Drivers Of Land Use Change Analysis

Drivers Of Land Use Change Analysis Average ratng: 3,3/5 7024 reviews
Gis
  1. Change Analysis Example
  2. Driver Analysis In Excel

Change Analysis Example

Drivers

AN ANALYSIS OF LAND USE AND LAND COVER DYNAMICS AND CAUSATIVE DRIVERS IN A THICKLY POPULATED YAMUNA RIVER BASIN OF INDIA BANSAL, S.1. – SRIVASTAV, S. K.1 – ROY, P. S.2 – KRISHNAMURTHY, Y. N.3 1Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Indian Space Research Organisation, 4-Kalidas Road, Dehradun 248001, India (email: sksrivastav@iirs.gov.in). LAND USE AND LAND COVER CHANGE, DRIVERS AND ITS IMPACT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY FROM KUHAR MICHAEL AND LENCHE DIMA OF BLUE NILE AND AWASH BASINS OF ETHIOPIA A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Professional Studies By Hussien Ali Oumer.

Driver Analysis In Excel

  1. Alberti, M., Weeks, R. and Coe, S.: 2004, ‘Urban land cover change analysis for the Central Puget Sound’, J. Photogrammetry Remote Sens. 70, 1043–1052.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, C. L. and Gibbons, C. J.: 1996, ‘Impervious surface coverage: Emergence of a key environmental indicator,’ JAMA62, 243–258.Google Scholar
  3. Berk, A., Bernstein, L. S. and Robertson, D. C.: 1989, MODTRAN: A Moderate Resolution Model for LOWTRAN 7, Report No. GL-TR-89-0122, Geophysics Lab, Bedford, MA.Google Scholar
  4. Bolton, S. and Watts, A.: 1998, Results from Forest Hydrology Studies: Is There a Lesson for Urban Planners? Salmon in the City Conference, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  5. Booth, D. B. and Jackson, C. J.: 1997, ‘Urbanization of aquatic systems – Degradation thresholds, stormwater detention, and the limits of mitigation,’ Water Resourc. Bull. 33, 1077–1090.Google Scholar
  6. Chavez, P. J.: 1988, ‘An improved dark-object subtraction technique for atmospheric scattering correction of multispectral data,’ Remote Sens. Environ. 24, 459–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coppin, P. and Bauer, M.: 1996, ‘Digital change detection in forest ecosystems with remote sensing imagery,’ Remote Sens. Rev. 13, 207–234.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, A. W.: 2002, Integrating Science and Policy: A Case Study of the Best Available Science Amendment to the Washington State Growth Management Act, and Vegetative Land Cover Change in the Greater Puget Sound Area: 1986–1999, M.S. Thesis, Department of Urban Planning, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  9. Dale, V. H., Brown, S., Haeuber, R. A., Hobbs, N. T., Huntly, N., Naiman, R. J., Riebsame, W. E., Turner, M. G. and Valone, T. J.: 2000, ‘Ecological principles and guidelines for managing the use of land,’ Ecol. Appl. 10, 639–670.Google Scholar
  10. Davenport, M. L. and Nicholson, S. E.: 1993, ‘On the relation between rainfall and the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index for diverse vegetation types in East Africa,’ Int. J. Remote Sens. 14, 2369–2389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deering, D. W., Rouse, J. W., Jr., Haas, R. H. and Schell, J. A.: 1975, ‘Measuring Forage Production of Grazing Units from Landsat MSS Data,’ in Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  12. Finlayson, D. P., Haugerud, R. and Greenberg, R.: 2001, Building a Seamless Digital Elevation Model of the Puget Sound Basin, Puget Sound Regional Research 2001, Report by the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, Olympia, WA.Google Scholar
  13. Franklin, J. F. and Dyrness, C. T.: 1988, Natural Vegetation of Washington and Oregon, Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.Google Scholar
  14. Furby, S. L.: 2001, ‘Calibrating images from different dates to ‘like-value’ digital counts,’ Remote Sens. Environ. 77, 186–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grove, J. M. and Burch, W. R., Jr.: 1997, ‘A social ecology approach and application of urban ecosystem and landscape analysis: A case study of Baltimore Maryland,’ Urban Ecosys. 1, 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horner, R. R. and May, C. W.: 1998, Watershed Urbanization and the Decline of Salmon in Puget Sound Streams. Salmon in the City Conference, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  17. Lillesand, T. M. and Kiefer, R. W.: 2000, Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Lyon, J. G., Yuan, D., Lunetta, R. S. and Elvidge, C. D.: 1998, ‘A change detection experiment using Vegetation Indices,’ Photogrammetric Eng. Remote Sens. 64, 143–150.Google Scholar
  19. Machlis, G. E., Force, J. E. and Burch, W. R., Jr.: 1997, ‘The human ecosystem part 1: The human ecosystem as an organizing concept in ecosystem management,’ Soc. Nat. Resourc. 10, 347–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marzluff, J. M. and Ewing, K.: 2001, ‘Restoration of fragmented andscapes for the conservation of birds: A general framework and specific recommendations for urbanizing landscapes,’ Restor. Ecol. 9, 280–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mas, J. F.: 1999, ‘Monitoring land-cover changes: A comparison of change detection techniques,’ Int. J. Remote Sens. 20, 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mather, P.: 1987, Computer Processing of Remotely-Sensed Images: An Introduction, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  23. May, C., Horner, R., Karr, J. R., Mar, B. W. and Welch, E. B.: 2002, ‘The cumulative effects of urbanization on small streams in the Puget Sound Lowland Ecoregion,’ Watershed Protection Tech. 2, 483–494.Google Scholar
  24. McDonnell, M. J., Pickett, S. T. A. and Pouyat, R. V.: 1993, ‘Application of the Ecological Gradient Paradigm to the Study of Urban Effects,’ in: M. J. McDonnell and S. T. A. Pickett (eds.), Humans as Components of Ecosystems, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 175–189.Google Scholar
  25. Minor, T. B., Lancaster, J., Wade, T. G., Wickham, J. D., Whitford, W. and Jones, K. B.: 1999, ‘Evaluating change in rangeland condition using multitemporal AVHRR data and Geographic Information System Analysis,’ Environ. Monit. Assess. 59, 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mucher, C. A., Steinnocher, K. T., Kressler, F. P. and Heunks, C.: 2000, ‘Land cover characterization and change detection for environmental monitoring of pan-Europe,’ Int. J. Remote Sens. 21, 1159–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murphy, M.: 1998, Washington's Dynamic Forests: A Study of Forests and Forest Issues. League of Women Voters of Washington Education Fund, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  28. Naiman, R. J., Decamps, H. and Pollock, M.: 1993, ‘The role of Riparian Corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity,’ Ecol. Appl. 3, 209–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nelson, R. F.: 1983, Detecting forest canopy change due to insect activity using Landsat MSS,’ Photogrammetric Eng. Remote Sens. 10, 1243–1251.Google Scholar
  30. Nemani, R., Pierce, L. and Running, S.: 1993, ‘Forest ecosystem processes at the watershed scale: Sensitivity to remotely-sensed Leaf Area Index estimates,’ Int. J. Remote Sens. 14, 2519–2534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Noaa: 2001, Climatological Data, World Data Center for Meteorology, Asheville, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC.Google Scholar
  32. Owen, T. W., Carlson, T. N. and Gillies, R. R.: 1998, ‘An assessment of satellite remotely-sensed land cover parameters in quantitatively describing the climatic effect of urbanization,’ Int. J. Remote Sens. 19, 1663–1681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pickett, S. T. A., Burch, W. R., Jr., Dalton, S. E., Foresman, T. W., Grove, J. M. and Rowantree, R. A.: 1997, ‘A conceptual framework for the study of human ecosystems in urban areas,’ Urban Ecosys. 1, 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pickett, S. T. A. and Rogers, K. H.: 1997, ‘Patch dynamics: The Transformation of Landscape Structure and Function,’ in: J. A. Bissonnette (ed.), Wildlife and Landscape Ecology, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 101–127.Google Scholar
  35. Puget Sound Regional Council: 2001, Decennial Change in Population and Land Area of Cities, Towns, and Counties in the Central Puget Sound: 1990 to 2000, Census 2000.Google Scholar
  36. Schueler, T.: 1994, ‘The importance of imperviousness,’ Watershed Prot. Tech. 1, 100–111.Google Scholar
  37. Singh, A.: 1989, ‘Digital change detection techniques using remotely sensed data,’ Int. J. Remote Sens. 10, 989–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stefanov, W. L.: 2001, ‘Monitoring urban land cover change: An expert system approach to land cover classification of semiarid to urban centers,’ Remote Sens. Environ. 77, 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Townsend, J. R. G., Justice, C. O., Gurney, C. and McManus, J.: 1992, ‘The impact of misregistration on change detection,’ IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 30, 1054–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division: 2000, Census Tract Census 2000 TIGER/Line Files, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  41. UN: 2002, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2001 Revision, United Nations.Google Scholar
  42. USGS: 1999, Landsat-7 Level-0 and Level-1 Data Sets Document, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA, NOAA/National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, and NASA.Google Scholar
  43. Vitousek, P. M., 1994, ‘Beyond global warming: Ecology and global change,’ Ecology75, 1861–1876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Waddell, P. and Alberti, M.: 2000, ‘Integrated Simulation of Real Estate Development and Land Cover Change,’ in: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Integrating Geographic Information Systems GIS and Environmental Modeling, Banff, Canada.Google Scholar
  45. Wu, J.: 1999, ‘Hierarchy and scaling: Extrapolating information along a scaling ladder,’ Can. J. Remote Sens. 25, 367–380.Google Scholar
  46. Wu, J. and Loucks, O. L.: 1995, ‘From balance of nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: A paradigm shift in ecology,’ Quart. Rev. Biol. 70, 439–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yuan, D. and Elvidge, C. D.: 1998, ‘NALC land cover change detection pilot study: Washington D.C. area experiments,’ Remote Sens. Environ. 66, 166–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. ZAR, J. H.: 1996, Biostatistical Analysis, Simon & Schuster/A Viacom Company, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar