Erratum: The potential of remote sensing for monitoring land cover changes and effects on physical geography in the area of Kayisdagi Mountain and its surroundings (Istanbul) (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (2008) 140 (33-42) DOI: 10.1007/s10661-007-9844-6);The potential of remote sensing for monitoring land cover changes and effects on physical geography in the area of Kayisdagi mountain and its surroundings (Istanbul)

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

Volumn 140, Issue 1-3, 2008, Pages 33-42

  Geymen, Abdurrahman ^a   Baz, Ibrahim ^b  

^a ERCIYES UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b ISTANBUL METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Geographic information system; Geomorphology; Istanbul; Land cover; Land degradation; Monitoring; Physical geography; Remote sensing

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEMS; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS; GEOMORPHOLOGY; LAND USE; LANDFORMS; REMOTE SENSING;

LAND COVER; LAND DEGRADATION; PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY;

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS;

ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE; GEOMORPHOLOGY; GIS; LAND COVER; LAND DEGRADATION; LAND USE; MONITORING SYSTEM; PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY; REMOTE SENSING; SATELLITE DATA; URBANIZATION;

ARTICLE; COST; DEFORESTATION; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION; HUMAN; HUMAN IMPACT (ENVIRONMENT); LAND USE; MIGRATION; POPULATION GROWTH; REMOTE SENSING; SOIL EROSION; TURKEY (REPUBLIC); URBAN AREA; URBANIZATION;

EURASIA; ISTANBUL [TURKEY]; TURKEY;

EID: 41749098571     PISSN: 01676369     EISSN: 15732959     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-010-1305-y     Document Type: Erratum

References (21)

1. Congalton, R. G. (1991). A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 37, 35-46.
2. Devlet Istatistik Enstitusu (DIE) (2000). Nufus Sayimi Sonuclari. Ankara, Turkey. http://www.die.gov.tr/nufus_sayimi/2000tablo5.xls, 20 May 2003 (in Turkish).
3. Ehlers, M., Jadkowski, A. M., Howard, R., & Brostuen, D. (1990). Application of spot data for regional growth analysis and local planning. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 56 (2), 175-180.
4. Foody, G. M. (2002). Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment. Remote Sensing of Environment, 80 (1), 185-201.
5. Geymen, A., & Baz, I. (2007). Monitoring urban growth and detecting land-cover changes on the Istanbul metropolitan area. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. doi: 10.1007/s10661-007-9699-x.
6. Haack, N. B., Herold, D. N., & Bechdol, A. M. (2000). Radar and optical data integration for land cover mapping. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 66 (6), 709-716.
7. Harris, D., & Ventura, M. (1995). The integration of geographic data with remotely sensed imagery to improve classification in an urban area. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 61, 993-998.
8. Helmschrot, J., & Flugel, W. A. (2002). Land use characterisation and change detection analysis for hydrological model parameterisation of large scale afforested areas using remote sensing. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 27 (9), 711-718.
9. Irish, R. (1990). Geocoding satellite imagery for GIS use (pp. 59-62.). GIS World, August/September.
10. Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM) (2005). Reports of 1/50.000 scale Istanbul metropolitan area plan reports. Istanbul: Second Press.
11. Jensen, J. R. (1996). Introductory digital image processing. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall.
12. Kücükmehmetoglu, M., & Geymen, A. (2006). The spatial impacts of rapid urbanization on the limited surface water resources in Istanbul. In 46th Congress of the European Regional Science, Volos, Greece, August 30-September 3, 2006.
13. Maktav, M., & Erberk, F. (2005). Analysis of urban growth using multi-temporal satellite data in Istanbul, Turkey. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 26 (4), 797-810.
14. Mendoza, S. J. E., & Etter, A. R. (2002). Multitemporal analysis (1940-1996) of land cover change in the Southwestern Bogota Highplain (Colombia). Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, 47-158.
15. Pal, M., & Mather, P. M. (2003). An assessment of the effectiveness of decision tree methods for land cover classification. Remote Sensing of Environment, 86 (4), 554-565.
16. Ritter, D. F., Kochel, R. C., & Miller, R. J. (1995). Process geomorphology. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
17. Steele, B. M. (2000). Combining multiple classifiers: An application using spatial and remotely sensed information for land cover type mapping. Remote Sensing of Environment, 74 (3), 545-555.
18. Treitz, P. M., Howarth, P. J., & Gong, P. (1992). Application of satellite and GIS technology for land-use mapping at the rural urban fringe: A case study. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 58, 439-448.
19. Weber, M. R., & Dunno, G. A. (2001). Riparian vegetation mapping and image processing techniques, Hopi Indian Reservation, Arizona. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 67 (2), 179-186.
20. Welch, R., Remillard, M., & Slack, R. B. (1988). Remote sensing and geographic information system techniques for aquatic resource evaluation. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 54, 177-185.
21. Westmoreland, S., & Stow, D. A. (1992). Category identification of change of land-use polygons in an integrated image processing/geographic information system. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 58, 1593-1599.