Figure 1.
Study area map. (
A) Location of KMA in India; (
B) The adopted zoning approach in the present study [
4]; (
C) Historical growth of the urban agglomeration of Kolkata (source: based on NATMO special series map, Plate 14); (
D) Decadal population accumulation in KMA and suburbs of KMA during 1901–2011.
Figure 1.
Study area map. (
A) Location of KMA in India; (
B) The adopted zoning approach in the present study [
4]; (
C) Historical growth of the urban agglomeration of Kolkata (source: based on NATMO special series map, Plate 14); (
D) Decadal population accumulation in KMA and suburbs of KMA during 1901–2011.
Figure 2.
Methodological flowchart for quantifying urban growth in KMA.
Figure 2.
Methodological flowchart for quantifying urban growth in KMA.
Figure 3.
Total built-up spread and dynamics in KMA from 1996 to 2016: (a–c) present spatial built-up spread over KMA for 1996, 2006, and 2016, respectively; the decadal built-up growth during 1996–2006 and 2006–2016 are portrayed by (d,e), respectively; while (f) reflects built-up spread in 1996, 2006, and 2016 over KMA altogether.
Figure 3.
Total built-up spread and dynamics in KMA from 1996 to 2016: (a–c) present spatial built-up spread over KMA for 1996, 2006, and 2016, respectively; the decadal built-up growth during 1996–2006 and 2006–2016 are portrayed by (d,e), respectively; while (f) reflects built-up spread in 1996, 2006, and 2016 over KMA altogether.
Figure 4.
Distribution of percentage of landscape, PLAND (%) of the six LULCs and their temporal change in 1996, 2006, and 2016 in (a) KMA, (b) KMA-urban, and (c) KMA-rural.
Figure 4.
Distribution of percentage of landscape, PLAND (%) of the six LULCs and their temporal change in 1996, 2006, and 2016 in (a) KMA, (b) KMA-urban, and (c) KMA-rural.
Figure 5.
Magnitude (ha) of gains and losses in the LULCs of KMA; (a) gains and losses between 1996 and 2006, (b) gains and losses between 2006 and 2016, and (c) gains and losses between 1996 and 2016.
Figure 5.
Magnitude (ha) of gains and losses in the LULCs of KMA; (a) gains and losses between 1996 and 2006, (b) gains and losses between 2006 and 2016, and (c) gains and losses between 1996 and 2016.
Figure 6.
The spatial trend in gains and losses in the LULCs of KMA between 1996 and 2016; (a) gains, losses, and persistence in water bodies, (b) gains, losses, and persistence in vegetation, (c) gains, losses, and persistence in mixed built-up, (d) gains, losses, and persistence in built-up, (e) gains, losses, and persistence in agricultural land, and (f) gains, losses, and persistence in bare land.
Figure 6.
The spatial trend in gains and losses in the LULCs of KMA between 1996 and 2016; (a) gains, losses, and persistence in water bodies, (b) gains, losses, and persistence in vegetation, (c) gains, losses, and persistence in mixed built-up, (d) gains, losses, and persistence in built-up, (e) gains, losses, and persistence in agricultural land, and (f) gains, losses, and persistence in bare land.
Figure 7.
Magnitude of net change (ha) in the LULCs of KMA; (a) net change between 1996 and 2006, (b) net change between 2006 and 2016, and (c) net change between 1996 and 2016.
Figure 7.
Magnitude of net change (ha) in the LULCs of KMA; (a) net change between 1996 and 2006, (b) net change between 2006 and 2016, and (c) net change between 1996 and 2016.
Figure 8.
Contributors and their roles to the net change (%) in the LULCs of KMA between 1996 and 2016; contributors to the net change in, (a) water bodies, (b) vegetation, (c) mixed built-up, (d) built-up, (e) agricultural land, and (f) bare land.
Figure 8.
Contributors and their roles to the net change (%) in the LULCs of KMA between 1996 and 2016; contributors to the net change in, (a) water bodies, (b) vegetation, (c) mixed built-up, (d) built-up, (e) agricultural land, and (f) bare land.
Figure 9.
Class level NP over KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural depicted by (a–c), in 1996, 2006, and 2016, respectively; and (d–f) present the temporal variation in PD of the LULCs over KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016.
Figure 9.
Class level NP over KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural depicted by (a–c), in 1996, 2006, and 2016, respectively; and (d–f) present the temporal variation in PD of the LULCs over KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016.
Figure 10.
Class level LPI and AREA_MN; (a–c) show class level LPI for the LULCs over KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016; and (d–f) reflects class level temporal trend in AREA_MN over KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016.
Figure 10.
Class level LPI and AREA_MN; (a–c) show class level LPI for the LULCs over KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016; and (d–f) reflects class level temporal trend in AREA_MN over KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016.
Figure 11.
Class level Shape_MN and PAFRAC of built-up and mixed built-up classes; (a–c) present the Shape_MN of built-up and mixed built-up class for KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016; and (d–f) show the results of PAFRAC for KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016.
Figure 11.
Class level Shape_MN and PAFRAC of built-up and mixed built-up classes; (a–c) present the Shape_MN of built-up and mixed built-up class for KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016; and (d–f) show the results of PAFRAC for KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016.
Figure 12.
Class level CPLAND and TCA; (a–c) present results of CPLAND metric for KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016; while (d–f) represent CAI_MN for KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016.
Figure 12.
Class level CPLAND and TCA; (a–c) present results of CPLAND metric for KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016; while (d–f) represent CAI_MN for KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016.
Figure 13.
Class level ENN_MN; (a–c) present temporal dynamics of class level ENN_MN in KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA_rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016.
Figure 13.
Class level ENN_MN; (a–c) present temporal dynamics of class level ENN_MN in KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA_rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016.
Figure 14.
Class level MESH for the LULCs; (a–c) represent MESH for KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016.
Figure 14.
Class level MESH for the LULCs; (a–c) represent MESH for KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016.
Figure 15.
Class level aggregation metrics over KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural with their temporal dynamics during 1996–2016; (a–c) represent AI for KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016; (d–f) show the temporal trend of nLSI for KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006 and 2016; (g–i) depict temporal dynamics in PLADJ for KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016; (j–l) present CLUMPY for KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016.
Figure 15.
Class level aggregation metrics over KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural with their temporal dynamics during 1996–2016; (a–c) represent AI for KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016; (d–f) show the temporal trend of nLSI for KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006 and 2016; (g–i) depict temporal dynamics in PLADJ for KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016; (j–l) present CLUMPY for KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural, respectively, in 1996, 2006, and 2016.
Figure 16.
Pattern of the PLAND plotted against the sequential concentric zones of 1 km width each around the river Hooghly within the KMA; the pattern of PLAND of built-up and mixed built-up for the concentric zones in (a) 1996, (b) 2006, and (c) 2016.
Figure 16.
Pattern of the PLAND plotted against the sequential concentric zones of 1 km width each around the river Hooghly within the KMA; the pattern of PLAND of built-up and mixed built-up for the concentric zones in (a) 1996, (b) 2006, and (c) 2016.
Figure 17.
Pattern of PD plotted against the sequential concentric zones of 1 km each around the river Hooghly within the KMA; the pattern of PD of built-up and mixed built-up for the concentric zones in (a) 1996, (b) 2006, and (c) 2016.
Figure 17.
Pattern of PD plotted against the sequential concentric zones of 1 km each around the river Hooghly within the KMA; the pattern of PD of built-up and mixed built-up for the concentric zones in (a) 1996, (b) 2006, and (c) 2016.
Figure 18.
Pattern of LPI plotted against the sequential concentric zones of 1 km each around the river Hooghly within the KMA; the pattern of LPI of built-up and mixed built-up for the concentric zones in (a) 1996, (b) 2006, and (c) 2016.
Figure 18.
Pattern of LPI plotted against the sequential concentric zones of 1 km each around the river Hooghly within the KMA; the pattern of LPI of built-up and mixed built-up for the concentric zones in (a) 1996, (b) 2006, and (c) 2016.
Figure 19.
Pattern of AREA_MN plotted against the sequential concentric zones of 1 km each around the river Hooghly within the KMA; the pattern of AREA_MN of built-up and mixed built-up for the concentric zones in (a) 1996, (b) 2006, and (c) 2016.
Figure 19.
Pattern of AREA_MN plotted against the sequential concentric zones of 1 km each around the river Hooghly within the KMA; the pattern of AREA_MN of built-up and mixed built-up for the concentric zones in (a) 1996, (b) 2006, and (c) 2016.
Figure 20.
Pattern of AI in the sequential concentric zones of 1 km each around the river Hooghly within the KMA; the pattern of AI of built-up and mixed built-up for the concentric zones in (a) 1996, (b) 2006, and (c) 2016.
Figure 20.
Pattern of AI in the sequential concentric zones of 1 km each around the river Hooghly within the KMA; the pattern of AI of built-up and mixed built-up for the concentric zones in (a) 1996, (b) 2006, and (c) 2016.
Table 1.
Summary of accuracy assessment of the classified images.
Table 1.
Summary of accuracy assessment of the classified images.
Year | Overall Accuracy (OA) | Kappa Index |
---|
1996 | 89.75% | 0.879 |
2006 | 92.00% | 0.904 |
2016 | 92.75% | 0.912 |
Table 2.
Decadal growth (%) in the LULCs over KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural during 1996–2006, 2006–2016, and 1996–2016.
Table 2.
Decadal growth (%) in the LULCs over KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural during 1996–2006, 2006–2016, and 1996–2016.
Levels | Periods | Land Use Land Covers (LULCs) |
---|
Agricultural Land | Bare Land | Built-Up | Mixed Built-Up | Vegetation | Water Bodies |
---|
(%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) |
---|
KMA | 1996–2006 | 1.31 | −5.36 | 49.16 | 1.24 | −19.5 | −18.81 |
2006–2016 | −9.58 | 2.65 | 31.32 | 10.48 | −46.48 | 3.8 |
1996–2016 | −8.39 | −2.86 | 95.88 | 11.84 | −56.91 | −15.72 |
KMA-urban | 1996–2006 | −5.44 | 3.94 | 38.35 | −5.17 | −33.65 | −32.35 |
2006–2016 | −16.94 | 9.56 | 26.31 | −26.44 | −59.79 | 4.02 |
1996–2016 | −21.46 | 13.88 | 74.74 | −30.24 | −73.32 | −29.63 |
KMA-rural | 1996–2006 | 3.45 | −11.01 | 196.82 | 10.19 | −11.72 | −6.85 |
2006–2016 | −7.44 | −2.25 | 63.25 | 54.89 | −40.98 | 3.67 |
1996–2016 | −4.25 | −13.01 | 384.56 | 70.68 | −47.89 | −3.43 |
Table 3.
Results of analysis and the corresponding Log(n) values for built-up and mixed built-up classes over KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural in 1996, 2006, and 2016.
Table 3.
Results of analysis and the corresponding Log(n) values for built-up and mixed built-up classes over KMA, KMA-urban, and KMA-rural in 1996, 2006, and 2016.
Years | Levels | Shannon’s Entropy ()
| Log(n) |
---|
Built-Up | Mixed Built-Up | All Built-Up | Built-Up | Mixed Built-Up | All Built-Up |
---|
1996 | KMA | 1.15 | 1.63 | 1.48 | 1.89 | 1.89 | 1.89 |
KMA-urban | 1.04 | 1.38 | 1.24 | 1.63 | 1.63 | 1.63 |
KMA-rural | 1.21 | 1.29 | 1.30 | 1.53 | 1.53 | 1.53 |
2006 | KMA | 1.35 | 1.59 | 1.60 | 1.89 | 1.89 | 1.89 |
KMA-urban | 1.19 | 1.37 | 1.30 | 1.63 | 1.63 | 1.63 |
KMA-rural | 1.31 | 1.30 | 1.20 | 1.53 | 1.53 | 1.53 |
2016 | KMA | 1.45 | 1.63 | 1.61 | 1.89 | 1.89 | 1.89 |
KMA-urban | 1.29 | 1.38 | 1.36 | 1.63 | 1.63 | 1.63 |
KMA-rural | 1.35 | 1.34 | 1.31 | 1.53 | 1.53 | 1.53 |