Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Urban Sprawl in A Rapidly Urbanizing City Using Machine Learning Classification

Geocarto International
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tgei20
Spatio-temporal dynamics of urban sprawl in a

rapidly urbanizing city using machine learning
classification
K.S. Krishnaveni & P. P. Anil kumar
To cite this article: K.S. Krishnaveni & P. P. Anil kumar (2022) Spatio-temporal dynamics of
urban sprawl in a rapidly urbanizing city using machine learning classification, Geocarto
International, 37:27, 17403-17434, DOI: 10.1080/10106049.2022.2129817
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2022.2129817
Published online: 07 Oct 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 387
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tgei20
GEOCARTO INTERNATIONAL
2022, VOL. 37, NO. 27, 17403–17434
https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2022.2129817
Spatio-temporal dynamics of urban sprawl in a rapidly

urbanizing city using machine learning classification
K. S. Krishnaveni and P. P. Anil kumar
Department of Architecture & Planning, National Institute of Technology Calicut, Calicut,
Kerala, India
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The world is urbanizing at an alarming pace, particularly in devel- Received 27 February 2022
oping countries where exponential urban population growth Accepted 22 September 2022
leads to unplanned and uncontrolled urban expansion, resulting
KEYWORDS
in urban sprawl. Mapping, monitoring, measuring urban sprawl,
Urban sprawl; time-series
and identifying land cover transition contributors are of pivotal Landsat images; support
importance in formulating policies and management strategies vector machine (SVM);
for the sustainable growth of cities. The article presents an Shannon’s entropy;
explorative study on the spatio-temporal dynamics of urban tran- landscape metrics
sition in Kochi Urban Agglomeration in Kerala, India, from 1988 to
2021, using the support vector machine (SVM) classification,
Shannon’s entropy, and landscape metrics. From 1988 to 2021,
the built-up share in the study area increased from 6.23% to
32.34%. The increased demand for land resulted in converting
186.94 km2 of cultivated land and 136.64 km2 of vegetation into
built-up land. The level of land-cover changes points to the
sprawl on the outskirts and densification in the inner city.
1. Introduction
Globally, the population is projected to rise from 8.5 billion in 2030 to 9.7 billion in 2050
to 10.4 billion in 2100, according to the United Nations (World Population Prospects
2022). For cities and communities to be inclusive, safe, sustainable and resilient, a com-
prehensive understanding of urbanization across time is necessary for achieving the 2030
sustainable development goal (SDG), especially SDG 11 (World Urbanization Prospects:
The 2018 Revision 2018). India is witnessing an unprecedented rate of urbanization. A
study published by the World Population Prospects (2022) projects that India will over-
take China as the world’s most populous country in 2023, with the global population
reaching 8 billion (World Population Prospects 2022). In 1950, India had a population of
50 million. By 2018, it grew to 1.35 billion, and its urbanization rate nearly doubled,
reaching 34%. Our country’s path to becoming a highly productive nation depends on cit-
ies, which are considered the engines of economic growth. However, unplanned urbaniza-
tion has significantly strained our cities (NITI Aayog 2021). Urbanization as such is not
considered a challenge to urban sustainability, but uncontrolled and unplanned urbaniza-
tion becomes a matter of concern. Physical expansion of urban areas has far outpaced
CONTACT K. S. Krishnaveni kveni07@gmail.com

ß 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
17404 K. S. KRISHNAVENI AND P. P. ANIL KUMAR
population growth, resulting in more land required for urban development, regardless of
whether this is horizontal spreading, dispersed urbanization or even peri-urbanization
(World Cities Report 2020). Urban sprawl, which is the spillover of cities beyond their
notified formal boundaries due to increasing urbanization, will adversely affect national
infrastructure planning and global targets for sustainable development. Therefore, it is
imperative to study and illustrate the complexities and ramifications of unplanned urban
growth emanating from urban sprawl.
There is so much contention and ambiguity in defining urban sprawl precisely. The
term is so broad, making it easy to (mis)interpret, and it is not easy to differentiate sprawl
from similar terms like suburban growth, peri-urban growth, urban development and so
on (Galster et al. 2001; Jaeger et al. 2010; Liu et al. 2018; Silva 2018). There is a miscon-
ception that urban growth, expansion and sprawl are synonymous, although they are not.
Growth in urban areas results from an increase in developed areas, and urban expansion
is regarded as one of the forms of urban growth. A type of urban growth characterized by
unique characteristics (usually associated with a negative connotation) is sprawl (Bhatta
2010). Urban sprawl is defined differently depending on its causes, effects and implica-
tions. In 1977, Ottensmann described urban sprawl as ‘the dispersion of new development
on isolated tracts separated by vacant land from other areas’. As per the Sierra Club
(1998), ‘sprawl occurs when low-density development separates homes and shops from
workplaces and recreation areas, requiring people to drive between areas to shop, work
and learn’. Sudhira and Ramachandra (2007) defined urban sprawl as the unplanned
growth of urban areas caused by uncoordinated processes that cause inefficient resource
utilization. This study considers urban sprawl to be an outgrowth of urban areas exacer-
bated by unplanned and uncontrolled urban growth in light of the many definitions of
urban sprawl available. The sprawling feature of cities is critical because of the significant
implications manifested in increased consumption of land, energy and soil use. There are
many consequences to urban sprawl, including inefficient land use, migration from rural
areas, slum development in cities, heavy traffic loads, health issues, pollution and loss of
public spaces (OECD 2009). In short, urban sprawl of undesired type has a wide range of
negative consequences that directly impact the quality of life of the people and the society.
Thus, the urban sprawl produces many adverse impacts that directly affect the lives of
people and the community (Johnson 2001; Deng et al. 2009; Nguyen 2010; Mullier et al.
2013; Fuladlu 2019; Shao et al. 2021).
The phenomenon of urban sprawl is a global concern as it is evident not only in devel-
oped countries but also in developing ones. After reaching saturation levels of urbaniza-
tion, sprawl becomes worse in developed countries. Conversely, most developing and
underdeveloped countries are now urbanizing rapidly and are already prone to sprawl at
a worse scale. Following industrialization, developed countries embraced urbanization
since they had a prosperous economy and technology to support it. In contrast, develop-
ing countries tend to have high population growth rates and densities as they develop but
lack basic amenities and urbanization (Global Monitoring Report 2016). A Chinese per-
spective on urban sprawl is described by Zhang (2000) as “disproportionate urban expan-
sion, per population increase and scattered development near the urban edge, but
excluding the low-density commercial strip and central city decline associated with sprawl
elsewhere.” Based on the spatio-temporal analysis of urban land, Xu et al. (2019) exam-
ined 25 African cities and found that they have experienced both growth in population
and built-up areas as well as diversification of urban growth with distinct urban forms.
Furthermore, the international comparisons of cities across Africa, Asia (such as China
and India), Europe and North America (such as the United States) reveal that African
GEOCARTO INTERNATIONAL 17405
cities have a less compact form of urbanization (Xu et al. 2019). It has been observed that
the urban land densities of African cities decline with distance from the city center, indi-
cating less compact and fragmented development on the urban fringes, which directly
impacts ecosystem services (Sumari et al. 2019; Shao et al. 2021).
Uncontrolled urban sprawl has a particularly negative impact on developing countries
like India, which do not possess the means to manage its socioeconomic and environmen-
tal impacts. There are different approaches and techniques reported for the mapping and
monitoring of urban sprawl, but no single method is optimal and universally acceptable.
Since the mid-20th century, geographic information system (GIS) and remote sensing
(RS) have cemented their place in urban sprawl research due to their comprehensive area
coverage, quick data acquisition and low cost (Weng 2001; Mundia and Aniya 2005;
Bagan and Yamagata 2012; Fichera et al. 2012; Liu and Yang 2015; Sahana et al. 2018).
With satellite-based land surface mapping, planners are able to create more detailed urban
maps, enabling them to better understand urban expansion and sprawl, as well as related
territorial management challenges (NASA 2001). It may be possible to predict future
land-use and land-cover change patterns with a better understanding of historical land-
cover change patterns (Brown et al. 2005; De Jager et al. 2013; Mostafa et al. 2021).
Previous studies (Mosammam et al. 2017; Magidi and Ahmed 2019; Sarkar and Chouhan
2020) in analyzing urban sprawl trends and patterns mainly employed maximum likeli-
hood supervised image classification for landcover mapping, whereas this study used the
novel machine learning-based non-parametric support vector machine (SVM) for land
cover classification.
Several statistics and spatial metrics are available for evaluating and measuring urban
sprawl. Traditional metrics for measuring distribution patterns in a landscape include the
Gini coefficient and Moran coefficient (Tsai 2005). Gini coefficients are a proportional
measure of how closely a variable’s distribution matches a perfectly uniform distribution
with values ranging from 0 to 1 (Tsai 2005). A Moran coefficient is used to compute clus-
tering in high-density zones. The coefficient ranges from 1 (low clustering) to 1 (high
clustering) (Tsai 2005). The mathematical properties of both metrics make them highly
sensitive to the number and size of zones used in the analysis. The entropy method is a
more efficient, robust, static and reliable spatial metric than spatial dispersal statistics
such as Gini and Moran coefficients (Yeh and Li 2001; Tsai 2005; Bhatta et al. 2010b).
The results can change substantially with varying levels of area aggregation, depending on
the size, shape and number of regions used in the calculations. The issues arising from
high sensitivity due to the size and number of zones do not affect Shannon’s Entropy as
much since it does not solely depend on the area of the zones but instead on how evenly
observations are dispersed over the landscape (Yeh and Li 2001). Furthermore, most
urban sprawl metrics fail to differentiate between more or less sprawling areas. In con-
trast, Shannon’s entropy would consider the halfway point of loge(n) as the threshold to
classify an area as more or less sprawling. The relative Shannon’s entropy value is not
affected by the number of regions, n, as it is with other, more traditional measures of spa-
tial dispersion (Thomas1981). Aside from its simplicity, Shannon’s entropy method is
easy to integrate with GIS. This metric is particularly useful in countries with scarce,
unreliable or poor-quality cadastral land use data. Shannon’s entropy method has been
proven effective in quantifying the extent and robustness of urban sprawl based on RS
and GIS data (Yeh and Li 2001; Kumar et al. 2007; Bhatta et al. 2010a; Cho et al. 2021).
Hence, this study adopts Shannon’s entropy urban sprawl metric for computing the extent
of sprawl in KUA. As entropy decreases over time, the city develops in a concentrated,
compact manner, while an increase in entropy indicates a dispersed development (Yeh

and Li 2001).
The landscape pattern in urban areas often changes due to haphazard urban develop-
ment. Over time, urban sprawl usually produces more fragmented landscapes and small
urban patches that change and modify landscape compositions (Pradhan 2017). The
advent of geospatial technology has enabled the development of spatial/landscape metrics
for identifying urban sprawl patterns and analyzing urban patch structures (Seto and
Fragkias 2005; Huang et al. 2007; Vaz et al. 2017). The use of landscape metrics allows
one to interpret the effects of urbanization processes on environmental characteristics and
to study the spatial patterns of the considered area (Turner and Gardner 1994; Wu et al.
2017). In addition, these metrics can be used to plan sustainable urban development,
determine the distribution of land uses and make decisions about urban growth (Xu et al.
2020; Elmi et al. 2022). There are three broad categories of spatial metrics: A patch metric
calculated for each patch in the landscape, a class metric calculated for each class, and a
landscape metric calculated for the whole patch mosaic. Various types of spatial metrics
are discussed in the existing literature, including shape metrics (e.g. normalized landscape
shape index, perimeter-area ratio and fractal dimension index), edge/patch area/density
metrics (e.g. class area, number of urban patches, patch density, edge density, largest
patch index and landscape shape index), proximity metrics (e.g. proximity index and
similarity index), contrast metrics (e.g. total edge contrast index and contrast weighted
edge density), core area metrics (e.g. number of core areas and core area distribution)
and dispersion/interspersion/compactness/contagion metrics (e.g. clumpiness index, inter-
spersion and juxtaposition index and aggregation index)(McGarigal et al. 2002). RS and
landscape metrics can be used together to obtain precise information on urban structure
and change that is more spatially consistent and detailed than either of these approaches
alone (Yin et al. 2021). Therefore, this study uses three landscape metrics (patch area met-
rics, shape metrics, dispersion/contagion/compactness metrics) to quantify changes in
landscape patterns arising from unplanned urbanization.
Unlike most developed countries, Indian cities have a different growth pattern because
of inadequate planning and management practices (Aithal and Ramachandra 2016).
Metropolitan cities of India are considered tier I cities. Compared with other areas, they
have a dense population and higher living costs (Shukla et al. 2021). There is a multitude
of research studies that have been done in India on the assessment, quantification and
monitoring of urban sprawl in metropolitan tier-1 cities in response to urbanization, such
as Delhi (Sharma and Joshi 2013; Salem et al. 2021), Mumbai (Ramachandra et al. 2021;
Vaz et al. 2021), Bangalore (Sudha and Ravindranath 2000; Ramachandra et al. 2019),
Chennai (Aithal and Ramachandra 2016; Devendran and Lakshmanan 2019; Devi et al.
2019; Thanikachalam and Nimalan 2019; Mathan and Krishnaveni 2020), Hyderabad (Kit
et al. 2012; Wakode et al. 2014; Gumma et al. 2017; Abu Hatab et al. 2021), Kolkata
(Bhatta et al. 2010b; Sahana et al. 2018; Mithun et al. 2021), Ahmedabad (Pathan et al.
1991; Yatoo et al. 2022) and Pune (Kantakumar et al. 2016; Kumar et al. 2018). Tier-II
cities are emerging cities experiencing rapid economic, industrial, technological and asso-
ciated growth. Tier-II cities feature good transportation and infrastructure facilities, low
traffic levels and lower living costs than tier-I cities (Shukla et al. 2021). In comparison
with large cities, small and medium cities in India exhibited more scattered development,
while their core urban areas were relatively less compact (Jain and Sharma 2019). In the
near future, India will see its urban development concentrated in midsized cities, that is,
in tier-2 second-level metropolitan areas. However, the lack of adequate urban planning
initiatives may lead to eco-environmental issues and haphazard urbanization, which other
developing nations have overlooked (Koop and van Leeuwen 2017; Bibri et al. 2020;
Chettry and Surawar 2021). There is a dearth of studies regarding spatio-temporal dynam-
ics and urban sprawl characteristics of Tier-II cities, and some of the notable tier-2 cities
studied so far include Mysore (Vinay et al. 2015), Lucknow (Siddiqui et al. 2018), Bhopal
(Patel et al. 2018), Chandigarh (Saini and Tiwari 2019), Dehradun (Maithani et al. 2010;
Dutta et al. 2015; Maithani 2020). It is imperative that we research the characteristics of
urban sprawl in mid-sized cities in India, given that many of these cities have been
selected for the Smart Cities Mission in India, which requires extensive analysis of the
current urban expansion environment.
This study maps and monitors the spatio-temporal dynamics of urban sprawl in Kochi
Urban Agglomeration (KUA), a typical tier-2 coastal city in Kerala, India, for the last
three decades (33 years) from 1988 to 2021. Kochi is explicitly selected because of the
extent, rate, pattern and spatio-temporal dynamics of the city’s sprawl and the ramifica-
tions for the other land-use land-cover (LULC) categories, which have not been thor-
oughly explored to date. In this study, three major objectives are explored: (a)
understanding the spatio-temporal dynamics of urban sprawl over the KUA, Kerala,
India; and (b) assessing the intensity of urban sprawl using Shannon’s entropy, (c) quanti-
fying the resultant changes in landscape patterns arising from unplanned urbanization
using suitable landscape metrics. This study will help shed light on the alarming intensity
of urban sprawl in KUA, which is a typical tier-2 city from 1988 to 2021, and the toll it
has taken over the years. Therefore, city planners and policymakers must comprehend the
myriad aspects of urban sprawl and its spatio-temporal dynamics, so they can allocate
resources and manage infrastructure more effectively according to the plan. The same
methodology can be applied to evaluate the urban sprawl of any mid-sized Indian city or
other developing countries of similar context. Moreover, this study will provide directions,
relevant insights and rational inputs to officials and stakeholders for minimizing the
adverse effects of urban sprawl and assist in developing sustainable land management
strategies and practices for the overall urban sustainability of KUA.
2. Data and methods

2.1. Study area
Kochi, the largest urban agglomeration and a tier-2 coastal city in Kerala, India, is a part
of the district Ernakulam with geographical coordinates of 9.93 N and 76.26 E, which is
considered the study area. On January 28, 2016, Kochi was selected as the fifth city
among the first 20 cities chosen under the National Smart Cities Mission by the Govt. of
India. It is popularly referred to as the ‘Queen of Arabian Sea’. Kochi serves as the finan-
cial, industrial and commercial center of Kerala. As per the projections made from the
previous Census, Kochi is an Urban Agglomeration (UA) in the Million Plus UA cat-
egory, with a population of 3,193,000 in the year 2021 (World Population Prospects
2022). According to the Integrated Development Plan (2018) of the Kerala Town
Planning Department, Kochi City and its immediate surroundings are included in the
Kochi City Region (KCR), which is managed by the Kochi Municipal Corporation. The
KUA area, as defined by the Census of India in 2011, includes Kochi Corporation, 9
Municipalities, 25 Panchayats in total and 4 Panchayats in part. The area of the delineated
KCR is 381.16 km2 and KUA is 1191.03 km2. Figure 1 shows the maps of KCR and KUA.
Kochi’s urban growth has not been confined to its borders alone since the city and
nearby suburbs have witnessed rapid urbanization in recent decades. With rising urban
Figure 1. Map of study area.
sprawl, Kochi, like many other rapidly growing tier-II Indian cities, is under pressure to
expand facilities to accommodate the needs of its people. Kochi has a high housing
demand and is one of the few cities in India that can brag about having an airport, a sea-
port and a metro all in the same city. The residential, commercial and industrial activities
of Kochi city center often spill out to the periphery, resulting in uncontrolled urban
sprawl. The rising population, unplanned urbanization and encroachment on ecologically
vulnerable areas have damaged KUA’s ability to deal with extreme weather events, which
are predicted to grow more frequently because of climate change. As a low-lying coastal
city, these impacts are exacerbated because it acts as an economic hub and home to a big
and expanding population.
2.2. Datasets and tools

This study was conducted using Landsat satellite imageries for 1988, 2000, 2008 and 2021
which were retrieved for free from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Earth
Explorer website (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/). Unlike very high-resolution sensors,
Landsat data have long historical archives and are continuously acquired, making them
the most suitable for this study (Wulder et al. 2008). While entering the search criteria,
the geocoding method employed was ‘Address/Place’. Datasets were searched for the
address ‘Kochi’, and from the search results, ‘Landsat Collection-1 Level-1’ was selected
with additional criteria as less than 10% land and scene cloud cover. A single month
(January) was chosen for the collection of all cloud-free images to minimize the effects of
seasonal variations on time-series images. Here, all the images are of the processing level
L1-TP (terrain corrected) and hence can be used as such without any geometric correc-
tion. This study used all bands except the thermal, coastal/aerosol, cirrus and panchro-
matic bands. All the other bands are of 30 m spatial resolution. The specifications of the
Landsat satellite images used here are listed in Table 1.
The study also used various other ancillary data, including published land use land
cover (LULC) maps of Ernakulam district (1975, 1992, 2000, 2002, 2008, 2006 and 2019),
district urbanization report and various published maps of Ernakulam district from
Table 1. List of Landsat satellite images used.

Sl.No. Satellite Sensor/data type Path/row Date acquired Spatial resolution (m)
1 Landsat-5 TM-L1TP 144/53 19 January 1988 30
2 Landsat-7 ETMþ: L1TP 144/53 08 January 2000 30
3 Landsat-5 TM-L1TP 144/53 27 January 2008 30
4 Landsat-8 OLI-L1TP 144/53 13 January 2021 30
Abbreviations: ETMþ: enhanced thematic mapper; OLI: operational land imager; TM: thematic mapper.
Kerala State Land Use Board, Department of Town and Country Planning Kerala and so
on. ArcMap 10.3, ERDAS IMAGINE 2013, ENVI 5.1, Q-GIS 3.4.8, Grass GIS 7.6.0 and
Fragstat. Q-GIS 3.4.8 was utilized for image pre-processing, while ENVI 5.1 was used for
image classification. ERDAS IMAGINE 2013 was used for accuracy assessment, and
ArcMap 10.3 was used for post-classification change detection and LU/LC maps gener-
ation. Grass GIS 7.6.0. was used for creating the input datasets for landscape metric ana-
lysis, and Fragstat, a free tool for quantifying spatial patterns, was used to compute
landscape metrics. The study also used high-resolution Google Earth imagery to improve
the accuracy of the LULC classification. As a validation method, a field survey was carried
out in January 2021 using a Garmin E-Trax handheld GPS device.
2.3. Methodology
Figure 2 depicts the methodology adopted in this work as a flowchart.
The study used cloud-free scenes of Landsat imageries of 1988, 2000, 2008 and 2021
for urban sprawl analysis in KUA, Kerala, India. The study area shapefile is used as input
data to clip the extent of KUA. These images were all processed at the level L1-TP (ter-
rain corrected) and were therefore corrected radiometrically, geometrically and orthorecti-
fied in accordance with the universal transverse mercator (UTM) map projection and
WGS 84 coordinate system. Then, pre-processing of the bands (except the thermal band,
coastal aerosol and panchromatic band) of all years was carried out using a semi-auto-
matic classification plugin (SCP) of Q-GIS. This study analyzes the spectral values of dif-
ferent land cover (LC) classes over different periods. It is, therefore, imperative that the
digital number (DN) values are converted into corresponding surface reflectance values.
The dark object subtraction (DOS1) atmospheric correction is required to calculate sur-
face reflectance, so choose the option to ‘apply DOS1 atmospheric correction’ when using
the QGIS SCP tool. A common way of reducing haze in images is via dark-object subtrac-
tion (DOS) (Chavez 1996), which is done separately for each band. The conversion to
reflectance was performed automatically in QGIS using the metadata files (a .txt file con-
taining MTL) that were downloaded along with the images.
After that, all the converted bands (except the thermal band, coastal aerosol and pan-
chromatic band) were combined using the layer stack feature in Erdas Imagine. Then the
satellite images of 1988, 2000, 2008 and 2021 were clipped using the shapefile of KUA
obtained from the Regional Town Planning Office, Ernakulam. Image stretching was then
carried out to better display the input image. Following this, ENVI software used the
clipped satellite images as inputs to machine learning-based SVM image classification.
Support vector machine classification was then applied to the clipped satellite image using
ENVI 5.1 software to obtain the LC classification of the study area. With the help of
ground truth data, the accuracies of the classified images were then analyzed using an
error matrix. The final classified images of 1988, 2000, 2008 and 2021 are then used to
quantify the land use statistics using the post-classification change detection technique. To
quantify the urban sprawl in KUA from 1988 to 2021, this study used Shannon’s entropy
Figure 2. Flow chart of the methodology adopted.
urban sprawl metric. For this, the built-up area detected in classified images of 1988,
2000, 2008 and 2021 were extracted and used as a proxy for urban growth. Following the
extraction of built-up elements from the classified images, multiple ring buffers were cre-
ated in ArcGIS, specifying the distance of 2 km from Kochi UA’s central business district
(CBD). Then, Shannon’s entropy is calculated for each of these zones from 1988 to 2021
using the retrieved built-up class information. Finally, the classified images are reclassified
into corresponding classes in GrassGIS software and converted to binary formats (built-
up and non-built-up). The built-up output in binary form is used to compute landscape
metrics using Fragstats software to get a greater insight into the dynamics of urban
growth in KUA.
2.3.1: Landsat image classification

Remote sensing is a valuable tool for capturing the LULC dynamics in urban areas and is
indispensable for modern urban planning, management and monitoring at different levels.
For urban RS, the area of interest is a complex mixture of real-world objects, including
natural and artificial elements with varying spectral characteristics, shapes and densities. It
has generally been demonstrated that in complex landscapes, machine learning-based
non-parametric classifiers (e.g. SVM, artificial neural networks (ANN) and random forests
(RF)) provide better classification outputs than parametric classifiers (e.g. maximum likeli-
hood classification (MLC)) (Lu and Weng2007; Maxwell et al. 2018). Support vector
machines, a non-parametric supervised classification method, perform well in classifying
complex landscapes and have the unique ability to draw conclusions even with limited
training data. As opposed to MLC, SVM does not assume any probabilistic distribution
regarding the training data, providing better classification accuracy with high dimensional
data (Schug et al. 2018; Karimi et al. 2019). They can usually produce good classification
results in complex and noisy data environments. The use of SVMs for LC classification in
this study was based on previous research (Huang et al. 2002; Dixon and Candade 2008;
Shi and Yang 2015; Taati et al. 2015; Rimal et al. 2020; Mostafa et al. 2021) that showed
they were more effective than MLC, ANNs, RFs and so on, in mapping urban areas.
Table 2. Description of landcover classes.

Sl. No. Class Description
1 Waterbody Inland wetland, reservoirs/dams, river/stream/canals, lakes,
ponds, waterlogged areas and so on
2 Built-up Residential area, industrial area, educational institutions,
commercial space, administrative buildings, transportation-
related features, roads, railways and so on
3 Bare land Barren, Rocky, Scrubland, Farmland with no/sparse crop on it,
Salt-affected land
4 Cultivated land Cropland, Fallow, Current shifting cultivation, Paddy, Plant
cover with sparse waterlogging and so on
5 Vegetation Evergreen/semi-evergreen, Forest plantation, Scrub Forest
Based on the principles of statistical learning theory, Boser et al. (1992) and Vapnik
(1995) developed SVMs, which are theoretically superior supervised machine learning
algorithms. The classes are separated using a decision surface called an optimal hyper-
plane, which maximizes the margin between the classes. A vital component of the training
set is the support vectors, which are the data points located nearest to the optimal hyper-
plane. In this study, the environment for visualizing images (ENVI), an advanced RS soft-
ware, is used to carry out SVM classification. For multiclass classifications, ENVI
implements SVM with pairwise classification. The kernel function of an SVM algorithm,
which estimates target classes based on nearby data points, is essential for accurately
establishing hyperplanes and minimizing classification errors (Awad and Khanna 2015).
In order to define the training regions for five LC classes, namely waterbody, built-up,
bare land, cultivated land and vegetation, a region of interest (ROI) tool is used. The
description of various LC classes is given in Table 2. A higher number of pixels in each
ROI class will result in better results. The created ROIs are saved in .roi file format. Open
the image to be classified along with the ROI files of each LC class. In the classification
toolbox, select SVM classification from the supervised classification menu. Make sure to
select the concerned ROI from the list of ‘Select Classes from Regions.’
Afterward, select a kernel type for the SVM classifier from the drop-down list of linear,
polynomial, radial basis and sigmoid functions. It is worth noting that the radial basis
function (default) kernel type performs well in most cases compared with the linear, poly-
nomial and sigmoid kernel types (Fragou et al. 2020). In the present study, the radial
basis function is used with a default value of the gamma parameter of 0.33. Then, the
default value of the penalty parameter (100) is applied. By setting this parameter, you can
determine the balance between allowing training errors and imposing rigid margins. The
Pyramid levels field enables you to specify how many hierarchical processing levels will be
applied during SVM training and classification. Here, a default value of zero is used as
the pyramid level. SVM classifiers require a certain probability to classify pixels, which
can be specified in the Classification Probability Threshold Field. All pixels with a rule
probability less than this threshold are left unclassified. Here a default value of zero is
applied as the classification probability threshold value. After classification, ERDAS
Imagine 2013 was used to perform a post-classification analysis based on visual checks to
eliminate obvious misclassifications. In order to ensure each pixel matches the correct
land use on the surface, the accuracy of classified images was assessed with the help of a
field GPS survey, historic Google earth images, and published LULC maps. Using 250
random points evenly distributed on the classified image, accuracy was evaluated to deter-
mine the performance of the image classification.
2.3.2: Urban sprawl quantification using Shannon’s entropy

The built-up features of an area (e.g. residential areas, industrial areas, commercial estab-
lishments and transportation features) may be used as proxy measures to quantify the
urban sprawl of an area (Torrens 2008). Shannon’s entropy, in conjunction with GIS and
RS, is considered one of the most efficient and popular methods of estimating the extent
of urban sprawl (Sudhira et al. 2004; Jat et al. 2008; Mohammady and Delavar 2016; Das
and Angadi 2021; Dhanaraj and Angadi 2022a). A geophysical variable (built-up class)
can be analyzed using Shannon’s entropy (Hn) to determine its spatial concentration (het-
erogeneity) or homogeneity (dispersal) among different zones (Theil 1965; Thomas 1981).
To calculate the entropy, use Equation (1):
X
n
Hn ¼ Pi loge ðPi Þ (1)
i¼1
Generally, ‘Pi ’ represents the proportion of a variable within the ith zone, while ‘n’ rep-
resents the number of zones in the analysis. The Shannon’s entropy value ranges between
0 and loge ðnÞ: Low entropy levels suggest clustered or relatively compact growth, whereas
large values closer to loge ðnÞ indicate sprawling or dispersed urban growth. The halfway
point of loge ðnÞ is commonly used as a threshold, implying that the city is considered
sprawling if the entropy value exceeds this level. Shannon’s entropy can be scaled from 0
0
to 1 using the concept of relative entropy (Hn ). The following formula is used to compute
0
relative entropy (Hn ) (Thomas 1981):
0 Hn
Hn ¼ (2)
loge ðnÞ
In this case, a value of 0.5 is regarded as a threshold. Urban sprawl can be measured
by measuring the change in entropy between time t1 and t2 based on the spatial distribu-
tion of a phenomenon or variable (Yeh and Li 2001):
DHn ¼ Hn ðt2 Þ Hn ðt1 Þ (3)
By measuring the change in entropy, it is possible to determine whether urban growth
is more concentrated or scattered (sprawled). This assists in determining whether the pro-
cess of urban growth is centrifugal (sprawling) or compact (clustered).
2.3.3. Generation of landscape metrics

A landscape metric (spatial metric) in conjunction with RS technology is capable of evalu-
ating the changes in the spatial patterns due to urban growth and the potential drivers
and impacts of haphazard urbanization in a landscape (Ji et al. 2006; Fichera et al. 2012;
Triantakonstantis and Stathakis 2015; Magidi and Ahmed 2019; Cengiz et al. 2022; Elmi
et al. 2022). It is widely used in landscape pattern and changes analysis, biodiversity frag-
mentation and connecting landscape structures at different scales, as well as in urban land
structure complexity analysis (Lausch and Herzog 2002; Uuemaa et al. 2009; Gustafson
2019). A landscape metric can describe, analyze and model the city’s form and evolution,
which is a crucial component of urban sprawl studies (Taubenb€ ock et al. 2009). An open-
source software program called Fragstats (McGarigal et al. 2002) calculates landscape met-
rics based on the binary outputs (e.g. built-up and unbuilt-up) from Grass GIS software.
This study used built-up class-level metrics to capture landscape characteristics which
include four patch area metrics (number of urban patches (NP), largest patch index (LPI),
patch density (PD) and edge density (ED)), a shape metric called Normalized Landscape
Shape Index (NLSI) and two compactness/contagion/dispersion metrics (Clumpiness
(CLUMPY) and Interspersion and Juxtaposition Index (IJI)). A class-level analysis can
help us understand how landscapes develop within particular classes. The characteristics
of the urban landscape are measured using the spatial metrics shown in Table 3.
Different landscape metrics can be used to describe the complexity of a landscape pat-
tern by comparing their scores. In this study, the entire landscape is taken as a single unit
for all computations, and hence, we will get only an overall picture of the urban sprawl.
For getting detailed information regarding the direction of spread, it is necessary to con-
sider the entire landscape into different zones.
3. Results and analysis

3.1. Accuracy assessment
In this context, we assessed accuracy using well-known indices, such as the error matrix
(user accuracy and producer accuracy), the overall accuracy and the overall Kappa statistic
(Srivastava et al. 2012). To develop a robust sample design for accuracy assessment, one
must consider the sample size and sampling method. The number of samples must be
sufficiently large to statistically represent all classes, with enough in each class. Generally,
at least 50 points per class are recommended. For LC classification, the preferred sampling
strategy is stratified random sampling. The method has the ability to include all LC classes
without any bias since a minimum number of points are randomly assigned to each cat-
egory (Congalton 1988).
To assess accuracy, 250 ground truth samples were marked randomly on each LC map
(50 samples for each class). These samples were compared with data gathered from field
visits, published maps and historical Google Earth images to determine accuracy. For the
classified images of 2021, 2008, 2000 and 1988, the reference data were acquired at or
near the same time as the classified image. For 2021, ground control points were selected
using a handheld GPS survey. Figure 3 shows the ground truth samples of January 2021.
For 1988, 2000 and 2008, reference points were interpreted from the published maps and
reports of Kerala Town and Country Planning Department, Kerala State Land use board
and historical Google Earth images.
The accuracy assessment has been performed using Erdas imagine software. Table 4
summarizes the result of the accuracy assessment.
It was observed that overall accuracy of 94.40% was achieved for 2021 with the help of
field-surveyed GPS points. For the year 2008, the overall accuracy was 94%, and that for
2000 was 93.20%. The overall accuracy of 88.80% was obtained while classifying the 1988
Landsat imagery. Land use/land cover classification based on SVMs yielded an overall
Kappa coefficient of 0.8587 for 1988, 0.9112 for 2000, 0.9250% for 2008 and 0.93% for
2021. Generally, a value of 85% overall accuracy is considered good (Anderson et al.
1976). All the classified images here show an accuracy of more than 85%, which means
that the classification results can be used for further computations.
3.2. Land cover maps and computation of change statistics

The results of LC classification for the years 1988, 2000, 2008 and 2021 using SVM classi-
fication are shown in Figure 4(a–d).
The study highlights that the built-up share increased from 6.23% in 1988 to 9.733%
in 2000, to 29.34% in 2008 and 32.34% in 2021. These results indicate a continuously ris-
ing trend of urban growth and an upsurge in the existing urban sprawl of KUA. Based on
Table 3. Description of landscape/spatial metrics used (McGarigal and Marks 1995).
Landscape
Sl. No. metrics Formula Description Important studies using selected metrics
17414
Category: patch area metrics

1. Number of urban NP ¼ ni Denotes the number of urban (built-up) patches. Unitless. Fragmentation increases with Seto and Fragkias (2005), Ramachandra
patches (NP) higher NP values. Range: NP et al. (2012), Chatterjee et al. (2016), Das
> 0, without limit. and Angadi (2021), Getu and Bhat
(2021), Mithun et al. (2021) and Elmi
max i¼1ton
et al. (2022)
a
2. Largest Patch LPI ¼ i¼1ton ð Ai Þ ai ¼ area (m2) of patch i; A ¼ Total landscape area. Unit: % A measure of how much of a Ji et al. (2006), Ramachandra et al. (2012),
Index (LPI) total landscape the largest Aithal and Ramachandra (2016), Pradhan
patch occupies. Range: (2017), Das and Angadi (2021), Getu and
0 < LPI 100. Bhat (2021) and Dhanaraj and Angadi
(2022a, 2022b)
3. Patch PD ¼ nAi ð10, 000Þð100Þ; ni ¼ number of urban patches, A ¼ Total landscape Provides the number of urban Ji et al. (2006), Ramachandra et al. (2012),
density (PD) area. Expressed as Number per 100 hectares. patches in a unit area. Pradhan (2017), Das and Angadi (2021),
Range: PD > 0, Getu and Bhat (2021), Mithun et al.
Pm without limit. (2021) and Elmi et al. (2022)
eik
4. Edge density (ED) ED ¼ k¼1A ð10, 000Þ This standardization allows Seto and Fragkias (2005), Pradhan (2017),
eik¼length of edge segments comparing landscapes of Das and Angadi (2021), Getu and Bhat
K. S. KRISHNAVENI AND P. P. ANIL KUMAR
A ¼ Area of the landscape (m2) varying sizes per unit area. (2021), Dhanaraj and Angadi (2022) and
Unit: Meters per hectare. Range: ED 0, Elmi et al. (2022)
without limit.
Category: shape metrics Pi¼N pi
5. Normalized NLSI ¼ Ni¼1 si si¼ area of patch i; pi¼ perimeter of patch i; N ¼ total number Class aggregation or Ramachandra et al. (2012), Aithal and
Landscape of patches. clumpiness can be Ramachandra (2016) and Mithun
Shape measured using this simple et al. (2021)
Index (NLSI) metric. Range: 0 ¼ NLSI < 1.
Category: dispersion/contagion/compactness metrics
6. Clumpiness 8 9 It indicates how often two Ramachandra et al. (2012), Aithal and
(CLUMPY) >
> Gi Pi > different patch types are Ramachandra (2016), Das and Angadi
< =
for Gi<PiPi<5, else > adjacent to each other. (2021) and Mithun et al. (2021)
P i gii
CLUMPY ¼ ; Gi ¼ Pm gii
> Gi Pi > gik minei Range: 1 to þ1.;
> ¼ > k¼1
: ; CLUMPY¼ 0(random patch
1 Pi
¼ the number of like adjacencies (joins) between pixels of patch type distribution); CLUMPY ¼ 1
(class) i based on the double-count method, gik ¼number of adjacencies (Maximum aggregation)
(joins) between pixels of patch types (classes) i and k based on the double
count method, minei ¼minimum perimeter (in the number of cell surfaces)
of patch type (class)i for a maximally clumped class and Pi ¼proportion of
the landscape
Pm Pm occupied by patch type (class) i.
7. Interspersion and i¼1 k¼iþ1
½ðeEik ÞlnðeEik Þ Indicates the extent to which Ramachandra et al. (2012), Chatterjee et al.
Juxtaposition IJI ¼ lnð0:5½mðm1ÞÞ
100; an urban patch is associated (2016), Das and Angadi (2021) and
Index (IJI) eik¼ landscape edge length (m) between patch types (classes), i, or interspersed with other Dhanaraj and Angadi (2022a, 2022b)
k¼patch types, E ¼ total landscape edge length. m ¼ number of adjacent patch types.
patch types (classes) present Range: 0 IJI 100.
Figure 3. Map of ground truth samples for the year 2021.
Table 4. Summary of accuracy assessment from 1988 to 2021.

1988 2000 2008 2021
Producers Users Producers Users Producers Users Producers Users
Class name Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy Accuracy
Waterbody 100 96.23 100 98.04 96 97.96 100 90.91
Cultivated 86.22 96.55 88 100 92 97.87 92 95.83
land
Built-up 96.77 88.95 88.89 96 90 97.83 88 100
Vegetation 91.84 89.66 96 94.12 96 90.57 92 97.87
Bare land 88.37 89.85 96 88.89 96 87.27 100 89.29
Overall 88.80 93.20 94 94.40
accuracy
Overall 0.8587 0.9151 0.9250 0.93
Kappa
statistics
Figure 4(a–d), built-up areas have increased significantly between 1988 and 2021, whereas
cultivated land and vegetation have decreased substantially. The classified imagery is
reclassified using ArcGIS and converted to a polygon feature class. Using the ‘calculate
geometry’ option in the Attribute table of ArcGIS, the area of each class is calculated.
Table 5 shows the area statistics of different LC classes over the years.
According to the 1988 landcover statistics, the vegetation feature class covers the most
land (41.37% of total area), and bare LCs the least (1.28%) (Figure 4(a–d) and Table 5).
Out of the five classes, the built-up area occupied 6.23% of the total land area. In 2000,
Figure 4. LULC maps of KUA for the year (a) 1988, (b) 2000, (c) 2008 and (d) 2021.
vegetation-covered 37.71% of the land area, bare land covered 3.20%, and built-up regions
made up 9.73% of the total. In 2008, there was a considerable increase in built-up land
(by 29.33%). The space occupied by vegetation class dropped 29.5% in 2008 and the low-
est by bare land (1.31%). In 2021, a significant portion of the landscape was covered by
built-up class (32.42%), followed by vegetation (25.80%), cultivated land (25.03%), water
bodies (14.48%) and bare land (2.26%). Next, class-wise landcover dynamics, which show
intriguing transformations, are briefly covered.
3.2.1. Built-up land

It was 74.20 km2 (6.23% of total area) in 1988, then rose to 115.93 km2 (9.73%) in 2000,
later it again increased to 349.45 km2 (29.34%) in 2008, and then to 386.13 km2 (32.42%)
in 2021 (Table 5). Based on periodic LC change analyses, it appears that built-up land has
Table 5. Area statistics of different landcover classes over the years.

Year
Landcover 1988(km ) 2
Area (%) 2000(km ) 2
Area (%) 2008(km2) Area (%) 2021(km2) Area (%)
Waterbody 175.69 14.75 175.83 14.76 176.93 14.85 172.46 14.48
Built-up 74.20 6.23 115.93 9.73 349.45 29.34 386.13 32.42
Vegetation 492.77 41.37 449.17 37.71 352.31 29.58 307.34 25.80
Cultivated land 433.02 36.35 411.94 34.58 296.69 24.91 292.17 25.03
Bare land 15.33 1.28 38.16 3.20 15.63 1.31 26.91 2.26
Total 1191.03 100 1191.03 100 1191.03 100 1191.03 100
Note: Area (%) indicates the area in percentage of the total landscape.
Figure 5. (a) Periodical change between different periods in the built-up class of KUA and (b) Alteration in dynamics
of built-up class during 1988–2021 in KUA.
steadily increased. The built-up area grew by 41.73 km2 (3.5% of the total area) during
1988–2000, then by 233.52 km2 (19.6%) during 2000–2008, and again by 36.68 km2 (3.1%)
during 2008–2021. During 1988–2021, the built-up land area increased by 311.93 km2
(26.2%) due to population growth and increased demand for land for various purposes
(Figure 5a).
3.2.2. Waterbody
It was 175.69 km2 (14.75% of total area) in 1988, and it expanded slightly to 175.83 km2
(14.76%) in 2000, later it again increased to 176.93 km2 (14.85%) in 2008, and it decreased
to 172.46 km2 (14.48%) in 2021 (Table 5). The water body increased by 0.14 km2 (0.01%)
during 1988–2000, again increased by 1.1 km2 (0.98%) during 2000–2008, and then
decreased by 4.47 km2 (0.38%) during 2008–2021. Overall, there has been a loss of
3.23 km2 0.27%) of waterbody area from 1988 to 2021 because of the transformation to
other classes, mainly cultivated land (Figure 6a).
3.2.3. Vegetation
In 1988, it covered 492.77 km2 (41.37% of total land), fell to 449.17 km2 (37.71%) in 2000,
and then fell to 352.31 km2 (29.58%) in 2008. Then, it decreased to 307.34 km2 (25.80%)
in 2021 (Table 5).
At all-time points, the vegetation class area has steadily decreased. It shrank by 43.59 km2
(3.66%) between 1988 and 2000, then shrank again by 96.86 km2 (8.13%) between 2000 and
2008, then by 44.97 km2 (3.78%) between 2008 and 2021. There has been a steady decline in
the vegetation class from 1988 to 2021 by 185.43 km2 (15.57%) (Figure 7a).
Figure 6. (a) Periodical change between different periods in waterbody class of KUA and (b) Alteration in dynamics
of waterbody class during 1988–2021 in KUA.
Figure 7. (a) Periodical change between different periods in vegetation class of KUA and (b) Alteration in dynamics
of vegetation class during 1988–2021 in KUA.
3.2.4. Cultivated land

It was 433.02 km2 (36.35% of total area) in 1988, 411.94 km2 (34.58%) in 2000, 296.69 km2
(24.91%) in 2008 and 292.17 km2 (25.03%) in 2021, with a further reduction to
292.17 km2 (25.03%) in 2021 (Table 5).
Cultivated land has decreased by 21.09 km2 (1.77%) during 1988–2000, by 115.25 km2
(9.68%) during 2000–2008, and a slight increase by 1.48 km2 (0.12%) during 2008–2021.
The conversion of agricultural land to built-up areas resulted in the loss of 134.85 km2 of
agricultural land (11.32%) between 1988 and 2021 (Figure 8(a)).
3.2.5. Bare land

In 1988, the area was 15.33 km2 (1.28% of total area), which increased to 38.16 km2
(3.20%) in 2000, but dwindled to 15.63 km2 (1.31%) in 2008, and again increased to
26.91 km2 (2.26%) in 2021 (Table 5).
Although bare land fell by 22.53 km2 (1.89%) between 2000 and 2008, it increased by
22.83 km2 (1.92%) between 1988 and 2000 and by 11.28 km2 (0.95% of the total area)
between 2008 and 2021. During 1988–2021, bare land increased by 11.58 km2 (0.98%)
(Figure 9(a)).
Three points were addressed to know the LC change dynamics of each class. They are
(a) no change between 1988 and 2021, (b) conversion of a specified class in 1988 to
another class in 2021 and (c) conversion from another class in 1988 to a specified class in
2021. Almost 48.23 km2 of built-up land remain unchanged between 1988 and 2021. The
Figure 8. (a) Periodical change between different periods in the cultivated land class of KUA and (b) Alteration in
dynamics of cultivated land class during 1988–2021 in KUA.
Figure 9. (a) Bare land dynamics from 1988 to 2021 in KUA, (b) Periodical change between different periods in the
bare land class of KUA and (c) Alteration in dynamics of bare land class during 1988–2021 in KUA.
most noticeable conversion is cultivated land, which has been chiefly turned into built-up
land covering 186.9 km2. Figure 10 consolidates the LC transition map from 1988 to 2021.
During the LC transition, 136.6 km2 of vegetation, 8.1 km2 of the waterbody and
6.2 km2 of bare land were also converted into built-up areas. During 1988–2021, 0.6 km2
of built-up land was occupied by waterbody, 7.2 km2 of built-up was replaced by vegeta-
tive cover, 16.9 km2 of built-up land was transformed into cultivated land, and 1.3 km2 of
built-up land was replaced by bare land (Figure 5(b)). Nearly 146.3 km2 of waterbody
remain unchanged during 1988–2021. 8.1 km2 of waterbody has transformed into built-
up, 1.6 km2 of waterbody into vegetation, 14.3 km2 into cultivated land and 5.3 km2 of
water body into bare land. 23.8 km2 of cultivated land was transformed into waterbody
during 1988–2021(Figure 6(b)). During 1988–2021, 244.96 km2 of vegetation area remain
unchanged in the landscape. The most noticeable vegetation conversion into other classes
is 136.6 km2 of built-up and 105.3 km2of cultivated land. 51.8 km2 of cultivated land has
been transformed into vegetation during this phase (Figure 7(b)). In the case of cultivated
land class, nearly 156 km2 area remained unchanged during 1988–2021. As a result of
conversion from cultivated land to other classes, 186.9 km2 of built-up area, 51.8 km2 of
vegetation and 23.8 km2 of waterbody have been generated. 105.3 km2 of vegetation has
been transformed into cultivated land during this phase (Figure 8(b)). Coming to bare
land, 1.38 km2 of its area remain unchanged during 1988–2021. 14.2 km2 of cultivated
land was occupied by bare land in 2021, and 6.2 km2 of bare land was occupied by built-
up area in 2021(Figure 9(b)). Figure 11 shows the change in the area of spatial transform-
ation of LULC classes from 1988 to 2021.
One of the most noticeable conversions of one LULC class into another is the trans-
formation of cultivated land, primarily converted to built-up areas of 186.94 km2 and
Figure 10. Land cover transition map from 1998 to 2021 in KUA.
natural vegetation of 51 km2. Another strikingly affected class is vegetation, which has
been mostly converted to built-up land by 136.64 km2, cultivated land by 105.34 km2 and
bare land by 4.7 km2.
3.3. Urban sprawl quantification using Shannon’s entropy

This study quantified the urban sprawl in Kochi UA from 1988 to 2021 using Shannon’s
entropy urban sprawl metric. To compute Shannon’s entropy, the built-up area extracted
from the classified images of 1988, 2000, 2008 and 2021 was used as a proxy for urban
growth. Figure 12(a) shows the map of the built-up regions derived from image classifica-
tion. Red color patches indicate the extracted built-up patches from the classified imagery.
Following the extraction of built-up elements from the classified images, multiple ring
buffers were created in ArcGIS, specifying the distance of 2 km from Kochi UA’s CBD. A
CBD is the central area of the city that is of prime importance, with the highest accessibil-
ity and high real estate value (Rice 2009). Multiple zones of a 2 km radius are considered
around the MG road stretch (CBD of KUA), as shown in Figure 12(b). Nineteen such
rings were created around CBD, with each ring having a 2 km buffer. Figure 13 shows the
change in relative entropy and Shannon’s entropy over time.
Using the retrieved built-up class information, we calculated Shannon’s entropy for
each of these nineteen zones from 1988 to 2021. The results are summarized in Figure 14.
The maximum and minimum Shannon’s entropy values are 2.749 and 0.649, respectively.
The threshold value of urban sprawl, which represents the midpoint between the max-
imum and minimum value, is determined as 1.375, falling between 1.058 in 2000 and
1.585 in 2008. Therefore, we can conclude that KUA’s tendency to sprawl began around
2005. A growing Shannon’s entropy value indicates more segregation between built-up
and unbuilt areas, highlighting urban sprawl within the study area. As the values
approach the highest entropy limit (2.749), the region’s built-up areas become increasingly
dispersed.
Figure 11. Bar chart showing the areal changes of spatial transformation of different LULC classes from 1988 to 2021.
Figure 12. (a) The dynamics of built-up growth in KUA during 1988–2021 and (b) Multiple ring buffer around CBD.
Figure 13. Variation of relative entropy and Shannon’s entropy over time.
Figure 14. Landscape metrics (a) NP, (b) PD and LPI, (c) ED and IJI and (d) CLUMPY and NLSI.
3.4. Landscape metrics analysis

The seven-landscape metrics mentioned in Table 2 were calculated at the landscape level
for KUA in 1988, 2000, 2008 and 2021. Figure 14(a–d) shows the results of the landscape
metrics analysis.
In Figure 14(a), NP illustrates the number of urban patches in the landscape. This
index shows how much a landcover class has been fragmented in a particular landscape.
A steady increase in built-up patches was observed between 1988 and 2021. A fragmented
urban growth was observed from spreading urban patches from the city center to the
outskirts/peri-urban areas. In response to rapid and haphazard urbanization, more land is

being turned into built-up areas by putting other LC classes under pressure. Patch
Density (PD) quantifies the number of urban patches per unit area of a landscape to
assess land fragmentation. Figure 14(b) shows PD for KUA. A rise in the PD value from
0.44 to 1.91 indicates the outward expansion of urban patches from the city center, which
specifies that the landscape is fragmented. At the built-up class level, the LPI measures
the percentage of the total landscape area that has been covered by a large patch. Figure
14(b) shows that an increase in KUA’s LPI value from 0.59 to 5.56 indicates a predomin-
antly monocentric development pattern. Using this metric, you can determine how
growth pole conditions have changed within a town over the years.
Figure 14(c) shows a high degree of dispersion of built-up areas, as shown by an
increase in edge density (ED) from 4.82 in 1988 to 20.26 in 2021. According to Figure
14(c), the IJI shows a declining pattern from 1988 to 2021 due to poor interspersion and
juxtaposition. KUA had a CLUMPY of 0.62 in 1988, indicating scattered urban patches;
however, it increased to 0.91 in 2021 (Figure 14(d)), indicating significant aggregation of
built-up patches in the landscape. Based on the graph of the NLSI (Figure 14(d)), it is
apparent that built-up patches dispersed from 0.04 to 0.12 between 1988 and 2021. In
summary, KUA’s landscape dynamics between 1988 and 2021 reflected increasing frag-
mentation, continual expansion of built-up patches and uncontrolled urban sprawl.
Studying changes in urban landscape patterns will bring greater insight into the dynamics
of urban growth in KUA. A landscape metrics analysis in KUA would quantify the com-
plexity, compactness, aggregation, dispersions and sprawl characteristics that would help
urban planners and local governments to make environmental sustainability-related plan-
ning decisions.
3.5. Drivers of urban sprawl in Kochi Urban Agglomeration (KUA)

During 1988–2000, Kochi’s CBD and its immediate surroundings acted as the financial,
industrial and commercial capital, attracting more people to such areas. Kochi became a
center of trade and commerce due to the development of its port in historical times. The
Cochin Special Economic Zone (CSEZ) and the Cochin Stock Exchange served as chan-
nels for investors to find investment opportunities in KUA during this period. Numerous
advanced industry-specific infrastructures started blooming during this period, and they
acted as a catalyst for the industrial growth of Kochi specifically and Kerala in general.
The establishment and expansion of a few companies and leading factories (such as
Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT), HMT (Hindustan Machine Tools
Ltd.), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) and KINFRA Hi-Tech Park) accelerated
the urban growth of KUA. During this time, rapid urbanization of the city core and spor-
adic urbanization of the periphery adjacent to main transportation corridors. The urban
growth zone grew rapidly outward, forming new urban centers around the core city.
The period 2000–2008 witnessed rapid urbanization of the peri-urban areas of KUA.
The opening of Cochin International Airport Limited (CIAL) in 1999 and the consequent
redevelopments of its terminals in successive years led to rapid urban growth of nearby
medium-scale towns (specifically towns of Angamaly and Kalady) in KUA. KUA has seen
a construction boom since 2000, with many high-rise buildings, waterfront villas and
apartments. The establishment of Infopark, an information technology park by the Kerala
government in 2004, changed the landscape and lifestyle of Kochi and triggered a boom
in the real estate sector. As Kochi emerged as a major IT hub, a significant influx of
immigrants (IT/ITES-related professionals) started. This has resulted in the age-selective
migration of young, educated groups to KUA from other parts of the nation.
Perumbavoor, an eastern suburban town in Ernakulam district, started to emerge as an
epicenter of the migrant labor force (unskilled casual workers) from other states during
this phase. KUA developments were also spurred by the construction/improvement of a
few major road corridors and port-related developments. This period saw the growth of
many satellite towns (such as Perumbavoor, Angamaly, Kalady and North Paravoor).
From 2008 onwards, KUA witnessed massive urbanization in the urban peripheries.
SmartCity Kochi, an Information Technology (IT) Special Economic Zone (SEZ) launched
in 2012 to create a network of opportunities, played an integral role in KUA’s overall
development. The reclaimed islands of Puthuvype have experienced rapid growth as well,
with projects like the Ship Repair Complex (2011) and the liquefied natural gas (LNG)
terminal (2013) taking off. There is a high concentration of employment in trade, com-
merce and government, with the Cochin Port Trust and Shipyards being among the larg-
est employers in this area. Furthermore, other factors such as the establishment of the
international container terminal (2011), the development of new transport modes such as
metro rail, water metro, new business and entertainment hubs like shopping malls and
hypermarkets, renovation of existing heritage sites, and an uptick in tourism in the last
decade are all factors that contributed to the rapid urbanization of KUA. The commis-
sioning of a large number of technical, academic, industrial, residential and commercial
developments in the city and suburbs significantly impacted the urban growth of KUA
during this period. Factors such as cheaper real estate costs compared to other metros in
India, excellent communications infrastructure, low costs of labor and the Kerala
Government’s initiatives to promote IT/ITES have all led to the urban development of
KUA (George 2016; Kuriakose and Philip2021).
Kochi Urban Agglomeration (KUA) expands spatially by annexing small towns and
peripheral areas into its area of influence, rather than acting as a magnet that attracts peo-
ple to the inner city as detected by RS and GIS. KUA has experienced land fragmentation
and a shift in economic activity from agriculture to other sectors during the last three
decades because of its dense population, industrialization, commercialization, family struc-
ture changes, unregulated urbanization and land reforms, among other factors. KUA has
experienced enormous pressure on natural vegetation and cultivated land due to the con-
version of agriculture and paddy fields into urban areas and the loss of soil productivity
due to human activity. The well-being of citizens, including quality of life, is negatively
impacted by the degradation and fragmentation of vegetation in urban areas, which
threatens urban sustainability to a great extent. Unplanned urbanization and encroach-
ment into ecologically vulnerable areas have damaged KUA’s ability to cope with extreme
weather events, which are expected to become more frequent as climate change unfolds.
As a low-lying coastal city, these impacts are exacerbated because the city acts as an eco-
nomic hub and home to an extensive and expanding population.
4. Discussions and planning interventions

United Nations member states adopted SDG 11 in 2015, which aims to create safe, inclu-
sive, resilient and sustainable cities and human settlements by 2030 (United Nations
2015). In response, member states convened to develop the New Urban Agenda (NUA),
which defines principles to guide cities in achieving sustainability over the next two deca-
des (UN-Habitat 2016). Much efforts still need to be made to reach the SDGs by 2030
(Prakash et al. 2020). A critical part of the SDG 11 Goal is monitoring urban sprawl and
access to open/public areas and green spaces in urban areas. The SDGs and targets
explicitly link urban sprawl with social, economic and environmental dimensions of sus-
tainability (K€ufeoglu 2022). The unplanned expansion of urban areas increases carbon
dioxide emissions and hazardous pollution and drives up property prices, all of which
inhibit sustainable development (EEA 2016). To ensure a sustainable future, cities should
do their utmost to slow down urban sprawl and increase compactness over time in
accordance with Target 11.3 of SDG 11, a measure of how effectively cities ‘use’ their
land (Rockefeller Foundation and Arup 2018). This study examines the spatio-temporal
urban sprawl dynamics in KUA, an important tier-2 city of Kerala, India, from 1988 to
2021 using machine-learning-based non-parametric SVM classification, Shannon’s entropy
and Landscape metrics methods.
Over the past few decades, Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Bangalore, Chennai and
Hyderabad have all seen rapid growth in their urban agglomerations (UA). Using Delhi
as an example, Sharma and Joshi (2013) show that urbanization has taken over rural areas
between 1988 and 2011, in a ribbon development pattern, with most of the development
occurring along roads and highways. Delhi’s rapid urban expansion between 1989 and
2020 was primarily attributed to proximity to city centers and access to main roads,
according to Salem et al. (2021). Using multitemporal RS data and spatial metrics,
Ramachandra et al. (2021) measured Mumbai’s urban footprint dynamics for the last
three decades. They found that vegetation cover had decreased by 20%, and urban extent
had increased by 155%. The peri-urban landscape of Mumbai has undergone rapid urban-
ization, according to Vaz et al. (2021), and they propose a complementary approach to
bridge business spaces and the role of territorial proximity, which is becoming more rele-
vant in developing nations. Research conducted at microscale levels in Bangalore points
to drivers of land-use change such as the IT revolution, industrialization, commercial
activities and loss of vegetation as significant contributors, and observed a growth rate of
632% in urban areas in Greater Bangalore over the past 38 years (1973–2010).
(Ramachandra et al. 2012; 2019). A study by Mathan and Krishnaveni (2020) found that
the Chennai Metropolitan Area (CMA) attained 48.72% built-up area from 42.21% agri-
culture in 1988. Using Landsat data and demographic information, Wakode et al. (2014)
studied Hyderabad’s land use and LC pattern. A rise in high-density urban areas during
1989–2011 was found, with agriculture and open land being most affected by urban
growth. There is evidence of sprawl growth and non-compact urban growth in the
Kolkata urban agglomeration, according to Rahman et al. (2012). From all analyses of
tier-1 metropolitan cities presented here, the common finding was that the urban patches
varied significantly, with the core urban area becoming more complex and aggregating. In
contrast, the outer urban area became more sprawled.
India is transitioning from a predominantly rural to an urban society. Economic
growth in India is primarily driven by cities. The fact that cities in India take up only 3%
of the country’s land, yet contribute around 60% of the gross domestic product, empha-
sizes this point. The focus needs to be on utilizing the economic potential of all cities,
regardless of how large or small they are. For this reason, not only megacities and their
hinterlands need to be nurtured as centers of economic growth, but mid-sized cities (tier-
2) need to be prepared to take on the role (NITI Aayog Asian Development Bank (ADB),
2022). Tier-2 second-level metropolitan cities experiencing rapid economic growth are not
well explored in the Indian context for their spatio-temporal dynamics and LC transitions.
A study by Chettry and Surawar in 2021 examined the characteristics of urban sprawl in
eight mid-sized cities (tier-2) in India. The selected cities comprise Lucknow, Patna,
Ranchi, Raipur, Thiruvananthapuram, Bhubaneswar, Srinagar and Dehradun, and they are
from different geographical regions of India. These eight cities are primarily affected by
Figure 15. Rate of population growth and built-up growth in KUA over the years.
urban sprawl because of low land costs, a lack of legislation to discourage the rapid con-
version of natural land into communities, and inefficient governance in peripheral areas
(outgrowths and census towns). All the cities assessed for urban sprawl displayed similar
characteristics, including rapid dispersion, fragmented built-up patches, and outward
expansion, identical to the results of this study. A study by Rath et al. (2022) indicated
that each of the eight Indian cities studied had experienced heterogeneous growth, with
an increase in population density and a proliferation of densely populated areas near its
peripherals. In an analysis of land use pattern transformation in Barasat municipality
(Kolkata), Hasnine (2020) used Shannon’s entropy, urbanization index and built-up dens-
ity to examine the degree of transformation. The results revealed rapid development of
the built-up area by 22.83% of vacant land and urban sprawl in multiple directions. Kochi
Urban Agglomeration also follows a similar trend to other mid-sized tier-II Indian cities
such as Mysore (Vinay et al. 2015), Lucknow (Siddiqui et al. 2018), Bhopal (Patel et al.
2018), Chandigarh (Saini and Tiwari 2019), Kurukshetra (Anees et al. 2018), Dehradun
(Maithani et al. 2010; Dutta et al. 2015; Maithani 2020), Mangaluru (Dhanaraj and
Angadi 2022b) in terms of urban sprawl pattern. The results of these studies, along with
the present study of Kochi, indicate that urban sprawl occurs in mid-sized Indian cities as
a result of an envelopment process in which adjacent lands are annexed to the existing
urban areas.
As a result of more dispersed patterns of urbanization in the form of urban sprawl,
urban land area has been growing faster than population. Consequently, population den-
sities have also declined (World Cities Report 2022). Similar to this result, in KUA, the
physical expansion of urban areas has far outpaced population growth. Figure 15 shows
the urban expansion and population growth rates in KUA for different periods. Similar
results were obtained in a case study conducted by Sumari et al. 2020, in Morogoro urban
municipality (MUM) in Tanzania between 2000 and 2016. Their study found that urban
expansion in African cities outpaced population growth, a situation that contradicts the
notion of sustainable and resilient cities.
With rapid urbanization in KUA, the region has experienced a boom in economic
development and job opportunities, as well as an expansion of infrastructure. Despite the
cited positive impacts of urban development, which was responsible for the urban sprawl
reported, it is necessary to have control and regulations on urban sprawl of the undesired
type for the region’s long-term sustainability. Like most cities in developing countries, the
physical infrastructures in KUA (transportation, sanitation and water) face challenges due
to rapid urban growth, technological changes and jurisdictional complexities arising from
its geographically spread distribution. Commuter traffic, water supply and sanitation,
storm/surface water drainage and solid waste management suffer from the excessive
spread of essential services due to urban sprawl. Unless regulations are imposed, the per-
ceived demand for land in the core city may push more and more people to the suburbs
adding to sprawl and gentrification in KUA.
A sizeable proportion of urban poor lives in the slums of Kochi with less access to
sanitation and fresh water. The number of human settlements and industries has been
steadily increasing since 2000 on the banks of the backwaters of Kochi. This encroach-
ment into water bodies and marshes causes environmental stress on the landscape, includ-
ing increased pollution, habitat destruction and biodiversity loss. The city of Kochi faces
scarcity of drinking water, groundwater depletion and enhanced flood vulnerability due to
the proliferation of impervious concrete structures over natural LC. Since Kochi is a
major city coping with climate change, it has become increasingly necessary for city offi-
cials to plan projects prioritizing climate resilience and urban sustainability (WRI 2021).
Kerala should never forget the lessons learned from the August 2018 floods, which
wreaked havoc across the state, particularly in the densely populated areas of Aluva and
Kochi. These outcomes demonstrate that uncontrolled urbanization and sprawl have far-
reaching and long-term detrimental implications in KUA.
During the past three decades, the city’s urban expanse has sprawled in all directions
resulting in the growth of numerous satellite towns, especially in the peri-urban regions
of KUA (North Paravur, Kalady, Angamaly, Perumbavoor and Piravom). The peri-urban
towns should be better developed as major urban centers to curb uncontrolled sprawl.
The growth of ’second-order’ settlements around cities will create more employment
opportunities and provide much-needed services across the region, therefore contributing
to the reduction of urban areas sprawl in KUA. The floating population migrates to
Kochi in search of employment opportunities, education, health resources, trade and com-
merce and other higher-level amenities (travel and recreational facilities, etc.). The trend
indicates the need for stimulating the growth of second-level urban settlements around
the city with the aim to provide better facilities and job opportunities. It may also miti-
gate the stress on the infrastructure within the city due to the floating population (who
can get services at respective locations otherwise). The rapidly urbanizing periphery areas
immediately surrounding Kochi City must be considered as a single entity for planning
purposes to fully harness the urban agglomeration’s development potential of KUA as a
whole and to optimize the stress on critical infrastructure.
5. Conclusions
The study uses Landsat image archives to determine the spatio-temporal dynamics of
urban sprawl in KUA, a tier-2 coastal city, between 1988 and 2021. As a novel work, this
study presents a comprehensive picture of urban sprawl dynamics in KUA, including
driving factors, spatial patterns and LC trends over the years. Here, LC dynamics are
illustrated by classifying images into five LC categories using SVM classification: water
bodies, built-up land, vegetation, cultivated land and bare land. The most noticeable LC
conversion that took place during this period was the depletion of 186.9 km2 of cultivated
land into built-up land, followed by the conversion of 136.64 km2 of vegetated land also
into built-up land. In 1988, the vegetation class dominated the landscape (41.37% of the
land area), whereas it was dominated by the built-up class (32.42%) in 2021. In the span
of 33 years, the natural vegetation and cultivated land in KUA decreased in extent and
became more fragmented. In the study, urban sprawl was quantified using Shannon’s
entropy, and it was observed that the sprawl in the research region started as early as
2005. The landscape metrics analysis validated that uncontrolled sprawl persisted through-
out the period under consideration, which also caused fragmentation and outward growth
of new urban patches in the KUA, especially towards the peripheries. The results revealed
that KUA expanded its sphere of influence by annexing nearby towns and villages over
the last three decades. However, there is further scope to improve the results by including
more aspects of urban sprawl dynamics such as its varied drivers, direction-wise landscape
metrics analysis and prediction of future sprawl using cellular automata (CA)-based mod-
elling techniques. All these factors will be evaluated in a subsequent study by the authors,
providing more accurate results. The same methodology can be applied to assess the
urban sprawl of any mid-sized Indian city or other developing countries of similar con-
text. It is crucial to understand the form and structure of urban sprawl patterns in differ-
ent cities to achieve the SDG that states, ‘make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and
sustainable’. Decision-makers, urban planners and policymakers can use these findings to
determine how to address improperly enforced land-use regulations to develop plans,
strategies and policies to optimize resource and infrastructure allocation.
Acknowledgment
The author wishes to acknowledge the Director, National Institute of Technology Calicut, Kerala, India,
for providing the necessary facilities to execute this study. The author also thanks USGS Earth explorer
for providing free Landsat imageries of different periods.
Disclosure statement
The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from public, commercial or not-for-profit fund-
ing agencies.
ORCID
K. S. Krishnaveni http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7582-5697
P. P. Anil kumar http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2255-2688
Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reason-
able request.
References
Abu Hatab A, Ravula P, Nedumaran S, Lagerkvist CJ. 2021. Perceptions of the impacts of urban sprawl
among urban and peri-urban dwellers of Hyderabad, India: a Latent class clustering analysis. Environ
Develop Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01964-2
Aithal BH, Ramachandra TV. 2016. Visualization of urban growth pattern in Chennai using geoinfor-
matics and spatial metrics. J Indian Soc Remote Sens. 44(4):617–633.
Anderson JE, Hardy JR, Winter R. 1976. A land use and land cover classification system for use with
remote sensor data. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964, USGS, Washington DC; p. 1–26. https://
doi.org/10.3133/pp964
Anees MM, Sajjad S, Joshi PK. 2018. Characterizing urban area dynamics in historic city of Kurukshetra,
India, using remote sensing and spatial metric tools. Geocarto Int. 34(14):1584–1607. doi:10.1080/
10106049.2018.1499819.
Awad M, Khanna R. 2015. Support vector machines for classification. In Efficient learning machines.
Berkeley, CA: Apress. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4302-5990-9_3
Bagan H, Yamagata Y. 2012. Landsat analysis of urban growth: How Tokyo became the world’s largest
megacity during the last 40 years. Remote Sens Environ. 127:210–222.
Bhatta B. 2010. Analysis of urban growth and sprawl from remote sensing data. Adv Geog Inf Sci.
Chapter 4. 49–64. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-05299-6, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Bhatta B, Saraswati S, Bandyopadhyay D. 2010a. Urban sprawl measurement from remote sensing data.
Appl Geogr. 30(4):731–740.
Bhatta B, Saraswati S, Bandyopadhyay D. 2010b. Quantifying the degree of freedom, degree of- sprawl,
and degree of goodness of urban growth from remote sensing data. Appl Geogr. 30(1):96–111.
Bibri SE, Krogstie J, K€arrholm M. 2020. Compact city planning and development: emerging practices and
strategies for achieving the goals of sustainability. Develop Built Environ. 4:100021.
Boser B, Guyon I, Vapnik V. 1992. A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers. In Proceedings of
the Fifth Annual Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, Pittsburg. https://doi.org/10.1145/
130385.130401
Brown DG, Page S, Riolo R, Zellner M, Rand W. 2005. Path dependence and the validation of agent-
based spatial models of land use. Int J Geogr Inform Sci. 19(2):153–174.
Cengiz S, G€ orm€ uş S, Oguz D. 2022. Analysis of the urban growth pattern through spatial metrics; Ankara
City. Land Use Policy. 112:105812.
Chavez PS. 1996. Image-based atmospheric corrections: revisited and improved. Photogramm Eng
Remote Sens. 62(9):1025–1036.
Chatterjee ND, Chatterjee S, Khan A. 2016. Spatial modeling of urban sprawl around Greater
Bhubaneswar city, India. Model Earth Syst Environ. 2(1):14.
Chettry V, Surawar M. 2021. Assessment of urban sprawl characteristics in Indian cities using remote
sensing: case studies of Patna, Ranchi, and Srinagar. Environ Dev Sustain. 23(8):11913–11935.
Cho KH, Lee DH, Kim TS, Jang GS. 2021. Measurement of 30-year urban expansion using spatial entropy
in Changwon and Gimhae, Korea. Sustainability. 13(2):632.
Congalton RG. 1988. A comparison of sampling schemes used in generation error matrices for assessing
the accuracy of maps generated from remotely sensed data. Photogrammetr Eng Remote Sens. 54(5):
593–600.
Das S, Angadi DP. 2021. Assessment of urban sprawl using landscape metrics and Shannon’s entropy
model approach in town level of Barrackpore sub-divisional region, India. Model Earth Syst Environ.
7(2):1071–1095.
De Jager NR, Rohweder JJ, Nelson JC. 2013. Past and predicted future changes in the land cover of the
upper Mississippi River floodplain, USA. River Res Applic. 29(5):608–618.
Deng JS, Wang K, Hong Y, Qi JG. 2009. Spatio-temporal dynamics and evolution of land-use change and
landscape pattern in response to rapid urbanization. Landscape Urban Plan. 92(3–4):187–198.
Devendran AA, Lakshmanan G. 2019. Analysis and prediction of urban growth using neural-network-
coupled agent-based cellular automata model for Chennai Metropolitan Area, Tamil Nadu, India. J
Indian Soc Remote Sens. 47(9):1515–1526.
Devi NN, Sridharan B, Kuiry SN. 2019. Impact of urban sprawl on future flooding in Chennai city, India.
J Hydrol. 574:486–496.
Dhanaraj K, Angadi DP. 2022a. Land use land cover mapping and monitoring urban growth using remote
sensing and GIS techniques in Mangaluru, India. GeoJournal. 87(2):1133–1159.
Dhanaraj K, Angadi DP. 2022b. Analysis of urban expansion patterns through landscape metrics in an
emerging metropolis of Mangaluru Community Development Block, India, During 1972–2018. J
Indian Soc Remote Sens. 50(10):1855–1870.
Dixon B, Candade N. 2008. Multispectral land-use classification using neural networks and support vector
machines: one or the other, or both? Int J Remote Sens. 29(4):1185–1206.
Dutta D, Rahman A, Kundu A. 2015. Growth of Dehradun city: an application of linear spectral unmix-
ing (LSU) technique using multi-temporal Landsat satellite datasets. Remote Sens Appl Soc Environ. 1:
98–111.
EEA. 2016. Urban sprawl in Europe; Joint EEA-FOEN Report European Environmental Agency (EEA)
and Federal Office for the Environment, Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 11/
2016.
Elmi M, Rouhani A, Keshavarz E. 2022. Landscape metrics for urbanization and urban land-use change
monitoring from remote sensing images: a case of Shiraz Metropolis, Iran. Int J Earth Sci Knowledge
Appl. 4(1):43–50.
Fichera CR, Modica G, Pollino M. 2012. Land cover classification and change-detection analysis using
multi-temporal remote sensed imagery and landscape metrics. Eur J Remote Sens. 45(1):1–18.
Fragou S, Kleomenis K, Nikolaos S, Panagiota L, Prashant KS, Sotiris K, Dionissios PK, George PP. 2020.
Quantifying land cover changes in a Mediterranean environment using Landsat TM and support vector
machines. Forests 11(7):750.
Fuladlu K. 2019. Urban sprawl negative impact: Enkomi Return Phase. JCUA. 3(1):44–51.
Galster G, Hanson R, Wolman H, Coleman S, Freihage J. 2001. Wrestling sprawl to the ground: defining
and measuring an elusive concept. Hous Policy Debate. 2(4):681–717.
George J. 2016. An Assessment of Inclusiveness in the Urban Agglomeration of Kochi City: The need for
a change in the approach of urban planning. Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA), https://mpra.
ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/90149.
Getu K, Bhat GH. 2021. Analysis of spatio-temporal dynamics of urban sprawl and growth pattern using
geospatial technologies and landscape metrics in Bahir Dar, Northwest Ethiopia. Land Use Policy. 109:
105676.
Global Monitoring Report. 2016. Development goals in an era of demographic change. A joint publication
of the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund. https://openknowledge.worldbank.
org/bitstream/handle/10986/22547/9781464806698.pdf.
Gumma MK, Mohammad I, Nedumaran S, Whitbread A, Lagerkvist CJ. 2017. Urban sprawl and adverse
impacts on agricultural land: a case study on Hyderabad, India. Remote Sensing. 9(11):1136.
Gustafson EJ. 2019. How has the state-of-the-art for quantification of landscape pattern advanced in the
twenty-first century? Landscape Ecol. 34(9):2065–2072.
Hasnine M. 2020. An analysis of urban sprawl and prediction of future urban town in urban area of
developing nation: case study in India. J Indian Soc Remote Sens. 48(6):909–920.
Huang C, Davis L, Townshend J. 2002. An assessment of support vector machines for land cover classifi-
cation. Int J Remote Sens. 23(4):725–749.
Huang JG, Lu XX, Sellers JM. 2007. A global comparative analysis of urban form: applying spatial metrics
and remote sensing. Landscape Urban Plan. 82(4):184–197.
Integrated Development Plan. 2018. Department of town and country planning, Local Self-Government
Department, Kerala State. https://townplanning.kerala.gov.in/town/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/hand-
book-eng.pdf.
Jaeger JA, Bertiller R, Schwick C, Kienast F. 2010. Suitability criteria for measures of urban sprawl. Ecol
Indic. 10(2):397–406.
Jain GV, Sharma SA. 2019. Spatio-temporal analysis of urban growth in selected small, medium, and large
Indian cities. Geocarto Int. 34(8):887–908.
Jat MK, Garg PK, Khare D. 2008. Monitoring and modelling of urban sprawl using remote sensing and
GIS techniques. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf. 10(1):26–43.
Ji W, Ma J, Twibell R, Underhill R. 2006. Characterizing urban sprawl using multi-stage remote sensing
images and landscape metrics. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 30(6):861–879.
Johnson MP. 2001. Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: a survey of the literature and proposed
research agenda. Environ Plan A. 33(4):717–735.
Kantakumar LN, Kumar S, Schneider K. 2016. Spatiotemporal urban expansion in Pune metropolis, India
using remote sensing. Habitat Int. 51:11–22.
Karimi F, Sultana S, Babakan AS, Suthaharan S. 2019. An enhanced support vector machine model for
urban expansion prediction. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 75:61–75.
Kit O, L€ udeke M, Reckien D. 2012. Texture-based identification of urban slums in Hyderabad, India,
using remote sensing data. Appl Geogr. 32(2):660–667.
Koop SHA, van Leeuwen CJ. 2017. The challenges of water, waste, and climate change in cities. Environ
Dev Sustain. 19(2):385–418.
K€ufeoglu S. 2022. SDG-11: sustainable cities and communities. Emerging technologies. Sustainable devel-
opment goals series. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07127-0_13
Kumar JAV, Pathan SK, Bhanderi RJ. 2007. Spatio-temporal analysis for monitoring urban growth – a
case study of Indore city. J Indian Soc Remote Sens. 35(1):11–20.
Kumar M, Singh RB, Pravesh R, Kumar P, Tripathi DK, Sahu N. 2018. Urban growth dynamics and mod-
elling using remote sensing data and multivariate statistical techniques. Curr Sci. 114(10):2080.
Kuriakose PN, Philip S. 2021. City profile: Kochi, city region-Planning measures to make Kochi smart
and creative. Cities 118:103307.
Lausch A, Herzog F. 2002. Applicability of landscape metrics for the monitoring of landscape change:
issues of scale, resolution, and interpretability. Ecol Indicat. 2(1–2):3–15.
Liu T, Yang XJ. 2015. Monitoring land changes in an urban area using satellite imagery, GIS, and land-
scape metrics. Appl Geogr. 56:42–54.
Liu Y, Fan P, Yue W, Son Y. 2018. Impacts of land finance on urban sprawl in China: the case of
Chongqing. Land Use Policy. 72:420–432.
Lu D, Weng Q. 2007. A survey of image classification methods and techniques for improving classifica-
tion performance. Int J Remote Sens. 28(5):823–870.
Magidi J, Ahmed F. 2019. Assessing urban sprawl using remote sensing and landscape metrics: A case
study of city of Tshwane, South Africa (1984–2015). Egypt J Remote Sens Space Sci. 22(3):335–346.
Maithani S, Arora MK, Jain RK. 2010. An artificial neural network-based approach for urban growth zon-
ation in Dehradun city, India. Geocarto Int. 25(8):663–681.
Maithani S. 2020. A quantitative spatial model of urban sprawl and its application to Dehradun Urban
Agglomeration. J Indian Soc Remote Sens. 48(11):1583–1592.
Mathan M, Krishnaveni M. 2020. Monitoring spatio-temporal dynamics of urban and peri-urban land
transitions using an ensemble of remote sensing spectral indices-a case study of Chennai Metropolitan
Area, India. Environ Monit Assess. 192(15):1–11. doi:10.1007/s10661-019-7986-y
Maxwell AE, Warner TA, Fang F. 2018. Implementation of machine-learning classification in remote
sensing: an applied review. Int J Remote Sens. 39(9):2784–2817.
McGarigal K, Marks BJ. 1995. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape
structure. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; p. 122. https://doi.org/10.2737/PNW-GTR-351
McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E. 2002. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for cat-
egorical maps. Computer software program, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA. www.umass.
edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html.
Mithun S, Sahana M, Chattopadhyay S, Johnson BA, Khedher KM, Avtar R. 2021. Monitoring metropol-
itan growth dynamics for achieving sustainable urbanization (SDG 11.3) in Kolkata Metropolitan Area,
India. Remote Sens. 13(21):4423, 1–33. doi:10.3390/rs13214423.
Mohammady S, Delavar MR. 2016. Urban sprawl assessment and modelling using Landsat images and
GIS. Model Earth Syst Environ. 2:155.
Mosammam HM, Nia JT, Khani H, Teymouri A, Kazemi M. 2017. Monitoring land use change and
measuring urban sprawl based on its spatial forms; the case of Qom City. Egypt J Remote Sens Space
Sci. 20(1):103–116.
Mostafa E, Li XX, Sadek M, Dossou JF. 2021. Monitoring and forecasting of urban expansion using
machine learning-based techniques and remotely sensed data: a case study of Gharbia Governorate,
Egypt. Remote Sens. 13(22):4498.
Mullier N, lgnatieva MC, Nilon IC, Werner P, Zipperer W. 2013. Patterns and trends in urban biodiver-
sity and landscape design. In Elmqvist TM, Fagkias M, Goodness J, Giineralp D, Marcotullio PJ, Mc
Donald S, Parnell M, Schewenius SM, Seto K, Wilkinson C, editors. Urbanization, biodiversity and eco-
system services: Challenges and opportunities. New York: Springer; p. 123–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-94-007-7088-1_10
Mundia CN, Aniya M. 2005. Analysis of land use/cover changes and urban expansion of Nairobi city
using remote sensing and GIS. Int J Remote Sens. 26(13):2831–2849.
NASA. 2001. Satellite maps provide better urban sprawl insight. NASA News Release. https://spaceflight-
now.com/news/n0106/02landsat/.
Nguyen D. 2010. Evidence of the impacts of urban sprawl on social capital. Environ Plann B Plann Des.
37(4):610–627.
NITI Aayog. 2021. Reforms in urban planning capacity in India, Government of India Online edition.
https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2021-09/UrbanPlanningCapacity-in-India-16092021.pdf.
NITI Aayog, Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2022. Cities as engines of growth-TA-9508: strengthening
the states for broad-based urban development. https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/202205/Mod_
CEOG_Executive_Summary_18052022.pdf.
OECD. 2009. Competitive cities and climate change. In Lamia K, Robert A, editors. OECD Regional
Development Working Papers. OECD France. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/competitive-cities-and-cli-
mate-change_5ks5hsjc2hr6.pdf.
Ottensmann JR. 1977. Urban sprawl, land values and the density of development. Land Econ. 53(4):
389–400.
Patel L, Goyal S, Thomas T. 2018. An assessment of hydrological impacts due to changes in the urban
sprawl in Bhopal city and its peripheral urban-rural fringe. In Singh V, Yadav S, Yadava R, editors.
Hydrologic modelling. Water science and technology library, vol. 81. Singapore: Springer.
Pathan SK, Shukla VK, Patel RG, Patel BR, Mehta KS. 1991. Urban land use mapping: a case study of
Ahmedabad city and its environs. J Indian Soc Remote Sens. 19(2):95–112.
Pradhan B. 2017. Spatial modeling and assessment of urban form analysis of urban growth: from sprawl
to compact using geospatial data. Springer Verlag, Berlin. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-5421-1
Prakash M, Kamiya M, Ndugwa R, Cheng M. 2020. Counting the costs: a method for evaluating the cost
of achieving SDG 11. Front Sustain Cities. 2. doi:10.3389/frsc.2020.554728.
Rahman A, Kumar S, Fazal S, Siddiqui MA. 2012. Assessment of land use/land cover change in the
North-West district of Delhi using remote sensing and GIS techniques. J Indian Soc Remote Sens.
40(4):689–697.
Ramachandra TV, Aithal BH, Sreekantha S. 2012. Spatial metrics-based landscape structure and dynamics
assessment for an emerging Indian megalopolis. Int J Adv Res Artif Intell. 1:48–57.
Ramachandra TV, Bharath HA, Sowmyashree MV. 2021. Urban footprint of Mumbai: the commercial
capital of India. JURA 6(1):71–94.
Ramachandra TV, Sellers J, Bharath HA, Setturu B. 2019. Micro-level analyses of environmentally disas-
trous urbanization in Bangalore. Environ Monit Assess. 191(S3):1–13. doi:10.1007/s10661-019-7693-8.
Rath SS, Mohanty S, Panda J. 2022. Analyzing the fragmentation of urban footprints in eastern and
southern Indian cities and driving factors. J Indian Soc Remote Sens. 50(8):1499–1517.
Rice GA. 2009. Central business district. Int Encyclopaedia Human Geogr. 6:18–25.
Rimal B, Rijal S, Kunwar R. 2020. Comparing support vector machines and maximum likelihood classi-
fiers for mapping of urbanization. J Indian Soc Remote Sens. 48(1):71–79.
Rockefeller Foundation and Arup. 2018. City resilience index: 52 Indicators’, city resilience index, https://
www.cityresilienceindex.org.
Sahana M, Hong HY, Sajjad H. 2018. Analyzing urban spatial patterns and trend of urban growth using
urban sprawl matrix: A study on Kolkata urban agglomeration, India. Sci Total Environ. 628–629:
1557–1566.
Saini V, Tiwari RK. 2019. Remote sensing-based time-series analysis for monitoring urban sprawl: a case
study of Chandigarh capital region. J Geomatics. 13(1):94–97.
Salem M, Bose A, Bashir B, Basak D, Roy S, Chowdhury IR, Alsalman A, Tsurusaki N. 2021. Urban
expansion simulation based on various driving factors using a logistic regression model: Delhi as a case
study. Sustainability. 13(19):10805.
Sarkar A, Chouhan P. 2020. Modeling spatial determinants of urban expansion of Siliguri, a metropolitan
city of India, using logistic regression. Model Earth Syst Environ. 6:2317–2331. doi:10.1007/s40808-
020-00815-9
Schug F, Okujeni A, Hauer J, Hostert P, Nielsen JO, van der Linden S. 2018. Mapping patterns of urban
development in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, using machine learning regression modeling with bi-sea-
sonal Landsat time series. Remote Sens Environ. 210:217–228.
Seto KC, Fragkias M. 2005. Quantifying spatiotemporal patterns of urban land-use change in four cities
of China with time series landscape metrics. Landscape Ecol. 20(7):871–888.
Shao Z, Sumari NM, Portnov A, Ujoh F, Musakwa W, Mandela PJ. 2021. Urban sprawl and its impact on
sustainable urban development: a combination of remote sensing and social media data. Geo-Spatial
Inform Sci. 24(2):241–255.
Sharma R, Joshi PK. 2013. Monitoring urban landscape dynamics over Delhi (India) using remote sensing
(1998–2011). J Indian Soc Remote Sens. 41(3):641–650.
Shi D, Yang X. 2015. Support vector machines for land cover mapping from remote sensor imagery. In Li
J, Yang X, editor. Monitoring and modelling of global changes: a geomatics perspective. Springer
Remote Sensing/Photogrammetry.
Shukla A, Jain K, Ramsankaran R, Rajasekaran E. 2021. Understanding the macro-micro dynamics of
urban densification: a case study of different sized Indian cities. Land Use Policy. 107:105469.
Siddiqui A, Siddiqui A, Maithani S, Jha AK, Kumar P, Srivastav SK. 2018. Urban growth dynamics of an
Indian metropolitan using CA Markov and Logistic Regression. Egypt J Remote Sens Space Sci. 21(3):
229–236.
Sierra Club. 1998. Sprawl: the dark side of the American Dream. https://vault.sierraclub.org/sprawl/
report98/.
Silva C. 2018. Auckland’s urban sprawl, policy ambiguities and the peri-urbanisation to Pukekohe. Urban
Sci. 3(1):1.
Srivastava PK, Han G, Rico-Ramirez MA, Bray M, Islam T. 2012. Selection of classification techniques for
land use/land cover change investigation. Adv Space Res. 50(9):1250–1265.
Sudha PN, Ravindranath NH. 2000. A study of Bangalore urban forest. Landscape Urban Plann. 47(1–2):
47–63.
Sudhira HS, Ramachandra TV, Jagadish KS. 2004. Urban sprawl: metrics, dynamics and modelling using
GIS. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf. 5(1):29–39.
Sudhira HS, Ramachandra TV. 2007. Characterizing urban sprawl from remote sensing data and using
landscape metrics. Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Computers in Urban Planning and
Urban Management, Brazil: Iguassu Falls.
Sumari NS, Xu G, Ujoh F, Korah PI, Ebohon OJ, Lyimo NN. 2019. A geospatial approach to sustainable
urban planning: lessons for Morogoro Municipal Council, Tanzania. Sustainability 11(22):6508.
Sumari NS, Cobbinah PB, Ujoh F, Xu G. 2020. On the absurdity of rapid urbanization: spatio-temporal
analysis of land-use changes in Morogoro, Tanzania. Cities. 107:102876.
Taati A, Sarmadian F, Mousavi A, Pour CTH, Shahir AHE. 2015. Land use classification using support
vector machine and maximum likelihood algorithms by Landsat 5 TM images. Walailak J Sci Technol.
12:681–687.
Taubenb€ ock H, Wegmann M, Roth A, Mehl H, Dech S. 2009. Urbanization in India–Spatiotemporal ana-
lysis using remote sensing data. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 33(3):179–188.
Thanikachalam M, Nimalan K. 2019. Investigation and prediction of urban sprawl and land-use changes
for Chennai city using geospatial technologies. Indian J Geo-Marine Sci. 48(9):1443–1451.
Theil H. 1965. The information approach to demand analysis. Econometrica 33(1):67–87.
Thomas RW. 1981. Information statistics in geography: geo abstracts. Norwich, UK: University of East
Anglia. https://alexsingleton.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/31-information-statistics.pdf.
Torrens P. 2008. A toolkit for measuring sprawl. Appl Spatial Anal. 1(1):5–36.
Triantakonstantis D, Stathakis D. 2015. Examining urban sprawl in Europe using spatial metrics.
Geocarto Int. 30(10):1092–1112.
Tsai YH. 2005. Quantifying urban form: compactness versus “sprawl.” Urban Studies. 42(1):141–161.
Turner MG, Gardner RH. 1994. Quantitative methods in landscape ecology: the analysis and interpret-
ation of landscape ecology: the analysis and interpretation of landscape heterogeneity. New York:
Springer Verlag.
United Nations. 2015. 17 goals to transform our world: United Nations Sustainable Development 2015.
New York, NY: United Nations Press:
UN-Habitat. 2016. The conference: The United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban
Development (Habitat III). New York, NY: United Nations Press.
Uuemaa E, Antrop M, Roosaare J, Marja R, Mander U. € 2009. Landscape metrics and indices: an overview
of their use in landscape research. Living Rev Landscape Res. 3(1):1–28.
Vapnik V. 1995. The nature of statistical learning theory. New York, NY: Springer.
Vaz E, Taubenb€ ock H, Kotha M, Arsanjani JJ. 2017. Urban change in Goa, India. Habitat International.
68:24–29.
Vaz E, Damasio B, Bacao F, Kotha M, Penfound E, Rai SK. 2021. Mumbai’s business landscape: A spatial
analytical approach to urbanization. Heliyon 7(7):e07522.
Vinay M, Ramu, Mahalingam B. 2015. Simulation of spatial concentration of urban built-up lands
through GIS and remote sensing techniques: a study of Mysore city, Karnataka, India. ACCENTS
Trans Image Proces Computer Vision. 1(1):8–11. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/simula-
tion-spatial-concentration-urban-built-up/docview/2492721387/se-2.
Wakode HB, Baier K, Jha R, Azzam R. 2014. Analysis of urban growth using Landsat TM/ETM data and
GIS-a case study of Hyderabad. Arab J Geosci. 7(1):109–121
Weng Q. 2001. A remote sensing – GIS evaluation of urban expansion and its impact on surface tempera-
ture in the Zhujiang Delta, China. Int J Remote Sens. 22(10):1999–2014.
World Cities Report. 2020. World cities report: the value of sustainable urbanization. https://unhabitat.
org/World%20Cities%20Report%202020,UN-Habitat,Nairobi.
World Cities Report. 2022. Envisaging the future of cities. UN-Habitat. https://unhabitat.org/wcr/.
World Population Prospects. 2022. Department of Economics and Social Affairs, Population Division,
United Nations, New York. https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.
desa.pd/files/wpp2022. _summary_of_results.pdf.
World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision. 2018. United Nations, Department of Economic and
Social Affairs, Population Division.United Nations. https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/
WUP2018-Report.pdf.
WRI. 2021. Vision for a resilient Kochi. https://www.transformative-mobility.org/assets/publications/2020-

08-Building-a-Resilient-Kochi-WRI-India.pdf.
Wu Q, Guo F, Li H, Kang J. 2017. Measuring landscape pattern in three-dimensional space. Landscape
Urban Plann. 167:49–59.
Wulder MA, White JC, Goward SN, Masek JG, Irons JR, Herold M, Cohen WB, Loveland TR, Woodcock
CE. 2008. Landsat continuity: issues and opportunities for land cover monitoring. Remote Sens
Environ. 112(3):955–969.
Xu G, Dong T, Cobbinah PB, Jiao L, Sumari NS, Chai B, Liu Y. 2019. Urban expansion and form changes
across African cities with a global outlook: Spatiotemporal analysis of urban land densities. J Cleaner
Prod. 224(June 1):802–810.
Xu C, Zhao S, Liu S. 2020. Spatial scaling of multiple landscape features in the conterminous United
States. Landscape Ecol. 35(1):223–247.
Yatoo SA, Sahu P, Kalubarme MH, Kansara BB. 2022. Monitoring land-use changes and its future pros-
pects using cellular automata simulation and artificial neural network for Ahmedabad city, India.
GeoJournal. 87(2):765–786.
Yeh AGO, Li X. 2001. Measurement and monitoring of urban sprawl in a rapidly growing region using
entropy. Photogrammetric Eng Remote Sens. 67(1):83–90.
Yin J, Dong J, Hamm NAS, Li Z, Wang J, Xing H, Fu P. 2021. Integrating remote sensing and geospatial
big data for urban land use mapping: a review. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf. v103:102514.
Zhang T. 2000. Land market forces and government’s role in sprawl: the case of China. Cities. 17(2):
123–135.

Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Urban Sprawl in A Rapidly Urbanizing City Using Machine Learning Classification

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Urban Sprawl in A Rapidly Urbanizing City Using Machine Learning Classification

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geocarto International

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tgei20

Spatio-temporal dynamics of urban sprawl in a

K.S. Krishnaveni & P. P. Anil kumar

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2022.2129817

Published online: 07 Oct 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 387

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Spatio-temporal dynamics of urban sprawl in a rapidly

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT K. S. Krishnaveni kveni07@gmail.com

compact manner, while an increase in entropy indicates a dispersed development (Yeh

2. Data and methods

Figure 1. Map of study area.

2.2. Datasets and tools

Table 1. List of Landsat satellite images used.

Figure 2. Flow chart of the methodology adopted.

2.3.1: Landsat image classification

Table 2. Description of landcover classes.

2.3.2: Urban sprawl quantification using Shannon’s entropy

2.3.3. Generation of landscape metrics

3. Results and analysis

3.2. Land cover maps and computation of change statistics

Category: patch area metrics

Figure 3. Map of ground truth samples for the year 2021.

Table 4. Summary of accuracy assessment from 1988 to 2021.

3.2.1. Built-up land

Table 5. Area statistics of different landcover classes over the years.

3.2.4. Cultivated land

3.2.5. Bare land

3.3. Urban sprawl quantification using Shannon’s entropy

3.4. Landscape metrics analysis

outskirts/peri-urban areas. In response to rapid and haphazard urbanization, more land is

3.5. Drivers of urban sprawl in Kochi Urban Agglomeration (KUA)

4. Discussions and planning interventions

Data availability statement

WRI. 2021. Vision for a resilient Kochi. https://www.transformative-mobility.org/assets/publications/2020-

You might also like