Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190:189
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6564-z
Analyzing the effects of urban expansion on land surface
temperature patterns by landscape metrics: a case study
of Isfahan city, Iran
Maliheh Madanian & Ali Reza Soffianian &
Saeid Soltani Koupai & Saeid Pourmanafi &
Mehdi Momeni
Received: 10 October 2017 / Accepted: 19 February 2018
# Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract Urban expansion can cause extensive chang-
es in land use and land cover (LULC), leading to chang-
es in temperature conditions. Land surface temperature
(LST) is one of the key parameters that should be
considered in the study of urban temperature conditions.
The purpose of this study was, therefore, to investigate
the effects of changes in LULC due to the expansion of
the city of Isfahan on LST using landscape metrics. To
this aim, two Landsat 5 and Landsat 8 images, which
had been acquired, respectively, on August 2, 1985, and
July 4, 2015, were used. The support vector machine
method was then used to classify the images. The results
showed that Isfahan city had been encountered with an
increase of impervious surfaces; in fact, this class
M. Madanian : A. R. Soffianian (*) : S. S. Koupai :
S. Pourmanafi
Department of Natural Resources, Isfahan University of
Technology, Isfahan 8415683111, Iran
e-mail: soffianian@cc.iut.ac.ir
M. Madanian
e-mail: madanian.ma@yahoo.com
S. S. Koupai
e-mail: ssoltani@cc.iut.ac.ir
S. Pourmanafi
e-mail: Spourmanafi@cc.iut.ac.ir
M. Momeni
Remote Sensing Division, Geomatic Engineering, University of
Isfahan, Isfahan 8174673441, Iran
e-mail: momeni@eng.ui.ac.ir
covered 15% of the total area in 1985, while this value
had been increased to 30% in 2015. Then LST zoning
maps were created, indicating that the bare land and
impervious surfaces categories were dominant in high
temperature zones, while in the zones where water was
present or NDVI was high, LST was low. Then, the
landscape metrics in each of the LST zones were ana-
lyzed in relation to the LULC changes, showing that
LULC changes due to urban expansion changed such
landscape properties as the percentage of landscape,
patch density, large patch index, and aggregation index.
This information could be beneficial for urban planners
to monitor and manage changes in the LULC patterns.
Keywords Urban expansion . Land use/land cover
change . Land surface temperature . Landscape metrics .
Isfahan
Introduction
In 1950, 30% of the world’s population lived in urban
areas. It is expected that by 2050, this will have reached
to 66%. Urban expansion in Africa and Asia is faster
than other parts of the world, and it is predicted to
become 56 and 64% by 2050, respectively. Continued
urbanization is expected to add 2.5 billion people to the
urban population of the world by 2050, with nearly 90%
of the increase being concentrated in Asia and Africa
(United Nations 2014).
Although urban expansion and industrialization im-
prove the people’s quality of life, they can also cause
189 Page 2 of 11
many problems, such as global warming, air pollution,
and industrial wastes (Memon et al. 2008). Urban
growth has changed the biophysical environment. This
phenomenon, by substituting soil and vegetation with
impervious surfaces such as asphalt and buildings, has
affected Albedo and surface runoff water characteristics;
this has, therefore, significantly influenced the processes
of the surface-atmospheric energy exchange at the local
and regional scales (Lo and Quattrochi 2003). Changes
in ecological conditions caused by urban expansion,
such as watershed pollution, biodiversity loss, and cli-
mate change, can all affect the local and global ecosys-
tem services, ultimately influencing their ability to sus-
tain the urban population and its infrastructure. Human
activities have largely contributed to the fragmentation
of urban landscapes (Alberti and Marzluff 2004;
Keshtkar and Voigt 2016).
Remote sensing data, due to the provision of time-
sequential observations, can have a great potential for
studying the urban surface energy budget, as well as
spatial patterns and time dynamics of urban thermal
landscapes (Weng 2009). The thermal remote sensing
data can also be used to examine the patterns, processes,
and changes in the landscape in order to quantify the
energy and flow exchanges (Quattrochi and Luvall
1999). Land surface temperature (LST), which is de-
rived from thermal infrared (TIR) data, is one of the key
parameters in the physics of ground surface processes
on a regional and global scale; it involves interactions
between surface-atmosphere and energy flow between
the atmosphere and the earth (Wan 1999). LST and
emissivity data can be useful in environmental and
climate studies of the city, especially for the study of
the urban heat island (UHI), and the relationship be-
tween LST and surface energy fluxes, in order to exam-
ine the characteristics, patterns, and processes of the
landscape (Quattrochi and Luvall 1999).
Land use and land cover (LULC) types are associated
with the properties of urban thermal condition (Liu and
Weng 2008; Weng et al. 2004; Voogt and Oke 1997).
LULC patterns play an important role in determining
ecosystem functions and representing the in situ land-
scape patterns (Bain and Brush 2004). Although many
LULC types affect LST in the urban environment, veg-
etation abundance and impervious surfaces are consid-
ered as the most effective determinants (Zhou et al.
2014). In recent years, several studies have examined
the effects of different LULC types on LST patterns,
using the landscape metrics (Weng et al. 2007; Zhang
Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190:189
et al. 2013; Xie et al. 2013; Zhou et al. 2011, 2014; Li
et al. 2013; Liu and Weng 2008, 2009).
LULC patterns have two fundamental aspects: com-
position (the abundance and variety of land cover clas-
ses) and configuration (the spatial arrangement or dis-
tribution of land cover classes) (Turner 2005). The com-
position and configuration of LULC types can greatly
affect the magnitude of LST (Zhou et al. 2011). The
spatial patterns of the landscape components, including
the size and shape of the patch, the shape of the build-
ings, and the spatial configuration of the LST, are af-
fected (Weng 2009; Zhou et al. 2011). Therefore, an
accurate evaluation of the spatial patterns and temporal
changes is essential in order to better understand the
dynamics of spatial patterns and land surface processes
and their relationships in heterogeneous landscapes (Wu
et al. 2000).
The main objective of this study was, therefore, to
investigate the effects of LULC changes due to urban
expansion on LST using landscape metrics. This study
was conducted in Isfahan city, Isfahan province, Iran,
which has experienced urban expansion and population
growth in the last decades.
Study area
The study area was the city of Isfahan, in Isfahan prov-
ince, Iran, with an area of 57,265.2 ha, covering 15
municipalities (Fig. 1). Elevations in the city varied
from at least 1550 m above sea level around Zayandeh
Rood River to a maximum of 1650 m at the higher
elevations. The population of Isfahan was increased
from 986,753 in 1986 to 1,756,126 in 2011 (Statistical
Center of Iran 2011). The average temperature of the
city in July, 2015, was 29.31 °C (Iran Meteorological
Organization).
Data and methods
The data used in this study consisted of two Landsat 5
and Landsat 8 images acquired, respectively, on August
2, 1985, and July 4, 2015. Images had been already
rectified by USGS with an acceptable RMSe; however,
the images were matched to ensure their accuracy. Ra-
diometric and atmospheric calibration was conducted by
the Chavez’s Cos(t) method (Chavez 1996) prior to
image classification. To calculate the normalized
Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190:189 Page 3 of 11 189

Fig. 1 The study area. The location of Isfahan province in Iran (left). Landsat 8 OLI image of the city of Isfahan on July 4, 2015 (right)

difference vegetation index (NDVI), the top-of-
atmosphere (TOA) reflectance was used. A supervised
non-parametric support vector machine (SVM) method
was applied to generate LULC maps. Due to its ability
to use a small set of training areas and often the creation
of classified maps with higher accuracy, SVM is of
special interest in remote sensing in comparison to the
traditional methods (Mantero et al. 2005). In this re-
search, by using this technique, LULC maps were cre-
ated in six classes of impervious surfaces, vegetation,
harvested agricultural land, bare land, water, and road
(Fig. 2). The overall accuracy of the 1985 and 2015
maps was more than 85%. Categories of impervious
surfaces and road were merged for further analysis.
Derivation of LST and identification of LST zones
In order to derive LST maps, Landsat 5 band 6 (10.40–
12.50 μm) and Landsat 8 band 10 (10.60–11.19 μm)
were used, with a spatial resolution of 120 and 100 m,

Fig. 2 Land use/land cover (LULC) maps on August 2, 1985, and July 4, 2015
189 Page 4 of 11 Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190:189

respectively. The thermal bands of the Landsat images characteristics of each LST zone. Figure 3 shows land
had been resampled by USGS to a 30-m resolution. surface temperature zones in 1985 and 2015.
First, the digital number (DN) of the thermal bands
was converted to spectral radiance and then to the at-
Landscape metric calculation
satellite brightness temperature in Kelvin. Since the
temperature obtained from this step was related to the
In this study, landscape metrics including the percentage
black body, corrections for spectral emissivity were
of landscape (PLAND), aggregation index (AI),
required. Therefore, the thresholding NDVI method
Shannon’s diversity index (SHDI), large patch index
was applied based on the method presented by Valor
(LPI), and patch density (PD) were calculated using
and Caselles (1996). This method has been applied by
the FRAGSTATS software (McGarigal and Marks
several researchers (Leo et al. 2016; Zhang and Wang
1995). PLAND and SHDI are used to measure the
2008; Ghobadi et al. 2015). Finally, LST was calculated
composition of the landscape, and the aggregation index
using the following equation in Kelvin (Artis and
refers to the texture of the landscape (McGarigal 2015).
Carnahan 1982) and eventually converted to centigrade
The Shannon metric was selected to analyze the diver-
degree.
sity in the landscape. The PLAND, AI, and LPI metrics
were examined at the class level, and the SHDI, PD, and
TB
LST ¼ AI metrics were analyzed at the landscape level. Table 2
1 þ ðλT B =αÞIn ε
displays the metrics used in this research. It is worth
noting that landscape metrics are sensitive to spatial
where LST is the land surface temperature in Kelvin, TB
scales (Turner 1990). In this research, Landsat images
refers to the effective at-sensor brightness temperature in
with a spatial resolution of 30 m were used.
Kelvin, λ stands for the wavelength of the emitted
radiance in meter (effective wavelength is 11.457 μm
and 10.904 μm for the thermal bands of Landsat 5 TM
and Landsat 8/band 10, respectively, based on Jiménez- Results and discussion
Muñoz et al. (2014)), ⍺ = 1.438 × 10−2 mK, and ε is the
surface emissivity. Comparison of the two LULC maps for the two dates
The zoning of the LST maps was done using the showed that during 1985–2015, the impervious surfaces
natural breaks method. This method is based on the in Isfahan have been approximately doubled, such that
assumption that the data are naturally classified into this class covered 15% of the total area in 1985, while
meaningful groups separated by breaks (Smith 1986). this value was increased to 30% in 2015. Part of this
Table 1 provides a summary of the statistical growth occurred in the agricultural lands, leading to the

Table 1 Summary statistics of the land surface temperature zones

Date LST zones Internal value (°C) Mean LST (°C) SD LST (°C) Mean NDVI Area (ha)

August 2, 1985 Zone 1 23.91–31.40 28.82 1.67 0.440 3098.88

Zone 2 31.40–36.91 34.69 1.55 0.282 8806.77
Zone 3 36.91–39.91 38.56 0.80 0.150 13,044.60
Zone 4 39.91–41.91 40.86 0.68 0.113 10,006.02
Zone 5 41.91–43.91 43.11 0.55 0.086 10,837.71
Zone 6 43.91–55.75 45.39 0.98 0.069 11,471.22
July 4, 2015 Zone 1 31.22–38.22 36.64 1.33 0.408 1321.02
Zone 2 38.22–40.72 39.80 0.65 0.197 5481.36
Zone 3 40.72–43.22 41.90 0.71 0.166 9083.97
Zone 4 43.22–47.22 45.24 1.16 0.161 11,815.56
Zone 5 47.22–51.22 49.42 1.15 0.121 16,778.07
Zone 6 51.22–56.87 52.64 1.10 0.083 12,785.22
Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190:189 Page 5 of 11 189

Fig. 3 Land surface temperature zones on August 2, 1985, and July 4, 2015

Table 2 Landscape metrics used in this study (McGarigal 2015)

Metrics Equation and description

Shannon’s diversity index m

(SHDI) SHDI ¼ − ∑ ðPi lnPi Þ
Landscape level i¼1
Pi = proportion of the landscape occupied by patch type (class) i
Patch density
(PD) PD ¼ NA ð10000Þ ð100Þ
Landscape level N = total number of patches in the landscape.A = total landscape area (m2).
Aggregation    
m
(AI) g ii
AI ¼ ∑ max→g Pi ð100Þ
ii
Class and landscape level i¼1
gii = number of like adjacencies (joins) between pixels of patch type (class) i based
on the single-count method.
max-gii = maximum number of like adjacencies (joins)
between pixels of patch type (class) i (see below) based on the single-count method.
Pi = proportion of landscape comprised of patch type (class) i.
Percentage of landscape area n
(PLAND) ∑ aij
Class level PLAND ¼ Pi ¼ j¼1A ð100Þ
Pi = proportion of the landscape occupied by patch type (class) i.
aij = area (m2) of patch ij.
A = total landscape area (m2).
Largest patch index
(LPI) n

Class level max aij
j¼1
LPI ¼ A ð100Þ
aij = area (m2) of patch ij.
A = total landscape area (m2).
189 Page 6 of 11
change in the use of these lands which was mostly
evident in the west and northwest of Isfahan. Vegetation
(class 2 and class 3), which mostly included agricultural
lands, was declined from 32.52% of the total area in
1985 to 22.68% in 2015 (Fig. 4 and Table 3). Changes in
the cultivation pattern and droughts were other reasons
for this reduction. Another part of this growth was
related to the conversion of bare lands to impervious
surfaces, such as the creation of residential towns in
southern Isfahan and the establishment and expansion
of industrial towns in the southeast and northwest of
Isfahan. Zayandeh Rood River was full of water on
August 2, 1985, but on July 4, 2015, it only had water
in parts of the city of Isfahan. Bare land category was
declined from 52.43% of the total area in 1985 to
46.77% in 2015 (Table 3).
In this study, LULC patterns in these two dates were
analyzed. To this end, landscape metrics obtained from
the analysis of LULC maps were used. Thermal zoning
was done using the natural breaks method for both dates
(Fig. 3), leading to the creation of six temperature zones,
with all the zones having lower LST in 1985 than in
2015. As shown in Table 4, the highest LST was exhib-
ited in the bare lands, harvested agricultural lands, and
impervious surfaces, respectively, while the lowest LST
was observed in water, which was followed by vegeta-
tion. It should be noted that the LST of all LULC
categories was increased from 1985 to 2015. This was
such that the average LST of all impervious surfaces in
the study area was increased from 39.22 °C in 1985 to
43.48 °C in 2015. The standard deviation value of this
class had also been increased; one of the reasons could
be the changes made in this class in 2015, such as the
construction of buildings of varying heights. The tem-
perature difference between vegetation and impervious
Fig. 4 Changes in LULC classes
from 1985 to 2015
Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190:189
surfaces on August 2, 1985, was 4.87 °C, while the
difference was decreased on July 4, 2015, and the
temperature of these two classes was approaching to
each other; one of the reason could be the destruction
of massive gardens in the west and northwest of Isfahan,
and their conversion to impervious surfaces; these lands
played an important role in cooling the area. Asgarian
et al. (2015) found that the increase in the area of the
green space patches within the built-up area in the city of
Isfahan could lead to the decrease of the urban LST.
Natural vegetation and gardens in the west of Isfahan
have a lower LST than the agricultural lands in the east
and north of Isfahan. The standard deviation value of
4.08 for this class could confirm that by different vege-
tation locations, there are different temperatures.
Figure 5 shows the percentage of land cover and land
use (PLAND) in the LST zones, and Fig. 6 shows
landscape metrics in these zones. PLAND is a measure
of the landscape composition, and it is important in
many ecological applications and comparison of the
landscapes of different sizes (McGarigal 2015). On
August 2, 1985, the LST zone 1 was dominated by
vegetation, with 96% of this zone belonging to this
class, which mainly included agricultural lands in the
west of Isfahan and green spaces around the river.
Zayandeh Rood River, which was more voluminous
than July 4, 2015, was located in this zone. The high
AI of vegetation in this zone confirmed the high degree
of integrity of this class. On the other hand, the highest
LPI in this zone was related to the vegetation class and it
was one of the reasons for the lower temperature of this
zone in comparison to other ones (Fig. 7). Seventy-three
percent of the LST zone 2 was devoted to vegetation,
which mainly included agricultural lands in the east and
north of Isfahan and green spaces located in the city. In
Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190:189 Page 7 of 11 189

Table 3 LULC changes from 1985 to 2015

LULC August 2, 1985 July 4, 2015 Changes

Area (ha) Area (%) Area (ha) Area (%) Hectares %

Impervious surfaces 8516.34 14.87 17,409.9 30.4 8893.53 15.53

Vegetation 13,102.2 22.88 10,007.55 17.48 − 3094.65 − 5.40
Harvested agricultural land 5520.78 9.64 2979 5.2 − 2541.78 − 4.44
Bare land 30,023.55 52.43 26,782.7 46.77 − 3240.9 − 5.66
Water 102.33 0.18 86.13 0.15 − 16.2 − 0.03

addition, the vast majority of the vegetation class in the
study area was located in this zone. In the LST zone 3,
the impervious surfaces category was dominant, such
that from 8516.34 ha of impervious surfaces existed on
this date, 5219.73 ha, that was 61.2% of the impervious
surfaces of the total area, was in this zone, and 28.2% of
the rest was in the LST zone 4. Also, the highest LPI in
the zone 3 belonged to this class (Fig. 7); the presence of
dense impervious surfaces was the reason for the higher
LST of this zone, as compared to zones 1 and 2. Bare
land was the dominant type in the LST zones 5 and 6. As
previously mentioned, the highest LST was observed in
this class. Therefore, the higher LST of these two zones,
as compared to other ones, was due to the bare lands
with high LST, which included soils without cover
around the city of Isfahan and rocky areas located in
the south and east of this city. In these two LST zones,
other LULC types had a very small area, such that only
8.9% of the zone 5 and 37% of the zone 6 belonged to
other classes.
On August 2, 1985, the LST zone 3 had the highest
SHDI and PD (Fig. 7). In terms of the value of SHDI
and PD, the LST zones 2 and 4 had a moderate value,
and the LST zones 1, 5, and 6 were of low value. The
smallest value of SHDI and PD were observed in the
LST zone 6 with the dominance of the bare land cate-
gory. The highest value of AI was exhibited in the LST
zone 6, which was due to the existence of dense and
highly integrated bare lands in this zone. Following the
LST zone 6, the LST zone 1 had the highest AI. The
reason was the existence of dense vegetation in this zone
(Fig. 7).
On July 4, 2015, the LST zone 6 had the highest LST,
while the LST zone 1 had the lowest LST (Table 1). As
shown in Fig. 5, similar to August 2, 1985, the smallest
zone was the zone 1. The highest amount of water was
in the LST zone 1, which was related to Zayandeh Rood
River; during the considered period, only some parts of
the river had water. As LST was increased from the LST
zones 1 to 6, the vegetation was reduced and the area of
bare lands was enhanced. The least area of vegetation
(306.36 ha) and the largest bare lands (12,140.82 ha)
were observed in the LST zone 6. The highest and
lowest mean of NDVI was, respectively, in the LST
zone 1 and the LST zones 5 and 6, similar to August
2, 1985 (Table 1). In the LST zone 1, which had the
lowest LST, vegetation was dominant, which mainly
included the green spaces surrounding the river and
the gardens and agricultural lands in the west of the city
of Isfahan (Fig. 5). Therefore, the presence of dense
vegetation and Zayandeh Rood River were the main
reasons for the lower LST of this zone in comparison
to other ones. This is because vegetation can increase
the evapotranspiration and transpiration, thereby having
a cooling effect on their surroundings. It should be
mentioned that the conversion of agricultural lands and

Table 4 Statistical descriptive (mean and standard deviation) of LST in 1985 and 2015 over different LULC types

Impervious surfaces Vegetation Harvested agricultural land Bare land Water

M (°C) SD M (°C) SD M (°C) SD M (°C) SD M (°C) SD

August 2, 1985 39.22 1.55 34.35 3.86 39.37 2.20 42.97 2.72 30.54 3.1
July 4, 2015 43.48 3.28 43.20 4.08 48.29 2.05 50.31 2.95 37.94 5.19
189 Page 8 of 11
Fig. 5 Percentages of LULC types in the LST zones
gardens located in the west and north of the Isfahan into
impervious surfaces has led to the decrease of vegetation
as compared to 1985.
On July 4, 2015, SHDI and PD values were moderate
in the LST zone 1 (Fig. 6). The highest LPI in this zone
was related to the vegetation class, which explained the
lower temperature of this zone, as compared to other
Fig. 6 The landscape metrics in each LST zone created from the August 2, 1985, and July 4, 2015 images
Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190:189
ones. The LST zone 1, in July 2015, covered a smaller
area of vegetation than did in August 1985; one of the
reasons was the growth of the city of Isfahan amid the
agricultural lands, which has led to a change in the use
of these lands and the reduced vegetation. SHDI and PD
values were moderate in the LST zones 2, 3, and 5. The
LST zone 4 had the highest SHDI and PD. The highest
Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190:189
Shannon and PD index could confirm the high diversity
and heterogeneity of this zone, while the smallest value
of AI was dedicated to this zone (Fig. 7). The largest
area of the LST zone 3 belonged to the impervious
surfaces category (67.87%), which was followed by
vegetation (25.34%). In general, the vast majority of
the impervious surfaces of the study area (62.15%) were
located in the LST zones 3 and 4 at this date. The lowest
SHDI and PD and the highest AI were observed in the
LST zone 6. The low value of the Shannon and PD
index was indicative of the low diversity and heteroge-
neity in this zone. The largest area of this zone was
covered by bare lands (94.95%), and a small part was
devoted to other classes. The highest LPI in the LST
zones 5 and 6 was related to the bare land class (Fig. 7).
In Fig. 7, the aggregation index of vegetation and
impervious surfaces classes, which are two important
LULC types in the study area, is shown for two dates. In
1985, in the LST zone 1, the area of the impervious
surfaces class was only 1.53 ha, while this was increased
to 168.3 ha in 2015. Therefore, this increase resulted in
more integrated patches of this class and the increased
AI. The LULC changes have led to changes in the LST
zones of 2015, as compared to those in 1985. This was
such that the LST zone 2 in 1985 was different from that
in 2015. In 1985, this zone mainly consisted of agricul-
tural lands around the city of Isfahan, while in 2015, the
conversion of these lands to impervious surfaces,
Fig. 7 The landscape metrics of LST zones for the impervious surfaces and the vegetation classes
Page 9 of 11 189
especially in the west and north of Isfahan, and the
non-cultivation of part of agricultural lands in the east,
reduced vegetation in this zone and replaced it with
impervious surfaces and bare lands, leading to an in-
crease in LST. Therefore, the increase of impervious
surfaces patches in this zone had led to an increase in
AI. Aggregation index in the LST zones 3 and 4 in 2015
had a high value, but it was slightly decreased, as
compared to that in 1985; the reason for this could be
that in 1985, the city was more compact while in 2015,
with the expansion of the city in different directions
non-uniformly, impervious surface patches were created
with less aggregation. In addition, in 1985, the impervi-
ous surfaces of the city of Isfahan had lower and more
homogenous LST, while in 2015, the creation of the
impervious surfaces in different parts of the city resulted
in the creation of different temperature zones and
patches with different LSTs, so the temperature integra-
tion in the LST zones 3 and 4 had been slightly de-
creased. However, the high aggregation of impervious
surfaces in these zones could increase LST and also
create hot spots. Studies have shown that the shape
and size of the patch, the shape of the buildings, and
the spatial configuration are important properties that
can affect surface energy transmission (Zhou et al. 2011;
Weng 2009). Therefore, increasing fragmentation in
such areas with high density of impervious surfaces
can enhance the cooling effect by increasing the green
189 Page 10 of 11
spaces of the city. Vegetation is considered to be the
most important factor in reducing temperature, which
can be effective in moderating the urban climate through
evapotranspiration, shading, and less emissivity (Gallo
et al. 1993; Weng et al. 2004). In addition, in a diverse
landscape, the heated plots of impervious surfaces are
dispersed, and therefore, the LST is decreased (Xie et al.
2013). A possible explanation for the increased AI in the
LST zones 5 and 6 in 2015 could be the development
and expansion of industrial towns in the east, southeast,
and northwest of Isfahan.
As shown in Fig. 7, LPI of impervious surfaces was
increased in 2015, relative to 1985. Of course, in the
LST zone 3, it was almost constant. LPI of this class was
grown in the LST zone 1 because of changes occurred in
this zone. Increasing LPI of the impervious surfaces in
the LST zones could indicate the expansion of the city.
In the case of vegetation in 1985, the LST zones 1 and 2
had a greater LPI than similar zones in 2015; the pres-
ence of vegetation with a larger area and the presence of
larger patches could be considered as one explanation.
LST zones 1 and 2 in 1985 had more aggregation than
did in 2015, due to the presence of large and dense
vegetation. As noted earlier, the changes made in the
temperature zones in 2015 caused a temperature differ-
ence in vegetation. In August 1985, the vast majority of
vegetation was located in the LST zones 1 and 2; part of
this vegetation, which mainly consisted of agricultural
lands existed in the eastern Isfahan, were located in the
LST zones 4 and 5 in 2015 due to temperature increase
and cultivation pattern; therefore, the vegetation density
in these zones was higher than that in 1985, making the
AI of vegetation in these zones appear higher than that
in 1985.
Conclusion
The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the
urban expansion of the city of Isfahan on LST patterns
using landscape metrics. It is known that urban expan-
sion can affect the temperature conditions of cities by
changing LULC patterns. During 1985–2015, the im-
pervious surfaces in Isfahan have been approximately
doubled, covering 15% of the total area in 1985; how-
ever, this value was increased to 30% in 2015, resulting
in some changes in the LULC of its surrounding lands
and its thermal conditions. This study showed that the
temperature zoning of the city at different times could be
Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190:189
useful in studying such changes in the LST zones. In
addition, the results of this study revealed that changes
in the LULC patterns, due to such reasons as the con-
version of agricultural and bare lands to the impervious
surfaces, could lead to changes in landscape spatial
properties such as PLAND, LPI, AI, and PD, as well
as LST patterns. The results also revealed that the land-
scape metrics could be considered as a useful tool in
quantifying the urban spatial properties. In this research,
the analyses were based on landscape metrics at the 30-
m spatial resolution. It is, therefore, suggested that in the
further studies, the relationship between LULC patterns
and temperature conditions be examined in different
spatial scales and the optimal scale be found. In addi-
tion, Landsat images could be used to derive landscape
patterns and LSTs and to identify the links between them
at different times, thereby providing useful information
to urban planners on how the LST changes with the
changes in the LULC patterns. As these changes are
likely to lead to an increase in the city’s temperature,
some steps are to be taken to reduce it.
Acknowledgements This research has been supported by the
Isfahan University of Technology.
References
Alberti, M., & Marzluff, J. (2004). Ecological resilience in urban
ecosystems: linking urban patterns to ecological and human
function. Urban Ecosystem, 7(3), 241–265.
Artis, D. A., & Carnahan, W. H. (1982). Survey of emissivity
variability in thermography of urban areas. Remote Senseng
of Environment, 12, 313–329.
Asgarian, A., Amiri, B. J., & Sakieh, Y. (2015). Assessing the
effect of green cover spatial patterns on urban land surface
temperature using landscape metrics approach. Urban
Ecosystem, 18, 209–222.
Bain, D. J., & Brush, G. S. (2004). Placing the pieces:
reconstructing the original property mosaic in a warrant and
patent watershed. Landscape Ecology, 19(8), 843–856.
Chavez, P. S. (1996). Image-based atmospheric corrections—
revisited and improved. Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote Sensing, 62(9), 1025–1036.
Gallo, K. P., McNab, A. L., Karl, T. R., Brown, J. F., Hood, J. J., &
Tarpley, J. D. (1993). The use of a vegetation index for
assessment of the urban heat island effect. International
Journal of Remote Sensing, 14(11), 2223–2230.
Ghobadi, Y., Pradhan, B., Shafri, H. Z. M., & Kabiri, K. (2015).
Assessment of spatial relationship between land surface tem-
perature and landuse/cover retrieval from multi-temporal re-
mote sensing data in South Karkheh Sub-basin, Iran. Arabian
Journal of Geosciences, 8, 525–537.
Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190:189
Iran Meteorological Organization (n.d.) http://www.irimo.ir/.
Jiménez-Muñoz, J. C., Sobrino, J. A., Skoković, D., Mattar, C., &
Cristóbal, J. (2014). Land surface temperature retrieval
methods from Landsat-8 thermal infrared sensor data. IEEE
Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 11, 1840–1843.
Keshtkar, H., & Voigt, W. (2016). Potential impacts of climate and
landscape fragmentation changes on plant distributions: cou-
pling multitemporal satellite imagery with GIS-based cellular
automata model. Ecological Informatics, 32, 145–155.
Leo, N. D., Escobedo, F. J., & Dubbeling, M. (2016). The role of
urban green infrastructure in mitigating land surface temper-
ature in Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso. Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 18, 373–392.
Li, X., Zhou, W., & Ouyang, Z. (2013). Relationship between land
surface temperature and spatial pattern of greenspace: what
are the effects of spatial resolution? Landscape and Urban
Planning, 114, 1–8.
Liu, H., & Weng, Q. (2008). Seasonal variations in the relationship
between landscape pattern and land surface temperature in
Indianapolis, USA. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment, 144(1), 199–219.
Liu, H., & Weng, Q. (2009). Scaling effect on the relationship
between landscape pattern and land surface temperature: a
case study of Indianapolis, United States. Photogrammetric
Engineering & Remote Sensing, 75(3), 291–304.
Lo, C. P., & Quattrochi, D. A. (2003). Land-use and land-cover
change, urban heat island phenomenon, and health implica-
tions: a remote sensing approach. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing, 69, 1053–1063.
Mantero, P., Moser, G., & Serpico, S. B. (2005). Partially super-
vised classification of remote sensing images through SVM-
based probability density estimation. IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 43(3), 559–570.
McGarigal, K. (2015). Fragstats help. Amherst: Department of
Environmental Conservation University of Massachusetts.
McGarigal, K., & Marks, B. J. (1995). FRAGSTATS: spatial
pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape struc-
ture. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-GTR-351, USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
Memon, R. A., Leung, D. Y., & Chunho, L. (2008). A review on
the generation, determination and mitigation of Urban Heat
Island. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 20, 120–128.
Quattrochi, D. A., & Luvall, J. C. (1999). Thermal infrared remote
sensing for analysis of landscape ecological processes:
methods and applications. Landscape Ecology, 14(6), 577–
598.
Smith, R. M. (1986). Comparing traditional methods for selecting
class intervals on choropleth maps. The Professional
Geographer, 38(1), 62–67.
Statistical Center of Iran. (2011). Iran statistical yearbook.
https://www.amar.org.ir/.
Turner, M. G. (1990). Spatial and temporal analysis of landscape
patterns. Landscape Ecology, 4, 21–30.
Page 11 of 11 189
Turner, M. G. (2005). Landscape ecology: what is the state of the
science? Annual Review of Ecological Evolution and
Sensing, 36, 319–344.
United Nations. (2014). World urbanization prospects: the 2014
revision. New York.
Valor, E., & Caselles, V. (1996). Mapping land surface emissivity
from NDVI: application to European, African and South
American areas. Remote Sensing of Environment, 57, 167–
184.
Voogt, J. A., & Oke, T. R. (1997). Complete urban surface tem-
peratures. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 36, 1117–1132.
Wan, Z. (1999). MODIS Land-Surface Temperature Algorithm
Theoretical Basis Document (LST ATBD) version 3.3. Santa
Barbara: Institute for Computational Earth System Science,
University of California.
Weng, Q. (2009). Thermal infrared remote sensing for urban
climate and environmental studies: methods, applications,
and trends. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote
Sensing, 64, 335–344.
Weng, Q., Liu, H., & Lu, D. (2007). Assessing the effects of land
use and land cover patterns on thermal conditions using
landscape metrics in city of Indianapolis, United States.
Urban Ecosystems, 10(2), 203–219.
Weng, Q., Lu, D., & Schubring, J. (2004). Estimation of land
surface temperature–vegetation abundance relationship for
urban heat island studies. Remote Sensing of Environment,
89(4), 467–483.
Wu, J., Jelinski, D. E., Luck, M., & Tueller, P. T. (2000).
Multiscale analysis of landscape heterogeneity: scale vari-
ance and pattern metrics. Geographic Information Sciences,
6(1), 6–19.
Xie, M., Wang, Y., Chang, Q., Fu, M., & Ye, M. (2013).
Assessment of landscape patterns affecting land surface tem-
perature in different biophysical gradients in Shenzhen,
China. Urban Ecosystem, 16, 871–886.
Zhang, J., & Wang, Y. (2008). Study of the relationships between
the spatial extent of surface urban heat islands and urban
characteristic factors based on Landsat ETM+ data.
Sensors, 8, 7453–7468.
Zhang, Y., Odehb, I. O. A., & Ramadanc, E. (2013). Assessment
of land surface temperature in relation to landscape metrics
and fractional vegetation cover in an urban/peri-urban region
using Landsat data. International Journal of Remote Sensing,
34(1), 168–189.
Zhou, W., Huang, G., & Cadenasso, M. L. (2011). Does spatial
configuration matter? Understanding the effects of land cover
pattern on land surface temperature in urban landscapes.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 102, 54–63.
Zhou, W., Qian, Y., Li, X., Li, W., & Han, L. (2014). Relationships
between land cover and the surface urban heat island: sea-
sonal variability and effects of spatial and thematic resolution
of land cover data on predicting land surface temperatures.
Landscape Ecology, 29, 153–167.