 2010
to 2015 the annual change observed 16.45%. From 2005 to 2010 and 2015–2020 the annual land use was less than the uniform
intensity value (Fig. 4).
Analysis of category level in the period from 2000 to 2005 the built-up area gained 1102 km2 while the agriculture land and barren
land lost 904 km2, 339 km2, respectively (Fig. 5 (a)). From 2010 to 2015 the agricultural land and barren land significantly 880 km2,
139 km2 respectively, while the built-up area gained 884 km2, in this period built-up area gain very significantly and another side the
barren land was lost 139 km2 and remain only 14 km2 (Fig. 5 (c)). In the last period from 2015 to 2020 the built-up area and barren
land gain 341 km2, 72 km2 respectively, while the agricultural land and water bodies lost their area 336 km2, 30 km2, respectively
(Fig. 5 (d)). The overall category level analysis result shows the rate of urban expansion is very high in 2000 the built-up area was only
22% of total land, while in 2020 the total land reached 47% of the study area.
In the period from 2000 to 2005, the transition level of intensity analysis the built-up area targets to agriculture land and barren
land in the gained area to 210 km2, 886 km2 respectively, while agriculture land also targets a built-up area and gained 306 km2 area
(Fig. 6 (a)). The barren land targets the built-up area and agriculture land in the period from 2015 to 2020, and gained area 46.77 km2,
24.66 km2 respectively. The overall transition level of intensity analysis results indicated the built-up area targets barren land and
agriculture land, while in the period from 2015 to 2020 the barren land again targets agriculture land and gained area from agriculture
land (Fig. 6 (d)).
Lahore City, attract people across the country to come and work because of socio-economic development. Due to rapid urbanization
growth, demand particularly land, and also natural resources. According to the study result, from 2000 to 2020, the agricultural land,
barren land, and water bodies' transition to urban land were unstable during the study period. In other words, other land classes
decreased, and urban land observed continuously increased.

4.2. Driving forces

The built-up area of Lahore District is constantly growing, increasing by 1.89, 2.56, 3.16, 3.17, and 3.46% %, when comparing the
built-up area of to 2001, 2014, 2017, 2040, and 2050, respectively. In future forecasts for other growing cities, such as Beijing, China, a
similar increasing trend in the built-up area has also been noticed (Han et al., 2015). The growth of built-up areas might be linked to the
increasing pressure of population, as found in the case of Bangladesh, during various decades since 1981 (Hasan et al., 2017). The

Fig. 7. (a) Density per square kilometers map of Lahore (b) LandScan™ is global population map, 2019.

13
S. Fahad et al. Urban Climate 39 (2021) 100931

population of Lahore was recorded at 6.34 million and 11.12 million, in 1998 and 2017, respectively. The population has 90% increase
in these two decades, the density was 3565.9 persons/sq.km, in 1998, while it raised 6300 persons/sq.km in 2017, (Pakistan Bureau of
Statistics, 2017), as shown in (Fig. 7 (a)), which is more than as compared to other metropolitan cities in the neighborhood countries
such as Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (4400), Bandung, Indonesia (2325) and Bangkok, Thailand (5359) (National Statistical Office, 2010,
Central Department of Statistics and Information, 2011, Tarigan et al., 2016). The density map and LandScan™ global population map
showing the population trend and built up area in study area which have endorse the actual classified result of LULC change 2020 map.
The estimated population will be 14.95, 21.32, and 25.15 million, in 2027, 2040, and 2050 respectively, which is projected at an
average population growth rate of 3.46% using the 2017 census population, (Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, 2017). The 2019 Land­
Scan™ data was used to plot population expansion patterns in the form of a GIS map, as shown in (Fig. 7 (b)), to further strengthened
our output of built-up area sprawl with population growth. The LandScan™ is a global distribution of population data with the best
spatial resolution of 1 km (30 × 30) available, it is generated based on a multivariate diametric method using the best available
demographic and geographic data with remote sensing imagery analysis techniques (Bhaduri et al., 2007). As shown in (Fig. 7 (b)) the
sprawl pattern of the built-up area is comparable to the population sprawl trend obtained from LandScan™ data. As stated that in
(Fig. 7 (b)), the rising of built-up area trend is in the line of increasing population trend that could be attributed to urbanization.
The impact of LULC on the land use of land for the objective could be related to population & economic growth (Bonafoni and
Keeratikasikorn, 2018). With time the trend of building new housing societies in Lahore could be a contributing factor to the growth of
the built-up area, it is shown in the LULC (Fig. 2), that in the inner part of Lahore, the population concentration expansion from the
inner city to the southern parts of Lahore is emerging. In the southern area of the city have established new societies, since sufficient
land was available in this area at a fair cost. It was used for the development of new luxury residential societies, which provided people
with a comfortable and improved living standard.
It was also noticed that barren land and agricultural land have been used to develop housing societies. It was noted that 17.26% and
7.05% of the total barren land and agricultural land respectively, converted into the built-up area from 2000 to 2020. The built-up area
was cover 22.99% and 47.17% of the total area in 2000 and 2020 respectively. The increasing trend in cultivated land for urban built-
up areas has been noticed in the case of Beijing (Han et al., 2015). Irrigated croplands were transformed into the built-up area in
Hyderabad, India, in the year 2040, a similar pattern for change could be predicted. The use of such land boosted residential and
commercial area prices and increased Lahore real estate market, which was also viewed in Hyderabad India (Gumma et al., 2017). The
increasing trend into the built-up area and agricultural land have been observed in the Sierra Leone city of Syria (Gbanie et al., 2018).
The increasing built-up area could be linked to an outstanding multi-lane network of roads built to international standards. The
roads are well maintained and extended to the required level. In the years 2002 and 2018 the total road length is 792 km and 1309 km,
respectively, (Punjab Bureau of Statistic, 2016). With the increase of industries and development of infrastructure, many people from
other cities and provinces across the country were attracted by projects for better job opportunities, comfortable residence, and quality
schooling. In the year 2003, the total number of industrial units was 1536, while in 2017 it increased to 2344, (Pakistan Bureau of
Statistics, 2017).
Due to job opportunities, as the result of the higher migration rate which ultimately increased Lahore's, population. (Fig. 8), shown
which graphical tool for showing the interrelationship between migration data in a matrix, the urban migration trend from all divisions
from Pakistan to Lahore was plotted. The migration data was collated by the (Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, 2017) from labor forces
Survey data for 2014–2015, in Fig. 8, the effects of migration trends are presented. The finding showed the 35% of migrants from
various districts of the Lahore division migrated to Lahore. The significant numbers of migrations from other divisions to Lahore; 2.6%
Hazara division, 2.6% Rawalpindi division, 2.8% from Bahawalnagar, 4.8% from Sargodha, 8.8% from Gujranwala, 8.8% from
Multan, 8.9% from Faisalabad, and 12.7% from Sahiwal. The remaining division ranged from 0.2% to 1.9%.
These trends of migration indicate that migrants are drawn to Lahore, because of better employment opportunities and industries.
All of these variables may have positive effects on Lahore's urbanization and economy, because of industrialization and rural-urban
migration. The major cities in India are rapidly developing, the urban growth in Hyderabad city, India had an impact on LULC and
different land uses were converted into the built-up area (Gumma et al., 2017).
After Karachi, Lahore is Pakistan's second-largest economic center. It contributes to the national and regional economics by 11.5%
and 20.5%, respectively. The share of Lahore in the national economy increased by 1.2% points during 2010–2017. The total GDP
(Gross Domestic Product) of Lahore was 28 billion dollars in 2005, while in 2020 it reached 67 billion dollars, and in the year 2025, it
will be expected 102 billion dollars (www. City mayor.com).
The continuous depletion of surface water bodies could be a major concern for the Lahore district. A similar decreasing trend of
water bodies is observed in Hyderabad, India, due to increasing urban sprawl (Gumma et al., 2017). Due to human migration, there is
increasing environmental pressure in Lahore, the surface water is mainly used for agricultural purposes. In-ground water-extracting for
drinking, domestic, industrial, and commercial purposes. Due to the surface water scarcity, 10,000 tube wells were constructed for
agricultural purposes using groundwater. The average annual rainfall in Lahore is 715 mm. Due to rapid urbanization and increasing
built-up areas, the recharge of groundwater in an urban area is inadequate. The discharge of groundwater is very high than recharge,
which was the key factor in the depletion of groundwater (Qureshi and Sayed, 2014).
The impact on water resources of urbanization and the built-up area was found to be negative. The sensible use of existing water
resources and identification of new water resources for future generations should be given priority by planners and decision-makers.
The creation of an urban heat island is another potential LULC change due to the increase in the built-up area (Zhou et al., 2019).

14
S. Fahad et al. Urban Climate 39 (2021) 100931

Fig. 8. Chord diagram showing migration trends toward Lahore from all over Pakistan.

5. Conclusion

Analyzing and mapping the changes in LULC over time, especially in the eco-fragile region, is recognized as important to better
understand and provide solutions for social, economic, and environmental problems. In this study remotely sensed images including
the Landsat TM, TM+, Landsat 8 OLI_OIRS, and LandScan™ global population data were used to analyze patterns with processes of
land changes between the different land cover types. The named intensity analysis methodology was adopted and used maximum
likelihood classification (MLC) method followed by the supervised algorithm, to investigate the LUCC in the last two decades. The
finding of intensity analysis can below.

1) The time interval of intensity level analysis result indicated that from 2000 to 2005 and 2010–2015 the annual change rate of land-
use land cover was fast. While in the other periods from 2005 to 2010 and 2015–2020 the annual change rate was relatively shown.
2) The category level of intensity analysis results revealed that water bodies have fewer gains and losses, the built-up area gained
significantly 1102 km2 in the period from 2000 to 2005, while agriculture land and barren land are lost 904 km2 and 339 km2
respectively. In the period from 2010 to 2015, the built-up area is gained 884 km2, while barren land and agricultural land lost 139
km2 and 880 km2, respectively. If the whole land use land cover change would have been equally spread throughout the region,
while gains and losses on barren land, agriculture land, and built-up area were not reliable and stationary across the whole periods.
3) The transition level of intensity analysis result indicated that the built-up area extended at the agriculture land in the period of
2000–2005, 2015–2020 while it gained significantly from agriculture land. The built-up area has avoided the barren land and water
bodies in these two periods. Agriculture land targets built-up areas and while avoid barren land and water bodies from the period of
2005–2010 and 2010–2010. Besides, during the study time period from 2000 to 2020, water bodies and the built-up area were
significantly targeted to the barren land. The driving force behind this change was economic development and population growth
and climate change. The rapid population growth and rapid urbanization resulted in a wide range of environmental impacts,
including degraded habitat quality.

Authorship statement

All persons who meet authorship criteria are listed as authors, and all authors certify that they have participated sufficiently in the
work to take public responsibility for the content, including participation in the concept, design, analysis, writing, or revision of the
manuscript. Furthermore, each author certifies that this material or similar material has not been and will not be submitted to or
published in any other publication before its appearance in the “URBAN CLIMATE” journal.

Authorship contributions

Category 1.
Conception and design of study: Shah Fahad___, _Wei Li__,
Acquisition of data: Shah Fahad___, _Wei Li__, Umair rasool.
Analysis and/or interpretation of data: Shah Fahad___, _Wei Li__, Umair rasool, Lubna hashim khattak, Akhtar Islam.
Category 2.
Drafting the manuscript: Shah Fahad___, _Wei Li__,

15
S. Fahad et al. Urban Climate 39 (2021) 100931

Revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content: Shah Fahad___, Akhtar Hussain Lashari.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Aldwaik, S.Z., Pontius Jr., R.G., 2012. Intensity analysis to unify measurements of size and stationarity of land changes by interval, category, and transition. Landscape
and Urban Planning 106, 103–114.
Ali, G., Nitivattananon, V., 2012. Exercising multidisciplinary approach to assess interrelationship between energy use, carbon emission and land use change in a
metropolitan city of Pakistan. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 16, 775–786.
Bajocco, S., De Angelis, A., Perini, L., Ferrara, A., Salvati, L., 2012. The impact of land use/land cover changes on land degradation dynamics: a Mediterranean case
study. Environ. Manag. 49, 980–989.
Bhaduri, B., Bright, E., Coleman, P., Urban, M.L., 2007. LandScan USA: a high-resolution geospatial and temporal modeling approach for population distribution and
dynamics. GeoJournal 69, 103–117.
Bhatti, S.S., Tripathi, N.K., Nitivattananon, V., Rana, I.A., Mozumder, C., 2015. A multi-scale modeling approach for simulating urbanization in a metropolitan region.
Habitat International 50, 354–365.
Bonafoni, S., Keeratikasikorn, C., 2018. Land surface temperature and urban density: multiyear modeling and relationship analysis using MODIS and Landsat data.
Remote Sens. 10, 1471.
CDPR, 2011. Consortium for development policy research. In: Punjab, U.D.I. (Ed.), A Political Economy Analysi, Lahore, Pakistan.
Cleve, C., Kelly, M., Kearns, F.R., Moritz, M., 2008. Classification of the wildland–urban interface: a comparison of pixel-and object-based classifications using high-
resolution aerial photography. Comput. Environ. Urban. Syst. 32, 317–326.
Eckert, S., 2011. Urban expansion and its impact on urban agriculture-remote sensing based change analysis of Kizinga and Mzinga Valley-Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania.
EARSeL eProceedings 10, 46–55.
Enaruvbe, G., Atafo, O., 2019. Land cover transition and fragmentation of river Ogba catchment in Benin City, Nigeria. Sustain. Cities Soc. 45, 70–78.
Etter, A., McAlpine, C., Wilson, K., Phinn, S., Possingham, H., 2006. Regional patterns of agricultural land use and deforestation in Colombia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
114, 369–386.
Federal Flood Commission, M, 2014. Annual Flood Report. Ministry of Water and Power, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.
Foody, G.M., 2002. Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment. Remote sensing of environment 80, 185–201.
Gbanie, S.P., Griffin, A.L., Thornton, A., 2018. Impacts on the urban environment: land cover change trajectories and landscape fragmentation in post-war Western
area, Sierra Leone. Remote Sens. 10, 129.
Gumma, M.K., Mohammad, I., Nedumaran, S., Whitbread, A., Lagerkvist, C.J., 2017. Urban sprawl and adverse impacts on agricultural land: a case study on
Hyderabad, India. Remote Sens. 9, 1136.
Han, H., Yang, C., Song, J., 2015. Scenario simulation and the prediction of land use and land cover change in Beijing, China. Sustainability 7, 4260–4279.
Hasan, S.S., Deng, X., Li, Z., Chen, D., 2017. Projections of future land use in Bangladesh under the background of baseline, ecological protection and economic
development. Sustainability 9, 505.
Huang, X., Li, Y., Yu, R., Zhao, X., 2014. Reconsidering the controversial land use policy of“ linking the decrease in rural construction land with the increase in urban
construction land”: a local government perspective. China Rev. 175–198.
Lin, S.-W., Ben, T.-M., 2009. Impact of government and industrial agglomeration on industrial land prices: a Taiwanese case study. Habitat International 33, 412–418.
Liu, Y., Yao, C., Wang, G., Bao, S., 2011. An integrated sustainable development approach to modeling the eco-environmental effects from urbanization. Ecol. Indic.
11, 1599–1608.
Liverman, D.M., Cuesta, R.M.R., 2008. Human interactions with the earth system: people and pixels revisited. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms: The Journal of
the British Geomorphological Research Group 33, 1458–1471.
Loveland, T.R., Mahmood, R., 2014. A design for a sustained assessment of climate forcing and feedbacks related to land use and land cover change. Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc. 95, 1563–1572.
Manandhar, R., Odeh, I.O., Ancev, T., 2009. Improving the accuracy of land use and land cover classification of Landsat data using post-classification enhancement.
Remote Sens. 1, 330–344.
Pakistan bureau of Statistics, G.o.P, 2017. Population & Housing Census, p. 2017.
Punjab Bureau of Statistics, G.o.t.P, 2016. Punjab Development Statistics. Bureau of Statistics Government of the Punjab Lahore Pakistan.
Qureshi, A., Sayed, A.H., 2014. Situation Analysis of the Water Resources of Lahore–Establishing a Case for Water Stewardship. Lahore, WWF-Pakistan, pp. 1–34.
Qureshi, J., Mahmood, S.A., Almas, A.S., Rafique, H.M., Irshad, R., 2012. Monitoring spatiotemporal and micro-level climatic variations in Lahore and subrubs using
satellite imagery and multi-source data. Journal of Faculty of Engineering & Technology 19, 51–65.
Rasool, U., Chen, J., Muhammad, S., Siddique, J., Venkatramanan, S., Sabarathinam, C., Siddique, M.A., Rasool, M.A., 2020. Geoinformatics and geophysical survey-
based estimation of best groundwater potential sites through surface and subsurface indicators. Arab. J. Geosci. 13, 1–17.
Safdar, 2018. The Impact of Urbanization on Society. THE NATION, Pakistan.
Scanlon, B.R., Reedy, R.C., Stonestrom, D.A., Prudic, D.E., Dennehy, K.F., 2005. Impact of land use and land cover change on groundwater recharge and quality in the
southwestern US. Glob. Chang. Biol. 11, 1577–1593.
Shao, G., Wu, J., 2008. On the accuracy of landscape pattern analysis using remote sensing data. Landsc. Ecol. 23, 505–511.
Shi, L., Lu, X., Cui, S., 2008. Research progress on ecological effects of land change. China Land Sci. 22, 73–79.
Sleeter, B.M., Wilson, T.S., Sharygin, E., Sherba, J.T., 2017. Future scenarios of land change based on empirical data and demographic trends. Earth’s Future 5,
1068–1083.
Soffianian, A., Nadoushan, M.A., Yaghmaei, L., Falahatkar, S., 2010. Mapping and analyzing urban expansion using remotely sensed imagery in Isfahan, Iran. World
Appl. Sci. J. 9, 1370–1378.
Song, C., Woodcock, C.E., Seto, K.C., Lenney, M.P., Macomber, S.A., 2001. Classification and change detection using Landsat TM data: when and how to correct
atmospheric effects? Remote Sens. Environ. 75, 230–244.
Sun, Y., Guo, T., Cui, X., 2016. Intensity analysis and stationarity of land use change in Kunming City. Progress in Geography 35, 245.
Tian, Z., Cao, G., Shi, J., McCallum, I., Cui, L., Fan, D., Li, X., 2012. Urban transformation of a metropolis and its environmental impacts. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 19,
1364–1374.
Turner, M.G., Gardner, R.H., 2015. Landscape dynamics in a rapidly changing world, landscape ecology in theory and practice. Springer, pp. 333–381.

16
S. Fahad et al. Urban Climate 39 (2021) 100931

Xiao, R.-B., Ouyang, Z.-Y., Zheng, H., Li, W.-F., Schienke, E.W., Wang, X.-K., 2007. Spatial pattern of impervious surfaces and their impacts on land surface
temperature in Beijing, China. J. Environ. Sci. 19, 250–256.
Zhao, M., Zeng, C., Liu, Z., Wang, S., 2010. Effect of different land use/land cover on karst hydrogeochemistry: a paired catchment study of Chenqi and Dengzhanhe,
Puding, Guizhou, SW China. J. Hydrol. 388, 121–130.
Zhou, D., Xiao, J., Bonafoni, S., Berger, C., Deilami, K., Zhou, Y., Frolking, S., Yao, R., Qiao, Z., Sobrino, J.A., 2019. Satellite remote sensing of surface urban heat
islands: Progress, challenges, and perspectives. Remote Sens. 11, 48.

17