PozziSmall2002 Istanbul

Information about PozziSmall2002 Istanbul

Published on September 28, 2007

Author: Samuel

Source: authorstream.com

Content

Vegetation and Population Density in Urban and Suburban Areas in the U.S.A. :  Vegetation and Population Density in Urban and Suburban Areas in the U.S.A. Francesca Pozzi Center for International Earth Science Information Network Columbia University New York, USA Christopher Small Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Columbia University New York, USA Istanbul, 11-13 June 2002 Objectives:  Objectives Characterize urban areas based on demographic and physical characteristics: Population Density Vegetation Abundance Examine consistency of relationship between the two variables in the USA Compare with existing land cover classification (USGS) Can this help us find alternative classification systems for urban areas? Case Study: The USA:  Case Study: The USA 6 cities with different geographic location, physical environment and urban growth dynamics Atlanta Chicago Los Angeles New York Phoenix Seattle Data: Population Density:  Data: Population Density 1990 US Census Bureau population counts at the block level (Spatial and tabular data) Density in people/km2 Data reprojected to UTM, Rasterized to 30 m, Co-registred to Landsat New York City Data: Vegetation Abundance:  Data: Vegetation Abundance Landsat TM data, circa 1990 Spectral reflectance of many urban areas can be described as linear mixing of: Low albedo High albedo Vegetation Linear un-mixing Fraction images showing areal % of each endmember within each pixel (0 to 1) Validation with IKONOS, accuracy within 10% Vegetation Fraction (White = 0, Dark Green = 1) Data: USGS National Land Cover Dataset:  Data: USGS National Land Cover Dataset Based on Landsat TM data Nominal-1992 acquisitions Modified Anderson LULC Classification System Selected 3 “Developed” classes: Low Intensity Residential High Intensity Residential Commercial/Industrial/Transportation USGS NLCD “Developed” classes (Light orange = LIR, Orange = HIR, Red = CIT) Analysis:  Analysis Analysis of population distributions across the entire U.S. Demographic Classification Quantification of the relationship between population density and vegetation fraction Bivariate distributions Marginal distributions Comparison with USGS NLCD Classes Distributions of areal extent of each USGS class as a function of population density and vegetation fraction Population Density Distribution in the U.S.:  Population Density Distribution in the U.S. Multimodal Distribution Modes are: Rural: pop. dens. <100 Suburban: 100 <pop.dens. < 10,000 Urban: pop. dens >10,000 people/km2 Grey line: Western US (west of the 90 ° W) Black line: Eastern US Geographic Distribution of U.S. Population:  Geographic Distribution of U.S. Population Demographic Classification:  Demographic Classification Population Density Demographic Classification Vegetation Fraction 3 Classes of population density  Demographic Classification Overlay with vegetation fraction Blue: Rural Green: Suburban Red: Urban Example: portion of Chicago Bivariate Distributions:  Bivariate Distributions Distributions of people as functions of Population Density and Vegetation Fraction Legend: warmer colors = higher numbers of people on Log scale Marginal Distributions:  Marginal Distributions Comparison with USGS NLCD Classes:  Comparison with USGS NLCD Classes Distributions of areal extent of each USGS “Developed” class as functions of population density and vegetation fraction Red: High Intensity Residential Green: Low Intensity Residential Blue: Commercial/Industrial/Transportation Comparison with USGS NLCD Classes:  Comparison with USGS NLCD Classes Visual comparison between Demographic Classification and USGS NLCD “Developed” Classes Legend: Blue: Rural/CIT Green: Suburban/LIR Red: Urban/HIR Cities: Top: Chicago Middle: New York Bottom: Los Angeles Conclusions:  Conclusions Population density distribution in the U.S. demographic classification (urban/suburban/rural) Vegetation cover is the most consistent spectral characteristics in suburban areas Spectral heterogeneity  wide range of vegetation fractions in demographically urban and suburban areas Not possible to consistently characterize urban and suburban areas in the U.S. based on reflectance characteristics at Landsat resolutions What next?:  What next? Emphasize results on quantitative characterization of vegetation abundance as means to provide physical basis for comparison of urban environments Explore classification schemes based on spectral heterogeneity at multiple pixel scales, supplemented by auxiliary data sources Demographic Classification for the year 2000 and urban sprawl analysis Thank you!:  Thank you! [email protected] http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/urban_rs

Related presentations


Other presentations created by Samuel

Explorer Pizarro
28. 02. 2008
0 views

Explorer Pizarro

Holy Qurbana
07. 04. 2008
0 views

Holy Qurbana

Overture OME Conf
27. 03. 2008
0 views

Overture OME Conf

Elizabethanol
21. 03. 2008
0 views

Elizabethanol

wsmo tutorial
18. 03. 2008
0 views

wsmo tutorial

A1Schengen
14. 03. 2008
0 views

A1Schengen

11174695641Carlo Dade
12. 03. 2008
0 views

11174695641Carlo Dade

Ashtongrcae
11. 03. 2008
0 views

Ashtongrcae

perry Oxstress
06. 03. 2008
0 views

perry Oxstress

seedcount presentation 003
04. 10. 2007
0 views

seedcount presentation 003

5 WATER CYCLE
06. 12. 2007
0 views

5 WATER CYCLE

AW9
07. 12. 2007
0 views

AW9

metadata and documentation
10. 12. 2007
0 views

metadata and documentation

nav5
07. 11. 2007
0 views

nav5

Idioms
16. 11. 2007
0 views

Idioms

CrsVR5
20. 11. 2007
0 views

CrsVR5

ch5
01. 01. 2008
0 views

ch5

hamamatsu
03. 01. 2008
0 views

hamamatsu

Rohan Shah Anti Dumping Issues
04. 01. 2008
0 views

Rohan Shah Anti Dumping Issues

aquaculture impacts
04. 01. 2008
0 views

aquaculture impacts

class09a
13. 11. 2007
0 views

class09a

artotSuB
19. 11. 2007
0 views

artotSuB

Ken Turbitt BMC Software
06. 11. 2007
0 views

Ken Turbitt BMC Software

radtrans07
14. 11. 2007
0 views

radtrans07

enzyme cofactors
04. 03. 2008
0 views

enzyme cofactors

35347
26. 02. 2008
0 views

35347

200701 PCC Bridges
29. 12. 2007
0 views

200701 PCC Bridges

xrtod comissioning diagnostics
09. 11. 2007
0 views

xrtod comissioning diagnostics

imageSlideshow
03. 10. 2007
0 views

imageSlideshow

fuchsia brands farm
29. 12. 2007
0 views

fuchsia brands farm

climate cop11 emilio sempris
23. 11. 2007
0 views

climate cop11 emilio sempris