Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Derivation of a yearly transition probability matrix for land-use dynamics and its applications

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Transition matrices have often been used in landscape ecology and GIS studies of land-use to quantitatively estimate the rate of change. When transition matrices for different observation periods are compared, the observation intervals often differ because satellite images or photographs of the research site taken at constant time intervals may not be available. If the observation intervals differ, the transition probabilities cannot be compared without calculating a transition matrix with the normalized observation interval. For such calculation, several previous studies have utilized a linear algebra formula of the power root of matrices. However, three difficulties may arise when applying this formula to a practical dataset from photographs of a research site. We examined the first difficulty, namely that plural solutions could exist for a yearly transition matrix, which implies that there could be multiple scenarios for the same transition in land-use change. Using data for the Abukuma Mountains in Japan and the Selva el Ocote Biosphere Reserve in Mexico, we then looked at the second difficulty, in which we may obtain no positive Markovian matrix and only a matrix partially consisting of negative numbers. We propose a way to calibrate a matrix with some negative transition elements and to estimate the prediction error. Finally, we discuss the third difficulty that arises when a new land-use category appears at the end of the observation period and how to solve it. We developed a computer program to calculate and calibrate the yearly matrices and to estimate the prediction error.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker WL (1989a) Landscape ecology and nature reserve design in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota. Ecology 70:23–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker WL (1989b) A review of models of landscape change. Landscape Ecol 2:111–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braimoh AK (2006) Random and systematic land-cover transitions in Northern Ghana. Agric Ecosyst Environ 113(1–4):254–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braimoh AK, Vlek PLG (2004) Land-cover dynamics in an urban area of Ghana. Earth Interact 8:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Cinlar E (1975) Introduction to stochastic processes. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehlers M, Jadkowski MA, Howard RR et al (1990) Application of SPOT data for regional growth analysis and local planning. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 56:175–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Flamenco-Sandoval A, Ramos MM, Masera OR (2007) Assessing implications of land-use and land-cover change dynamics for conservation of a highly diverse tropical rain forest. Biol Conserv 138:131–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner RH, Milne BT, Turner MG, O’Neill RV (1987) Neutral models for the analysis of broad-scale landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol 1:19–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ, Parker GR (1992) Relationships between landcover proportion and indices of landscape spatial pattern. Landscape Ecol 7(2):101–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hathout S (2002) The use of GIS for monitoring and predicting urban growth in East and West St. Paul, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Can J Environ Manag 66:229–238

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kachi N, Yasuoka Y, Totsuka T et al (1986) A stochastic model for describing re-vegetation following forest cutting—an application of remote sensing. Ecol Model 32:105–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambin EF, Geist HJ (2006) Land-use and land-cover change. Springer Verlag, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis HG, Brown M (2001) A generalized confusion matrix for assessing area estimates from remotely sensed data. Int J Remote Sensing 22(16):3223–3235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipschutz S (1979) Probabilities, course et problems. Série Schaum, McGraw-Hill, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo CP, Yang X (2002) Drivers of land-use/land-cover changes and dynamic modeling for the Atlanta, Georgia metropolitan area. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 68(10):1073–1082

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertens B, Lambin E (2000) Land-cover-change trajectories in southern Cameroon. Ann Ass Am Geogr 90(3):467–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messerli B (1997) Geography in a rapidly changing world. Int Geogr Bull 47:65–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer WB, Turner BL II (1991) Changes in land use and land cover: a global perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Sensing 26:2831–2849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petit C, Scudder T, Lambin E (2001) Quantifying processes of land-cover change by remote sensing: resettlement and rapid land-cover changes in south-eastern Zambia. Int J Remote Sensing 22:3435–3456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pontius RG Jr (2002) Statistical methods to partition effects of quantity and location during comparison of categorical maps at multiple resolutions. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 68(10):1041–1049

    Google Scholar 

  • Pontius RG Jr, Cheuk ML (2006) A generalized cross-tabulation matrix to compare soft-classified maps at multiple resolutions. Int J Geogr Info Sci 20(1):1–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pontius RG Jr, Shusas E, McEachern M (2004) Detecting important categorical land changes while accounting for persistence. Agric Ecosyst Environ 101(2–3):251–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG (1990) Spatial and temporal analysis of landscape patterns. Landscape Ecol 4(1):21–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Dale VH, Gardner RH (1989) Predicting across scales: theory development and testing. Landscape Ecol 3(3/4):245–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner BL II, Lambin EF, Reenberg A (2007) The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. PNAS 104:2066–2071

    Google Scholar 

  • Usher MB (1981) Modeling ecological succession, with particular reference to Markovian models. Vegetatio 46–7:11–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We express our sincere thanks to Masahiro Ichikawa, Takashi Kohyama, Toru Nakashizuka, and Ken-Ichi Akao for their helpful suggestions. Prof. Ichikawa encouraged us to continue this study. Profs. Kohyama and Nakashizuka provided the opportunity to solve the mechanism of the dynamics of land use. Prof. Akao provided mathematical advice at an early stage of our study. This research was funded in part by Grants-in-Aid from the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) for Scientific Research (nos. A-21247006, B-20370006 and B-21310152) and project 2–2 “Sustainability and Biodiversity Assessment on Forest Utilization Options” and D-04 of the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takenori Takada.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 66 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Takada, T., Miyamoto, A. & Hasegawa, S.F. Derivation of a yearly transition probability matrix for land-use dynamics and its applications. Landscape Ecol 25, 561–572 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9433-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9433-x

Keywords

Navigation