L4_Urban Land Cover Heterogeneity_post (1)

Page 1: Budget for Hong Kong: "The City is a Black Box"

• CO₂ Emission: 26,500 tons

• CO Emission: 155 tons

• Inputs:

  • O₂: 27,000 tons

  • H₂O: 1,068,000 tons

  • Food: 6,382 tons

• Outputs:

  • SO: 308 tons

  • NO: 110 tons

  • CH: 29 tons

  • Pb: 0.34 tons

  • Dust: 42 tons

  • H₂O: 1,068,000 tons

  • Food Waste: 780 tons

  • Organic Solids: 6,300 tons

  • Petroleum: 11,760 tons

  • Cargo: 18,000 tons

  • Cargo (adjusted): 8,150 tons

• Source: Adapted from Boyden et al. 1981

Page 2: Ecosystem Abstraction and Budgetary Approach

• Study Focus: Abstraction of an ecosystem

• Budgetary Approach: Inputs, Storage, Outputs

• Definition: What is a system?

Page 3: Biological Ecosystem Concept

• SYSTEM: Interaction of organism complex and physical complex

• INPUTS, OUTPUTS defined as:

  • Inputs: All resources entering the system

  • Outputs: All products leaving the system

Page 4: Interaction of Physical and Biological Components

• Importance of understanding ecosystem dynamics

• Tools: False color infra-red imaging in Baltimore, MD to visualize interactions

Page 5: Heterogeneity in Ecosystems

• Conceptual Model:

  • Organism Complex

  • Physical Complex

• Interaction influenced by heterogeneity

Page 6: Applying Biological Ecosystem Concept to Urban Systems

• Cadenasso and Pickett (2008): Study focus

• Components of human ecosystems:

  • Biotic Complex

  • Social Complex

  • Physical Complex

  • Built Complex

Page 7: Heterogeneity within the System

• Inquiry: How does spatial heterogeneity affect fluxes?

• Tools: False color infra-red imaging

Page 8: Spatial Heterogeneity in Landscapes

• Definition: Variation across space in at least one variable of interest

• Affirmative answer: Landscapes are spatially heterogeneous

Page 9: Landscape Spatial Heterogeneity Factors

• Factors to determine spatial heterogeneity include:

  • Biotic and abiotic components

  • Human activities and policies

Page 10: Causes of Spatial Heterogeneity

• Categories influencing heterogeneity:

  • Abiotic Factors (Physical)

  • Biotic Factors (Living Organisms)

  • Disturbances (Natural / Human-made)

  • Socially-derived Factors (Policy, Economics, Culture)

Page 11: Characterizing Integrated Ecological-Social Systems

• Inquiry: How can heterogeneity be described?

Page 12: Characterizing Urban Heterogeneity

• Approaches include:

  • Biotope Mapping

  • Ecotope Mapping

  • PRIZM/Tapestry (ESRI)

  • Land Use/Land Cover Classifications

Page 13: Biotope Mapping

• Focus: Heterogeneity of habitats for species conservation

• Urban integration with nature:

  • Types of environments classified: cityscape, gardens, undeveloped areas

Page 14: Ecotope Mapping

• Ellis et al. (2006): Comparison of land use categories in different years

• Importance of visual representation in mapping urban change

Page 15: Potential Rating Index for Zip Markets

• PRIZM Market Classifications: Classification based on socio-economic factors

• Characteristics include:

  • Density Gradient: 5 groups

  • Economic Gradient: 15 groups

  • Social Characteristics: 62 groups

Page 16: PRIZM and Social Group Heterogeneity

• Analysis based on:

  • Density

  • Economic Status

  • Social Characteristics

Page 17: Tapestry by ESRI

• Purpose: Identify consumer markets in the US

• Classification includes:

  • Urbanization Groups: 6 groups

  • LifeMode Clusters: 14 groups

  • Neighborhood Segments: 67 clusters

Page 18: Land Use/Land Cover Classifications

• Derived classifications of land surface from Anderson et al. (1976)

• Focus: Human usage of land and physical structures

Page 19: Anderson et al. Classification Levels

• Level I: Urban or Built-up Land

• Level II categories include:

  • Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Transportation, and more

Page 20: Advantages of Anderson Classification

• Standardized and widely available approach

• Applicability across broad geographical scales in the US

Page 21: Land Use vs. Land Cover

• Land Use: Describes human activities on land

  • Seen through vegetation/built structure characteristics

• Land Cover: Describes physical patterns

  • No assumptions about land use linked to structure

Page 22: Discussion on Patches

• Inquiry: Do all patches of one land use have the same land cover?

Page 24: Urban Landscape Element Variability

• Varying elements in urban landscapes affect ecological processes, e.g., nutrient cycling, biodiversity

Page 25: Limitations of Anderson Classification

• Low categorical and spatial resolution

• Ineffectiveness in capturing urban heterogeneity

• Separation between built and natural components

Page 26: Characterizing Urban Heterogeneity (Repeated info)

• Approaches: Biotope mapping, Ecotope mapping, PRIZM/Tapestry, Land use/Land cover classifications

Page 27: High Ecological Resolution Classification for Urban Landscapes

• HERCULES: Version describing urban spatial heterogeneity based on land cover criteria

Page 29: Elements in Urban Landscapes

• Categories: Buildings, Surfaces, Vegetation

• HERCULES criteria for classifying urban landscapes

Page 31: HERCULES Elements Details

• Features description in urban areas:

  • Cover types: paved, bare soil, woody, herbaceous

Page 33: HERCULES Patches

• Method: Visual photo interpretation for delineating patches in urban landscapes

Page 34: Classification Features

• Zhou et al. (2010) classification of landscape feature percentages based on visual interpretation

Page 35: Pixels in Remote Sensing

• Definition: Basic unit of analysis in remote sensing

• Importance in automating classification

Page 37: Pixel and Patch Concepts

• Pixel: Basic unit of analysis

• Patch: Homogeneous area differing from surroundings

Page 39: Automating Classification Process

• Two-step process:

  • Step 1: Patch delineation through visual interpretation

  • Step 2: Quantification of features using digital classification

Page 40: Urban Structure and Heterogeneity

• Exploration of urban structures and land cover models

• Pixel-based and Patch-based approaches compared

Page 41: Significance of Heterogeneity

• Link between spatial structure/pattern and ecological processes

• Importance of acknowledging spatial heterogeneity in studies.