Investigation of Indices for the Automated Quantification of Landscape Qualitative Characteristics Using Digital Ground Photographs

Investigation of Indices for the Automated Quantification of Landscape Qualitative Characteristics Using Digital Ground Photographs

A. Tsouchlaraki

National Technical University of Athens, Greece.

9 June 2006
| Citation



This study aims to investigate indices for the automatic evaluation and classification of landscape quality using digital ground photographs. Research efforts to date are scarce on automated extraction of qualitative information based on photographs and therefore this study contributes in this respect, i.e. the automated quantification of landscape qualitative characteristics. Based on the texture indices that are commonly used in landscape analysis, eight quantitative indices are selected and the results from the application of these indices to a sample of ground photographs are described in this paper. These indices are richness, fragmentation, diversity, dominance, grouping and complexity. Furthermore, we investigate the effectiveness of the indices selected as to the classification of the landscape’s qualitative characteristics, such as relief morphology, visibility, water existence, vegetation patterns, etc. The results are compared to the results derived from a research programme of the National Technical University of Athens, in which the qualitative characteristics of the landscapes depicted in the same samples of ground photographs have been manually assessed based on the scientific opinion of seven experts. Comments and suggestions are presented based on the comparison for further investigation. The main conclusion of the investigation is that the texture measurement indices are sensitised in the landscape’s qualitative characteristics, a fact that is positive and encouraging enough in order to pursue further research.


landscape evaluation and classification, texture indices, digital ground photographs, geographical information systems


[1] USDA ForestService, The Visual Management System, Ag.Handbook462,GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, DC, 1973.

[2] USDA Forest Service, National Forest Landscape Management, Ag. Handbook 434, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1974.

[3] USDA Forest Service, Landscape Aesthetics, Ag. Handbook 701, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1995.

[4] Shafer, E., Perception of natural environment. Environment and Behavior, 1, pp. 71–82, 1969. [5] Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. & Wendt, J.S., Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics, 12(4), pp. 354–356, 1972.

[6] Kaplan, S., Some methods and strategies in the prediction of preference. Landscape Assessment – Values, Perceptions and Resources, eds. E.H. Zube, R.O. Brush & J.A. Fabos, Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross: Stroudsburg, PA, pp. 118–119, 1975.

[7] Daniel, C.T. & Boster, S.R., Measuring landscape aesthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method, USDA Forest Service, Research paper RM-167, 1976.

[8] Shafer, E.L. & Brush, R.O., How to measure preferences for photographs of natural landscapes. Landscape Planning, 4, pp. 237–256, 1977.

[9] US BLM, Visual Resource Management: Visual Resource Management Program, US Government Printing Office, USA, 1980.

[10] Palmer, J., A visual character approach to the classification of backcountry trail environments. Landscape Journal, 2(1), USA, 1983.

[11] Kaplan, R., The analysis of perception via preference: a strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landscape Planning, 12, pp. 161–176, 1985.

[12] Smardon, R., Palmer, J. & Felleman, J., Foundations for Visual Project Analysis. John Wiley & Sons: NewYork, 1986.

[13] Han, K.T.,A proposed landscape assessment framework: a connection of theories and practical techniques. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 16(4), pp. 313–327, 1999.

[14] Hunziker, M. & Kienast, F., Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty – a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landscape Ecology, 14(2), pp. 161–176, 1999.

[15] Mougiakakou, S.G., Tsouchlaraki, A., Cassios, C., Matsopoulos, G., Nikita, K.S., Matsopoulos, G., Uzunoglou, N. & Leka, A., SCAPEVIEWER: a semi-automatic system for landscape quality classification and landscape indices selection. Proceedings of the Inter. Conf. on Sustainable Development Indicators in the Mineral Industries (SDIMI 2003), Milos, Greece, pp. 335–340, 2003.

[16] Mougiakakou, S.G., Tsouchlaraki, A., Cassios, C., Matsopoulos, G., Nikita, K.S. & Uzunoglou, N., SCAPEVIEWER: preliminary results of a landscape quality classification system based on neural network technology. Ecological Engineering, 24(1/2), pp. 5–15, 2005.

[17] Shuttleworth, S.,The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management, 11, pp. 61–76, 1980.

[18] Vailaya,A., Jain.A. & Zhang, H.J., On Image Classification: City Images vs Landscapes Pattern Recognition, Vol. 31, No. 12, pp. 1921–1935, Elsevier Science Ltd.: NewYork, 1998.

[19] Vailaya,A., Fiqueiredo, M., Jain,A. & Zhang H.J., Image classification for content-base indexing. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, Vol. 10, no. 1, January, 2001.

[20] Hulse, D. & Melnick, R., GIS as an aid to rural landscape protection. L.A. Computer News/ LaLUP, ASLA Open Committee(s) on Computers/Landscape and Landuse Planning, LACN, Vol. 4, no. 2, LaLUP no. 19, Summer 1991.

[21] Monmonier, M.S., Measures of pattern complexity for choropleth maps. The American Cartographer, 1(2), pp. 159–169, 1974.

[22] Richards, J.A., Remote Sensing Digital Image Analysis: An Introduction, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1986.

[23] Turner, M., O’Neill, R., Gardner, R. & Milne, B., Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology, 3(3/4), pp. 153–162, 1989.

[24] Turner, M., Quantitative methods in landscape ecology: an introduction. Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology, ed. M. Turner, R. Gardner, Springer-Verlag: NewYork, 1990.

[25] Turner, M., Spatial and temporal analysis of landscape patterns. Landscape Ecology, 4(1), pp. 21–30, 1990.

[26] O’Neill, R., et al., Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology, 1(3), pp. 153–162, 1990. [27] Mandelbrot, B., The Fractal Geometry of Nature, W.H. Freeman and Co.: NewYork, 1982.

[28] Milne, B., Lessons from applying fractal models to landscape patterns. Quantitative Methods in Landcsape Ecology, eds. M. Turner & R. Gardner, Springer-Verlag: NewYork, 1990.

[29] Olsen, E., Ramsey, R. & Winn, D., A modified fractal dimension as a measure of landscape diversity. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 59(10), pp. 1517–1520, October, 1993.

[30] Frohn, R., Remote Sensing for Landscape Ecology: New Metric Indicators for Monitoring, Modeling, and Assessment of Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, FL, 1998.

[31] Koutsopoulos, K., Geography: Methodology and Space Analysis Methods, Symmetria:Athens, 1990 (in Greek).

[32] Therrien, C., Decision Estimation and Classification: An Introduction to Pattern Recognition and Related Topics, John Wiley & Sons: NewYork, 1989.

[33] Lange,E.,Integrationofcomputerizedvisualsimulationandvisualassessmentinenvironmental planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 30, pp. 99–112, 1994.