Geocarto International

ISSN: 1010-6049 (Print) 1752-0762 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tgei20

Optimization of spatial statistical approaches to

identify land use/ land cover change hot spots of
Pune region of Maharashtra using Remote Sensing
and GIS techniques

Kuntal Ganguly, Rajiv Kumar, K. Mruthyunjaya Reddy, P. Jagadeeswara Rao,

Manoj Raj Saxena & G. Ravi Shankar

To cite this article: Kuntal Ganguly, Rajiv Kumar, K. Mruthyunjaya Reddy, P. Jagadeeswara Rao,
Manoj Raj Saxena & G. Ravi Shankar (2016): Optimization of spatial statistical approaches to
identify land use/ land cover change hot spots of Pune region of Maharashtra using Remote
Sensing and GIS techniques, Geocarto International, DOI: 10.1080/10106049.2016.1178813

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2016.1178813

Accepted author version posted online: 20

Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 13

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tgei20

Download by: [Library Services City University London] Date: 26 April 2016, At: 06:25
 Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Journal: Geocarto International
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2016.1178813

Title Optimization of spatial statistical approaches to identify land use/

land cover change hot spots of Pune region of Maharashtra using

Remote Sensing and GIS techniques

Name of authors Kuntal Gangulya*
Rajiv Kumara
K. Mruthyunjaya Reddyb
P. Jagadeeswara Raoc
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

Manoj Raj Saxenaa

G. Ravi Shankara
a
Affiliations Land Use and Cover Monitoring Division, National Remote

Sensing Centre, ISRO, DOS, Balanagar, Hyderabad, 500037

b
Rural Development and Watershed Management Division,

National Remote Sensing Centre, ISRO, DOS, Balanagar,

Hyderabad, 500037
c
Department Of Geo-Engineering & Resource Development

Technology, College Of Engineering, Andhra University,

Visakhapatnam-530 003
Full telephone, E-mail Senior Researcher, Land Use and Cover Monitoring Division,

address of the National Remote Sensing Centre, ISRO, DOS, Balanagar,

corresponding author* Hyderabad,500037

Phone: 04023884278

Mobile: 7303916539

Key words Land

Emailuse / land cover; LULCC; hot spot; spatial statistics; remote
id: gangulykuntal@gmail.com,
sensing; Getis-Ord Gi*
ganguly_kuntal@yahoo.co.in
No. of text page 15
No. of Figure 13
No. of Table 15
Total words 5213
 Title:

Optimization of spatial statistical approaches to identify land use/ land cover change hot spots of

Pune region of Maharashtra using Remote Sensing and GIS techniques

Name of authors:

Kuntal Gangulya*

Rajiv Kumara

K. Mruthyunjaya Reddyb
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

P. Jagadeeswara Raoc

Manoj Raj Saxenaa

G. Ravi Shankara

Affiliations:
a
Land Use and Land Cover Monitoring Division, National Remote Sensing Centre, ISRO,

DOS, Balanagar, Hyderabad-500 037

b
Rural Development and Watershed Management Division, National Remote Sensing Centre,

ISRO, DOS, Balanagar, Hyderabad-500 037

c
Department Of Geo-Engineering & Resource Development Technology, College Of

Engineering, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam-530 003

Full telephone, E-mail address of the corresponding author*

Senior Researcher, Land Use and Cover Monitoring Division, National Remote Sensing

Centre, ISRO, DOS, Balanagar, Hyderabad,500037

Phone: 04023884278

Mobile: 7303916539

Email id: gangulykuntal@gmail.com, ganguly_kuntal@yahoo.co.in

Key words

Land use / land cover; LULCC; hot spot; spatial statistics; remote sensing; Getis-Ord Gi*
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

No of Table: 15
No of Figure: 13

Total words: 5213

No of text page: 15
 Optimization of spatial statistical approaches to identify land use/ land cover change hot spots of

Pune region of Maharashtra using Remote Sensing and GIS techniques

Abstract

This study investigated land use / land cover change (LULCC) dynamics using temporal satellite

images and spatial statistical cluster analysis approaches in order to identify potential LULCC hot

spots in the Pune region. LULCC hot spot classes defined as new, progressive and non-progressive

were derived from Gi* scores. Results indicate that progressive hot spots have experienced high

growth in terms of urban built-up areas (20.67% in 1972-92 and 19.44% in 1992-12), industrial areas
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

(0.73% in 1972-92 and 3.46% in 1992-12) and fallow lands (4.35% in 1972-1992 and -6.38% in 1992-

12). It was also noticed that about 28.26% of areas near the city were identified as new hot spots after

1992. Hence, non-significant change areas were identified as non-progressive after 1992. The study

demonstrated that LULCC hot spot mapping through the integrated spatial statistical approach was an

effective approach for analysing the direction, rate, spatial pattern and spatial relationship of LULCC.

Keywords: Land use / land cover; LULCC; hot spot; spatial statistics; remote sensing; Gi* score

1. Introduction

There is unequal urban growth, which is taking place all over the world, but the rate of urbanization is

very fast in developing countries, especially in Asia. In 1800 A.D., only 3% of the world’s population

lived in urban centres, but this figure reached 14% in 1900 and in 2000, about 47% (2.8 billion) people

were living in urban areas. India no longer lives in villages and 79 million people were living in urban

areas in 1961, but it went up to 285 million in 2001. In India and China alone, there are more than 170

urban areas with populations of over 750,000 inhabitants (United Nations Population Division 2001).

Statistics show that India’s urban population is the second largest in the world after China, and is

higher than the total urban population of all countries put together barring China, USA and Russia. In

1991, there were 23 metropolitan cities in India, which increased to 35 in 2001 (Census of India 2001).

With rapid urbanization, there has been tremendous growth in population and buildings in cities,

which lead to the drastic reduction in the greenery area and is opposite to the increase in impervious

area. In India, Pune city and its surrounding villages are now home to more than 3.1 million people

and growing at a rapid pace. It has experienced rapid land use / land cover dynamics in the last four
 decades. The galloping process of industrialization, urbanization and globalization has brought

mounting environmental problems, including climate change, water shortage and pollution (Ganguly

& Ravi Shankar 2014).

Remote sensing data have been an attractive source in the determination of land cover thematic

mapping, providing valuable information for delineating the extent of land cover classes, as well as for

performing temporal land cover change analysis and risk analysis at various scales (Kavzoglu &

Colkesen 2009). Remotely sensed data, as a result, is often highly spatially auto correlated and

various techniques have been developed to assess the spatial dependence characteristics of
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

remotely sensed imagery. The Getis statistic provides a measure of spatial dependence for each

pixel while also indicating the relative magnitudes of the digital numbers in the neighbourhood

of the pixel (Wulder & Boots 2010). A hot spot, as the name suggests, is a state of indicating some

arrangements of clusters in a spatial distribution. One of the most popular approaches for the detection

of LULCC hot spots is cluster analysis. Cluster analysis can be an effective method for determining

areas exhibiting a maximum number of concentrations of land transformations. However, it remains a

particularly challenging task to detect hot spots using clustering techniques. It is mainly because of the

uncertainty associated with the appropriate number of LULCC clusters to be generated, as well as

establishing the significance of the individual clusters identified. Not surprisingly, research indicates

that certain areas are more prone to higher concentrations of land use and land cover change and

widely labelled as ‘hot spots’, such areas are often observed as most dynamic in nature. Where

resources are constrained, the identification of hot spots is helpful because the significance of change

and identification of an area cannot be estimated through operational approaches. Operationally, the

delineation of hot spot boundaries is somewhat arbitrary. LULCC density was measured over a

continuous area. Therefore, the boundaries separating hot spots of the change areas from areas without

enough change to merit the label hot spot are perceptual constructs. Moreover, depending on the scale

of geographic analysis, a hot spot can mean very different things (Harries 1999). An essential need in

the use of non-hierarchical approaches for the detection of hot spots is to better understand what

makes certain clusters more significant in the context of hot spot analysis. In other words, what makes

a hot spot ‘hot’ and what makes other clusters ‘cold’. A body of research does exist for approaching
 this issue, though its use in the context of hot spot detection is uncultivated. The results of the CMRC

(1998) study suggest that a good approach for detecting hot spots is tests of spatial autocorrelation. As

demonstrated by Jefferis (1999), the implementation of the Getis-Ord statistic (Gi statistic) in

SpaceStat provided very good measures of crime hot spots for Baltimore County. The utility of spatial

autocorrelation and the Gi statistic for hot spot analysis is further supported in the work of Craglia et

al. (2000). Ghimire et al. (2010) have also demonstrated that the use of the Getis statistic with

different neighbourhood sizes leads to substantial increase in per class classification accuracy of

heterogeneous land-cover categories.

Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

2. Study Area

The study area makes up a part of Pune district, which includes four taluks, namely, Haveli, Khed,

Marvel and Mulshitaluks, which cover an area about 4840 sq. km and lies between 73 o 18’ 50” E to

74o 12’ 03” E and 18o 10’ 51” N to 19o 05’ 53” N (Figure 1). River Pavana, Mula and Mutha are major

river systems flowing through the study area. The geomorphological setting of the study area shows a

backdrop of hills on the western side, with steeper slopes and rocky red soils. The area is underlaid by

basaltic lava flows of upper cretaceous Eocene age associated with basic intrusive. The soil texture

contains alluvial deposits of sand, gravels, fine silts and clays along the bank of the rivers.

INSERT FIGURE 1

3. Methods

The methodology adopted for this research ranges from data collection, processing, analysis and

generation of other geospatial datasets for the result and analysis. The conceptualized framework of

the study has given in Figure 2.

INSERT FIGURE 2

3.1. Data Collection

Landsat MSS of December 21, 1972 and Landsat TM image of February 04, 1992 and IRS

Resourcesat-2 LISS-3 of March 17, 2012 were selected for use in this study. Images were

geometrically corrected and georeferenced to the Universal Transverse Mercator zone 43N coordinate

system by using WGS-84 datum. The specification of the satellite images is given in Table 1.
 INSERT TABLE 1

Village boundaries were created using a mosaic of the cadastral boundary for each village and were

used to extract the information on land use / land cover change for a particular village.

3.2. Land use / land cover classification

Experimental and operational classifications are two different approaches for large area land cover

mapping and monitoring (Defries & Townshend 1999; Hansen & Loveland 2012). From the point of

view of land use / land cover (LULC) mapping at multi resolution (23m-56m), the selection of

appropriate classes suitable for complex landscapes, as well as quality of the resulting data products
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

needs to be addressed. To identify dominant LULC classes in the study area, visual interpretation has

been carried out using on screen digitization (Roy et al. 2015). Manual or visual classification of

remotely sensed data is an effective method of classifying land cover, especially when the analyst is

familiar with the area being classified. It relies on the interpreter employing visual cues such as tone,

texture, shape, pattern and relationship to other objects to identify the different land cover classes

(NRSC/ISRO 2010). Our classification scheme, with level 2 classes (Table 2), was based on the land

use / land cover classification system developed by NRSC/ISRO (2011) for interpretation of remote

sensor data at various scales and resolutions.

INSERT TABLE 2

Depending on the availability of LULC of the study area, ten dominant LULC classes were extracted

in the region. Urban, rural, industries, cropland, fallow land, forest, tree clad, wasteland, river and

water body classes were found to be appropriate classes for classification.

3.3. Classification Accuracy assessment

Accuracy implies a comparison between the map and reference information and this comparison

requires rules to carry it out consistently (Strahler et al. 2006). An independent sample of 300 random

points was collected from ground verification and same points were used to find out class accuracy of

the predicted (classified) image using ArcGIS 10.2.1. Error matrices as cross-tabulations of the

mapped class vs. the reference class were used to assess classification accuracy (Congalton & Green

1999). Class accuracy, observed accuracy, expected accuracy and the Kappa statistic were then
 derived from the error matrices. The Kappa statistics incorporates the off diagonal elements of the

error matrices (i.e. classification errors) and represents agreement obtained after removing the

proportion of agreement that could be expected to occur by chance.

3.4. Change detection

Following the classification of imagery from the individual years, a multi-date post

classification comparison change detection field was used to determine changes in land use /

land cover in two intervals i.e. 1972–1992 and 1992-2012. This is perhaps the most common

approach to change detection (Jensen 2004) and has been successfully used by NRSC/ISRO
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

(2011) to monitor land use / land cover changes at 1: 50000 scale all over India. The post-

classification approach provides ‘‘from–to’’ change information and the kind of landscape

transformations that have occurred can be easily calculated and mapped (Yuan et al. 2005). A

change detection map with 13 and 28 combinations of ‘‘from–to’’ change information were

derived for each of the two ten-class maps.

4. Spatial Statistics

4.1. Cluster analysis

The basic principle of cluster analysis in spatial statistics is the task of grouping a set of objects in

such a way that aims to collect or cluster objects into the same group that is more similar to each other

than to those in other groups. It is defined as the correlation of a variable with itself through space. It

evaluates the effectiveness of spatial correlation and tests the assumption of independence (or

entropy). If there are any systematic patterns in the spatial distribution of a variable, that variable is

said to be spatially correlated, if nearby areas are alike, the correlation is positive. Negative correlation

applies to neighbouring areas that are unlike and random patterns exhibit no significant spatial cluster.

In spatial statistics, cluster analysis does not explain why locations that bear clusters of statistically

significant land use / land cover change have a higher incidence of changes than other positions; thus,

this method cannot identify factors that cause land use / land cover change.

Getis-Ord Gi* Statistic

 G-statistics, developed by Getis and Ord, analyse evidence of spatial patterns (Getis & Ord 1992; Ord

& Getis 1995). They represent a global spatial autocorrelation index, which is a local spatial

autocorrelation index also. It is more suitable for discerning cluster structures of high or low

concentration. A simple form of the Gi* statistic is (Songchitruksa 2010):

(1)

Where, Gi* is the SA statistic of an event i over n events and wij is the measure of the spatial

proximity between regions i and j. The term, xj, characterizes the magnitude of the variable x at events
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

j over all n. The distribution of the Gi* statistic is normal when normality is observed in the

underlying distribution of the variable x. The threshold distance (i.e., the proximity of one land

transformation to another) in this subject field was set to zero to designate that all characteristics were

considered neighbours of all other features. This threshold was applied over the entire region of the

study. The standardized Gi* is essentially a Z-value and can be associated with statistical significance

as:

(2)

Positive and negative Gi* statistics with high absolute values correspond to clusters of transforming

land with high and low-value events, respectively. A Gi* close to zero implies a random distribution

of events (Manepalli et al. 2011).

4.2. Experimental evaluation

GIS database design and utilization has a great advantage to utilize the data repeatedly without

disturbing the original dataset. In the present study, the classified data in GIS vector format were used

to find out the land use / land cover change over the study area using a spatial query based technique.

The same dataset containing land use / land cover class fields was utilized to derive the changes for

each of the two ten-class maps. The database for change layers contained combinations of land

transformation and the combinations were achieved through querying each land use / land cover class

at temporal scale. As the statistical analysis deals with numeric values, therefore, all the LULCC
 combinations were assigned a unique value. In the present study, the Getis-Ord Gi* test was carried

out using the ArcGIS 10.2.1 spatial statistical tool to calculate the LULCC hot spots. The resultant Z-

scores were identified in the cluster spatially with high and low values. Therefore, the feature with a

high Z-score value may not be a statistically significant hot spot if not beleaguered by other features

with high values as well. For simplicity of data analysis and ease of implementation, we decided to

transform LULCC data at 100m x 100m fixed grid cell which was further utilized for zonation of the

hot spot. The Gi* statistic returned for each polygon in the dataset with a Gi* score, was further

converted into point information for each grid. The points were used with ordinary kriging to establish
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

a contiguous map listing all other prediction points through the chosen model. The method of

interpolation or kriging estimated a value of an unknown variable in regions not sampled. Hence, the

spatial variation of all points was mapped using the Gi* score, which categorized the study area into

cold spots (minimum spatial change area) and hot spots (maximum spatial change area). Depending on

the dimensionality and dynamics of the change region over time, the hot spots were further

categorized into new, progressive and non-progressive. Simultaneously, the number of villages of the

study area was also depicted under different categories of the hot spot and to identify villages prone to

urbanization.

5. Results and discussions

5.1. Classification and change detection accuracy

Error matrices were used to assess classification accuracy and are summarized in Table 3. LULC

classes like rural built up, river and water bodies have achieved 97% of overall accuracy throughout

the image; whereas, the rest of the classes were having above 80% of class accuracy except cropland

(77%), tree-clad (77%) and wasteland (73%), with a Kappa statistic of 83.7 %. As the study area has

heterogeneous characteristics of LULC, medium resolution data was not sufficient to some extent to

classify the objects, thus the three classes, i.e. cropland, tree-clad and wasteland has achieved lower

accuracy compared to other LULC classes.

INSERT TABLE 3

5.2. Land use / land cover dynamics and change statistics

 Classification maps were generated for all three years (Figure 4) and the individual class area and

change statistics for the three years are summarized in Table 4. From 1972 to 2012 built-up urban and

industrial areas have increased by 7.13% and 1.64% of the total geographic area (TGA) respectively,

with the greatest increase occurring from 1992 to 2012, while a constant an overall decrease in

croplands have also been observed by 6.92% of TGA from 1972 to 2012. A substantial alteration was

observed in wastelands which show a considerable decrease of 3.85% in terms of TGA. It has also

been noted a significant increase in the water body class due to the construction of new reservoirs

from 1972-2012 (Figure 3). Although the extent of water bodies may change from year to year due to
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

varying precipitation and temperature.

INSERT TABLE 4

INSERT FIGURE 3, 4

To further evaluate the results of LULC conversions, matrices of LULCC from 1972 to 1992 and 1992

to 2012 were created. In the table, unchanged areas are located along the major diagonal of the matrix.

Table 5 shows the land use / land cover change matrix from 1972 to 1992. From the table, it is

observed that there was a considerable interclass change during the 20 year period from 1972 to 1992

when major land use / land cover e.g. croplands and wastelands have been won over to urban built-up.

It was also noted that due to the construction of new reservoirs some part of agricultural lands were

transformed into water bodies. In comparison with the change matrix of 1972-1992, more significant

interclass changes have been observed from 1992 to 2012. Table 6 demonstrates the impact of

urbanization and industrialization on land use / land cover. It was observed that the land shifts in urban

areas have been led from almost all the classes, where cropland, fallow lands, and wastelands

contributed 113.38 sq. km, 56.67 sq. km. and 46.99 sq. km. to urban area, respectively. Along the

similar lines of urban expansion, major land transformations have also been observed in every year.

Major contributions to industries were observed from cropland (22.92 sq. km), fallow land (16.61 sq.

km) and wasteland (40.62 sq. km). The cross-tabulation (Table 7) of the 1972 and 2012 land use/ land

cover maps revealed that most of the losses were converted to urban or built-up land (394.48 sq. km),

water bodies (111.98 sq. km) and industrial (90.81 sq. km).
 INSERT TABLE 5, 6, 7

The dominance of LULCC combinations was examined with respect to its total number of occurrences

during 1972-1992 and 1992-2012. Table 8 shows increases of LULCC class combinations from 13 to

28 during 1972-1992 and 1992-2012, respectively. It was also observed that in 14.93% of the cases the

change was ‘‘croplands to urban’’ during 1972-1992, which increased up to 19.07% during 1992-

2012. Fallow lands also contributed about 8.19% area to urban expansion during 1992-2012. Whereas,

the change from “croplands to water bodies” has decreased from 20.02% to 12.35% during 1972 to

2012. Table 8 also reveals considerable increases in industrial areas by 8.7% utilizing both cropland
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

and wastelands.

INSERT TABLE 8

5.3. Detecting land use / land cover change hot spots and zonation

Hot spot detection aims at identifying subgroups in the observations that are unexpected and are very

significant with respect to baseline information. In the present study the land use / land cover change

hot spots have been calculated using the Z-score, which distinguishes the region with higher

concentration of LULCC clusters. On the other hand, the changes with very low Z-scores or very

lower changes were identified as a cold spot. Similarly, the range of Z-scores was further categorized

on the basis of the Gi* value which varies from +3 to-3. Understanding the nature of clustering

overtime, the output Gi* values were gridded into 100m x 100m cells (Figure 5 and Figure 6). On the

other hand, to assess the severity of hot spots from 1972 to 2012 a GIS query based analysis was

performed. Zonation of the hot spots was also being performed using a kriging interpolation technique.

The results showed the entire study area has been divided into three zones as, new, progressive and

non-progressive hot spots (Figure 7). It was noted from the analysis of the LULCC hot spot map of

1972-1992 and 1992-2012, 190 new villages of the study area have experienced very significant

LULC changes of about 28.26% of the total village area during the last 20 years (Figure 8). These new

villages were categorized under new hot spots. Likewise, it was also observed that 27 villages of the

study area which were defined as progressive hot spots (covering an area about 54% of the villages)

continuing their growth since the last 40 years (Figure 9). Significant land transformations have not
 been perceived for non-progressive hot spots during last two tens. Although 18 villages (80% area)

within non-progressive hot spots have shown industrial expansion during 1972 to 1992, however, land

transformation became more stable after 1992. Therefore, hot spots were not identified during 1992-

2012 time periods (Figure 10) (Table 9).

INSERT TABLE 9

INSERT FIGURE 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

5.4. Land use / land cover change characteristics of hot spot regions

The geometry of land development and land use patterns was achieved through the identification of
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

hot spots that further provided detailed spatial information for land use planning. In the present study,

GIS-based cluster analysis provides a utilitarian instrument to distinguish hot spots and to enforce the

land transformation morphological approach to identify dynamic villages. Hence, three major classes-

new, progressive and non-progressive hot spots were obtained from the analysis, which was useful to

facilitate the measurement of urban morphology.

New hot spots

Analysis of hot spots at temporal scale has identified few clusters which had higher and lower

concentration over the study area. It was found from the analysis of the last 40 years (1972-1992 and

1992-2012) of land transformation and hot spot delineation, about 190 new villages of Pune city and

surrounding regions have had a higher concentration of land use / land cover changes after 1992.

INSERT FIGURE 11

Figure11 shows adjoining villages of the Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad city areas which have been

debated as new hot spots have continuous and higher rates of LULC changes since 1992. Hence, a

higher pace of land transformation has been taken place in the 190 villages of surrounding Pune and

Pimpri-Chinchwad. Rapid industrialization was also noted after 1992 along with urbanization reducing

croplands and wastelands at a higher pace. According to the Pune Business Directory & Information

Portal, the industrial development of Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad and its environs covers a span of the

last forty years or so, though there had certainly been a few isolated attempts to start industries in these

cities earlier. The emergence of industrial Pune and Pimpri-Chindwad began with mechanical
 engineering industries forming the base. Pune’s proximity to Mumbai, good climate and availability of

talent made it a preferred destination for large firms like Tata motors (TELCO then), Buckau Wolf

(Thyssen Krupp now), KSB Pumps, Hindustan Antibiotics, and several others.

INSERT TABLE 10, 11

Table 10 shows the inter-class transformation of land use / land cover from 1972 to 1992. Very

nominal changes were observed during 1972 to 1992, although considerable land transformations from

cropland to urban areas and reservoir were reported during this time period. Some amounts of

wastelands also decreased due to urban expansion. Table 11 shows the continuation of urban
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

expansion and remarkable industrial growth during 1992 to 2012. It was noticed about 29.78 sq. km

and 11.44 sq. km of croplands was converted to urban built-up and industries since 1992, respectively.

The agricultural reduction was also identified due to the setup of new reservoirs in new hot spot

regions, where 4.31 sq. km of croplands was converted to water bodies. Aside from agricultural

reduction, it was also found a substantial reduction of fallow lands (10.40 sq. km) and wastelands

(6.44 sq. km) due to urban expansion.

Progressive hot spots

The Getis-Ord Gi* statistical test has already shown some certain regions of the study area which were

having a gradual increase of the Z-score from 1972 to 2012. It was also identified from the statistical

analysis that, about 27 villages of the study region experienced an increasing pace of land

transformation which accelerated the growth from 95% to 99% confidence level during 1992-2012.

INSERT FIGURE 12

Figure 12 shows an overall higher rate of urbanization (above 35% of the hot spot village area),

whereas marginal changes (below 5%) were noted in the case of industrial expansion. On the other

hand, gradual declination of croplands and wastelands were also observed from 1972 to 2012. It caters

for the twin city of Pimpri-Chinchwad and surrounding regions, developed primarily due to rapid

urbanization and industrial development. Although, the new special township policy act of the

Maharashtra government has put down an integrated access to the development of townships to

decongest Pune Municipal Corporation areas and encourage new settlements in the fringe, thus most
 of the renowned developers in Pune are developing integrated townships (Source: Project Gutenberg

Self-Publishing Press).

INSERT TABLE 12, 13

In Table 12 the land use / land cover change matrix of 1972-1992 clearly reveals that about 37.15 sq.

km of the area has been converted from cropland to urban built-up, which was 35.86 sq. km during

1992-2012. Likewise, a substantial decrease of wastelands (57.86 sq. km) and conversion into urban

area has also been observed during 1972-1992, whereas comparatively, the contribution to urban area

was less (23.32 sq. km) during 1992-2012 (Table 13). It also exhibits a considerable reduction of
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

fallow lands (27.61 sq. km) which were transformed into urban built-up during last two decades.

Non-progressive hot spots

The cluster analysis through the Getis-Ord Gi* statistical test has revealed there was a parallel growth

of urban areas along with the rapid industrialization near Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad in the recent

past. It was noticed that the less changed areas have low clusters which were considered as hot spots

during 1972-92, but the same places were not considered during 1992-12. It was also noticed that

about 18 villages near the Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad region of Pune district showed less growth

after 1992. Figure13 shows the villages have experienced an overall 1.5 % increase of urban area and

industrial area from 1972 to 2012. In comparison with progressive and new hot spots, the amount of

change was much less. Reduction of agricultural lands and wastelands were continued like other hot

spots, but the rates of changes were not significant.

INSERT TABLE 14, 15

INSERT FIGURE 13

Distribution of LULC classes and their interclass transformation has been analysed using a change

matrix. Comparative analysis of the change matrix of 1972-1992 and 1992-2012 (Table 14 and Table

15) depicts that most of the land transformations occurred during 1992-2012. It was also noticed that

the region experienced urbanization for the first time after 1992. Although, during the 1972-1992 time

period there was a negligible amount of conversion of wastelands (0.04 sq. km) into industrial land

which was comparatively more (0.82 sq. km) during 1992-12. It was also noticed that reductions in
 agricultural lands had an immense contribution to urban built-up (14.21 sq. km) and industrial area

(0.21 sq. km) since 1992.

6. Conclusion

In this paper, an attempt has been made to assess the long-term land use / land cover dynamics for part

of the Pune district of India. The study has also been extended to establish the geospatial model to

identify land use / land cover change hot spots. A methodology was developed and Getis-Ord Gi*

spatial statistical cluster analysis approach was employed to identify LULC changed hot spots. Last 40

years of land use / land cover change analysis and the hot spot map obtained from the cluster analysis
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

has identified potential areas of future LULC change. The high priority hot spots of LULCC have been

identified within the suburban zone, whereas northern and western parts of the study area, which are

relatively less accessible due to the rugged terrain, are less prone to change and hence fall under low-

priority change areas. The proposed LULC change hot spot identification and the application of Getis-

Ord Gi* statistical test in LULC change analysis differed from earlier models and this technique can

be used in the same way to identify changes to hot spots of other natural resources.

On the other hand, the combined application of high-resolution historical imageries like

CORONA along with existing high-resolution satellite imageries can provide more accurate

information to identify LULC change hot spots in future.

Acknowledgements

Authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Land Use and Cover Monitoring Division of

NRSC/ISRO to complete the work. Authors place on record their deep sense of gratitude to Dr. V. K.

Dadhwal, Director, NRSC/ISRO and Dr. P. G. Diwakar, Dy. Director, NRSC/ISRO for their support

and motivation to do the work. Authors are also grateful to Dr. T. Ravi Shankar, Group Director,

LRUMG, NRSC/ISRO for his continuous support.

References

District census handbook: Census of India [Internet]. 2001. New Delhi. Available from:

http://www.censusindia.net/.

Congalton RG, Green K. 1999. Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data: Principles and

practices. Boca Rotan: Florida.

 Craglia M, Haining R, Wiles P. 2000. A comparative evaluation of approaches to urban crime pattern

analysis. Urban Stud. 37(4):711-729.

Crime Mapping Research Center. 1998. Hot spot, Mapping Crime and Geographic

Information System, CRMC, NCJ 178919; p. 91-126

Defries RS, Townshend JRG. 1999. GLC characterization from satellite data: from research to

operational implementation. Global Ecol Biogeogr. 8:367-379.

Ganguly K, Ravi Shankar G. 2014. Geo-environmental appraisal for studying urban

environment and its associated biophysical parameters using Remote Sensing and GIS
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

technique. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. XL(8):717-724.

Getis A, Ord JK. 1992. The analysis of Spatial Association by use of Distance Statistics. Geogr Anal.

24(3):189-206.

Ghimirea B, Rogana J, Miller J. 2010. Contextual land-cover classification: incorporating

spatial dependence in land-cover classification models using random forests and the

Getis statistic. Remote Sens. Lett. 1(1):45-54

Harries K. 1999. Mapping Crime: Principle and Practice. National Institute of Justice:

Washington DC. NCJ 178919; p. 1-193.

Jefferis E. 1999. A Multi-method Exploration of Crime Hot Spot: A Summary of Findings.

Washington DC (US): National Institute of Justice, Crime Mapping Research Centre.

Jensen JR. 2004. Digital change detection. Introductory digital image processing: A remote

sensing perspective, New Jersey: USA.

Kavzoglu T, Colkesen I. 2009. A kernel functions analysis for support vector machines for land cover

classification. Int J Appl Earth Obs. 11:352–359.

Manepalli URR., Bham GH, Kandada S. 2011. Evaluation of Hot spot identification using kernel

density estimation and Getis-Ord (Gi*) on I-630. In: 3rd International Conference on

Road Safety and Simulation; 2011 Sept 14-16; Indianapolis, USA.

NRSC, ISRO: Ebook on Remote Sensing Applications [Internet]. 2010. Hyderabad: National

Remote Sensing Centre. Available from: http://www.nrsc.gov.in/pdf/Chap_2_LULC.pdf.

 LULC 50k Atlas (India). 2011. Land Use Land Cover Atlas of India (Based on Multi-Temporal

Satellite Data of 2005-06): National Remote Sensing Centre.

Ord JK, Getis A. 1995. Local Spatial Autocorrelation Statistics: Distributional Issues and an

Application. Geogr Anal. 27(4):286-306.

Roy PS, Roy A, Joshi PK, Kale MP, Srivastava VK, Srivastava SK, Dwevidi RS, Joshi C, Behera

MD, Meiyappan P, et al. 2015. Development of Decadal (1985-1995-2005) Land Use and

Land Cover Database for India. Remote Sens. 7(3):2401-2430.

Songchitruksa P, Zeng X. 2010. Getis-Ord Spatial Statistics for Identifying Hot spots Using
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

Incident Management Data. In: Transportation Research Board (TRB) 89th Annual

Meeting; 2010 Jan 10-14; Washington DC, USA.

Strahler AH, Boschetti L, Foody GM, Friedl MA, Hansen MC, Herold M, Mayaux P, Jeffrey T,

Stehman SV, Woodcock CE. 2006. Global Land Cover Validation: Recommendations for

Evaluation and Accuracy Assessment of Global Land Cover Maps. Luxemburg:

European Commission, Joint Research Centre.

World Population Prospects: The 2000 Revision [Internet]. 2001. New York: United Nations

Population Division. Available from: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/

wpp2000.

Wulder M, Boots B. 2010. Local spatial autocorrelation characteristics of remotely sensed

imagery assessed with the Getis statistic. Int J Remote Sens. 11(19): 2223-2231.

Yuan F, Sawaya KE, Loeffelholz BC, Bauer ME. 2005. Land cover classification and change analysis

of the Twin Cities (Minnesota) Metropolitan Area by multitemporal Landsat remote sensing.

Remote Sens Environ. 98:317-328.

 Table Captions

Table 1. Satellite image specifications

Table 2. Land use / land cover classification scheme (NRSC/ISRO)
Table 3. Land use / land cover classification accuracy
Table 4. Land use / land cover change statistics from 1972 to 2012
Table 5. Land use / land cover change matrix, 1972-1992 (in sq. km)
Table 6. Land use / land cover change matrix, 1992-2012 (in sq. km)
Table 7. Land use / land cover change matrix, 1972-2012 (in sq. km)
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

Table 8. Land use / land cover change type combinations

Table 9. Area coverage of hot spots at different confidence levels
Table 10. Land use / land cover change matrix of new hot spots, 1972-1992 (in sq. km)
Table 11. Land use / land cover change matrix of new hot spots, 1992-2012 (in sq. km)
Table 12. Land use / land cover change matrix of progressive hot spots, 1972-1992 (in sq. km)
Table 13. Land use / land cover change matrix of progressive hot spots, 1992-2012 (in sq. km)
Table 14. Land use and land cover change matrix of non-progressive hot spots, 1972-1992 (in sq.
km)
Table 15. Land use and land cover change matrix of non-progressive hot spots, 1992-2012 (in sq.
km)
 Sensor
Sensor Platform Resolution Date Path/Row
Mode
MSS Landsat 1 60 m 21-12-1972 158/47
TM Landsat 5 30 m 04-02-1992 147/47
Multi-
R2, LISS 3 IRS 23.5 m 17-03-2012 95/59,60
spectral
96/60
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

Table 1
 Land use /
land cover Descriptions
classes
Urban Residential areas, mixed built‐up, recreational places, public / semi‐public utilities,
communications, public utilizes/facility, commercial areas, reclaimed areas, vegetated areas,
transportation.
Rural Built‐up areas, smaller in size, mainly associated with agriculture and allied sectors and
non‐commercial activities. They can be seen in clusters non‐ contiguous or scattered.
Industrial Industrial areas and their dumps, and ash/cooling ponds. surface rocks and stone quarries, sand
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

and gravel pits, brick kilns, etc. Areas of stockpile of storage dump of industrial raw material or
slag/effluents or waste material or quarried/mixed debris from earth's surface.
Crop lands Areas with standing crop, under agricultural tree crops planted adopting agricultural
management techniques as on the date of Satellite overpass.
Fallow lands Lands, which are taken up for cultivation but are temporarily allowed to rest, un‐cropped for one
or more season, but not less than one year.
Forests Land with a tree canopy cover of more than 10 percent and area of more than 0.5 ha, Forest
Plantations, Scrub forest.
Tree clads Trees outside forest.
Wastelands Degraded lands which can be brought under vegetative cover with reasonable effort and which
is currently underutilized and land which is deteriorating for lack of appropriate water and soil
management or on account of natural causes. It consists of salt‐affected land, gullied / ravinous
land, scrub land, sandy area, barren rocky/stony waste, rann area.
Rivers Rivers/streams are natural course of water flowing on the land surface along a definite
channel/slope regularly or intermittently towards a sea in most cases or in to a lake or an inland
basin in desert areas or a marsh or another river.
Water bodies Areas with surface water in the form of ponds, lakes, tanks and reservoirs.

Table 2
 Crop Fallow Tree Waste Water
Classes Urban Rural Industries Forests River Accuracy
lands lands clads lands bodies
Urban 25 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 83%
Rural 1 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97%
Industries 2 2 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87%
Crop lands 0 0 0 23 2 0 2 2 1 0 77%
Fallow lands 0 4 0 0 25 0 0 1 0 0 83%
Forests 0 0 0 0 0 25 4 0 1 0 83%
Tree clads 0 5 2 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 77%
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

Wastelands 0 4 2 1 0 0 1 22 0 0 73%
River 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 1 97%
Waterbodies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 29 97%

Kappa accuracy : 83.7 %

Table 3
 % of % of % of
1972 1992 2012 Change Change Change
1972-92 1992-12 1972-12
LULC Classes (Area in (Area in (Area in with with with
change change change
sq. km) sq. km) sq. km) respect to respect respect
TGA to TGA to TGA
Urban 58.71 231.02 453.07 172.30 3.11 222.05 4.01 394.36 7.13
Rural 22.22 23.87 35.99 1.66 0.03 12.11 0.22 13.77 0.25
Industries 16.11 23.45 106.84 7.34 0.13 83.39 1.51 90.73 1.64
Crop lands 2555.28 2386.38 2172.07 -168.90 -3.05 -214.31 -3.87 -383.22 -6.92
Fallow lands 174.25 239.22 181.21 64.97 1.17 -58.02 -1.05 6.95 0.13
Forests 905.98 905.98 898.58 0.00 0.00 -7.40 -0.13 -7.40 -0.13
Tree clads 604.33 603.18 598.02 -1.15 -0.02 -5.16 -0.09 -6.31 -0.11
Wastelands 1018.46 904.86 805.14 -113.61 -2.05 -99.72 -1.80 -213.32 -3.85
River 57.67 55.94 50.13 -1.73 -0.03 -5.81 -0.11 -7.54 -0.14
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

Water bodies 121.14 160.26 233.11 39.12 0.71 72.86 1.32 111.98 2.02

Table 4
 1972-1992
1972 1992 1972 Total
Crop Fallow Tree Waste Water
Urban Rural Industries Forests River
lands lands clads lands bodies
Urban 58.71 58.71
Rural 22.22 22.22
Industries 16.11 16.11
Crop lands 71.04 1.66 1.74 2386.38 65.93 28.54 2555.28
Fallow lands 173.29 0.96 174.25
Forests 905.98 905.98
Tree clads 601.69 2.64 604.33
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

Wastelands 101.27 5.60 1.49 904.86 0.03 5.21 1018.46

River 55.91 1.76 57.67
Waterbodies 121.14 121.14
1992 Total 231.02 23.87 23.45 2386.38 239.22 905.98 603.18 904.86 55.94 160.26 5534.15

Table 5
 1992-2012
1992 2012 1992 Total
Crop Fallow Tree Waste Water
Urban Rural Industries Forests River
lands lands clads lands bodies
Urban 230.79 0.22 231.02
Rural 3.71 19.99 0.01 0.17 23.87
Industries 0.03 23.37 0.05 23.45
Crop lands 113.38 5.18 22.92 2163.28 31.13 1.71 0.05 48.73 2386.38
Fallow lands 56.67 4.14 16.61 5.79 149.88 6.13 239.22
Forests 1.39 2.72 898.18 3.52 0.01 0.15 905.98
Tree clads 0.10 0.39 0.37 1.40 596.79 0.10 4.03 603.18
Wastelands 46.99 6.28 40.62 1.34 0.03 0.40 1.23 799.79 8.17 904.86
River 0.20 0.02 50.06 5.65 55.94
Waterbodies 160.26 160.26
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

2012 Total 453.07 35.99 106.84 2172.07 181.21 898.58 598.02 805.14 50.13 233.11 5534.15
Table 6
 1972-2012
1972 2012 1972 Total
Crop Fallow Tree Waste Water
Urban Rural Industries Forests River
lands lands clads lands bodies
Urban 58.59 0.13 58.71
Rural 2.21 19.84 0.17 22.22
Industries 0.03 16.03 0.05 16.11
Crop lands 219.18 6.46 29.18 2168.97 49.55 1.71 0.05 80.18 2555.28
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

Fallow lands 23.41 3.00 12.10 0.10 131.46 4.18 174.25

Forests 1.39 2.72 898.18 3.52 0.01 0.15 905.98
Tree clads 0.10 0.39 0.37 1.40 595.29 0.10 6.68 604.33
Wastelands 148.16 6.28 46.32 1.34 0.03 0.40 2.73 799.79 0.03 13.38 1018.46
River 0.20 0.02 50.03 7.41 57.67
Waterbodies 121.13 121.14
Grand Total 453.07 35.99 106.84 2172.07 181.21 898.58 598.02 805.14 50.13 233.11 5534.15

Table 7
 Feature Feature Feature
Change Type (1972-1992) % Change Type (1992- 2012) % Change Type (1992-2012) %
counts counts counts
Croplands to Fallow lands 295 34.95 Croplands to Fallow lands 206 4.54 Forests to Waterbodies 13 0.29
Croplands to Industries 17 2.01 Croplands to Forests 25 0.55 River to Croplands 5 0.11
Croplands to Rural 10 1.18 Croplands to Industries 395 8.70 River to Waterbodies 54 1.19
Croplands to Urban 126 14.93 Croplands to Rural 168 3.70 Rural to Urban 20 0.44
Croplands to Waterbodies 169 20.02 Croplands to Urban 866 19.07 Tree clads to Forests 397 8.74
Fallow lands to Waterbodies 21 2.49 Croplands to Wastelands 11 0.24 Tree clads to Industries 15 0.33
River to Waterbodies 6 0.71 Croplands to Waterbodies 561 12.35 Tree clads to Rural 13 0.29
Tree clads to Waterbodies 10 1.18 Fallow lands to Croplands 19 0.42 Tree clads to Urban 11 0.24
Wastelands to Industries 36 4.27 Fallow lands to Industries 216 4.76 Tree clads to Wastelands 4 0.09
Wastelands to River 1 0.12 Fallow lands to Rural 77 1.70 Tree clads to Waterbodies 50 1.10
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

Wastelands to Tree clads 1 0.12 Fallow lands to Urban 372 8.19 Wastelands to Industries 396 8.72
Wastelands to Urban 95 11.26 Fallow lands to Waterbodies 74 1.63 Wastelands to Rural 112 2.47
Wastelands to Waterbodies 57 6.75 Forests to Industries 32 0.70 Wastelands to Urban 274 6.03
Forests to Urban 18 0.40 Wastelands to Waterbodies 138 3.04

Table 8
 Non-progressive
New hot spots Progressive hot spots
Confidence Level hot spots
(Area in %) (Area in %)
(Area in %)
Cold Spot - 99% Confidence 0.21 0.00 0.00
Cold Spot - 95% Confidence 4.24 0.80 1.32
Cold Spot - 90% Confidence 4.45 0.98 4.23
Not Significant 52.22 43.83 79.87
Hot Spot - 90% Confidence 4.01 4.10 2.78
Hot Spot - 95% Confidence 6.61 6.15 3.57
Hot Spot - 99% Confidence 28.26 44.14 8.23
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

Table 9
 1972-1992

1972 1992 1972 Total

Crop Fallow Tree Waste Water
Urban Rural Industries Forests River
lands lands clads lands bodies
Urban 9.94 9.94
Rural 5.09 5.09
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

Industries 2.64 2.64

Crop lands 10.83 0.82 0.56 700.96 29.66 2.39 745.22
Fallow lands 51.88 0.02 51.9
Forests 115.28 115.28
Tree clads 110.1 110.1
Wastelands 14.86 0.57 316.49 0.09 332.01
River 20.22 0.13 20.35
Waterbodies 15.28 15.28
1992 Total 35.63 5.92 3.77 700.96 81.54 115.28 110.1 316.49 20.22 17.91 1407.82

Table 10
 1992-2012
1992 2012 1992
Total
Rura Industrie Crop Fallow Forest Tree Waste Rive Water
Urban
l s lands lands s clads lands r bodies
Urban 35.31 0.32 35.63
Rural 1.13 4.61 0.01 0.17 5.92
Industries 0.03 3.69 0.05 3.77
Crop lands 35.77 2.09 9.48 620.55 13.43 0.22 0.55 0.04 18.84 700.96
Fallow
16.96 1.6 9.29 3.6 47.98 2.1 81.54
lands
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

Forests 0.48 2.32 0.33 111.38 0.67 0.01 0.09 115.28

Tree clads 0.18 0.33 0.2 26.88 81.23 1.28 110.1
Wastelands 15.84 2.99 31.58 1.19 1.89 0.59 0.22 256.72 5.47 316.49
16.0
River 0.02 0.02 4.15 20.22
2
Waterbodie
17.91 17.91
s
105.6 11.6 16.0 1407.8
2012 Total 56.89 625.41 63.8 139.07 81.46 257.97 49.83
9 3 7 2

Table 11
 1972-1992
1972 1992 1972
Total
Crop Fallow Tree Waste Water
Urban Rural Industries Forests River
lands lands clads lands bodies
Urban 43.85 43.85
Rural 1.99 1.99
Industries 5.15 5.15
Crop lands 37.15 146.45 19.97 0.10 203.67
Fallow lands 14.77 14.77
Forests 17.63 17.63
Tree clads 19.19 19.19
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

Wastelands 57.86 3.36 1.49 85.00 147.71

River 3.82 3.82
Waterbodies 1.89 1.89
1992 Total 138.85 1.99 8.51 146.45 34.74 17.63 20.69 85.00 3.82 2.00 459.67

Table 12
 1992-2012

1992 2012 1992 Total

Crop Fallow Tree Waste Water
Urban Rural Industries Forests River
lands lands clads lands bodies

Urban 138.06 0.79 138.85

Rural 1.14 0.85 1.99
Industries 8.51 8.51
Crop lands 35.86 0.33 5.87 102.54 0.86 0.11 0.82 0.06 146.45
Fallow lands 27.61 0.13 2.38 4.56 0.06 34.74
Forests 0.65 0.17 16.77 0.05 17.63
Tree clads 1.56 0.02 0.09 0.35 7.03 11.04 0.10 0.49 20.69
Wastelands 23.32 0.95 6.59 0.12 53.74 0.27 85.00
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

River 3.82 3.82

Waterbodies 2.00 2.00
2012 Total 228.21 2.27 24.40 103.01 5.42 23.91 11.04 54.66 3.82 2.93 459.67

Table 13

Table 14
 1972-1992

1972 1992 1972 Total

Crop Fallow Tree Waste Water

Urban Rural Industries Forests River
lands lands clads lands bodies

Urban 0.83 0.83

Rural 0.71 0.71
Industries 1.94 1.94
Crop lands 8.82 0.30 47.62 4.26 0.60 61.60
Fallow lands 3.27 3.27
Forests 7.71 7.71
Tree clads 11.11 11.11
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

Wastelands 14.17 0.04 29.57 0.13 43.92

River 1.38 1.38
Waterbodies 0.74 0.74
1992 Total 23.82 1.02 1.98 47.62 7.53 7.71 11.11 29.57 1.38 1.47 133.21
 1992-2012
1992 2012 1992
Total
Crop Fallow Tree Waste Water
Urban Rural Industries Forests River
lands lands clads lands bodies
Urban 23.4 0.42 23.82
Rural 0.42 0.6 1.02
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

Industries 1.98 1.98

Crop lands 14.21 0.09 0.21 32.66 0.12 0.32 0.01 47.62
Fallow lands 4.8 0.09 1.17 1.33 0.13 0.01 7.53
Forests 0.09 7.62 7.71
Tree clads 0.16 3.02 7.92 11.11
Wastelands 5.31 0.46 0.82 22.7 0.28 29.57
River 1.38 1.38
Waterbodies 1.47 1.47
2012 Total 48.39 1.23 4.62 34 0.25 10.65 7.92 23.01 1.38 1.77 133.21

Table 15
 Figure Captions

Figure 1. Location map of the study area

Figure 2. Conceptualized framework of the study
Figure 3. Land use / land cover changes during 1972-92, 1992-12 and 1972-12
Figure 4. Land use / land cover change dynamics (1972, 1992, and 2012)
Figure 5. Land use / land cover change hot spot and cold spot (a) of 1972-1992 and coded into
grid map (b)
Figure 6. Land use / land cover change hot spot and cold spot (a) of 1992-2012 and coded into grid
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016

map (b)
Figure 7. Hot spot zone map of the of the study area
Figure 8. Area coverage of villages under new hot spots
Figure 9. Area coverage of villages under progressive hot spots
Figure 10. Area coverage of villages under non-progressive hot spots
Figure 11. Land use / land cover change statistics of villages under new hot spots
Figure 12. Land use / land cover change statistics of villages under progressive hot spots
Figure 13. Land use and land cover change statistics of villages under non-progressive hot spots
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 06:25 26 April 2016