I T P I

JOURNAL

ITPI JOURNAL
1 : 2 (2004) 55-67

www.itpindia.org

REMOTE SENSING AND GIS FOR URBAN GREEN SPACE ANALYSIS

A CASE STUDY OF JAIPUR CITY, RAJASTHAN
Vittaya Ruangrit
Town Planner, Department of Public Works and Town & Country Planning, Bangkok, Thailand

B.S. Sokhi
Head, Human Settlement Analysis Division, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun, India
ABSTRACT
Green spaces are often disregarded in urban areas, the escalated urbanization assosiated with environment degradation has
generated a debate on how much urban green space has been lost to the urbanization process. Therefore, the authors compares
the amount of green space between zones and define high concentration areas of green space and finds out the spatial distributions
of urban green space in Jaipur city by using GIS and Remote Sensing.

1.0

INTRODUCTION

Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the current

condition of urban green space. Jaipur city, in
Rajasthan state, was taken as a case study. The
study was carried out by using GIS and Remote
Sensing to analyse the pattern of decreasing urban
green space, and find out the spatial distribution of
urban green space.

city area was further expanded to 40 sq km. During

1964, with the increasing demand of population,
problems associated with urbanization like living
accommodation, traffic congestion, lack of sanitation
and other amenities, etc, also increased and there
was a felt need of preparing a Master Plan for Jaipur
city up to 1991. In 1965 a Master Plan of Jaipur city
was prepared and 125 revenue villages of surrounding
areas of Jaipur city were brought in the urban
boundary. The total area reached to 115 sq km. In
1972, an additional 132 revenue villages were inducted
in the urban area and the total area reached up to
385 sq km out of which 153 sq km was the
unrealizable area and rest was to develop green belt
around Jaipur. In recent past, in 1995, the Master
Plan was revised targeting the need of the year 2011.
Additional 6 towns and 342 revenue villages have
been identified and included in the urban areas for
planning purpose. Now the total urbanisable
geographical area of Jaipur city is spread in 1464 sq
km. As a result, it is difficult to sustain well-ordered
land use in the cities. Although green spaces are
one aspect often disregarded in the urban
environmental studies, the escalated urbanization,
associated with environmental degradation, has
generated a debate on how much urban green space
has been lost due to the urbanization process.

2.0

3.0

Since the 1970s, metropolises have grown rapidly in

Asia. They have become more and more crowded
and have expanded into the suburbs. As a result, it
has been difficult to sustain well-ordered land use in
the cities. Cities experience increasing signs of
environmental stress, notably in the form of poor air
quality, excessive noise, and traffic congestion. At
the same time, the pace at which land is being
consumed by urban development is a major concern.
Due to urbanization, green spaces, with various
functions, have decreased in number and area. In
the near future, a plan for the effective conservation
of green space will be needed, because the
enhancement of green spaces has the potential to
mitigate the adverse effects of urbanization. Apart
from cleaning the air, green elements also serve to
reduce noise pollution and to assist the formation of
suitable microclimatic conditions.

EXPANSION OF THE JAIPUR CITY

When the wall city of Jaipur was founded in 1728

A.D. its total area was about 4.81 sq km By 1930-31
the limit of the municipal area further extended to
the wall of city, and the total area reached to 9.6 sq
km. In 1951, due to rapid increase in population the

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The objectives of the study are as follow

To detect green space changing within the

study area between 1991-1998 and 19982003,

Vittaya Ruangrit / B.S. Sokhi / ITPI Journal 1 : 2 (2004) 55-67

classification process is summarized which is listed

below.

To compare the amount of green space

between zones and define high
concentration areas of green spaces.

1st step
4.0

GREEN SPACE DETECTION

All bands of the IRS series including green, red and

near infrared bands were segmented in different levels
representing the level of detail. (Figure 1)

For the detection of green space in urban area, the

object-based classification approach was used by
eCognition software. Classifications were performed
for temporal data representing different spatial
resolutions, IRS 1C LISS III+PAN 2003, 1C LISS III
1998 and 1B LISS II 1991.
4.1

2nd step
Definition of the class-hierarchy and class-description
among built-up area, open space and green space
was identified. Training-samples for each class were
gathered.

Pixel-oriented classification method

eCognition software supports supervised

classification techniques and provides different
methods to train and build up a knowledge base.
The frame of eCognitions knowledge based
classification of image object is the so called classhierarchy. This class-hierarchy contains the
classification rules to which the image would be
classified. Each class is defined by a class-descriptor
which offers a lot of different parameters and object
attributes. This way the green space can be
incorporated into the classification rule. The entire

3rd step
Based on the classification hierarchy the entire image
was classified. The co-relation to one of the subclasses was performed by a nearest-neighbour
function, which was calculated on the base of the
training-samples. (Figure 2)
4th step
The classifications were compared to the ground truth
which was referenced from the field survey in Jaipur

Figure 1: Segmentation of IRS 1C LISS III+PAN 2003.

56

Vittaya Ruangrit / B.S. Sokhi / ITPI Journal 1 : 2 (2004) 55-67

Figure 2: Classification based class-hierarchy and training-samples.

Map 1: Urban growth trend 19912003.

city to assess the quality. An error matrix was
computed based on the pixel to pixel comparison.
Due to the error matrix, the accuracy-parameters
were calculated in order to obtain more reliable
comments about the quality of the classification.
5th step
The classified image was exported into shape file for
analysis on ArcView in the next step.
4.2 Changing of Green Space
4.2.1 Urban Growth Trend
The Figure- 3 and Table 1 show that the urban
area growth was very high between 1998-2003 but
less between 1991-1998. Growth rate during the
period 1991-1998 was 1.12 % and 8.43 % for 19982003. It is clear that trend of urban area was
increasing which in 1991 was 15,611 ha and had
increased up to 23,945 ha in 2003.
57

Vittaya Ruangrit / B.S. Sokhi / ITPI Journal 1 : 2 (2004) 55-67

Figure 3: Urban growth trend 1991-2003.

Table 1: Urban growth trend 1991-2003.

2004
2002
2000

Year

Area (Ha.)

1998
1996

Annual
Urban Area Urban Growth % of
Growth
(ha.)
(ha.)
Growth
Rate

1994
1992

1991
1998
2003

1990
1988
1986

15611
16840
23945

1229
7105

7.87
42.19

1.12
8.44

1984
1991

1998

2003

Ye a r

While analyzing population growth, population grew

at an average annual growth rate of 0.03 % during
the period 1991-1998 and increased to 10.62 % in
1998-2003. The population growth rate, which was
higher than the urban area growth rate, implied that

there had been some improvement of urban

development to vertical utilization. Table 2 shows that
increasing rate of land utilization (land per 1000
persons), because growth pattern was changing to
concentrated development.

Table 2: Rate of land utilization (land per 1000 persons)

Urban
Area(ha.)

Population

Population
Growth Rate

Urban
Growth
Rate

1991

15611

1514425

1998

16840

1518000

0.03

1.12

23945
2324319
10.62
Table 3: Changes in green spaces.

8.43

Year

4.2.2 Changes in Green Spaces

2003
Figure 4: Percentage changes in green
spaces.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%

Built up area
Open space

30%
20%
10%
0%

Area (ha.)
Built-up area
Open space
Green space
Total

1991
5172
5991
4447
15611

1998
9211
4139
3488
16840

2003
14152
7427
2365
23945

Percentage
Built-up area
Open space
Green space

1991
33.13
38.38
28.49

1998
54.70
24.58
20.72

2003
59.10
31.02
9.88

Green space

1991

1998

2003

Y ear

at that time predominant share of urbanized area

(28.49 %) was green spaces.

The total green space was found to be 4,447 ha. out

of total urbanized area of 15,611 ha. in 1991. Hence
58

Vittaya Ruangrit / B.S. Sokhi / ITPI Journal 1 : 2 (2004) 55-67

in 2003. During period in 1998 2003, land under

open spaces seemed to increased to 79.42 %. It
may be indicated that green space was reducing to
transform build-up area. This was due to the class
under construction, which was a definition of open
space in this case study, was counted in open space
class. So during this period most of the green spaces
were used for the development of urbanized area.
However, several factors do influence the change in
the green space such as ownership, distance from
city center, physical and cultural location and
characteristics of the land.

In 1998 the area of total green space was about 3,488

ha. which was 20.72 % of the total area. Thus, there
was about 6 % decrease in the area of open space
because some area had been changed into build-up
area by the year 1998.
As it has already been stated that during 1991-1998,
78.08 % increase in built-up areas, while open spaces
were decreased by 30.90 % as bad as Green spaces
were decreased by about 21.56 %. There is 2,365
ha. or 9.88 % as green space of the urbanized area
Figure 5: Percentage changes in 2 time
periods.

Table 4: Changes in 2 time periods.

100%

Changes (ha.) 1991-1998

50%

0%
B uilt up a re a

O pe n s pa c e

G re e n s pa c e

1998-2003

Built-up area
Open space
Green space

4039
-1851
-959

4940
3287
-1122

% Changes

1991-1998

1998-2003

Built-up area
Open space
Green space

78.08
-30.90
-21.56

53.63
79.42
-32.19

-50%

-100%
1991-1998

1998-2003

Table 5: Green space per population 1991- 2003

Year

Population

Green Space
(ha.)

Green Density
ha./Persons

Green Space/1000
persons (ha.)

1991
1998
2003

1514425
1518000
2324319

4447
3488
2365

0.003
0.002
0.001

2.93
2.29
1.01

But looking into density of green space, there are

some differences between green space proportion
per capita in each year. In 1991 there were green
space density about 0.003 ha./persons and
decreasing to 0.001 ha./persons in 2003. When
focusing on green space per 1000 persons, in 2003
also have the ratio only 1.018 ha. per 1000 persons.
If comparing with the accessible natural green space
standards model, which required at least 2 ha. of
accessible natural green space per 1000 population,
Jaipur city is going ahead to crisis of environment.
5.0

urbanization and day by day it is becoming dense.

(Figure 6-8)
Map 4 5 show green space/built-up area ratio in
each Ward boundary of the study area. The overall
ratio of green space/built-up area is about 0.93 in
1991, 0.40 in 1998 and becomes 0.18 in 2003. Low
ratio of green space/built-up area in each Ward
boundary has trend to increase during the period. In
2003, the low ratio was observed on Ward no. 40,
41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 56, 57, 63, etc., which indicates
that these Wards needs to taken up for developing
green spaces.

CONCLUSIONS

With the above study it is clear that the whole study

area is now fully developed with built-up area due to
59

Map. 2: Urban area and green space in 1991 - 1998

Urban Area and Green Space in 1991

Urban Area and Green Space in 1998

Vittaya Ruangrit / B.S. Sokhi / ITPI Journal 1 : 2 (2004) 55-67

60

Map. 3: Urban area and green space in 1998 - 2003

Urban Area and Green Space in 1998

Urban Area and Green Space in 2003

Vittaya Ruangrit / B.S. Sokhi / ITPI Journal 1 : 2 (2004) 55-67

61

Vittaya Ruangrit / B.S. Sokhi / ITPI Journal 1 : 2 (2004) 55-67

Figure 6: Relationship of Green spaces & Built-up areas in 1991.

Figure 7: Relationship of Green spaces & Built-up areas in 1998.

00
00

Area (ha.)

Area
Area
(ha.
()
ha.)

000
000
0000

00
000

1 1111111 111 1

1 1

W ard N o.

Figure 8: Relationship of Green spaces & Built-up areas in 2003.

62

11

W ard N o.

1
11
1
11
111
11
11
11
11
11
1
1 1
1

00
0

00
00

Map. 4 : Ward wise Green space/ Built-up area Ratio in 1991 & 1998

Wardwise Green space / built-up area Ratio in 1991

Wardwise Green space / built-up area Ratio in 1998

Vittaya Ruangrit / B.S. Sokhi / ITPI Journal 1 : 2 (2004) 55-67

63

Vittaya Ruangrit / B.S. Sokhi / ITPI Journal 1 : 2 (2004) 55-67

Map 5: Ward wise Green space/Built-up area Ratio in 2003

Table 6 8 and Map 4 5 show green space / built-

ratio show on Ward no. 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 56,
57, 63, etc, which indicate that these Wards needs
to be taken up for developing green spaces.

up area ratio in each Ward boundary of the study

area. The overall ratio of green space / built-up area
is about 0.93 in 1991, 0.40 in 1998 and becomes

Therefore, attention must be paid for the provision of

recreational, greenery and institutional areas to
provide better civic facilities to the dwellers as well
as to maintain the ecological balance in the city.

0.18 in 2003. Low ratio of green space to built-up

area in each Ward boundary shows the tendency to
further deteriorate in near future. In 2003, the low
64

Vittaya Ruangrit / B.S. Sokhi / ITPI Journal 1 : 2 (2004) 55-67

Table 6: Ward wise Green space/Built-up area ratio in 1991.

Ward
No.

Ratio of
Ratio of
Built-up Open Open Green Green
Ward
area space space / space space /
No.
(ha.) (ha.) Built-up (ha.) Built-up
area
area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
65 22
23
24
25
26

64
90
90
78
336
126
108
56
126
78
1
70
87
73
161
65
73
104
92
140
59
55
35
72
88

533
84
891
20
4
52
175
77
295
272
210
19
457
339
34
26
40
21
7
173
97
79
169
77
47

8.33
9.90
0.22
0.05
0.15
1.39
0.71
5.27
2.16
2.69
19.00
6.53
3.90
0.47
0.16
0.62
0.29
0.08
1.24
1.64
1.44
4.83
1.07
0.53

129
2
604
19
8
195
198
118
65
125
112
26
218
342
27
53
96
106
3
14
146
78
27
112
23
28

2.02
6.71
0.21
0.10
0.58
1.57
1.09
1.16
0.99
1.44
26.00
3.11
3.93
0.37
0.33
1.48
1.45
0.03
0.15
1.04
1.32
0.49
3.20
0.32
0.32

Built-up O
Ward
area sp
No.
(h
(ha.)
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63

106
86
27
20
27
36
44
22
29
32
45
97
32
56
33
56
41
37
20
44
92
39
38
33
62
14

Vittaya Ruangrit / B.S. Sokhi / ITPI Journal 1 : 2 (2004) 55-67

Table 7: Ward wise Green space/Built-up area ratio in 1998.

Ratio of
Ratio of
Built-up Open Open Green Green
Ward
Ward
area space space / space space /
No.
No.
(ha.) (ha.) Built-up (ha.) Built-up
area
area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

371
58
630
99
69
299
158
99
301
325
194
13
485
283
93
132
85
62
101
101
272
138
124
377
122
130
136
235
35
121
119
50
166
42

234
29
685
7
14
142
210
121
98
187
109
17
167
240
17
49
34
47
5
7
112
48
66
317
28
12
251
186
3
4
22
8
23
14

0.63
0.50
1.09
0.07
0.20
0.47
1.33
1.22
0.33
0.58
0.56
1.31
0.34
0.85
0.18
0.37
0.40
0.76
0.05
0.07
0.41
0.35
0.53
0.84
0.23
0.09
1.85
0.79
0.09
0.03
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.33

160
2
337
19
8
139
127
79
14
17
103
21
110
247
24
60
78
91
1
4
71
68
76
375
22
19
247
162
9
29
6
26
2

Built-up Open
Ward
area space
No.
(ha.)
(ha.)

0.43
0.03
0.53
0.19
0.12
0.46
0.80
0.80
0.05
0.05
0.53
1.62
0.23
0.87
0.26
0.45
0.92
1.47
0.01
0.04
0.26
0.49
0.61
0.99
0.18
0.15
1.82
0.69
0.00
0.07
0.24
0.12
0.16
0.05

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
total

66

100
86
29
21
27
37
44
24
27
37
45
111
54
59
65
93
109
43
21
42
113
49
40
35
72
34
69
47
44
100
202
511
115
8714

Ratio of
Ratio of
Open Green Green
space / space space /
Built-up (ha.) Built-up
area
area

42
11
-

0.42
0.13
-

1
-

0.04
-

1
-

0.02
-

1
26
12
2
6
28
15
2
-

0.02
0.23
0.22
0.03
0.09
0.30
0.14
0.05
-

1
6
1
-

0.02
0.05
0.02
-

11
1
2
3
37
103
167
37
4163

32
1
-

7
10
2
12
34
40
2

24
1

0.15

0.21
0.02
-

7
-

0.01
0.04
0.07
0.37
0.51
0.33
0.32
0.48

0.06
0.19
0.03
0.18
0.37
0.37
0.05
-

0.32
0.01

1
6
6
67
114
72
39
3478

0.10
0.01
0.13
0.14
0.67
0.56
0.14
0.34
0.40

Vittaya Ruangrit / B.S. Sokhi / ITPI Journal 1 : 2 (2004) 55-67

Table 8: Ward wise Green space/Built-up area ratio in 2003.

Ratio of
Ratio of
Built-up Open Open Green Green
Ward
Ward area space space / space space /
No.
No. (ha.) (ha.) Built-up (ha.) Built-up
area
area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

707 370
211 321
2008 871
124
1
86
3
369
88
353 131
262
30
389
23
495
30
364
26
558 549
684
66
578 137
119
7
119
75
180
17
38
62
98
5
112
1
258 167
224
22
214 113
976 2111
111
54
123
30
86 388
271 603
38
14
103
14
95
42
45
14
153
30
33
19
70
86

0.52
1.52
0.43
0.01
0.03
0.24
0.37
0.11
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.98
0.10
0.24
0.06
0.63
0.09
1.63
0.05
0.01
0.65
0.10
0.53
2.16
0.49
0.24
4.51
2.23
0.37
0.14
0.44
0.31
0.20
0.58
1.23

85
104
195
1
2
125
14
4
2
3
12
117
8
53
8
45
5
101
3
1
38
7
44
400
7
11
163
127
5
15
30
6
31
4
255

Built-up Open
Ward
area space
No.
(ha.)
(ha.)

0.12
0.49
0.10
0.01
0.02
0.34
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.21
0.01
0.09
0.07
0.38
0.03
2.66
0.03
0.01
0.15
0.03
0.21
0.41
0.06
0.09
1.90
0.47
0.13
0.15
0.32
0.13
0.20
0.12
3.64

36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
total

67

144
79
81
24
21
28
38
44
21
28
33
47
104
50
54
52
102
89
35
21
41
93
47
37
35
57
39
63
45
37
80
285
702
333
13643

Ratio of
Ratio of
Open Green Green
space / space space /
Built-up (ha.) Built-up
area
area

10
51
2
4
-

0.07
0.65
0.02
0.17
-

1
2
-

0.04
0.06

36
44
3
20
68
51
4

2
27
12
8
16
14
97
45
92
228
7391

0.05
0.31
0.06

0.05
0.04
-

10
6
4
12
24
36
6
-

0.10
0.12
0.07
0.23
0.24
0.40
0.17
-

35
5
1
1
7

0.06
0.47
0.31
0.13
0.36
0.38
1.21
0.16
0.13
0.68
0.54

0.05
0.58
0.16
0.04

1
1

0.35
0.88
0.06
0.38
0.67
0.57
0.11

2
29
3
-

7
46
13
1

2
2
2
25
91
9
32
2410

0.38
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.12
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.31
0.32
0.01
0.10
0.18