Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 164, Issue 1–4, pp 403–421 | Cite as

Monitoring landscape metrics by point sampling: accuracy in estimating Shannon’s diversity and edge density

  • Habib Ramezani
  • Sören Holm
  • Anna Allard
  • Göran Ståhl


Environmental monitoring of landscapes is of increasing interest. To quantify landscape patterns, a number of metrics are used, of which Shannon’s diversity, edge length, and density are studied here. As an alternative to complete mapping, point sampling was applied to estimate the metrics for already mapped landscapes selected from the National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden (NILS). Monte-Carlo simulation was applied to study the performance of different designs. Random and systematic samplings were applied for four sample sizes and five buffer widths. The latter feature was relevant for edge length, since length was estimated through the number of points falling in buffer areas around edges. In addition, two landscape complexities were tested by applying two classification schemes with seven or 20 land cover classes to the NILS data. As expected, the root mean square error (RMSE) of the estimators decreased with increasing sample size. The estimators of both metrics were slightly biased, but the bias of Shannon’s diversity estimator was shown to decrease when sample size increased. In the edge length case, an increasing buffer width resulted in larger bias due to the increased impact of boundary conditions; this effect was shown to be independent of sample size. However, we also developed adjusted estimators that eliminate the bias of the edge length estimator. The rates of decrease of RMSE with increasing sample size and buffer width were quantified by a regression model. Finally, indicative cost–accuracy relationships were derived showing that point sampling could be a competitive alternative to complete wall-to-wall mapping.


Monitoring landscapes Landscape pattern metrics Root mean square error Monte-Carlo simulation Bias Cost efficiency Wall-to-wall Buffer area 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allard, A., Nilsson, B., Pramborg, K., Ståhl, G., & Sundquist, S. (2003). Manual for aerial photo interpretation in the National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden NILS. Umeå, Sweden: Swedish University for Agricultural Sciences, SLU.Google Scholar
  2. Allard, A., Esseen, P.-A., Holm, S., Högström, M., Marklund, L., Nilsson, B., et al. (2007). Fångst av vegetationsdata och Natura 2000-habitat i fjällen genom flygbildstolkning i IRF med punktgittermetodik (Catch of vegetation data and the Natura 2000 habitats in the mountains by Localization interpretation of the IRF with point lattice method). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Resource Management, Work Report 172 (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  3. Carfagna, E., & Gallego, F. (1999). Thematic maps and statistics. In Land cover and land use information systems for European Union policy needs (pp. 219–228). Luxembourg: Office for Official publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  4. Corona, P., Chirici, G., & Travaglini, D. (2004). Forest ecotone survey by line intersect sampling. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere, 34, 1776–1783. doi: 10.1139/x04-045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dahm, S. (2001). Investigation of forest edge lengths based on data of the first Federal Forest Inventory. Allgemeine Forst Und Jagdzeitung, 172, 81–86.Google Scholar
  6. DeVries, P. G. (1986). Sampling theory for forest inventory. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Eiden, G., Jadues, P., & Theis, R. (2005). Linear landscape features in the European Union. Developing indicators related to linear landscape features based on LUCAS transect data an EU publication report EUR 21669 “Trends of some agri-environmental indicators in the European Commission”.Google Scholar
  8. Ekman, T., & Eriksson, G. (1981). Programmering i Fortran 77(in Swedish). Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  9. EPA (2003). Environmental Monitoring Program. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  10. Esseen, P. A., Jansson, K. U., & Nilsson, M. (2006). Forest edge quantification by line intersect sampling in aerial photographs. Forest Ecology and Management, 230, 32–42. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.04.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fang, S. F., Gertner, G., Wang, G. X., & Anderson, A. (2006). The impact of misclassification in land use maps in the prediction of landscape dynamics. Landscape Ecology, 21, 233–242. doi: 10.1007/s10980-005-1051-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FAO (2000). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, forestry paper, 140. Rome.Google Scholar
  13. Fjellstad, W. J., & Dramstad, W. E. (1999). Patterns of change in two contrasting Norwegian agricultural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 45, 177–191. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00055-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freese, F. (1962). Elementary forest sampling. Washington D.C.: USDA Forest service.Google Scholar
  15. Gregoire, T. G., & Valentine Harry, T. (2005). Sampling techniques for natural and environmental resources. Boca Raton, Fla. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
  16. Hernandez-Stefanoni, J. L. (2006). The role of landscape patterns of habitat types on plant species diversity of a tropical forest in Mexico. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15, 1441–1457. doi: 10.1007/s10531-005-0598-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hunsaker, C. T., O’Neill, R. V., Jackson, B. L., Timmins, S. P., Levine, D. A., & Norton, D. J. (1994). Sampling to characterize landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology, 9, 207–226. doi: 10.1007/BF00134748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kleinn, C. (2000). Estimating metrics of forest spatial pattern from large area forest inventory cluster samples. Forest Science, 46, 548–557.Google Scholar
  19. Kleinn, C., & Traub, B. (2003). Describing landscape pattern by sampling methods. In Advances in forest inventory for sustainable forest management and biodiversity monitoring (Vol. 76, pp. 175–189).Google Scholar
  20. Kleinn, C., & Vilcko, F. (2006). A new empirical approach for estimation in k-tree sampling. Forest Ecology and Management, 237, 522–533. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.09.072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindgren, O. (1984). A study on circular sampling of Swedish forest compartments, Swedish University of Agriculture Science, Department of Biometry and Forest Management. (Thesis).Google Scholar
  22. Lu, D., & Weng, Q. (2007). A survey of image classification methods and techniques for improving classification performance. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 28, 823–870. doi: 10.1080/01431160600746456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McGarigal, K., & Marks, E. J. (1995). FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape pattern. General Technical Report 351. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.Google Scholar
  24. Metropolis, N., & Ulam, S. (1949). The Monte Carlo method. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 44, 335–341. doi: 10.2307/2280232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. NIJOS (2001). Norwegian 3Q Monitoring Program. Norwegian institute of land inventory.Google Scholar
  26. Raj, D. (1968). Sampling theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  27. Ricotta, C., Corona, P., & Marchetti, M. (2003). Beware of contagion!. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62, 173–177. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00146-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schreuder, H., Ernst, R., & Ramirez-Maldonado, H. (2004). Statistical techniques for sampling and monitoring natural resources. Washington D.C.: USDA, Forest service.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, H. F. (1938). An empirical law describing heterogeneity in the yields of agricultural crops. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 28, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ståhl, G. (1998). Transect relascope sampling—a method for the quantification of coarse woody debris. Forest Science, 44, 58–63.Google Scholar
  31. Thompson, S. K. (2002). Sampling (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Turner, M. G. (1989). Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 20, 171–197. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.20.110189.001131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Turner, M. G., Gardner, R. H., & O’Neill, R. V. (2001). Landscape ecology in theory and practice: Pattern and process. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. U.S. Environment Protection Agency (1994). Landscape Monitoring and Assessment Research Plan, EPA 620/DRAFT, Office of research and Development, Washington. D.C.Google Scholar
  35. Vencatasawmy, C., Reese, H., & Olsson, H. (2000). The spatial normalisation of SPOT images using Point Spread Functions. In Proceedings of the international conference on integrating geographic information systems and environmental modeling: Problems, prospects, and needs for research, Banff, Canada.Google Scholar
  36. Wulder, M. A., White, J. C., Hay, G. J., & Castilla, G. (2008). Towards automated segmentation of forest inventory polygons on high spatial resolution satellite imagery. Forestry Chronicle, 84, 221–230.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Habib Ramezani
    • 1
  • Sören Holm
    • 1
  • Anna Allard
    • 1
  • Göran Ståhl
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest Resource ManagementSwedish University of Agriculture Science, SLUUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations