Analysis of Scale Sensitivity of Landscape Indices for the Assessment of Urban Green Areas

도시녹지 평가를 위한 경관지수의 스케일 민감성 분석

  • Lee, In-Sung (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, University of Seoul) ;
  • Yoon, Eun-Joo (Housing & Urban Research Institute, KOREA National Housing Corporation)
  • 이인성 (서울시립대학교 조경학과) ;
  • 윤은주 (대한주택공사 주택도시연구원)
  • Published : 2008.06.30


Landscape indices are effective tools to explain the spatial structure and patterns of ecological landscape including area/density, shape, core area, isolation/proximity, contagion/interspersion, and connectivity. More than 100 indices have been developed and an increasing amount of research explains changes in urban spaces using the indices. However, landscape indices have a high level of sensitivity to the scale of analysis - grain size and extent. If the scale sensitivity of indices is not considered, the research may produce inaccurate results. This study examines the scale sensitivity of landscape indices to find relatively stable indices in the complex geographical features of Korea. The scale sensitivity was analyzed using 20 categories of grain size and 41 categories of extent change. Landsat TM and ETM+ images of five years - 1985, 1991, 1996, 2000 and 2003 - were used, and 54 class level indices mounted on the FRAGSTATS program were examined. The results are as follows: First, according to the analysis of the scale sensitivity, 19 out of 54 class level indices were found to be stable to scale change. Second, the scale sensitivity was closely related to the green area ratio, and the typical threshold of change was $40{\sim}50%$. Third, among the 16 indices which were frequently used in the research in Korea, only 6 indices were relatively stable to the scale change. These results can be an effective basis for the selection of indices in the landscape ecology research in Korea.


  1. 국토연구원(2003) GIS 기반 공간분석방법론 개발 연구
  2. 김현옥(1999) 도시산림 분석을 위한 인공위성 영상자료의 분류기법 연구. 서울시립대학교 대학원 석사학위논문
  3. 김훈희, 심우경, 이진희(1999) 도농통합지역의 녹지환경정비모델에 관한 연구 2 - 천안의 녹지구조변화를 중심으로 -. 한국조경학회지 26(4): 105-112
  4. 박경훈, 정성관, 이현택, 오정학, 김경태(2004) 금호강 유역 산림의 경관생태적 패턴분석, 한국지리정보학회지 7(3): 22-34
  5. 박소윤(2003) GIS를 활용한 산림생태계 평가에 있어 경관지수 기법의 적용방안. 대구가톨릭대학교 석사학위논문
  6. 손학기, 김원주, 박종화(2000) GIS 공간유형분석 모형을 이용한 경관 규모 생태계의 평가기법. 한국GIS 학회지 8(2): 233-241
  7. 안동만, 김명수(1996) 도시공원의 경관생태학적 분석 - 패취의 형태지수와 분산도 분석을 중심으로. 한국조경학회지 23(4): 12-19
  8. 안동만, 김명수(2003) 환경친화적인 도시공원녹지계획 연구. 한국조경학회지 31(1): 34-41
  9. 오정학, 박경훈, 정성관, 이종원(2005) 경관 메트릭스를 이용한 금호강 유역 산림경관의 시.공간적 변화탐지. 한국지리정보학회지 8(2): 81-94
  10. 오충원(2002) 가변적 공간 단위의 문제를 고려한 지가 변동의 시공간 분석. 한국GIS학회지 10(2): 185-199
  11. 이상우(2003) 최근 미국 조경생태학의 새로운 연구동향과 전망 (1) : 지리생태학적 접근방법의 대두. 환경과 조경 2003년 2월호
  12. 이상우, 윤은주, 이인성(2004) 경관생태지수 사용에 대한 고려사항과 문제점에 관한 고찰. 한국조경학회지 32(5): 73-83
  13. 이응경(1998) Trend of forest fragmentation in the lower region of the Han River basin. 서울대학교 환경대학원 석사학위논문
  14. 정성관, 박경훈, 오정학(2002b) 낙동강 유역의 선형개발사업이 산림 단편화에 미치는 영향. 환경영향평가 11(3): 117-127
  15. 정성관, 오정학, 박경훈(2002a) 토지이용변화에 따른 경산시의 경관구조 분석. 한국지리정보학회지 5(3): 9-18
  16. 정성관, 오정학, 박경훈(2003) 도시경관계획수립을 위한 경관파편화에 관한 연구. 한국지리정보학회지 6(3): 11-20
  17. 정종철(1999) 식생지수에 의한 경관파편화의 해석기법. 한국지리정보학회지 2(3) :16-22
  18. 최원영, 정성관, 박경훈, 오정학, 유주한, 김경태(2005) 대구광역도시권의 시.공간적 경관구조 변화패턴 분석. 한국지리정보학회지 8(2): 175-185
  19. Antrop, M. and V. V. Eetvelde(2000) Holistic aspects of suburban landscapes: visual image interpretation and landscape metrics. Landscape and Urban Planning 50: 43-58
  20. Cain, D. H., K. Riitters and K. Orvis(1997) A multi-scale analysis of landscape statistics. Landscape Ecology 12: 199-212
  21. Elkie, P., R. Rempel and A. Carr(1999) Patch analyst user's manual(NWST Technology Manual TM-002). Ontario
  22. Frohn, R. C.(1998) Remote sensing for landscape ecology: New metric indicators for monitoring, modeling, and assessment of ecosystem. Lewis Publishers, New York, NY
  23. Frohn, R. C., K. C. McGwire, V. H. Dale and J. E. Estes(1996) Using satellite remote sensing analysis to evaluate a socio-economic and ecological model of deforestation in Rondonia, Brazil. International Journal of Remote Sensing 17(16): 3233-3255
  24. Frohn, R. C. and Y. Hao(2006) Landscape metric performance in analyzing two decades of deforestation in the Amazon Basin of Rondonia, Brazil. Remote Sensing of Environment 100: 237 - 251
  25. Gardner, R. H.(1999) RULE: map generation and a spatial analysis program. In: Klopatek J. M., Gardner R. H. (Eds.), Landscape ecological analysis: Issues and applications. Springer, New York
  26. Griffith, J. A., E. A. Martinko and K. P. Price(2000) Landscape structure analysis of Kansas at three scales. Landscape and Urban Planning 53 : 45-61
  27. Hargis, C. D., J. A. Bissonette and D. L. Turner(1998) The influence of forest fragmentation and landscape pattern on American Martens. Journal of Applied Ecology 36: 157-172
  28. Li, H. and J. Wu(2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landscape Ecology 19: 389-399
  29. Li, X., H. S. He, R. Bu, Q. Wen, Y. Chang, Y. Hu and Y. Li(2005) The adequacy of different landscape metrics for various landscape patterns. Pattern Recognition 38: 2626-2638.
  30. Mcgarigal, K. and B. Marks(1995) FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351, USDA, Pacific Northwest Research Station
  31. McGarigal, K.(2002) Landscape pattern metrics. Encyclopedia of environmentrics Vol. 2: 1135-1142. John Wiley & Sons, Sussex, England
  32. Openshaw, S. and P. J. Taylor, 1981, The modifiable areal unit problem. In: Quantitative geography: A British view. Edited by N. Wrigley and R. Bennett. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London
  33. Mladenoff, D. J. and B. DeZonia(2001) APACK 2.22. Software User's Guide. Department of Forest Ecology and Management, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.,Available online at: http://land scape. APACK/apack. html.
  34. Morrison M.A. and HallOpenshaw., S., A 1977, geographic solution to scale and aggregation problems in region building, partitioning and spatial modeling. Institute of British Geographers, Transactions 2. pp.459-472
  35. Openshaw, S.(1977) 'A geographical solution to scale and aggregation problems in region-building, partitioning and spatial modeling'. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. New Series 2, pp. 459-472
  36. Openshaw, S. and P. J. Taylor(1981), The modifiable areal unit problem. In: Quantitative geography: A British view. pp. 60-69. Edited by N. Wrigley and R. Bennett. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London
  37. Ricotta, C., P. Corona and M. Marchetti(2003) Beware of contagion. Landscape and Urban Planning 62: 173-177
  38. Saura, S. and J. Martinez-Millan(2000) Landscape patterns simulation with a modified random clusters method. Landscape Ecology 15(7): 661-78
  39. Saura, S.(2002) Effects of minimum mapping unit on land cover spatial configuration and composition. International Journal of Remote Sensing 23(22): 4853-4880
  40. Saura, S.(2004) Effects of remote sensor spatial resolution and data aggregation on selected fragmentation indices. Landscape Ecology 19: 197-209
  41. Shen, W., G. D. Jenerette, J. Wu and R. H. Gardner(2004) Evaluating empirical scaling relations of pattern metrics with simulated landscapes. ECOGRAPHY 27: 459-469
  42. Turner, M. G., R. H. Gardner and R. V. O'Neill(2001) Landscape ecology in theory and practice: Pattern and process. Springer, New York, NY
  43. Wu, J.(2004) Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: Scaling relations. Landscape Ecology 19: 125-138
  44. Wu, J., D. E. Jelinsk, M. Luck and P. T. Tueller(2000) Multiscale analysis of landscape heterogeneity: Scale variance and pattern metrics. Geographic Information Sciences 6(1): 6-19
  45. Wu, J., W. Shen, W. Sun and P. T. Tueller(2002) Empirical pattern of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landscape Ecology 17: 761-782