| Literature DB >> 35765368 |
Abstract
The present study performs landcover modelling using the SLEUTH model. The urban land use changing factors are calibrated to predict the Land Use Land Cover (LULC) for a densely populated and developing smart city, Prayagraj, India. This research aims to use the SLEUTH model for simulating the future urban growth with the help of historical LULC (1990-2020), road network and elevation data. The influence of road gravity and slope resistant coefficients is very significant in this study's outcome. The built-up area of the region increased from 40.22 km2 (5.10% of total area) in 1990 to 85.89 km2 (10.89%) in 2020. According to prediction results, in the next 20 years, the built-up growth rate would be 1.9% and approximated built-up area would be 118.66 km2 (14.98%) in the year 2040. The quality of the result has been quantified in terms of best fit value of Optimal SLEUTH Metric (OSM) and validated against the existing LULC. The study utilises a spatially explicit urban growth model with 30 m resolution remote sensing data and provides future landuse of Prayagraj city.Entities:
Keywords: Prediction; SLEUTH model; Scenario-based planning; Smart city; Urban LULC calibration
Year: 2022 PMID: 35765368 PMCID: PMC9223261 DOI: 10.1007/s13762-022-04331-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Sci Technol (Tehran) ISSN: 1735-1472 Impact factor: 3.519
Comparison of LULC prediction models
| Characteristics | Cellular Automata | Markov chain | CA- Markov | SLEUTH | LCM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable input needed | Built-up pixel cells | LULC map | LULC maps, suitability maps | LULC, slope, exclusion, transportation network, urban, hillshade | LULC, independen |
| Support Data format | ASCII | Raster image | Raster image | Raster GIF | Raster-RST (Idrisi) |
| Cost/Price | Free | Free | Free | Free | Commercial |
| Land suitability | Feasible | Unlikely | Feasible | Unlikely | Feasible |
| Public/expert knowledge | Yes, but not essential | Yes, but not essential | Yes, but not essential | Not required | Not required |
| Application type | Stand-alone | Stand-alone/software | Stand-alone/Software | Cygwin (Unix platform) | Components of IDRISI |
| Stability | High | High | High | High | Low |
| Output | Predicted cellular information | Transition probability maps, LULC predicted area | Predict multiclass map | Transition driving coefficients, predicted raster | Predicted geospatial raster, transition vulnerability map |
| Shortcomings | Human behaviour influence not included and allows modelling for a single feature | Predicts output in non-geospatial format and depends upon two temporal images for predicting change over the time | Lacks in input variables such as slope, aspect, elevation etc. and presence of non-real edges on modelled map | Involves tedious calibration process | Lack of population data inclusion |
Growth rules description and relation with coefficients in SLEUTH (Dietzel and Clarke 2007)
| Growth rule | Influencing coefficients | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Spontaneous growth | Dispersion, Slope | Conversion of random non-urban cell to urban cell |
| Spreading centre growth | Breed, Slope | Some of the new spontaneously urbanised cells become a new urban spreading centre |
| Edge growth | Spread, Slope | Define occurrence of urban growth from existing urban spreading centres |
| Road influenced growth | Breed, Road gravity, Dispersion, Slope | Define attraction of urbanisation from existing traffic roads |
Fig. 1The study area containing the city ward boundary and 5 km buffer region
SLEUTH model input dataset details
| Dataset | Acquisition date/ Year | Spatial Resolution | Row/Path | Cloud Cover % | File Format |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Landsat-5 TM | 25 May, 1990 | 30 m | 42/143 | 0.00 | Tiff |
| Landsat-5 TM | 20 March, 1995 | 30 m | 42/143 | 0.00 | Tiff |
| Landsat-7 ETM + | 25 March, 2000 | 30 m | 42/143 | 0.00 | Tiff |
| Landsat-5 TM | 29 March, 2010 | 30 m | 42/143 | 0.00 | Tiff |
| Landsat-8 OLI | 24 March, 2020 | 30 m | 42/143 | 0.17 | Tiff |
| Ward map | 2012 | NA | NA | NA | Tiff |
| Topographical map | 2000 | NA | NA | NA | Tiff |
| OpenStreetMap | 2020 | NA | NA | NA | Shapefile |
| SRTM DEM (1arc second) | 2000 | 30 m | NA | NA | Tiff |
Fig. 2Methodology for input layer creation
LULC class description
| Landuse feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Fallow land | It is the open land where the soil is not sand and currently not used for agriculture |
| Sand | The coarse-grained white sand which is present alongside of the rivers |
| Urban | It includes the built-up and human settlement. Concrete settlement such as residential, commercial, mixed-use surface areas, asphalt and bituminous road pavements etc |
| Vegetation | It includes the clustered green cover, which includes cropland, trees, bushes etc |
| Water | It includes rivers, lakes, ponds, etc |
Fig. 3Methodology for executing the SLEUTH model
Fig. 4LULC maps of the study area
LULC area in different years in km.2
| LULC | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classes | Area | % | Area | % | Area | % | Area | % | Area | % |
| Fallow land | 430.59 | 54.61 | 239.99 | 30.44 | 247.02 | 31.33 | 332.19 | 42.13 | 343.52 | 43.56 |
| Sand | 65.07 | 8.25 | 92.68 | 11.75 | 126.39 | 16.03 | 69.85 | 8.85 | 79.78 | 10.11 |
| Urban | 40.22 | 5.10 | 54.41 | 6.90 | 62.79 | 7.96 | 75.07 | 9.52 | 85.89 | 10.89 |
| Vegetation | 154.87 | 19.64 | 345.14 | 43.77 | 283.03 | 35.90 | 277.87 | 35.24 | 237.76 | 30.15 |
| Water | 97.73 | 12.39 | 52.85 | 6.70 | 69.25 | 8.78 | 33.48 | 4.24 | 41.50 | 5.26 |
Accuracy assessment of LULC classification
| 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classes | UA | PA | UA | PA | UA | PA | UA | PA | UA | PA |
| Fallow land | 90.00 | 86.54 | 97.87 | 93.88 | 95.45 | 100.00 | 90.48 | 84.44 | 93.18 | 97.62 |
| Sand | 88.00 | 86.27 | 92.31 | 90.57 | 79.49 | 86.11 | 88.00 | 86.27 | 88.00 | 89.80 |
| Urban | 87.76 | 93.48 | 90.00 | 93.75 | 91.84 | 100.00 | 80.85 | 100.00 | 92.00 | 100.00 |
| Vegetation | 91.67 | 89.80 | 95.74 | 93.75 | 94.00 | 94.00 | 87.50 | 89.36 | 92.00 | 92.00 |
| Water | 95.83 | 100.00 | 90.00 | 90.00 | 96.00 | 94.12 | 95.83 | 93.88 | 92.00 | 90.20 |
| Overall Accuracy | 90.85% | 92.88% | 92.53% | 89.36% | 92.10% | |||||
| Kappa Statistics | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.91 | 0.87 | 0.9051 | |||||
Fig. 5Major LULC transitions in Prayagraj from 1990 to 2020
Fig. 6The input data layers of the SLEUTH model
Result of coarse calibration in stage-I
| Compare | Pop | Edges | Cluster | Lee-salle | e Slope | %Urban | Xmean | Ymean | Rad | Fmatch | Diff | Brd | Sprd | Slp | RG | OSM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.55 | 1.00 | 0.49 | 0.76 | 0.39 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.87 | 0.99 | 0.53 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 75 | 0.17219 |
| 0.55 | 1.00 | 0.49 | 0.76 | 0.39 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.87 | 0.99 | 0.53 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 25 | 75 | 0.17219 |
| 0.55 | 1.00 | 0.49 | 0.76 | 0.39 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.87 | 0.99 | 0.53 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 50 | 75 | 0.17219 |
| 0.55 | 1.00 | 0.49 | 0.76 | 0.39 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.87 | 0.99 | 0.53 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 75 | 75 | 0.17219 |
| 0.55 | 1.00 | 0.49 | 0.76 | 0.39 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 0.96 | 0.87 | 0.99 | 0.53 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 100 | 75 | 0.17219 |
| 0.58 | 0.97 | 0.78 | 0.52 | 0.40 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.58 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.54 | 1 | 1 | 50 | 1 | 100 | 0.12354 |
| 0.58 | 0.97 | 0.78 | 0.52 | 0.40 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.58 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.54 | 1 | 1 | 50 | 25 | 100 | 0.12354 |
| 0.58 | 0.97 | 0.78 | 0.52 | 0.40 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.58 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.54 | 1 | 1 | 50 | 50 | 100 | 0.12354 |
| 0.58 | 0.97 | 0.78 | 0.52 | 0.40 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.58 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.54 | 1 | 1 | 50 | 75 | 100 | 0.12354 |
| 0.58 | 0.97 | 0.78 | 0.52 | 0.40 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.58 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.54 | 1 | 1 | 50 | 100 | 100 | 0.12354 |
| 0.55 | 0.97 | 0.72 | 0.58 | 0.39 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.42 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.53 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 75 | 0.09177 |
| 0.55 | 0.97 | 0.72 | 0.58 | 0.39 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.42 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.53 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 25 | 75 | 0.09177 |
| 0.55 | 0.97 | 0.72 | 0.58 | 0.39 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.42 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.53 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 50 | 75 | 0.09177 |
| 0.55 | 0.97 | 0.72 | 0.58 | 0.39 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.42 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.53 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 75 | 75 | 0.09177 |
| 0.55 | 0.97 | 0.72 | 0.58 | 0.39 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.42 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.53 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 75 | 0.09177 |
| 0.55 | 0.99 | 0.70 | 0.25 | 0.40 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.71 | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.53 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 1 | 50 | 0.06460 |
| 0.55 | 0.99 | 0.70 | 0.25 | 0.40 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.71 | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.53 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 50 | 0.06460 |
| 0.55 | 0.99 | 0.70 | 0.25 | 0.40 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.71 | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.53 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 50 | 50 | 0.06460 |
| 0.55 | 0.99 | 0.70 | 0.25 | 0.40 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.71 | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.53 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 75 | 50 | 0.06460 |
| 0.55 | 0.99 | 0.70 | 0.25 | 0.40 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.71 | 0.97 | 0.98 | 0.53 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 100 | 50 | 0.06460 |
Coefficient range selection during the stage-I calibration process and best fit values
| Diffusion | Breed | Spread | Slope resistant | Road gravity | Monte Carlo iteration | Best fit Lee- Salle | Best fit OSM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Start | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0.40075 | 0.17218 |
| Step | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | |||
| Stop | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |||
| Start | 0 | 0 | 50 | 25 | 50 | 7 | 0.40103 | 0.05146 |
| Step | 5 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 10 | |||
| Stop | 20 | 20 | 80 | 75 | 100 | |||
| Start | 1 | 10 | 75 | 25 | 90 | 8 | 0.40096 | 0.09234 |
| Step | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 2 | |||
| Stop | 5 | 20 | 80 | 45 | 100 | |||
| Start | 2 | 14 | 80 | 25 | 96 | 100 | ||
| Step | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Stop | 2 | 14 | 80 | 25 | 96 | |||
| Best fit values | 1 | 1 | 1 | 49 | 94 | |||
Coefficient range selection during the stage-II calibration process and best fit values
| Coefficient | Diffusion | Breed | Spread | Slope resistant | Road gravity | Monte Carlo iteration | Best fit Lee-Salle | Best fit OSM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Start | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0.35914 | 0.00108 |
| Step | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | |||
| Stop | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |||
| Start | 0 | 0 | 50 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0.36058 | 0.00143 |
| Step | 5 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | |||
| Stop | 20 | 50 | 100 | 50 | 50 | |||
| Start | 1 | 40 | 90 | 11 | 21 | 8 | 0.46756 | 0.14267 |
| Step | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2 | |||
| Stop | 5 | 50 | 100 | 31 | 31 | |||
| Start | 1 | 50 | 98 | 11 | 21 | 100 | ||
| Step | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| Stop | 1 | 50 | 98 | 11 | 21 | |||
| Best fit values | 1 | 1 | 1 | 49 | 17 | |||
Fig. 7Modelled and actual landuse image of 2020
Fig. 8Modelled LULC for the year 2040
Fig. 9Urban area expansion in Prayagraj from 1990 to 2040