Biol 515 Landscape Ecology and Management, Fall 2011

Lab #4
QUANTIFYING SPATIAL PATTERN I

Objectives:
1. Become familiar with metrics used to quantify landscape pattern.
2. Learn how to hand calculate landscape metrics with a raster landscape
3. Learn how to use an ArcGIS 10 extension for calculating landscape metrics with a vector landscape.

Overview of Lab 4:
In this lab you will calculate by hand 4 metrics most commonly used to characterize landscape
pattern. You will check your calculations by using a Landscape Pattern tool that runs in ArcGIS. This
lab will build on next week’s lab when we will compare the landscape pattern of two different
landscapes.

Introduction - Landscape Spatial Pattern

Landscape ecology is largely founded on the notion that environmental patterns strongly influence
ecological processes (Turner 1989). The habitats in which organisms live, for example, are spatially
structured at a number of scales, and these patterns interact with organism perception and behavior to
drive the higher level processes of population dynamics and community structure (Johnson et al. 1992).
Anthropogenic activities (e.g. development, timber harvest) can disrupt the structural integrity of
landscapes and is expected to impede, or in some cases facilitate, ecological flows (e.g., movement of
organisms) across the landscape (Gardner et al. 1993). A disruption in landscape patterns may therefore
compromise its functional integrity by interfering with critical ecological processes necessary for
population persistence and the maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystem health. For these and other
reasons, much emphasis has been placed on developing methods to quantify landscape patterns, which is
considered a prerequisite to the study of pattern-process relationships (e.g., O'Neill et al. 1988, Turner
1990, Turner and Gardner 1991, Baker and Cai 1992, McGarigal and Marks 1995). This has resulted in
the development of literally hundreds of indices of landscape patterns.

Classes of Landscape Patterns

Real landscapes contain complex spatial patterns in the distribution of resources that vary over time;
quantifying these patterns and their dynamics is the purview of landscape pattern analysis. Landscape
patterns can be quantified in a variety of ways depending on the type of data collected, the manner in
which it is collected, and the objectives of the investigation. Broadly considered, landscape pattern
analysis involves four basic types of spatial data corresponding to different representations of landscape
pattern:

(1) Spatial point patterns represent collections of entities where the geographic locations of the entities
are of primary interest, rather than any quantitative or qualitative attribute of the entity itself. A familiar
example is a map of all trees in a forest stand, wherein the data consists of a list of trees referenced by
their geographic locations. Typically, the points would be labeled by species, and perhaps further

1
specified by their sizes (a marked point pattern). The goal of point pattern analysis with such data is to
determine whether the points are more or less clustered than expected by chance and/or to find the
spatial scale(s) at which the points tend to be more or less clustered than expected by chance (Greig-
Smith 1983, Dale 1999).

(2) Linear network patterns represent collections of linear landscape elements that intersect to form a
network. A familiar example is a map of streams or riparian areas in a watershed, wherein the data
consists of nodes and linkages (corridors that connect nodes). Often, the nodes and corridors are further
characterized by composition (e.g., vegetation type) and spatial character (e.g., width). The goal of linear
network pattern analysis with such data is to characterize the physical structure (e.g., corridor density,
mesh size, network connectivity and circuitry) of the network, and a variety of metrics have been
developed for this purpose (Forman 1995).

(3) Surface patterns represent quantitative measurements that vary continuously across the landscape;
there are no explicit boundaries (i.e., patches are not delineated). Here, the data can be conceptualized as
representing a three-dimensional surface, where the measured value at each geographic location is
represented by the height of the surface. A familiar example is a digital elevation model. In many cases
the data is collected at discrete sample locations separated by some distance. Analysis of the spatial
dependencies (or autocorrelation) in the measured characteristic is the purview of geostatistics, and a
variety of techniques exist for measuring the intensity and scale of this spatial autocorrelation (Legendre
and Fortin 1989, Legendre and Legendre 1999). Techniques also exist that permit the kriging or
modeling of these spatial patterns; that is, to interpolate values for unsampled locations using the
empirically estimated spatial autocorrelation. All surface pattern techniques share a goal of describing
the intensity and scale of pattern in the quantitative variable of interest.

(4) Categorical (or thematic; choropleth) map patterns represent data in which the system property of
interest is represented as a mosaic of discrete patches. From an ecological perspective, patches represent
relatively discrete areas of relatively homogeneous environmental conditions at a particular scale. The
patch boundaries are distinguished by abrupt discontinuities (boundaries) in environmental character
states from their surroundings of magnitudes that are relevant to the ecological phenomenon under
consideration (Wiens 1976, Kotliar and Wiens 1990). A familiar example is a map of land cover types,
wherein the data consists of polygons (vector format) or grid cells (raster format) classified into discrete
land cover classes. Regardless of data format (raster or vector) and method of classifying and delineating
patches, the goal of categorical map pattern analysis with such data is to characterize the composition
and spatial configuration of the patch mosaic, and a plethora of metrics has been developed for this
purpose (Forman and Godron 1986, O'Neill et al. 1988, Turner 1990, Musick and Grover 1991, Turner
and Gardner 1991, Baker and Cai 1992, Gustafson and Parker 1992, Li and Reynolds 1993, McGarigal
and Marks 1995, Jaeger 2000).

Patches & Patchiness: Levels of Landscape Metrics

Patches form the basis (or building blocks) for categorical maps. Commonly, landscape metrics may be
defined at three levels.

(1) Patch-level metrics are defined for individual patches, and characterize the spatial character and
context of patches. In most applications, patch metrics serve primarily as the computational basis for

2
several of the landscape metrics, for example by averaging patch attributes across all patches in the class
or landscape. Sometimes patch indices can be important and informative in landscape-level
investigations. For example, many vertebrates require suitable habitat patches larger than some
minimum size, so it would be useful to know the size of each patch in the landscape. Similarly, some
species are adversely affected by edges and are more closely associated with patch interiors, so it would
be useful to know the size of the core area for each patch in the landscape. The probability of occupancy
and persistence of an organism in a patch may be related to patch insularity, so it would be useful to
know the nearest neighbor of each patch and the degree of contrast between the patch and its
neighborhood.

(2) Class-level metrics are integrated over all the patches of a given type (class). These may be
integrated by simple averaging. In many applications, the primary interest is in the amount and
distribution of a particular patch type. A good example is in the study of habitat fragmentation. Habitat
fragmentation is a landscape-level process in which contiguous habitat is progressively sub-divided into
smaller, geometrically more complex (initially, but not necessarily ultimately), and more isolated habitat
fragments as a result of both natural processes and human land use activities. Class indices separately
quantify the amount and spatial configuration of each patch type and thus provide a means to quantify
the extent and fragmentation of each patch type in the landscape.

(3) Landscape-level metrics are integrated over all patch types or classes over the full extent of the data
(i.e., the entire landscape). In many applications, the primary interest is in the pattern (i.e., composition
and configuration) of the entire landscape mosaic. A good example is in the study of wildlife
communities. Aldo Leopold (1933) noted that wildlife diversity was greater in more diverse and
spatially heterogenous landscapes. Thus, the quantification of landscape diversity and heterogeneity has
assumed a preeminent role in landscape ecology.

Landscape Metrics

The common usage of the term “landscape metrics” refers exclusively to indices developed for
categorical map patterns. Landscape metrics are algorithms that quantify specific spatial characteristics
of patches, classes of patches, or entire landscape mosaics. These metrics fall into two general
categories: those that quantify the composition of the map without reference to spatial attributes, and
those that quantify the spatial configuration of the map.

Composition is easily quantified and refers to features associated with the variety and abundance of
patch types within the landscape, but without considering the spatial character, placement, or location of
patches within the mosaic. Because composition requires integration over all patch types, composition
metrics are only applicable at the landscape-level. There are many quantitative measures of landscape
composition, including the proportion of the landscape in each patch type, patch richness, patch
evenness, and patch diversity. The principle measures of composition are:

• Proportional Abundance of each Class.–One of the simplest and perhaps most useful pieces of
information that can be derived is the proportion of each class relative to the entire map.

• Richness.--Richness is simply the number of different patch types.

3
• Evenness.--Evenness is the relative abundance of different patch types, typically emphasizing either
relative dominance or its compliment, equitability. There are many possible evenness (or dominance)
measures corresponding to the many diversity measures. Evenness is usually reported as a function
of the maximum diversity possible for a given richness. That is, evenness is given as 1 when the
patch mosaic is perfectly diverse given the observed patch richness, and approaches 0 as evenness
decreases. Evenness is sometimes reported as its complement, dominance, by subtracting the
observed diversity from the maximum for a given richness. In this case, dominance approaches 0 for
maximum equitability and increases >0 for higher dominance.

• Diversity.--Diversity is a composite measure of richness and evenness and can be computed in a

variety of forms (e.g., Shannon and Weaver 1949, Simpson 1949), depending on the relative
emphasis placed on these two components.

Spatial configuration is much more difficult to quantify and refers to the spatial character and
arrangement, position, or orientation of patches within the class or landscape. Some aspects of
configuration, such as patch isolation or patch contagion, are measures of the placement of patch types
relative to other patches, other patch types, or other features of interest. Other aspects of configuration,
such as shape and core area, are measures of the spatial character of the patches. The principle aspects of
configuration and a sample of representative metrics are:

• Patch size distribution and density.–The simplest measure of configuration is patch size, which
represents a fundamental attribute of the spatial character of a patch. Patch size distribution can be
summarized at the class and landscape levels in a variety of ways (e.g., mean, median, max,
variance, etc.), or, alternatively, represented as patch density, which is simply the number of patches
per unit area.

• Patch shape complexity.--Shape complexity relates to the geometry of patches--whether they tend to
be simple and compact, or irregular and convoluted. Shape is an extremely difficult spatial attribute
to capture in a metric because of the infinite number of possible patch shapes. Hence, shape metrics
generally index overall shape complexity rather than attempt to assign a value to each unique shape.
The most common measures of shape complexity are based on the relative amount of perimeter per
unit area, usually indexed in terms of a perimeter-to-area ratio, or as a fractal dimension, and often
standardized to a simple Euclidean shape (e.g., circle or square). The interpretation varies among the
various shape metrics, but in general, higher values mean greater shape complexity or greater
departure from simple Euclidean geometry.

• Core Area.--Core area represents the interior area of patches after a user-specified edge buffer is
eliminated. The core area is the area unaffected by the edges of the patch. This “edge effect” distance
is defined by the user to be relevant to the phenomenon under consideration and can either be treated
as fixed or adjusted for each unique edge type. Core area integrates patch size, shape, and edge effect
distance into a single measure. All other things equal, smaller patches with greater shape complexity
have less core area.

• Isolation/Proximity.--Isolation/proximity refers to the tendency for patches to be relatively isolated in

space (i.e., distant) from other patches of the same or similar (ecologically friendly) class. Because
the notion of “isolation” is vague, there are many possible measures depending on how distance is

4
 defined and how patches of the same class and those of other classes are treated. If dij is the nearest-
neighbor distance from patch i to another patch j of the same type, then the average isolation of
patches can be summarized simply as the mean nearest-neighbor distance over all patches.
Alternatively, isolation can be formulated in terms of both the size and proximity of neighboring
patches within a local neighborhood around each patch using the isolation index of Whitcomb et al.
(1981) or proximity index of Gustafson and Parker (1992).

• Contrast.–Contrast refers to the relative difference among patch types. For example, mature forest
next to younger forest might have a lower-contrast edge than mature forest adjacent to open field,
depending on how the notion of contrast is defined. This can be computed as a contrast-weighted
edge density, where each type of edge (i.e., between each pair of patch types) is assigned a contrast
weight. Alternatively, this can be computed as a neighborhood contrast index, where the mean
contrast between the focal patch and all patches within a user-specified neighborhood is computed
based on assigned contrast weights.

• Dispersion.--Dispersion refers to the tendency for patches to be regularly or contagiously distributed

(i.e., clumped) with respect to each other. There are many dispersion indices developed for the
assessment of spatial point patterns, some of which have been applied to categorical maps. A
common approach is based on nearest-neighbor distances between patches of the same type.

• Contagion & Interspersion.–Contagion refers to the tendency of patch types to be spatially

aggregated; that is, to occur in large, aggregated or “contagious” distributions. Contagion ignores
patches per se and measures the extent to which cells of similar class are aggregated. Interspersion,
on the other hand, refers to the intermixing of patches of different types and is based entirely on
patch (as opposed to cell) adjacencies. There are several different approaches for measuring
contagion and interspersion. One popular index that subsumes both dispersion and interspersion is
the contagion index based on the probability of finding a cell of type i next to a cell of type j (Li and
Reynolds 1993). This index increases in value as a landscape is dominated by a few large (i.e.,
contiguous) patches and decreases in value with increasing subdivision and interspersion of patch
types. This index summarizes the aggregation of all classes and thereby provides a measure of
overall clumpiness of the landscape.

• Connectivity.--Connectivity generally refers to the functional connections among patches. What

constitutes a "functional connection" between patches clearly depends on the application or process
of interest; patches that are connected for bird dispersal might not be connected for salamanders,
seed dispersal, fire spread, or hydrologic flow. Connections might be based on strict adjacency
(touching), some threshold distance, some decreasing function of distance that reflects the
probability of connection at a given distance, or a resistance-weighted distance function. Then
various indices of overall connectedness can be derived based on the pairwise connections between
patches. For example, one such index, connectance, can be defined on the number of functional
joinings, where each pair of patches is either connected or not. Alternatively, from percolation
theory, connectedness can be inferred from patch density or be given as a binary response, indicating
whether or not a spanning cluster or percolating cluster exists; i.e., a connection of patches of the
same class that spans across the entire landscape (Gardner et al. 1987).

Exercise

5
FRAGSTATS is a spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps that are in RASTER format.
FRAGSTATS quantifies the areal extent and spatial configuration of patches within a landscape by
calculating based on the number of raster cells.

V-LATE is an ArcGIS extension that calculates the same landscape metrics in vector format. V_LATE
quantified the areal extent and spatial configuration of patch within a landscape by calculating the Area
of Polygons.

There are strength and weaknesses of calculating with raster and vector formats that we will examine
next week.

We will use mathematical equations by hand to calculate a raster landscape. The Fragstats and V-
LATE answers should be very close to the same since for this exercise our vector landscape is exactly
the same as the raster landscape.

Part 1. Hand Calculation of Landscape Metrics (15 pts.)

You will calculate several metrics by hand for the attached landscape. Each cell measures 100 meters on
a side, thus the area of a single cell equals 1 hectare. Compute the following for each class in the
landscape and enter your answers the Table 1:

1. Proportion of landscape (pi) (termed PLAND, percent of landscape, in FRAGSTATS

and expressed as a percentage). For this exercise, cells are considered part of a
patch if they come into contact on an ordinal side (rather than on a diagonal) with
another cell of the same cover type. The proportion of the landscape represented
by each patch type is measured by :

pi = total number of cells in of category i / total cells in the landscape.

2. Patch type richness (PR) is simply the number of patch types represented in the
landscape

3. Shannon evenness (SHEI). This is calculated as:

SHEI =   [pi * ln(pi)] / ln(S)

i

NOTE: Divide by the sum of pi * ln(pi), not individual pi * ln(pi)

Where S is the number of patch types, pi is the proportion of the ith patch type, and ln is the
natural log function. Values of SHIE range between 0 and 1; values near 1 indicate that the
proportion of each cover type are nearly equal, values near 0 indicate a landscape dominated by
one or a few cover types.

4. Mean patch area (AREA_MN) - the average size of patches of a particular type.

6
 n
AREA _ MN   xij / ni
j 1

Where n = the number of patches for which the mean is being computed and xij = the area
of the jth patch of the ith type. The units of area are defined by the user and should
always be specified. In this case use hectares.

5. Standard deviation in patch area (AREA_SD). Do only for the agricultural class
following the example for the forested class. This is a measure of variation in patch area
among the patches of a particular type. SD (standard deviation) equals the square root of
the sum of the squared deviations of each patch metric value from the mean metric value
of the corresponding patch type, divided by the number of patches of the same type; that
is, the root mean squared error (deviation from the mean) in the corresponding patch
metric.

Part 2. Calculate landscape metrics in ArcGIS extension V-LATE and compare answers with
hand calculations.

Copy the folder lab4_2011 from the flash drive to you’re the bio515 directory.

Now we will confirm that the landscape metrics you just calculated by hand are correct by running the
landscape using a new Landscape Ecology ArcGIS extension called V-LATE. V-LATE is free and
downloadable and has been customized as a tool on the machines.

Modify the Appearance of the File for easy Interpretation

1) Open ArcMap and add the Vector landscape file called landscape4.shp. Note that is appears
the same as the hardcopy raster landscape.
2) Modify the legend of the shapefile to represent the appropriate landcover classes. Since the
landcover classes are categorical data rather than continuous data, you must modify the
legend accordingly. (Double click on the shapefile for “Layers Properties”; in Symbology
tab under “Show:” click on “Categories” and select “Unique Values”. Change the Value
Field to “Gridcode” and click the “Add All Values” button.)
3) Under the “Label” heading click on 1 and rename the class with names below. Modify the
color schedule to your liking to represent the classes below (Double click on color square and
select a color box).
1 = Forest
2 = Agriculture
3 = Urban

7
Calculate Landscape Metrics

1) Highlight the shapefile by clicking on it (it should turn blue).

2) Set the map units in the Data Frame Properties. (Click View, Data Frame Properties; under the
General tab, set Map to “Meters” and Display to “Meters”, and OK.)
3) Click the new extension tool “V-LATE 2.0 beta”

The V-LATE dialogue box opens with a window showing the metric options. We will run landscape
metrics on our landscape through this window.

1) The flow chart style? indicates what processes depend on previous calculations. For example,
Edge Analysis requires the Area/Perimeter calculation beforehand.

The metrics that we will calculate are underlined below and found in TWO of the menus, Area
analysis and Diversity Analysis. Far below are specific instructions for each metric.

Area Analysis: Calculates Number of patches (NP), Class Area in m² (CA), Mean Patch Size in
m² (MPS).

Diversity Analysis: Calculates Richness, Shannon´s Diversity Index, Shannon´s Evenness

Index, Dominance and Proportion of class for selected classes.

Percent/Proportion of Landscape and Mean Patch Size steps :

8
 - Area Analysis, Select Class Field (Gridcode), OK, OK, Select New Classes (Select all 3), OK,
OK.
- Either export the file with “Save results of Landscape or Class level”, or write down values to
calculate (this is an option since we only have 3 classes).
- Calculate proportion of Landscape, using the equation Class Area / Total Area.
- Mean Patch Size is provided in the next column (MPS)
- Close

Patch Type Richness and Shannon’s Diversity Index steps:

- Diversity Analysis, Specify Number of Patch types (3), OK (the software remembers to use the
GRIDCODE so no need to enter it again)
- Patch Richness and Shannon’s Diversity are provided as Landscape level metrics.
- You can Check your “Proportion of Landscape” calculation in the Proportion Column

Figure 1. Hypothetical landscape with three patch types. Each cell is 100 m on a side.

9
Table 1. Worksheet for results of calculation of landscape metrics (answers only required for shaded
boxes).
Metric Class Level Landscape Level
Forested Agricultural Urban Landscape
Proportion of
landscape
(PLAND)
Patch type
richness (PR)
Shannon evenness
(SHEI)
Mean patch area
(AREA_MN)
Standard deviation
in patch area
(AREA_SD)

Table 2. Proportion of Landscape (PLAND)

Patch Type Total Cells in Total Cells in Proportion of

Patch Type Landscape Landscape
Forested 39 100 0.39
Agricultural
Urban

Table 3. Shannons Evenness Index.

SHEI =   [pi * ln(pi)] / ln(S)
i

Patch Type Proportion of Natural log of pi * ln(pi)

Landscape (pi) Proportion (ln(pi))
Forested 0.39 -0.9416 -0.3672
Agricultural
Urban
Total (sum of pi * ln(pi))
Natural Log of Number of 1.0986
Patch Types ln(S)
  [pi * ln(pi)] / ln(S)
i

10
Table 4. Mean Patch Area.
n
AREA _ MN   xij / ni
j 1

Patch number Area of each patch within a patch type

Forested Agricultural Urban

1 1
2 13
3 2
4 1
5 1
6 3
7 1
8 4
9 1
10 2
11 1
12 1
13 8
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
n 13
n 39
x
j 1
ij

n 3.0
x
j 1
ij /n

11
Table 5. Standard Deviation in Patch Size for forested patches (EXAMPLE).

Patch number

Area of each Square of deviation of patch

forested patch area from AREA_MN
(ha)
2
  n 
x   x ij / ni  
 ij j 1 

  
2
1 1 [1-3.0] = 4.0000
2 13 [13-3.0]2 = 100.0000
3 2 1.0000
4 1 4.0000
5 1 4.0000
6 3 0.0000
7 1 4.0000
8 4 1.0000
9 1 4.0000
10 2 1.0000
11 1 4.0000
12 1 4.0000
13 8 25.000
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
n 13
156
2
  n  
n
   
  xij   xij / ni  
j 1
 
j 1
 
 

3.4641
2
  n  
n
 
  
 x ij   xij / ni   /ni
j 1
 
j 1
 
 

12
Table 6. Complete for Standard Deviation in Patch Size for agricultural patches.

Patch number

Area of each Square of deviation of patch

agricultural patch area from AREA_MN
(ha)
2
  n 
x   x ij / ni  
 ij j 1 

  

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
n
2
  n  
n
   
  xij   xij / ni  
j 1
 
j 1
 
 
2
  n  
n
 
  
 x ij   xij / ni   /ni
j 1
 
j 1
 
 

13