Spatiotemporal analysis of land use/cover changes in Nanchang area, China

Figures & data

Figure 1. Location of study area, with RGB composite map from Landsat-5 TM, 2010.

Table 1. Land use/cover categories for which changes were detected during study period.

Land use/cover category	General description
Cultivated land	Areas of agricultural activities, mainly including paddy fields, dry land, fallow land, bare fields and others
Forests	Areas covered by trees forming canopies, mainly including woodlands, shrub lands, open woodlands, orchards and others
Urban and industrial land	Areas mainly including the city of Nanchang, surrounding counties, independent factories, newly established construction land and others
Rural settlements	Areas composed of small villages and/or scattered hamlets in rural areas
Rivers and bottomlands	Areas covered by perennial and seasonal rivers and nearby bottomlands
Ponds and reservoirs	Areas covered by small, enclosed water bodies, mainly including lakes, reservoirs, ponds, water for aquaculture and others
Others	Areas composed of major highways outside the old city that could be extracted as polygon features, and regions that could not be attributed to the categories above

Figure 2. Land use/cover distribution in study area in 1989 (a), and 2010 (b), derived from Landsat TM data.

Table 2. Observed sample matrix (confusion matrix), with classifications for 2010 (numbers in bold) and 1989 (numbers in italics).

	Cultivated land	Forests	Urban and industrial land	Rural settlements	Rivers and bottomlands	Ponds and reservoirs	Others	Total	Producer's accuracy (%)
Cultivated land	82	1	7	2	3	2	0	97	84.54
	90	0	4	2	1	0	0	97	92.78
	56	0	3	0	0	1	0	60	93.33
	57	0	2	0	0	1	0	60	95.00
Forests	5	95	1	0	0	0	0	101	94.06
	0	100	1	0	0	0	0	101	99.01
	1	50	0	0	0	1	0	52	96.15
	0	52	0	0	0	0	0	52	100.00
Urban and industrial land	4	4	88	0	0	1	1	98	89.80
	3	2	91	0	0	1	1	98	92.86
	1	0	50	0	0	0	0	51	98.04
	0	0	51	0	0	0	0	51	100.00
Rural settlements	1	0	2	100	0	0	0	103	97.09
	0	0	2	101	0	0	0	103	98.06
	0	0	0	65	0	0	0	65	100.00
	0	0	0	65	0	0	0	65	100.00
Rivers and bottomlands	2	0	0	0	79	1	0	82	96.34
	0	0	0	0	81	1	0	82	98.78
	1	0	0	0	73	0	0	74	98.65
	1	0	0	0	73	0	0	74	98.65
Ponds and reservoirs	2	0	4	0	0	92	0	98	93.88
	2	0	2	0	0	94	0	98	95.92
	2	1	0	0	0	61	1	65	93.85
	0	0	0	0	0	64	1	65	98.46
Others	0	0	0	0	0	0	11	11	100.00
	0	0	0	0	0	0	11	11	100.00
	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	3	100.00
	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	3	100.00
Total	96	100	102	102	82	96	12	590
	95	102	100	103	82	96	12	590
	61	51	53	65	73	63	4	370
	58	52	53	65	73	65	4	370
User's accuracy (%)	85.42	95.00	86.27	98.04	96.34	95.83	91.67		92.71
	94.74	98.04	91.00	98.06	98.78	97.92	91.67		96.27
	91.80	98.04	94.34	100.00	100.00	96.83	75.00		96.76
	98.28	100.00	96.23	100.00	100.00	98.46	75.00		98.65

Notes: Underlined numbers represent the observed accuracy for the grid density indicators.

Figure 3. (a) Persistence, loss, gain and total proportions of LUCC calculated from Table 3; (b) observed transition intensities between categories, compared with uniform intensity that would exist if the change was distributed uniformly over entire spatial extent (Aldwaik and Pontius 2012).

Table 3. Cross-tabulation matrix indicating systematic transition among categories.

To/From	Cultivated land (0.42)	Forests (0.04)	Urban and industrial land (1.35)	Rural settlements (0.06)	Rivers and bottomlands (0.01)	Ponds and reservoirs (0.18)	Others (0.04)
From
Cultivated land (2.00)	328.68	7.16	177.47	9.80	1.03	27.45	5.21
		0.80	2.83	1.97	0.06	1.60	3.11
		0.06	1.52	0.08	0.01	0.23	0.04
Forests (0.10)	6.81	35.06	10.18	0.20	0	0.02	0.48
	0.09		0.16	0.04	0.00	0.00	0.29
	0.61		0.92	0.02	0.00	0.00	0.04
Urban and industrial land (0.01)	0.51	0.08	59.63	0.01	0.07	0.01	0.09
	0.01	0.01		0.00	0.00	0.00	0.05
	0.04	0.01		0.00	0.01	0.00	0.01
Rural settlements (0.09)	2.85	0.12	14.25	13.34	0	0.09	0.08
	0.04	0.01	0.23		0.00	0.01	0.05
	0.44	0.02	2.21		0.00	0.01	0.01
Rivers and bottomlands (0.19)	10.20	0.08	16.43	0.25	86.38	4.31	0.95
	0.14	0.01	0.26	0.05		0.25	0.57
	0.41	0.00	0.66	0.01		0.17	0.04
Ponds and reservoirs (0.17)	9.55	0.17	19.36	0.04	0.11	49.80	0.53
	0.13	0.02	0.31	0.01	0.01		0.32
	0.57	0.01	1.16	0.00	0.01		0.03
Others (0.01)	0.10	0	1.50	0	0.00	0.00	0.63
	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.00	0.00	0.00
	0.21	0.00	3.20	0.00	0.00	0.00

Notes: Numbers in bold are observed areas (km²) of persistence of each land category on the main diagonal, and change off the main diagonal, during 1989–2010. Percentages and areas shown in the paper from Table 3 were all calculated based on the data. The number in italics is the intensity of transition per gross loss. Numbers in parentheses in “From” columns represent the uniform distribution of transitions across the area that is possible for that transition, given the empirical gross loss of the category. Numbers in italics that are larger than the uniform intensity indicate a greater loss tendency for that category. Underlined numbers represent the intensity of transition per gross gain. Numbers in parentheses in “To” rows represent the uniform distribution of transitions across the area that is possible for that transition, given the empirical gross gain of the category. Numbers in italics that are larger than the uniform intensity indicate a greater tendency toward gain for that category. Transition intensity was calculated using a method developed by Aldwaik and Pontius (2012).

Table 4. Changes in number and average area (km²) of patches of each category during 1989–2010 (percentages of the changes were calculated based on category data for 1989).

	1989		2010		Quantitative changes		Average area changes
Category	Number	Average area	Number	Average area	Number	Percent	Area	Percent
Cultivated land	42	13.26	142	2.53	100	238.10	−10.73	−80.92
Forests	180	0.29	98	0.44	−82	−45.56	0.15	51.72
Urban and industrial land	35	1.73	48	6.23	13	37.14	4.5	260.12
Rural settlements	755	0.04	412	0.06	−343	−45.43	0.02	50.00
Rivers and bottomlands	38	3.12	76	1.15	38	100.00	−1.97	−63.14
Ponds and reservoirs	120	0.66	134	0.61	14	11.67	−0.05	−7.58
Others	5	0.45	11	0.72	6	120.00	0.27	60.00

Figure 4. (a) Geographic distribution of gain, loss and persistence of urban and industrial land during 1989–2010; (b) grid numbers within subranges of density change; (c) cumulative densities of grids versus density values within subranges.

Figure 5. (a) Geographic distribution of gain, loss and persistence of rural settlements during 1989–2010; (b) grid numbers within subranges of density change; (c) cumulative densities of grids versus density values within subranges.

Figure 6. (a) Geographic distribution of gain, loss and persistence of cultivated land during 1989–2010; (b) grid numbers within subranges of density change; (c) cumulative densities of grids versus density values within subranges.

Figure 7. (a) Geographic distribution of gain, loss and persistence of forests during 1989–2010; (b) grid numbers within subranges of density change; (c) cumulative densities of grids versus density values within subranges.

Figure 8. (a) Geographic distribution of gain, loss and persistence of ponds and reservoirs during 1989–2010; (b) grid numbers within subranges of density change; (c) cumulative densities of grids versus density values within subranges.

Figure 9. (a) Geographic distribution of gain, loss and persistence of rivers and bottomlands during 1989–2010; (b) grid numbers within subranges of density change; (c) cumulative densities of grids versus density values within subranges.

Aldwaik, S. Z., and R. G. Pontius. 2012. “Intensity Analysis to Unify Measurements of Size and Stationarity of Land Changes by Interval, Category, and Transition.” Landscape and Urban Planning 106 (1): 103–114. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.02.010.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar