Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Local configuration measures for categorical spatial data: binary regular lattices

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Geographical Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the utility of a number of pattern measures for local exploratory analysis of binary spatial data. Based on a review of existing pattern measures in cartography, geography, image analysis, and landscape ecology, two fundamental classes of such measures, termed compositional and configurational, are identified. The paper focuses on configurational measures and it is suggested that as many as five such measures (join counts, patch numbers, patch sizes, patch proximity, and distribution of the classes relative to the focal cell of the window) are required to differentiate between all possible local categorical maps. This suggestion is explored by examining aspects of the statistical behaviour (probability distributions and correlations between extreme values of pairs of measures) of a set of 12 configurational measures. Their use is also demonstrated by means of an empirical example.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker WL, Cai Y (1992) The role programs for multiscale analysis of landscape structure using the GRASS geographical information system. Landscape Ecol 7: 291–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boots B (1998) Spatial tessellations. In: Longley P, Goodchild M, Maguire D, Rhind D (eds) Geographical information systems: principles, techniques, applications and management. Wiley, New York, pp 527–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Boots B (2002) Local measures of spatial association. Ecoscience 9: 168-176

    Google Scholar 

  • Boots B (2003) Developing local measures of spatial association for categorical data. J Geogr Syst 5: 139–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bregt AK, Wopereis MCS (1990) Comparison of complexity measures for choropleth maps. Cartogr J 27: 85–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Bregt AK, Ankum LA, Denneboom J, Van Randen Y (1989) Gridded soil map of The Netherlands: gridding error. Proceedings of a workshop on computerisation of land use data. Commission of the European Communities, Pisa, Italy, pp 110–117

  • Brunsdon C, Fotheringham S, Charlton M (2002) Geographically weighted local statistics applied to binary data. In: Egenhofer MJ, Mark DM (eds) Geographic information science: Second International Conference, GIScience 2002, Boulder CO, USA, September 2002 Proceedings. (Lecture notes in computer science 2478) Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York pp 38–50

  • Cain DH, Riiters K, Orvis K (1997) A multi-scale analysis of landscape statistics. Landscape Ecol 12: 199–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cliff AD, Ord JK (1981) Spatial processes: models and applications. Pion, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Congalton RG (1988) Using spatial autocorrelation analysis to explore the errors in maps generated by remotely sensed data. Photogramm Eng Rem Sens 54:387–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillworth ME, Whistler JL, Merchant JW (1994) Measuring landscape structure using geographic and geometric windows. Photogramm Eng Rem Sens 60:1215–1224

    Google Scholar 

  • Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton ME (2002) Geographically weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying relationships. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Frohn RC (1998) Remote sensing for landscape ecology: new metric indicators for monitoring, modeling, and assessment of ecosystems. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatrell AC (1977) Complexity and redundancy in binary maps. Geogr Anal 9:29–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebhardt F (1999) Cluster tests for geographical areas with binary data. Comput Stat Data An 31:39–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: What is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1:143–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haralick RM (1979) Statistical and structural approaches to texture. P IEEE 67:786–804

    Google Scholar 

  • Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I (1973) Textural features for image classification. IEEE T Syst, Man, Cyb 3:610–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargis CD, Bissonette JA, David JL (1997) Understanding measures of landscape pattern. In: Bissonette JA (eds) Wildlife and landscape ecology: effects of pattern and scale. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 231–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargis CD, Bissonette JA, David JL (1998) The behavior of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Landscape Ecol 13:167–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, HS, DeZonia BE, Mladenoff DJ (2000) An aggregation index (AI) to quantify spatial patterns on landscapes. Landscape Ecol 15:591–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnsson K (1995) Fragmentation index as a region based GIS operator. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 9:211–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaGro J (1991) Assessing patch shape in landscape metrics. Photogramm Eng Rem Sens 57:285–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Reynolds JF (1993) A new contagion index to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landscape Ecol 8:155–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Reynolds JF (1994) A simulation experiment to quantify spatial heterogeneity in categorical maps. Ecology 75:2446–2455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li H, Reynolds JF (1995) On definition and quantification of heterogeneity. Oikos 73:280–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, H, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ, Spies TA (1993) Developing alternative forest cutting patterns: a simulation approach. Landscape Ecol 8:63–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Marks BJ (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. General technical report, PNW-GTR-351. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR

  • McGarigal K, McComb WC (1995) Relationships between landscape structure and breeding birds in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecol Monogr 65:235–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mead RA, Sharik TL, Prisley SP, Heinen JT (1981) A computerized spatial analysis system for assessing wildlife habitat from vegetation maps. Can J Rem Sens 7:34–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Monmonier MS (1974) Measures of pattern complexity for choroplethic maps. Am Cartographer 1:159–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller JC (1975) Definition, measurement, and comparison of map attributes in choroplethic mapping. P Assoc Am Geogr 7:160–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy DL (1985) Estimating neighborhood variability with a binary comparison matrix. Photogramm Eng Rem Sens 51:667–674

    Google Scholar 

  • Musick HB, Grover HD (1991) Image textural measures as indices of landscape patterns. In: Turner MG, Gardner RH (eds) Quantitative methods in landscape ecology: the analysis and interpretation of landscape heterogeneity. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 77–103

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill RV, Hunsaker CT, Timmins SP, Jackson BL, Jones KB, Riiters KH, Wickham JD (1999) Scale problems in reporting landscape pattern at the regional scale. Landscape Ecol 11:169–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ord JK, Getis A (2001) Testing for local spatial autocorrelation in the presence of global autocorrelation. J Regional Sci 41:411–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perera AH, Baldwin DJB (2000) Spatial patterns in the managed forest landscape of Ontario. In: Perera AH, Euler DL, Thompson ID (eds) Ecology of a managed terrestial landscape: patterns and processes of forest landscapes in Ontario. UBC Press, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, JN, Bell ED, Smith RH, Woiwod IP (1996) SADIE: software to measure and model spatial patterns. Aspects Applied Biol 46:95–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Remmel TK, Csillag F (2003) When are two landscape pattern indices significantly different? J Geogr Syst 5:331–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riitters KH, Wickham DJ (1995) A landscape atlas of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. SERDP, Arlington, Va

    Google Scholar 

  • Riitters KH, O’Neill RV, Hunsaker CT, Wickham J, Yankee DH, Timmins SP, Jones KB, Jackson BL (1995) A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecol 10:23–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saura S, Martinez-Millán J (2001) Sensitivity of landscape pattern metrics to map spatial extent. Photogramm Eng Rem Sens 67:1027–1036

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinker DB, Resor CAC, Beauvais GP, Kipfmueller KF, Fernades CI, Baker WL (1998) Watershed analysis of forest fragmentation by clearcuts and roads in a Wyoming forest. Landscape Ecol 13:149–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L, Bender DJ, Fahrig L (2003) Evaluation of patch isolation metrics in mosaic landscapes for specialist vs. generalist dispersers. Landscape Ecol 18:41–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomlin CD (1990) Geographic information systems and cartographic modeling. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, MG, O’Neill RV, Gardner RH, Milne BT (1989) Effects of changing scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol 3:153–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Upton G, Fingleton B (1985) Spatial data analysis by example. Vol.1: point pattern and quantitative data. Wiley, Chichester

  • Wilhelm A, Sander M (1998) Interactive statistical analysis of dialect features. J Roy Stat Soc-D Sta 47:445–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support of this research from the GEOIDE (GEOmatics for Informed DEcisions) Network of Centres of Excellence of Canada and the very helpful comments of Robert Feick and three anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3C5, Canada

    Barry Boots

Authors
  1. Barry Boots
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barry Boots.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boots, B. Local configuration measures for categorical spatial data: binary regular lattices. J Geograph Syst 8, 1–24 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-005-0010-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-005-0010-9

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation