Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing (July 2022) 50(7):1257–1273

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-022-01526-7(0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A Comparison of Discrete and Continuous Metrics for Measuring

Landscape Changes
Ehsan Rahimi1 • Shahindokht Barghjelveh2 • Pinliang Dong3

Received: 28 December 2020 / Accepted: 19 February 2022 / Published online: 13 March 2022
Ó Indian Society of Remote Sensing 2022

Abstract
Quantification of landscape patterns in a correct way is an important issue in landscape ecology, which has recently
attracted much attention from landscape ecologists. It is believed that Patch-Corridor-Matrix or discrete model does not
take into account the continuous heterogeneity and has limitations and problems that undermine the validity of the results.
Various continuous methods have been developed to overcome the problems associated with the discrete approach for
measuring landscape fragmentation. Continuous methods use remotely sensed data directly for quantifying landscape
pattern changes. In this regard, the purpose of this study is to compare landscape metrics obtained from the discrete model
and alternative continuous metrics, including spatial autocorrelation indices, Fourier transforms, and surface metrics. To
achieve this goal, we used two subsets that were different in terms of urban and agricultural changes. We measured
temporal changes of three subsets between the years 2013 and 2020. Results showed that percentage of landscape
(PLAND) as a landscape metric had a good statistical relationship with Getis of the normalized difference vegetation index
(NDVI) (R2 = 95.9%) and a moderate relationship with Getis of the built-up index (PNBI) (R2 = 43.7%) as alternative
metrics. The results of discrete metrics showed that in 2013, the spatial patterns of urban and cultivated farms patches were
more fragmented than in 2020. Also, the area of cultivated farms increased by 3 to 6 percent and urban areas between 1 and
8 percent in 2020. All continuous metrics showed that the subsets in the study changed in 2020. However, Fourier
transforms could not determine the magnitude of these changes. Our results also showed that landscape metrics have some
drawbacks for measuring landscape patterns that some of them can be resolved by continuous metrics. Generally, the use of
discrete and continuous metrics depends on factors like the scale of the study, time and budget available, desired ecological
processes, and the degree of heterogeneity of the landscape of interest.

Keywords Landscape metrics  Continuous metrics  Landscape changes  Landscape ecology

Introduction

The estimation of spatial heterogeneity in a correct way

& Ehsan Rahimi and scale according to the species and process under study
ehsanrahimi666@gmail.com
is an important challenge in studying and managing land-
Shahindokht Barghjelveh scapes (Fan & Myint, 2014). Success in estimating rela-
shjelveh@gmail.com
tionships between patterns and processes is dependent on
Pinliang Dong the correct identification of landscape heterogeneity in the
Pinliang.Dong@unt.edu
manner that is relating to the organism or the process. With
1
Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti this view, landscape ecologists apply a discrete approach
University, Tehran, Iran that considers landscapes as a collection of discrete patches
2
Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, (Forman, 2014). The patch-corridor-matrix (PCM) model
Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti was developed in the 1980s to describe landscape structure
University, Tehran, Iran as a collection of homogenous areas that have been mapped
3
Department of Geography and the Environment, University discretely. The quantification of landscape patterns based
of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

123
1258 Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing (July 2022) 50(7):1257–1273
on this model requires a discrete assumption of the land-
scape with a suitable thematic resolution (the number of
discrete classes on the classification map) (McGarigal &
Cushman, 2005).
Today, many discrete metrics (known as landscape
metrics) have been developed to quantify landscape com-
position and configuration based on the PCM model, but
most of them are unable to characterize ecological pro-
cesses (Frazier & Kedron, 2017; Kedron et al., 2019) and
there are several other limitations related to this model
(Gustafson, 2019; Hagen-Zanker, 2016; Park & Guldmann,
2020). One of the problems is that the errors related to the
land-use classification are inevitable and may lead to unreal
results (Shao & Wu, 2008). The constraints associated with
the classification of continuous variables of the landscapes
into discrete classes have reduced the functionality and
validity of these metrics (Frazier & Kedron, 2017; Kedron
et al., 2018; Park & Guldmann, 2020). Therefore, the
uncertainty associated with classification can compromise
the reliability of landscape metrics derived from the the-
matic maps (Cockx et al., 2014; Fan & Myint, 2014;
Kedron et al., 2018; Rocchini, Foody, et al., 2013). Several
studies also showed that the accuracy of landscape metrics
is strongly related to the accuracy of classified maps (Li &
Wu, 2004; Shao & Wu, 2008). Many other factors affect
the accuracy and applicability of landscape metrics, like
data source accuracy, scale effects, and ecological inter-
pretation (Frazier & Kedron, 2017; Liu et al., 2013).
By raising awareness of the problems and limitations of
the PCM model, alternative metrics to landscape structure
quantification are needed (Frazier & Kedron, 2017; Kedron
et al., 2018, 2019). McGarigal and Cushman (2005)
introduced the gradient model as an alternative approach to
landscape structure quantification. Instead of mapping
homogeneous and discrete areas, the gradient model rep-
resents landscape structure based on continuous data in
which the only discrete units are pixels of a raster. In this
model, heterogeneity is shown as a three-dimensional (3D)
surface that can represent any desired ecological feature
(McGarigal & Cushman, 2005). Continuous representation
of a landscape contains much more information and
therefore presents a realistic representation of landscapes
(Lausch et al., 2015).
Nowadays, in landscape ecological studies, much
attention has been paid to continuous metrics to measure
landscape fragmentation. Various studies have investigated
the landscapes in a continuous framework to overcome the
limitations of the PCM model. One set of metrics that are
used as alternatives for PCM-based landscape metrics in
quantifying landscape patterns is surface metrics. These
metrics were used by (McGarigal et al., 2009) in a study to
describe landscape patterns. They acknowledged that the
surface metrics have unique characteristics and a high
123
ability to describe the relationship between patterns and
processes. Mondal (2011) also used surface metrics to
quantify continuous landscape heterogeneity and showed
that surface metrics were capable of describing the spatial
and non-spatial features of the landscape. Many surface
metrics show consistent scaling relations according to
changing resolution and several can accurately predict
values at finer resolutions (Frazier, 2016). Recently,
Kedron et al. (2018) have investigated the performance and
applicability of surface metrics in describing different
forest landscapes and found that not all surface metrics are
suitable for landscape analysis.
Fourier transforms have also been introduced as a tool
for describing changes in landscape patterns over time. The
use of this tool in landscape studies was first undertaken by
Rocchini, Metz, et al. (2013) to investigate landscape
fragmentation using satellite imagery in different periods.
The results of their study showed that Fourier analysis was
well able to detect landscape fragmentation in different
periods, but they did not provide any information on how
much these changes were and where these changes
occurred in the landscape. Other alternative metrics are the
local spatial autocorrelation indices. These indices have
been used by Fan and Myint (2014) to quantify landscape
patterns, and their performance has been compared with
landscape metrics in the quantification of urban landscape
fragmentation. The results of the comparison showed the
efficiency of these indices in the quantification of land-
scape heterogeneity.
The use of patterns and metrics to evaluate landscapes in
a continuous framework is rare, and so far few comparisons
have been made between the use of continuous patterns and
the discrete pattern of the PCM model (Fan & Myint, 2014;
Kedron et al., 2018). Various studies that explore the
landscape patterns in the continuous framework have all
mentioned the shortcomings of discrete models and intro-
duced alternative metrics (Frazier, 2016; Kedron et al.,
2018; Lausch et al., 2015; McGarigal et al., 2009; Rahimi
et al., 2021). However, it is often not possible to compare
the results of continuous and discrete approaches directly
because the output of some methods is an image and others
a number. For example, the output of landscape and surface
metrics is a number, but the output of local spatial auto-
correlation indices and Fourier transform is an image.
Moreover, the ability of these methods to detect small
changes has not been well investigated. Therefore, in this
study, we are interested in comparing these methods for
change detection. The objectives of this paper are to
address the following questions:
(1) What are the weaknesses of the methods used as
alternatives to the PCM model?
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing (July 2022) 50(7):1257–1273 1259

(2) What are the strengths of these alternative methods 2. These subsets involve small changes in the built-up areas
for quantifying landscape patterns? and agricultural lands. Therefore, the efficiency of alter-
(3) Have there been any suitable alternatives to over- native metrics in detecting small changes can be well
come the drawbacks of the PCM model? determined.
The data used in this study consist of two satellite
images acquired from Landsat 8 OLI satellite (Table 1).
Landsat 8 OLI images have a spatial resolution of 30 m
Study Area
and a 12-bit radiometric precision. The first image was
taken on 11/6/2013 and the second image on 15/6/2020,
Figure 1 shows the location of the study area in Tehran
and two subsets were selected from each of these images.
province of Iran. In this figure, two subsets are separated to
Images were acquired during the vegetation growing sea-
determine the effectiveness of Fourier transforms, surface
sons and are freely available from the Landsat archive from
metrics, and local spatial autocorrelation indices in com-
the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (http://glovis.
parison with the landscape metrics to quantify landscape
usgs.gov). All data were used for the classification of the
changes. The area of subset 1 (Fig. 1a) is 100 hectares and
subsets and extraction of vegetation indices in a change
subset 2 (Fig. 1b) is 220 hectares that are located in the
detection manner over seven years (2013–2020) to deter-
west of Tehran province. Subset 1 is different from subset 2
mine the efficiency of all continuous and discrete methods
in terms of the area of urban and cultivated farms.
for measuring small changes in the subsets.
Approximately, 16% and 18% of subsets 1 are covered by
agriculture and urban covers, respectively, while cultivated
farms constitute 34% and urban areas cover 16% of subset

Fig.1 Location of study areas in Tehran province of Iran in the year 2020. a subset 1 and b subset 2. The green areas show the cultivated farms,
and the white areas show the urban features

123
1260 Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing (July 2022) 50(7):1257–1273

Table 1 Details of satellite data used in this study
Date Path Row Satellite Sensor Resolution
11/6/2013 164 35 Landsat 8 OLI 30 m
15/6/2020 164 35 Landsat 8 OLI 30 m
Methods
Figure 2 shows the diagram comparing discrete and con-
tinuous metrics. This figure shows that landscape metrics
are used in discrete methods. The input of landscape
metrics is classified land-use maps that in the present study,
these maps were prepared using Landsat images. On the
other hand, there are continuous methods that include
spatial autocorrelation indices, surface metrics, and Fourier
transforms. Unlike landscape metrics, continuous metrics
inputs are mainly vegetation indices such as NDVI and
PNBI for surface metrics and spatial autocorrelation indi-
ces. The first principal component (PCA1) derived from the
images was used as input for Fourier transforms to inves-
tigate changes in landscape patterns. The efficiency of
discrete and continuous metrics was compared for change
detection between 2013 and 2020. The methodology
flowchart is shown in Fig. 2.
Image Processing
We used four classified maps for calculating landscape
metrics and comparing these metrics with alternative
methods. Using the maximum likelihood algorithm,
Landsat images of two subsets in the years 2013 and 2020
were classified into two classes including built-up and non-
built-up. Since continuous methods use vegetation indices
as input, they can examine covers that can be distinguished
by these indices. In this study, only two urban and agri-
culture cover types were identifiable by vegetation indices,
and therefore, these two cover types were considered in the
present study. The urban class included built-up areas, and
impervious surfaces like roads, parking areas, and cement
surfaces. The agriculture class consists only of cultivated
farms, which can be seen in Fig. 1 in green. Barren lands,
uncultivated, and burned areas were all classified in the
other category. Five hundred random points were generated
for each subset to obtain overall accuracy and kappa
coefficients of the classified maps. Reference points were
mainly acquired from Google Earth images.
Measuring Landscape Changes
Measuring landscape changes in this study is based on four
methods including landscape metrics, local spatial auto-
correlation indices, surface metrics, and Fourier trans-
forms. Since the output types of discrete and continuous
methods are different from each other, it is difficult to
make a direct comparison between landscape metrics and
alternative methods. For example, the outputs of landscape
and surface metrics are numbers that cannot be compared
with output images of local spatial autocorrelation indices
and Fourier transforms. To solve this problem, we tested
the ability of these methods to detect temporal variations in
two separate subsets over seven years. We consciously
chose landscapes that had little changes in urban and
agricultural areas during these seven years. We measured
the landscape changes by all discrete and continuous
methods and compared the results of these methods with
one another. We used classified maps to calculate changes
by landscape metrics and used vegetation indices as input
to continuous methods to detect the temporal changes of
urban and agriculture covers.

Fig. 2 Methodology
flowchart of comparing discrete Comparison of discrete and
and continuous metrics for continuous metrics
measuring landscape changes
Discrete metrics Continuous metrics

Landscape metrics Autocorrelation indices

Input
Surface metrics
Land use/cover

Fourier transforms
Change detection Input

NDVI, PNBI, PCA1

Statistical analysis Change detection

123
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing (July 2022) 50(7):1257–1273 1261

Landscape Metrics
To calculate land-use changes in seven years, we used six
landscape metrics (Table 2) including the Percentage of
Landscape (PLAND), Large Patch Index (LPI), Number of
Patches (NP), Patch Density (PD), Effective Mesh Size
(MESH), Aggregation Index (AI), Splitting Index (SPLIT)
available in Fragstats 4.2 software (McGarigal et al., 2002).
To compare local spatial autocorrelation indices and
landscape metrics, it is necessary to visualize the output of
landscape metrics using the moving window technique.
Some studies have suggested that a window size of five
cells is the best fit for measuring spatial patterns in a
landscape by moving window method (Buyantuyev et al.,
2010; Fan & Myint, 2014), and therefore, a window size of
5 by 5 pixels was used for calculating landscape metrics.
The output of the moving window technique is a raster in
which each pixel represents the calculated value of the
landscape metrics. These landscape metrics were calcu-
lated at the class level for agriculture and built-up areas in
the subsets.
Vegetation Indices
For measuring landscape patterns in the continuous
framework, we need to use continuous indices that reflect
landscape features. In this regard, we used two indexes
including the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index
(NDVI) and the built-up index (PNBI) as alternative indi-
cators of landscape features. The normalized difference
vegetation index is effective for identifying green vegeta-
tion biomass due to strong absorption in the red region
(Band 3) and a strong reflection in the near-infrared band
(Band 4) (Fan & Myint, 2014). This index is the most
widely used index for many different applications, ranging
from vegetation monitoring to urban sprawl (Nolè et al.,
2014). One of the indices used for the study of urban
phenomena is the built-up index (PNBI). The built-up
index is a useful index to identify impervious surfaces like
asphalt and concrete (Nolè et al., 2014). Values generated
using the NDVI and PNBI indexes range from -1 to 1. The
formulas for calculating NDVI and PNBI are as follows:
NIR  RED
NDVI ¼ ð1Þ
NIR þ RED
PCA1  NIR
PNBI ¼ ð2Þ
PCA1 þ NIR
where Red and NIR stand for the spectral reflectance
measurements acquired in the red (visible) and near-in-
frared regions, respectively, and PCA1 stands for the first
principal component of all bands.
Local Spatial Autocorrelation Indices
Spatial autocorrelation is an indicator that measures a
phenomenon in which closely related observations are
more similar than those that are farther away (Bolliger
et al., 2007). Several indices have been developed to
measure the spatial autocorrelation to determine the exis-
tence and severity of clusters in the distribution. The global
spatial autocorrelation indices measure the total amount of
data correlation across the study area, but local indicators
of spatial autocorrelation allow us to locate clustered pix-
els, by measuring how many features inside the fixed
neighborhood are homogeneous (Anselin, 1995). In this
study, we used Getis–Ord (Getis & Ord, 1992) that

Table 2 Descriptions of the selected landscape metrics

Metric Equation Range Explanation
P
PLAND aij 0 B PLAND B 100 Shows the percentage of landscape occupied by a cover
A ð100Þ
maxaij
LPI A ð100Þ 0 B LPI B 100 Shows the percentage of the largest patch of a cover
P  1 
MESH A2IJ The ratio of cell size to landscape area B MESH B total High values of MESH indicate a low degree of
A 10000 landscape area (A) landscape fragmentation
 
AI gii
ð100Þ 0 B AI B 100 High values of AI indicate a low degree of landscape
max!gii
fragmentation
SPLIT PA2 2 1 B SPLIT B number of cells in the landscape area High values of SPLIT indicate a high degree of
AIJ
squared landscape fragmentation
ni
PD A ð10000Þð100Þ PD [ 0, constrained by cell size High values of PD indicate a high degree of landscape
fragmentation
aij = area (m2) of patch; A = total landscape area (m2); ni = number of class i patches in the landscape; eij = total length (m) of edges of patch ij,
including landscape boundary; aij c = area (m2) within patch ij separated from its boundary by a user-specified buffer width (m); gii = the
number of adjacencies (contiguity) between pixels of patch class i; max gii = maximum possible number of adjacencies among pixels of patches
of class i (McGarigal et al., 2002)

123
1262
compares pixel values at a given location with those pixels
at a lag, d, from the original pixel at location i. The
function by Getis and Ord (1992) is represented by the
following equation:
GetisðdÞ
Pn Pn
i¼1 wi ðdÞxi  xi
¼ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
h P Pn
ðN  1Þ ni¼1 wi ðdÞ 
SðiÞ
where N is the total pixel number, i stands for pixel i, Xi
and Xj are intensities in points i and j (with i = j), value,
wij (d) represents a weight matrix which varies according to
P ing of the majority of the values above the surface
distance, S1i= Nj¼1 wij 2 .
The high value of Getis means a positive correlation for
high values of intensity, while a low value of the index
means a positive correlation for low values of intensity
(Lanorte et al., 2013). We used ENVI5.3 software for the
calculating local spatial autocorrelation index. To be con-
sistent with the moving window analysis conducted above,
we used a 5 9 5 window size for calculating Getis statis-
tics. The Getis statistics was applied to vegetation and
built-up indices derived from Landsat data for the years
2013 and 2020. A sample of 2500 randomly generated
points was utilized to evaluate the relationship between
landscape metrics and Getis statistics at the class level. To
detect changes between different years using Getis statis-
tics, we applied Getis statistics to NDVI and PNBI indices
and compared them with the moving window images of
agriculture and urban covers, respectively. For change
detection, we calculated the probability density functions
of these images.
Surface Metrics
Similar to the landscape metrics, the landscape gradients
also have spatial and non-spatial components. Spatial
components refer to vertical and horizontal variations, but
non-spatial components only refer to vertical variability in
the surface (Mondal, 2011). Generally, non-spatial com-
ponents do not provide any information about the
arrangement, location, or distribution of valleys and peaks
on the surface. These metrics are similar to diversity
metrics in the PCM model and measure composition
aspects of landscapes, not configuration (Kedron et al.,
2018; McGarigal et al., 2009). In contrast to the suite of
available patch metrics, the available surface metrics are all
structural. We applied some of these metrics calculated by
software SPIP (Metrology, 2002) to examine their ability in
quantifying surface patterns. Four surface metrics includ-
ing surface skewness (Ssk), surface kurtosis (Sku), average
roughness (Sa), valley fluid retention index (Svi) were used
123
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing (July 2022) 50(7):1257–1273
to quantify landscape patterns of PNBI and NDVI indices
between years 2013 and 2020 (Table 3).
Surface skewness (Ssk), surface kurtosis (Sku), and
valley fluid retention index (Svi) can be interpreted as
measures of the dominance of landscape patterns, similar to
dominance metrics in the PCM model. Ssk shows the
i¼1 wi ðdÞ asymmetry of the surface height distribution. A surface
2 i
with an equal number of peaks and valleys has zero
i¼1 wi ðdÞ =ðN  2Þ
skewness and a surface with the domination of high values
ð3Þ (peaks) with occasional valleys has a negative skewness,
while a surface with the domination of low values (valleys)
with occasional peaks has positive skewness. Conse-
quently, the amount of skewness depends on the position-
(negative skewness) or below the surface (positive skew-
ness) relative to the average height.
A surface with a relatively even distribution of heights
above and below the mean has low kurtosis (Sku \ 3), and
a surface with relatively few areas above or below the
mean has high kurtosis (Sku [ 3). Therefore, high kurtosis
indicates a landscape with a dominant surface height, akin
to a ‘matrix’ under the PCM model of landscape structure.
The surface kurtosis (Sku) metric only shows the domi-
nance of the landscape and does not provide information on
which cover is dominant. Therefore, this metric should be
interpreted with Ssk and Svi metrics. The average rough-
ness (Sa) metric measures the average absolute deviation of
the surface heights from the mean. This metric can be
interpreted as a non-spatial metric of landscape diversity,
analogous to the PCM-based diversity metrics. Larger
values represent an increasing range of values in the sur-
face attribute (akin to increasing patch richness). Valley
fluid retention index (Svi), like Ssk and Sku, is also a
metric of the shape of the surface height profile.
Fourier Transforms
The Fourier transforms are well known in mathematics as
linear transformations from the time domain to the fre-
quency domain. If we assumed that f (x) be a continuous
function described in a spatial domain. Based on the
Fourier theorem (Fourier, 1822), every f (x) can be trans-
formed into a continuum of sinusoidal functions of varying
frequency, as:
Z
þ1
F ðx Þ ¼ f ðxÞe2pixx dx ð4Þ
1
where x = frequency, also known as radian frequency
since it is expressed in radians per spatial unit.
Extending Eq. 4 to two dimensions means the consid-
eration of a two-dimensional function such as a raster
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing (July 2022) 50(7):1257–1273 1263

Table 3 Descriptions of the

Metric Name Equation
selected surface metrics
PM1 PN1
Ssk Surface Skewness 1
MNSq3 k¼0 l¼1 ½zðxk ; yl Þ  l3
PM1 PN1
Sku Surface Kurtosis 1
MNSq4 k¼0 l¼1 ½zðxk ; yl Þ  l4
Sa Average roughness R R N1    
M1
1
MN l¼0 z xk; yl  l
K¼0
Svi Valley Fluid Retention Index V v ðh0:80 Þ
ðM1ÞðN1Þdx dy =Sq

where l = the mean height, M = raster rows, N = raster columns, Sq = the Root Mean Square, h = Height

matrix f (x, y). The Fourier transform then becomes
(Eq. 5):
ZZ þ1
F ðx; vÞ ¼ f ðx; yÞe2piðxxþvyÞ dxdy ð5Þ
1
where x, v = frequency coordinates.
In general, when Fourier transforms have been applied
to a satellite image, lower frequencies are located in the
center of the Fourier spectrum, while higher frequencies
are located around the center of this spectrum. Hence, it is
expected that images that are homogeneous show high
values in the center of the x, v scatterplot, and very low
values around the spectrum. The increase in fragmentation
leads to higher frequencies, resulting in a more complex
Fourier spectrum, in which higher values occur in the high-
frequency part of the Fourier spectrum (Rocchini, Metz,
et al., 2013). Fast Fourier transform function (FFT) based
on ENVI5.3 software was calculated to study the landscape
changes. Since Fourier transforms can be performed on one
image only, the images were decomposed into their main
components using the principal component analysis (PCA).
PCA is a linear transformation technique related to factor
analysis. Given a set of image bands, PCA produces a new
set of images, known as components that are uncorrelated
with one another and are ordered in terms of the amount of
variance they explain from the original band set. In this
process, the first component (PCA1) contains the most
amount of information and explains 95 to 99 percent of the
total variance in the original data set. Therefore, the first
component of Landsat images of 2013 and 2020 for both
subsets was used as input for the FFT function.
Results
Image Classification
Figure 3 shows the classified maps of the subsets selected
for this study. This figure shows the three classes, namely
agriculture, urban, and other in 2013 and 2020. In this
figure, the two land cover classes of agriculture and urban
are separated from other covers. A visual comparison of the
subsets in 2013 and 2020 shows that there are small
changes in the area and arrangement of urban and agri-
cultural patches.
Accuracy Assessment
Table 4 shows the results of the classification accuracy of
the two subsets under study. Using ground truth points,
confusion matrices were generated which indicate the
overall accuracy and kappa coefficient for the classified
maps. The overall accuracies for the subsets are accept-
able (more than 88%) (Chettry & Surawar, 2021), and the
kappa coefficient varies from 0.78 to 0.86, indicating that
we obtained acceptable results.
Comparison Between Getis Statistics
and landscape Metrics
Table 5 shows the results of the landscape metrics calcu-
lated for the two subsets in the years 2013 and 2020. In this
table, seven landscape metrics are presented, each of which
analyzes a specific aspect of landscape patterns. For
example, the PLAND metric shows the percentage of
landscape occupied by a cover. The results of this metric
show that the cultivated farms increased from 13 to 16% in
subset 1 and 28% to 34% in subset 2 between the years
2013 to 2020. According to the PLAND metric, the urban
cover has also increased. PD metric shows that the agri-
cultural patch density increased in subset 1 but decreased in
subset 2.
The density of urban patches has increased in both
subsets. LPI metric shows the percentage of landscape
occupied by the largest patch of a cover. According to this
metric, the area of the largest agricultural patch has
increased in both subsets. Urban patches areas have also
increased in both subsets. MESH measures the fragmen-
tation degree of the patches. The high values of this metric
indicate the reduction of fragmentation in a landscape.
Based on this metric, urban and agricultural patches have
become less fragmented in both subsets. AI metric also
shows the degree of aggregation of patches. In the present

123
1264 Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing (July 2022) 50(7):1257–1273

Fig. 3 Land use maps indicating two classes of urban, agriculture. (A1) subset 1 in the year 2013, (A2) subset 1 in the year 2020, (B1) subset 2 in
the year 2013, and (B2) subset 2 in the year 2020

Table 4 Classification accuracy of the land cover map generated by study, this metric does not show any specific changes in the
the maximum likelihood approach for the subsets in different years pattern of patches. High values of the SPLIT metric indi-
Year Subset Overall accuracy kappa coefficient cate an increase in fragmentation in a cover. The results of
this metric also show that the structural pattern of urban
2013 Subset 1 92% 0.80 and agricultural patches in 2020 has become more aggre-
Subset 2 90% 0.84 gated than in 2013.
2020 Subset 1 88% 0.78 As mentioned above, the six landscape metrics were
Subset 2 91% 0.86 calculated using moving windows for comparison with
Getis statistics. Moving window images of PLAND metric
for agriculture class are presented in Fig. 4. High values in

Table 5 Landscape metrics for

Land use PLAND PD LPI MESH AI SPLIT
two subsets understudy in the
years 2013 and 2020 Subset 1–2013 Agri 13 4.7 3.7 4 78.6 552
Urban 10 3.2 4.3 6 79.2 328
Subset 2–2013 Agri 28 5 6.5 21 82.7 110
Urban 15 3.9 5.4 9 80.5 248
Subset 1–2020 Agri 16 5.8 4.9 7 78.3 297
Urban 18 6 12.2 34 77.8 65
Subset 2–2020 Agri 34 4.4 7.2 32 84 74
Urban 16 4.2 5.4 13 82 184

123
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing (July 2022) 50(7):1257–1273 1265

Fig. 4 Output raster grids of moving window analysis for agriculture class. PLAND metrics derived from land-use maps for (A1) subset 1in the
year 2013, (A2) subset 1 in the year 2020; (B) subset 2in the year 2013; (c) subset 2in the year 2020

these images indicate cultivated farms, and low values are
related to built-up areas and other covers. The statistical
relationship between the images obtained from the moving
window and the corresponding images obtained from the
Getis statistics (Figs. 5 and 6) was estimated, and the
results are presented in Table 6. According to this table, the
statistical relationship between landscape metrics and Getis
of NDVI is stronger than Getis of PNBI in both subsets.
Among the landscape metrics, PLAND, LPI, and MESH
show the strongest relationship with the Getis index,
respectively. Metrics such as PD, AI, and SPLIT showed a
statistically weak correlation with the Getis of NDVI and
PNBI indexes.
Results of the density function applied to Getis of NDVI
between the years 2013 and 2020 for both subsets are
presented in Fig. 5 (A3 and B3). To obtain the values
limited to the cultivated farms in the Getis image in subset
1, we masked the corresponding values of the farms from
the Getis image in ArcGIS software. The output image was
a raster layer with a range of -5 to 9, so in Fig. 5-A3, this
range was considered as vegetation or cultivated farms.
Therefore, this plot can be divided into two parts based on

123
1266 Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing (July 2022) 50(7):1257–1273

A1 B1

A2 B2

A3 B3
0.06 0.04
0.035
0.05
Density Proability
Density Proability

0.03
0.04
0.025
0.03 0.02

0.02 0.015
0.01
0.01
0.005
0 0
7- 6- 5- 4- 3- 2- 1- 0 1 2 3 7- 6- 5- 4- 3- 2- 1- 0 1 2 3 5 6 7 8
Ges of NDVI Values Ges of NDVI Values

Fig. 5 Outputs images and change detection plots of Getis of NDVI in change detection plot for subset 1 (B1) Getis of NDVI for subset 2 in
subsets understudy in the years 2013 and 2020. (A1) Getis of NDVI 2013, (B2) Getis of NDVI for subset 2 in 2020, and (B3) change
for subset 1 in 2013, (A2) Getis of NDVI for subset 1 in 2020, (A3) detection plot for subset 2

123
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing (July 2022) 50(7):1257–1273 1267

A1 B1

A2
B2

A3 B3
0.035 0.03

0.03 0.025
Density Probability

Density Proablity

0.025 0.02
0.02
0.015
0.015
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.005
0
0
3- 2- 1- 0 1 2 3 4
2- 1- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 14
Ges of PNBI Values Ges of PNBI Values

Fig. 6 Outputs images and change detection plots of Getis of PNBI in change detection plot for subset 1 (B1) Getis of PNBI for subset 2 in
subsets understudy in the years 2013 and 2020. (A1) Getis of PNBI 2013, (B2) Getis of PNBI for subset 2 in 2020, and (B3) change
for subset 1 in 2013, (A2) Getis of PNBI for subset 1 in 2020, (A3) detection plot for subset 2

Getis of NDVI values: (1) the first part between -7 to -5 cross between Getis charts in 2013 and 2020, and from this
that is related to non-agricultural lands including bare soil value onwards, the number of farm cells has increased in
and built-up areas; and (2) the second part between -5 to 9 2020 compared to 2013 which is compatible with the
that is related to cultivated farms. A value of -5 shows a results of landscape metrics. We did the same procedure

123
1268 Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing (July 2022) 50(7):1257–1273

Table 6 Regression statistics of

Regression equation R2 (%) P value
Getis index and landscape
metrics (n = 2500). GN and GP Getis of NDVI* 2013 PLAND = 34.59 ? 6.699 GN 87.6 0.000
are the abbreviations of Getis of
NDVI and Getis of PNBI, LPI = 31.22 ? 6.412 GN 83.6 0.000
respectively PD = 17.15 ? 0.1541 GN 0.3 0.010
MESH = 1.761 ? 0.4701 GN 73.5 0.000
AI = 83.25 ? 1.358 GN 73 0.000
SPLIT = 233.31–31.6 GN 19.4 0.000
Getis of PNBI* 2013 PLAND = -15.74 ? 27.70 GP 26.7 0.000
LPI = -15.01 ? 25.61GP 23.6 0.000
PD = 9.983 ? 4.248 GP 5 0.010
MESH = -1.592 ? 1.942 GP 18 0.000
AI = 84.89–3.135 GP 0.7 0.000
SPLIT = 2087–967.9 GP 12.9 0.000
Getis of NDV 2013 PLAND = 38.84 ? 6.797 GN 95.9 0.000
LPI = 35.21 ? 6.826 GN 92.5 0.010
PD = 17.79–03.343 GN ‘1.7 0.000
MESH = 2.275 ? 0.6215 GN 82.5 0.000
AI = 84.20 ? 1.236 GN 15.1 0.000
SPLIT = 248.8–91.51GN 20.3 0.000
Getis of PNBI 2013 PLAND = -4.747 ? 29.07 GP 35.2 0.010
LPI = -5.711 ? 28.44 GP 33.3 0.000
PD = 13.43 ? 1.069 GP 0.6 0.000
MESH = -1.257 ? 2.624 GP 31 0.000
AI = 78.39 ? 2.874 GP 1 0.000
SPLIT = 1084–40.5 GP 6.5 0.010
Getis of NDVI* 2020 PLAND = 33.07 ? 6.545GN 87.8 0.000
LPI = 29.88 ? 6.378 GN 83.5 0.000
PD = 18.05 ? 0.08573 GN 0.1 0.000
MESH = 1.723 ? 0.484 GN 72.9 0.000
AI = 81.84 ? 1.064 GN 5.4 0.010
SPLIT = 297.0–137.1 GN 21.7 0.000
Getis of PNBI* 2020 PLAND = -14.33 ? 10.40 GP 39.1 0.000
LPI = -15.12 ? 9.846 GP 34.3 0.000
PD = 14.94 ? 0.9994 GP 2.1 0.000
MESH = -1.663 ? 0.7706 GP 26.3 0.010
AI = 73.20 ? 0.8184 GP 0.6 0.000
SPLIT = 1482–254.6 GP 15.8 0.000
Getis of NDVI 2020 PLAND = 42.65 ? 7.114 GN 94 0.000
LPI = 39.04 ? 7.271 GN 91 0.000
PD = 17.93–0.4969 GN 3.6 0.010
MESH = 2.638 ? 0.6995 GN 82.1 0.000
AI = 84.13 ? 1.552 GN 22.6 0.000
SPLIT = 208.1–78.69 GN 19.4 0.000
Getis of PNBI 2020 PLAND = -1.921 ? 10.50 GP 43.7 0.000
LPI = -1.996 ? 10.31 GP 41.4 0.000
PD = 14.47 ? 0.1238 GP 0.1 0.173
MESH = -1.435 ? 0.9160 GP 34 0.000
AI = 77.12 ? 1.384 GP 2.5 0.000
SPLIT = 1308–214.4 GP 13.1 0.000
*
Data belong to subset 1

123
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing (July 2022) 50(7):1257–1273 1269

for subset 2, which, similar to subset 1, the values of cul-
tivated fields were between -5 and 9. Therefore, this
chart also shows the increase in a farm area in 2020.
Changes related to urban cover for subset 1 are shown in
Fig. 6-A3. In this figure, the values related to urban cover
are from 0 to 4, and these two numbers have created two
intersection points in this figure which show the growth of
urban cover in 2020. In subset 2, the range of values lim-
ited to the urban cover for the years 2013 and 2020 was
between -2 and 2. This chart also shows that between 2013
and 2020, the urban cover area has increased which is
consistent with the results of landscape metrics.
Surface Metrics
Table 7 shows the results of surface metrics values that
were calculated for different vegetation indices in different
years. Positive values of surface skewness (Ssk) of NDVI
index imply that in subset 1, the bare soil and built-up areas
are more dominant than vegetation covers (cultivated
farms). The surface skewness (Ssk) values of PNBI are
negative which means peaks or high values of built-up
areas dominate subset 1. The surface skewness (Ssk) values
of the NDVI index decreased from 0.6 to 0.3 in subset 1
from 2013 to 2020, indicating that cultivated farms have
increased in the period. The surface skewness (Ssk) values
of the PNBI index decreased from – 4.5 to – 2.5 meaning
that in the year 2020, the dominance of bare soil and built-
up areas has reduced. The surface skewness (Ssk) values
for subset 2 also showed that the area of cultivated farms
increased significantly from 2013 to 2010, as the domi-
nance of low values has reduced from - 0.21 to 0.04.
Similar to subset 1, the dominance of negative values (Bare
soil and built-up areas) of PNBI has decreased from 2013
to 2020, implying that barren lands have been replaced by
cultivated farms in 2020.
The surface kurtosis (Sku) metric only shows the dom-
inance of a cover, and according to this metric, there is a
significant decrease in the cover’s dominance in both
subsets from 2013 to 2020. However, it is not clear which
cover losses the dominance, so this metric should be
interpreted with the surface kurtosis (Sku) metric simulta-
neously. Similar to the surface kurtosis (Sku) metric, the
average roughness (Sa) metric also does not differentiate
among different covers. The results of this metric show that
the patch richness in both subsets has increased between
the years 2013 and 2020. Valley fluid retention index (Svi)
is particularly sensitive to occasional deep valleys and not
occasional high peaks. The results of this metric show that
in both subsets, the negative values (Bare soil and built-up
areas) in the NDVI index have decreased. These negative
values or valleys in the PNBI index are cultivated farms,
which their dominance has increased in both subsets from
2013 to 2020.
Fourier Transforms
Figure 7 shows the Fourier spectrums of both subsets in the
years 2013 and 2020. As mentioned above, increasing
fragmentation leads to higher frequencies, which means
that once fragmentation occurred in the landscape, the
equitability of values increases. According to Fig. 7, the
equitability of values has increased (higher heterogeneity)
in the year 2020, because of the fragmentation process or
increased landscape heterogeneity over the subsets mainly
due to the increasing cultivated farms. The density function
plots (A3 and B3) of both subsets confirm the above results
and show increasing heterogeneity in the year 2020. The
left part of these plots is related to low-frequency values
(lower heterogeneity), and the right part is related to high-
frequency values (higher heterogeneity), comparison of
these parts shows that in seven years, both subsets have
changed and heterogeneity has increased in the year of
2020 in both subsets.

Table7 Results of calculated surface metrics for the subsets in the

years 2013 and 2020 Discussion
Ssk Sku Sa Svi
The first alternative metric in this study was local Getis that
Subset 1 NDVI of Landsat 2013 0.64 5.3 16.8 0.7
showed a strong statistical relationship with landscape
NDVI of Landsat 2020 0.3 4 21.8 0.6 metrics especially for measuring landscape heterogeneity
PNBI of Landsat 2013 - 4.5 36.7 7.8 1.6 of cultivated farms. Our results on the relationship between
PNBI of Landsat 2020 - 2.5 16 10.7 2.1 local Getis and landscape metrics revealed two general
Subset 2 NDVI of Landsat 2013 - 0.21 2.6 22.6 0.35 results: (1) The relationship between Getis of NDVI and
NDVI of Landsat 2020 0.04 2.2 30 0.23 landscape metrics was stronger than the Getis of PNBI, and
PNBI of Landsat 2013 - 2.8 21 11.3 0.98 (2) Getis of NDVI had a strong statistical relationship with
PNBI of Landsat 2020 - 1.5 8.5 15.7 1.4 some landscape metrics (PLAND, LPI, and MESH), and at
the same time, it has a weak relationship with others (AI,
PD, SPLIT). A comparison between local Getis and

123
1270 Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing (July 2022) 50(7):1257–1273

A1 B1

A2 B2

A3 B3
0.016 0.016
0.014 0.014
0.012 0.012
Density Probablity
Density Probablity

0.01 0.01
0.008 0.008
0.006 0.006
0.004 0.004
0.002 0.002
0 0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Fourier of PCA1 Values Fourier of PCA1 Values

Fig.7 Results of Fourier transform applied to PCA1 of subsets under
study. (A1) Fourier spectrum of subset 1 in 2013, (A2) Fourier
spectrum of subset 1 in 2020, (A3) change detection plot for subset
1,(B1) Fourier spectrum of subset 2 in 2013, (B2) Fourier spectrum of
subset 1 in 2020, and (B3) change detection plot for subset 2. The
blue color (out of spectrum) indicates low frequency, green color
indicates medium frequency, and yellow color indicates the high
frequency at the center of the spectrum. Visual comparison of these
images shows lower values (yellow) in the high-frequency part of the
Fourier spectrum of 2017

landscape metrics has been reported by Fan and Myint PNBI, implying that local spatial autocorrelation indices
(2014). Our results in this part are similar to Fan and Myint are sensitive to input data.
(2014) as they also showed that Getis of NDVI had a One reason for the stronger relationship of Getis of
stronger relationship with landscape metrics than Getis of NDVI and landscape metrics is that the NDVI index

123
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing (July 2022) 50(7):1257–1273
merely reflects vegetation cover, but in the PNBI index, in
addition to urban areas, barren lands also receive high
values. Another reason is related to the accuracy of clas-
sification of urban areas because these areas are composed
of different human-made covers and have different reflec-
tions and structural features; then, processes of urban
classification become more difficult and more error-prone
(Rocchini, Foody, et al., 2013). For example, in the process
of image classification, scattered trees or small green space
patches are usually not classifiable with Landsat images or
classified as single pixels that the user removes or merges
in urban cover. However, autocorrelation methods use the
NDVI index, which these scattered trees and small green
spaces are considered in the output images.
Fan and Myint (2014) also found that PLAND and LPI
metrics showed the highest statistical relationship with
Getis of NDVI (R2 = 95% and 82%, respectively) that is
confirmed by our results as we also found the strongest
relationship between Getis of NDVI and PLAND and LPI
metrics (R2 = 95% and 92%, respectively). The Getis
statistics has also been used for measuring landscape pat-
terns in a change detection scenario (Nolè et al., 2014) and
can well differentiate the urban and vegetation. Consistent
with landscape metrics, change detection plots of Getis of
NDVI and PNBI showed that cultivated farms and urban
areas increased between 2013 and 2020 in both subsets.
Generally, the advantages of spatial autocorrelation indices
are; (1) these statistics can distinguish small changes in
land use and (2) they provide a map as their outputs (3)
they are suitable for quick evaluation of landscape patterns
because they use images such as NDVI as their input. The
disadvantage of these criteria is that (1) they do not cal-
culate land-use changes in area units and (2) they are more
suitable for studying vegetation and urban environments.
Surface metrics were another alternative metric for
quantifying landscape changes that use continuous data as
the input of their calculation. Results of these metrics are
consistent with Getis statistics and landscape metrics as
these metrics showed that cultivated farms and built-up
areas increased from 2013 to 2020 in both subsets. Surface
metrics have not been used to measure changes over time,
but this important was done in the current study and results
showed the efficiency of these metrics in temporal mea-
suring landscape changes. These metrics have been used in
a few studies so far (McGarigal et al., 2009; Mondal,
2011). Although the results of earlier studies confirm the
ability of surface metrics in quantifying landscape hetero-
geneity (Frazier & Kedron, 2017), these metrics also have
their weaknesses. For instance, surface metrics are sensi-
tive to the input data like NDVI and PNBI indices, as they
estimated different levels of landscape dominance. The
interpretation of surface metrics is also challenging and not
all surface metrics are suitable for analyzing landscape
1271
patterns (Kedron et al., 2018). In contrast to landscape
metrics, surface metrics cannot determine the number of
changes in units of area. The advantages of these metrics
are that (1) they are sensitive to small land-use changes, (2)
they are suitable for examining long-term land-use chan-
ges, and (3) they distinguish different covers using domi-
nance metrics. Frazier and Kedron (2017) point to the
limitations of landscape metrics introduce surface metrics
as alternatives and acknowledge that alternative approa-
ches are suffering from the issue of correlation and
redundancy. Similar to Getis statistics, Fourier transforms
also showed landscape pattern changes via change detec-
tion plots, which is an advantage of the method, but it does
not provide any information about the type and the amount
of changed cover. Comparison of Fourier transforms and
Getis plots showed that local Getis was more powerful than
Fourier transforms to detect landscape changes.
Conclusions
Overall, the use of discrete and continuous approaches
depends on factors like the scale of the study, time and
budget available, desired ecological processes, and the
degree of heterogeneity of the landscape of interest (Gus-
tafson, 2019). However, our results showed that similar to
landscape metrics, Getis statistics, surface metrics, and
Fourier transforms also have their disadvantages for mea-
suring landscape changes. For example, the mathematical
context and concept of continuous metrics are more com-
plicated than landscape metrics, especially for surface
metrics. In contrast to landscape metrics, alternative
methods have no functional metrics for measuring func-
tional or ecological processes. Using surface metrics, we
can estimate changes of land covers between different
years, but the location of changes cannot be well deter-
mined because these metrics do not provide a map. Fourier
transforms can show the amount of change but do not
provide any information about which cover in what part of
the landscape has changed. However, the results of con-
tinuous metrics are quantitative which is very important in
the field of landscape ecology. Continuous metrics also
have high sensitivity to small changes, implying that they
are more suitable than landscape metrics for detecting
small changes.
Calculating continuous metrics is less time-consuming
than landscape metrics because they use vegetation indexes
as input that are easy to calculate. The output images from
Fourier analysis and spatial autocorrelation indices provide
visual interpretation especially for Getis statistics that help
us to find locations of clusters. Therefore, continuous
metrics have unique characteristics for measuring land-
scape patterns and drawing their changes. We recommend
123
1272 Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing (July 2022) 50(7):1257–1273
the use of continuous metrics for quick assessment of
landscape, especially when seeking to detect changes over
time in large landscapes. We also suggest applying con-
tinuous metrics instead of using landscape metrics when
the spatial arrangement of landscape elements is very
heterogeneous. Landscape metrics were the simplest met-
rics used in the present study, which were much simpler
than other metrics in terms of computational complexity
and formula. The advantages of all the metrics presented
are: (1) they provided a quantitative description of the
landscape patterns; and (2) their calculation was easy using
existing software in the field of landscape ecology. How-
ever, the output of these metrics is expressed as a number
and not an image, which is a significant weakness of these
metrics. We emphasize that landscape metrics have some
drawbacks for measuring landscape patterns and some of
them can be resolved by continuous metrics. Since alter-
native metrics also have disadvantages, discrete and con-
tinuous metrics can complement each other in measuring
landscape patterns.
Funding There are no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.
Availability of Data and Material Data are available on request from
the authors only based on logical requests.
Code Availability Not applicable.
Declaration
Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
Ethics Approval Not applicable.
Consent to Participate All authors consent to participate in writing
this paper.
Consent for Publication All authors consent to publish this paper.
References
Anselin, L. (1995). Local indicators of spatial association—LISA.
Geographical Analysis, 27(2), 93–115.
Bolliger, J., Wagner, H. H., & Turner, M. G. (2007). Identifying and
quantifying landscape patterns in space and time. In A Changing
World, Springer, pp. 177–194.
Buyantuyev, A., Wu, J., & Gries, C. (2010). Multiscale analysis of the
urbanization pattern of the Phoenix metropolitan landscape of
USA: Time, space and thematic resolution. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 94(3–4), 206–217.
Chettry, V., & Surawar, M. (2021). Urban sprawl assessment in eight
mid-sized indian cities using RS and GIS, Journal of the Indian
Society of Remote Sensing 1–20.
Cockx, K., Van de Voorde, T., & Canters, F. (2014). Quantifying
uncertainty in remote sensing-based urban land-use mapping.
123
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoin-
formation, 31, 154–166.
Fan, C., & Myint, S. (2014). A comparison of spatial autocorrelation
indices and landscape metrics in measuring urban landscape
fragmentation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 121, 117–128.
Forman, R. T. (2014). Land mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and
regions (1995). Berlin: Springer.
Fourier, J. (1822). Theorie analytique de la chaleur, par M. Fourier,
Chez Firmin Didot, père et fils.
Frazier, A. E. (2016). Surface metrics: Scaling relationships and
downscaling behavior. Landscape Ecology, 31(2), 351–363.
Frazier, A. E., & Kedron, P. (2017). Landscape metrics: Past progress
and future directions. Current Landscape Ecology Reports, 2(3),
63–72.
Getis, A., & Ord, J. K. (1992). The analysis of spatial association by
use of distance statistics. Geographical Analysis, 24(3),
189–206.
Gustafson, E. J. (2019). How has the state-of-the-art for quantification
of landscape pattern advanced in the twenty-first century?
Landscape Ecology, 34(9), 2065–2072.
Hagen-Zanker, A. (2016). A computational framework for general-
ized moving windows and its application to landscape pattern
analysis. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation
and Geoinformation, 44, 205–216.
Kedron, P., Zhao, Y., & Frazier, A. E. (2019). Three dimensional
(3D) spatial metrics for objects. Landscape Ecology, 34(9),
2123–2132.
Kedron, P. J., Frazier, A. E., Ovando-Montejo, G. A., & Wang, J.
(2018). Surface metrics for landscape ecology: A comparison of
landscape models across ecoregions and scales. Landscape
Ecology, 33(9), 1489–1504.
Kulhanek, K., Steinhauer, N., Rennich, K., Caron, D. M., Sagili, R.
R., Pettis, J. S., Ellis, J. D., Wilson, M. E., Wilkes, J. T., &
Tarpy, D. R. (2017). A national survey of managed honey bee
2015–2016 annual colony losses in the USA. Journal of
Apicultural Research, 56(4), 328–340.
Lanorte, A., Danese, M., Lasaponara, R., & Murgante, B. (2013).
Multiscale mapping of burn area and severity using multisensor
satellite data and spatial autocorrelation analysis. International
Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 20,
42–51.
Lausch, A., Blaschke, T., Haase, D., Herzog, F., Syrbe, R.-U.,
Tischendorf, L., & Walz, U. (2015). Understanding and quan-
tifying landscape structure–A review on relevant process char-
acteristics, data models and landscape metrics. Ecological
Modelling, 295, 31–41.
Li, H., & Wu, J. (2004). Use and misuse of landscape indices.
Landscape Ecology, 19(4), 389–399.
Liu, D., Hao, S., Liu, X., Li, B., He, S., & Warrington, D. (2013).
Effects of land use classification on landscape metrics based on
remote sensing and GIS. Environmental Earth Sciences, 68(8),
2229–2237.
McGarigal, K., & Cushman, S. (2005). The gradient concept of
landscape structure. In J. Weins & M. Moss (Eds.), Issues and
perspectives in landscape ecology (pp. 112–119). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McGarigal, K., Cushman, S. A., Neel, M. C., & Ene, E. (2002).
FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical
maps.
McGarigal, K., Tagil, S., & Cushman, S. A. (2009). Surface metrics:
An alternative to patch metrics for the quantification of
landscape structure. Landscape Ecology, 24(3), 433–450.
Metrology, I. (2002). The scanning probe image processor, SPIPTM,
user’s and reference guide version 4.
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing (July 2022) 50(7):1257–1273
Mondal, P. (2011). Quantifying surface gradients with a 2-band
Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI2). Ecological Indicators,
11(3), 918–924.
Nolè, G., Lasaponara, R., Lanorte, A., & Murgante, B. (2014).
Quantifying urban sprawl with spatial autocorrelation techniques
using multi-temporal satellite data. International Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Information Systems (IJAEIS),
5(2), 19–37.
Park, Y., & Guldmann, J.-M. (2020). Measuring continuous landscape
patterns with Gray-Level Co-Occurrence Matrix (GLCM)
indices: An alternative to patch metrics? Ecological Indicators,
109, 105802.
Rahimi, E., Barghjelveh, S., & Dong, P. (2021). Quantifying how
urban landscape heterogeneity affects land surface temperature
at multiple scales. Journal of Ecology and Environment, 45(1),
1–13.
1273
Rocchini, D., Foody, G. M., Nagendra, H., Ricotta, C., Anand, M.,
He, K. S., Amici, V., Kleinschmit, B., Förster, M., &
Schmidtlein, S. (2013). Uncertainty in ecosystem mapping by
remote sensing. Computers & Geosciences, 50, 128–135.
Rocchini, D., Metz, M., Ricotta, C., Landa, M., Frigeri, A., & Neteler,
M. (2013). Fourier transforms for detecting multitemporal
landscape fragmentation by remote sensing. International Jour-
nal of Remote Sensing, 34(24), 8907–8916.
Shao, G., & Wu, J. (2008). On the accuracy of landscape pattern
analysis using remote sensing data. Landscape Ecology, 23(5),
505–511.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
123