The major objective is to map and digitize the land use of northern megalopolis, the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, and to evaluate ERTS as a planning tool for megalopolitan areas. The southern New England region provides a good test ERTS's capabilities because of its complex landscape. Not only are there great differences in the degree of urban development, but in relief and vegetative cover as well

Lindgren, D. T.

Simpson, R. B.

English

NASA Technical Reports Server

Paper L 12 
LAND USE OF NORTHERN MEGALOPOLIS 
Robert 6. Simpson, David T. Lindgren, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 
1. INTRODUCTION 
The major objective of our project i s  to map and digitize the land 
use o f  northern Megalopolis, that is the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, 
and Rhode Island, and to evaluate ERTS as a planning tool for megalopolitan 
areas. 
capabilities because of its complex landscape. 
differences in the degree of urban development, but in relief and vegetative 
cover as well. 
The southern New England region provides a good test of ERTS'S 
Not only are there great 
At the time of the first-look seminar last September Bob Simpson 
presented a land-use map of Rhode Island (Figure 1) which we had compiled 
from a single CIR transparency. The image was the widely distributed one 
taken over southeastern New England on 28 July. That image suffered not 
only from the presence of clouds over such critical areas as downtown Provi- 
dence, but from faulty rectification as well. Nevertheless, working at a 
scale of 1:250,000, that is a four-times magnification of the Rhode Island 
portion of the ERTS image, the 1200 square miles (3100 square kilometers) 
of Rhode Island were mapped in less than 40-manhours. The land use legend 
for that map consisted of eight categories including three residential 
categories, a combined commercial-industria1 category, transportation, 
agriculture, woodland, and water. Our conclusion was that the objectives 
stated in the project proposal were feasible, providing cloud-free coverage 
became available. 
2. PRESENT WALUATION 
In the months since the first-look seminar we have received a number 
of good quality, cloud-free images covering our study area, in particular 
those from the mid-October orbits. Those images became available to us in 
working form, that is as four-times enlargements (1:250,000 scale), during 
the first week of January. An intensive land use mapping program has been 
in progress since that date, and although the map-making part of our project 
is still incomplete we now have sufficient working experience with ERTS 
imagery to provide a realistic appraisal of its capabilities. 
Working primarily with CIR transparencies, a decision made after a 
careful evaluation of the four MSS bands, and with occasional reference to 
MSS band 5 images, the mapping has been largely completed for Rhode Island 
and Massachusetts . The mapping technique consists of interpreting 
973 
Original ~hotog~aphy may 5 
ER3S Data Center - 
10th and Dakota   ye nu 
Sioilx Falls, S 
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19730019576 2020-03-17T08:49:48+00:00Z
Figure 1. Land Use Map of Rhode Is land (September 1972) 
9743 
land use directly on mylar overlays to the 1:250,OOO-scale ERTS enlarge- 
ments. 
mylar base. This base, which includes many control features traced from 
USGS 1:250,000 topographic quadrangles, provides the final land use map 
with considerable locational and scalar accuracy. 
The data are then transferred, block by block, to a more permanent 
The present land use legend which was derived in accord with the 
guidelines suggested by the Department of Interior was increased from the 
eight categories used in the preparation of the Rhode Island map of September 
1972 to eleven categories for the present map (Figure 2). 
categories include Marshland, Beach, and a third category called Restricted 
Open Space. 
and parks which on ERTS imagery are visible primarily within builtup areas 
where they appear salmon pink against an otherwse bluish background. Two 
changes were also made in the legend. The Single-Family Residential category 
was changed to Low-Density Residential, the Multifamily and Mixed Residential 
to High-Density Residential. 
be one of semantics, the new terms do in fact better reflect what is actually 
being observed on the ERTS imagery. 
As a means of evaluating the capacity of ERTS to provide land use data 
The three additional 
The latter refers to such land uses as golf courses, cemeteries, 
While it is arguable the difference may only 
we have produced the following chart illustrating the range of land use 
identifications from the most simple to the most complex (Figure 4 ) .  
the most simple level, that is the delineation of water from land, ERTS is 
extremely effective. 
the presence of water bodies as small as 300 feet (100 meters) in diameter. 
While some very marshy areas may appear as water bodies and therefore be in- 
cluded under the Water category, overall this category can be accurately 
applied. 
At 
The CIR composite, as well as MSS bands 6 and 7, reveal 
Of the land categories Woodland can also be identified with great 
accuracy. Small patches of woodland may be lost in suburban areas, but such 
losses are compensated for by the inclusion of small clearings into the 
Woodland category. 
In the non-wooded areas the Builtup categories can be easily differentiated 
from the Non-Builtup categories. 
areas as a whole, ERTS would be the most effective medium for displaying 
them. The degree of accuracy at this point is Yery high. However, as the 
Builtup category is subdivided into more detailed categories, the degree of 
error begins to increase. 
In fact, if one were interested in builtup 
Within builtup areas the residential categories are unquestionably 
the most difficult to differentiate. 
in effect refers to those areas of multifamily and mixed housing found 
primarily within the central cities and inner suburbs of metropolitan regions. 
As distance from the central city increases, however, housing density declines 
and light-density, single-family housing becomes dominant. 
the two is difficult to determine not only from aerial photography but in the 
field as well. 
The High-Density Residential category 
The line separating 
975 
ERTS LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS --- 
First-Look Seminar 
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 
MULTI -FAMILY AIJD MI XED RES1 DENTIAL 
OPEN LAND AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL 
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 
TRANSPORTATION 
AGRICULTURE 
WOODLAND 
WATER 
--------- 
--------- 
--------- 
Present 
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 
OPEN LAND AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL 
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 
TRANSPORTATION 
AGRICULTURE 
WOODLAND 
WATER 
MARSHLAND 
BEACH 
RESTRICTED OPEN SPACE 
Figure 2 .  ERTS Land U s e  Cl.assification 
976 
x x x 
x 
3 
x 
x x 
x x x 
ry 
w 
=c s 
x x 
x 
H 
v) 
W e 
>- 
v) z 
W 
L 
n 
6 
-I 
!z 
2 
W 
x Ln x W x PI: 
n 
3 
x H 
x 23 
!i 
x m 
n 
n n 
n 
W 
z 0 
0 
z 
3: z 
7 4 
0 O O  
c3 z 
4 
W 
V 
v) 
2 
z w 
0 
n 
n 
W 
I- 
Iy 
I- 
v) 
W 
Iy 
n 
n 
W 
0 
-I 
W > w n 
n z 
5 
z w 
0 
n 
01 
8 
5 
m 
QI 
v) 
P 
a 
3 
m 
977 
A s  f o r  d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g  r e s i d e n t i a l  areas from the CBD, this can be 
done with a f a i r  degree of accuracy. A problem arises i n  the de l lmi ta t ion  
of the outer  edge of suburban development from surrounding open countryside 
j u s t  as it does i n  the  f i e l d .  Where resident ia l  areas merge with woodland 
October imagery i s  b e t t e r  than summer imagery because fewer leaves obscure 
the  houses. 
is prefer red  because of the  g r e a t e r  cont ras t  between f i e l d s  and housing. 
However, w h e r e  suburbs merge wi th  open f i e l d s  the Ju ly  imagery 
Non-residential land uses within bui l tup  a reas  are easier t o  i d e n t i f y  
than housing. For example, the urban industrial-commercial areas are con- 
s i s t e n t l y  i d e n t i f i e d .  
i d e n t i f i e d .  Major highways, a i r f i e l d s ,  and br idges can be i d e n t i f i e d  with 
considerable accuracy, but  r a i l r o a d s  and powerlines can only occasionally 
be observed. 
Some t ranspor ta t ion  land uses are cons is ten t ly  
The category Res t r ic ted  Open Space is u t i l i z e d  only i n  urbanized areas 
where such f e a t u r e s  as golf  courses and cemeteries are i d e n t i f i a b l e .  
r u r a l  areas t h i s  category cannot be applied meaningfully because such f e a t u r e s  
tend t o  merge w i t h  open f i e l d s .  
I n  
I n  t h e  non-builtup areas most categories  can be e f f e c t i v e l y  applied.  
Agricul ture  r e f e r s  exclusively t o  row crops and plowed f i e l d s .  The  only 
major d i f f i c u l t y  i s  encountered* i n  the Connecticut River Valley of Massa- 
chuse t t s  where such f i e l d s  are occasionally confused w i t h  comnercial-in- 
d u s t r i a l  areas. Ultimately i t  was found t h a t  the commercial-industrial 
areas could best be i d e n t i f i e d  on the July imagery when the f i e l d s  w e r e  
pink. 
The Open Space and Rural Res ident ia l  category proved t o  be very useful .  
I n  general  i t  r e f l e c t s  a common fea ture  of t h e  New England landscape - r u r a l  
roads bordered by open hayland and occasional iiwellings. 
The Undeveloped ca tegor ies  are r e l a t i v e l y  easy t o  i d e n t i f y .  
areas of marsh show w e l l  s ince  CIR i s  a p a r t i c u l a r l y  usefu l  medium f o r  t h i s  
purpose. 
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  s i n c e  i n  New England they a r e  a popular r e c r e a t i o n a l  fea ture .  
Major 
Beaches are a minor land use but  the category allows f o r  t h e i r  
Overall  t h e  land use c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  developed was  appl ied with r e l a t i v e l y  
good accuracy. 
i d e n t i f i e d  with g r e a t  accuracy, while the Builtup ca tegor ies  have several 
areas of d i f f i c u l t y .  
t h a t  ERTS can provide g r e a t e r  land use d e t a i l  than we o r i g i n a l l y  an t ic ipa ted .  
And as our experience using ERTS imagery increases  so too should our a b i l i t y  
t o  use i t  e f f e c t i v e l y .  
Several  ca tegor ies ,  p a r t i c u l a r l y  the Non-Builtup ones were 
Nevertheless,  our experience t o  t h i s  d a t e  has been 
978 
3. CONCLUDING l4BWtW3 
When the color-coded land u8e map o f  northern Megalopolis i s  completed, 
a d i g i t a l  cowputer Yerslon w i l l  be conrpiled i n  order t o  permit a va r i e ty  
of spa t ia l -ana ly t ica l  $at~estf,gatione. 
done manually by euperimpoaing a UTM-oriented gr id  over the map and inputing 
land uae data  t o  the computer cell  by cell. 
tenner of one square-kilometer c e l l a ,  rubdivided i n f o  quarter  kilometers 
i n  c r i t i c a l  areas. 
38 , 000 ce l l s .  
f i rs t - look bas is  the possible  u t i l i t y  of ERTS t o  several land uae r e l a t ed  
planning concep t e  . 
Map-to-computer conversion will be 
A t  present we are thinking i n  
Even on the aquare-kilometer b w i e  there ylll be some 
With the computer da ta  bank i t  w i l l  be poeaible to  explore on a quick, 
These include 
(1) the del ineaf ion o f  the rural-urban in te r face ,  a 
phenomenon of interest t o  the Bureau of Ceneua i n  
defining SMSA' s ; 
the iden t i f i ca t ion  of s inks and sources of population 
"energy" i n  terms of a pos i t i ve  and negative deviation 
from average population dens i t ies ;  
a look in to  the poss ib i l i t y  of predicting population 
growth trends from ERTS imagery. 
(2) 
(3) 
Although these invest igat iona w i l l  be l i t t l e  more than " f i r s t  looks", 
they w i l l  hopefully provide aome insight  i n t o  the capab i l i t i e s  of ERTS t o  
solve recognized planning problems 
Final ly ,  we have given some thought t o  the cost  effect iveness  of ERTS 
fo r  making land use maps. 
f ac to r  of 10 than comparable mapping6 from a i r c r a f t .  I n  f a c t  it appears 
reasonable t o  say tha t  the differences i n  cost  of land use mapping, as between 
medium-altitude a i r c r a f t ,  high-alt i tude a i r c r a f t ,  and satel l i te  platforme, 
and assuming a "state-sized" area, are similar t o  the  d#,fferences i n  the 
scale6 of t h e i r  imagery (Figure 4). 
We estimate that ERTS is lees expensive by a 
979 
Ln 
€5 
fs  
0 
la 
p. 
(3 
8 
0, 
2 
0 
P 
*I- 
P 
C, 
4 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0, 
P .. 
P 
C, e 
u 
L 
L 
k‘ 
0 
0 
0 
Y, 
RI 
0, 
.. 
F- 
980 


Land use of northern megalopolis

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server