# Urbanization Trends Analysis Using Hybrid Modeling of Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchical Process-Cellular Automata-Markov Chain and Investigating Its Impact on Land Surface Temperature over Gharbia City, Egypt

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. Study Area

^{2}. The population density was estimated in 2018 as almost 5,066,000 persons, whereas it was hardly 4,011,320 and 3,790,670 in 2006 and 2001, respectively. Our study focused on such areas suffering from accelerating urban sprawl on agricultural lands, resulting in food security challenges and LST increase.

#### 2.2. Data Collection and Processing

#### 2.3. LULC Classification

#### 2.4. LULC Change Modeling

- (1)
- Model Calibration

- (2)
- LULC Simulation and Model Validation

- (3)
- Model Projection

#### 2.4.1. CA-Markov Chain Model

_{n+1}and X

_{n}are two successive state vectors of a Markov chain with transition matrix T, then

#### 2.4.2. FAHP-CA-Markov Chain Hybrid Model

- a.
- Driving factors

- b.
- Steps of applying the FAHP model [64] based on the aforementioned criteria:

_{ij}is the element of the FPCM of n: no. of criteria.

#### 2.5. Estimation of Land Surface Temperature

#### 2.5.1. LST Estimation from Landsat Imageries

- L = spectral radiance at the sensor’s aperture (Watts m
^{−2}sr^{−1}μm^{−1}); - Qcal = the quantized calibrated pixel value in DN;
- LMIN
_{λ}= the spectral radiance scaled to QCALMIN in (Watts m^{−2}sr^{−1}μm^{−1}); - LMAX
_{λ}= the spectral radiance scaled to QCALMAX in (Watts m^{−2}sr^{−1}μm^{−1}); - Qcalmin = the minimum quantized calibrated pixel value (corresponding to LMIN) in DN;
- Qcalmax = the maximum quantized calibrated pixel value (corresponding to LMAX) in DN.

- T
_{B}—is the satellite brightness temperature in degrees Kelvin; - K
_{1}_constant_band_6 of TM 5 = 607.76; - K
_{2}_constant_band_6 of TM 5 = 1260.56; - K
_{1}_constant_band_10 of TIRS 8 = 774.8853; - K
_{2}_constant_band_10 of TIRS 8 = 1321.0789; - L
_{λ}—is TOA spectral radiance.

- S
_{t}—is the emissivity-corrected land surface temperature in degrees Kelvin; - T
_{B}—is the satellite brightness temperature in degrees Kelvin recaptured earlier; - λ = 11.457 µm;
- $\mathsf{\rho}=\frac{\mathrm{h}\times \mathrm{c}}{\mathsf{\delta}}$ = 1.438 × 10
^{−2}m k= 1.438 × 10^{4}µm k; - h—is Planck’s constant = 6.626 × 10
^{−34}J s^{−1}; - c is velocity of light = 2.998 × 108 m s
^{−1}; - δ is Boltzmann’s constant = 1.38 × 10
^{−23}J k^{−1}.

#### 2.5.2. Computation of LSE ε

^{THM}) was adopted. NDVI

^{THM}, which was first introduced by Sobrino and Raissouni [74], uses specific NDVI values (thresholds) to discriminate between soil pixels (NDVI < NDVI

_{S}) and fully vegetated pixels (NDVI > NDVI

_{V}). For those pixels composed of soil and vegetation (mixed pixels; NDVI

_{S}≤ NDVI ≤ NDVI

_{V}), the method uses the simplified Equation (13):

_{S}and ε

_{V}are the soil and vegetation emissivities, respectively, PV is the portion of vegetation (also referred to as fractional vegetation cover, FVC); the soil influence is lower with increasing PV, and C is a term that takes into account the cavity effect owing to surface roughness (C = 0 for flat surfaces, as in our case).

_{V}and NDVI

_{S}values (NDVI for vegetated and soil pixels, respectively) can be extracted from the NDVI histogram. Values of NDVI

_{V}= 0.5 and NDVI

_{S}= 0.2 were confirmed by Sobrino and Raissouni [74] to apply this method in global conditions. In order to gain harmonic values of PV, it must be set to zero for pixels with NDVI < NDVI

_{S}and set to one for pixels with NDVI > NDVI

_{V}. When NDVI > NDVI

_{V}, the pixel is considered fully vegetated and has been granted a constant value of εV = 0.99. NDVI

^{THM}estimates the surface emissivity for pixels of bare soil whose PV = 0 (NDVI < NDVI

_{S}) as a function of the sensor red band reflectivity (ρred). The relationship between emissivity and red reflectivity is assumed to be linear, and the coefficients are obtained from laboratory spectra of soils and statistical fits. The reasonable formulae for estimating soil emissivity are shown in Equations (15) and (16) for Landsat 5 and Landsat 8 images, respectively:

^{THM}can be applied as follows:

#### 2.6. Regression Analysis

## 3. Results

#### 3.1. Accuracy of LULC Maps

#### 3.2. Spatiotemporal Analysis of LULCC

^{2}(91.2%) and diminished to 1674 km

^{2}(83.7%) in 2018. Otherwise, the class of water represents the least area (1%) and almost no change through the study period. For the built-up land use, the statistical analysis for the year 2003 exhibited that the built-up area has increased in contrast to the decrease in agricultural land. This expansion through the period of 1991–2003 is not disturbing as it is only about 2%. However, urban augmentation was driven to significant growth (almost 5.5%) in the period of 2003–2018 due to urbanization desire. The built-up class occupied 7.8%, 9.7%, and 15.2% in 1991, 2003, and 2018, respectively, which means that the built-up area almost doubled during the study period.

^{2}and 110.38 km

^{2}within the 1991–2003 and 2003–2018 time periods, respectively. The percentage of built-up land use has increased from 7.8% to 15.2% (nearly doubled) throughout the whole study period (27 years). The agricultural land revealed a similar (but reverse) trend from 1991 to 2018, since the urban growth was extended over the agricultural land.

#### 3.3. LULCC Modeling, Simulation, and Projection

#### 3.3.1. Analysis of the CA-Markov Chain Model

#### 3.3.2. Analysis of FAHP-CA-Markov Chain Model

^{2}and 514 km

^{2}by 2033 and 2048, respectively. It means that the built-up cover will occupy more than one-fifth of the area by 2033 and more than a quarter of the area by 2048. The area of built-up is almost doubled by 2048 with respect to 2018. On the other hand, the area of agricultural activity will decrease owing to the increase in the urban area. It means that the agricultural land will be diminished by the same amount of built-up increase (160.4 km

^{2}and 259.5 km

^{2}by 2033 and 2048, respectively).

#### 3.4. Analysis of LST

#### 3.5. Analysis of the UHI

#### 3.6. Relationship between LULC and LST

## 4. Discussion

#### 4.1. Current Study Compared to Previous LULC and Corresponding LST Studies

^{2}through a 19-year study period.

#### 4.2. Current and Possible Future Alternative Land-Use Strategies

## 5. Conclusions

## Supplementary Materials

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Chen, L.; Ren, C.; Zhang, B.; Wang, Z.; Liu, M. Quantifying Urban Land Sprawl and its Driving Forces in Northeast China from 1990 to 2015. Sustainability
**2018**, 10, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Abd El-Kawy, O.R.; Rød, J.K.; Ismail, H.A.; Suliman, A.S. Land use and land cover change detection in the western Nile delta of Egypt using remote sensing data. Appl. Geogr.
**2011**, 31, 483–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bakr, N.; Bahnassy, M.H. Egyptian Natural Resources. In The Soils of Egypt, 1st ed.; El-Ramady, H., Alshaal, T., Bakr, N., Elbana, T., Mohamed, E., Belal, A.A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 33–49. [Google Scholar]
- Li, C. Monitoring and Analysis of Urban Growth Process Using Remote Sensing, GIS and Cellular Automata Modeling: A Case Study of Xuzhou City, China. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitätsbibliothek, Dortmund, Germany, September 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Li, G.; Sun, S.; Fang, C. The varying driving forces of urban expansion in China: Insights from a spatial-temporal analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan.
**2018**, 174, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bratley, K.; Ghoneim, E. Modeling Urban Encroachment on the Agricultural Land of the Eastern Nile Delta Using Remote Sensing and a GIS-Based Markov Chain Model. Land
**2018**, 7, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - El-Eraqi, M.B.; Shehata, M.S. The Urban Sprawl on Agricultural Lands in Gharbia Govornorate. Arab Univ. J. Agric. Sci.
**2019**, 27, 1771–1781. [Google Scholar] - Sahana, M.; Hong, H.; Sajjad, H. Analyzing urban spatial patterns and trend of urban growth using urban sprawl matrix: A study on Kolkata urban agglomeration, India. Sci. Total Environ.
**2018**, 628–629, 1557–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Van Vliet, J.; Eitelberg, D.A.; Verburg, P.H. A global analysis of land take in cropland areas and production displacement from urbanization. Glob. Environ. Chang.
**2017**, 43, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision; United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X.M.; Zhu, F. Group size and incentives to contribute: A natural experiment at Chinese Wikipedia. Am. Econ. Rev
**2011**, 101, 1601–1615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lillesand, T.M.; Kiefer, R.W.; Chipman, J.W. Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation, 5th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Han, D.; Chan, L.; Zhu, N. Flood forecasting using support vector machines. J. Hydroinform.
**2007**, 9, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Moghaddamnia, A.; Gosheh, M.; Nuraie, M.; Mansuri, M.; Han, D.; Schmitter, E. Performance evaluation of LLR, SVM, CGNN and BFGSNN models to evaporation estimation. Water Geosci.
**2010**, 9, 108–113. [Google Scholar] - Gutiérrez, S.; Tardaguila, J.; Fernández-Novales, J.; Diago, M.P. Support vector machine and artificial neural network models for the classification of grapevine varieties using a portable NIR spectrophotometer. PLoS ONE
**2015**, 10, e0143197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Clarke, K.C. Land use change modeling with sleuth: Improving calibration with a genetic algorithm. In Geomatic Approaches for Modeling Land Change Scenarios; Camacho Olmedo, M.T., Paegelow, M., Mas, J.-F., Escobar, F., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 139–161. [Google Scholar]
- Theobald, D. Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecol. Soc.
**2005**, 10, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Sloan, S.; Pelletier, J. How accurately may we project tropical forest-cover change? Glob. Environ. Chang.
**2012**, 22, 440–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rodrigues, H.; Soares-Filho, B. A short presentation of dinamica ego. In Geomatic Approaches for Modeling Land Change Scenarios; Camacho Olmedo, M.T., Paegelow, M., Mas, J.-F., Escobar, F., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 493–498. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, X.; Chen, R.; Zheng, X.Q. Simulating land use change by integrating ann-ca model and landscape pattern indices. Geomat. Nat. Hazards Risk
**2016**, 7, 918–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kuo, H.-F.; Tsou, K.-W. Modeling and simulation of the future impacts of urban land use change on the natural environment by sleuth and cluster analysis. Sustainability
**2018**, 10, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Baig, M.F.; Mustafa, M.R.U.; Baig, I.; Takaijudin, H.B.; Zeshan, M.T. Assessment of land use land cover changes and future predictions using CA-ANN simulation for selangor, Malaysia. Water
**2022**, 14, 402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, C.; Son, N.; Chang, N.; Chen, C.; Chang, L.; Valdez, M.; Centeno, G.; Thompson, C.A.; Aceituno, J.L. Multi-decadal mangrove forest change detection and prediction in Honduras, Central America, with Landsat imagery and a Markov Chain Model. Remote Sens.
**2013**, 5, 6408–6426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Weiguo, J.; Zheng, C.; Xuan, L.E.I.; Kai, J.I.A.; Yongfeng, W.U. Simulating urban land use change by incorporating an autologistic regression model into a CLUE-S model. J. Geogr. Sci.
**2015**, 25, 836–850. [Google Scholar] - Arsanjani, J.J.; Helbich, M.; Kainz, W.; Darvishi Boloorani, A. Integration of logistic regression, markov chain and cellular automata models to simulate urban expansion. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf.
**2013**, 21, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, S.W.; Munkhnasan, L.; Lee, W.K. Land use and land cover change detection and prediction in Bhutan’s high altitude city of Thimphu, using cellular automata and Markov chain. Environ. Chall.
**2021**, 2, 100017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Koko, A.F.; Han, Z.; Wu, Y.; Abubakar, G.A.; Bello, M. Spatiotemporal Land Use/Land Cover Mapping and Prediction Based on Hybrid Modeling Approach: A Case Study of Kano Metropolis, Nigeria (2020–2050). Remote Sens.
**2022**, 14, 6083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Samat, N.; Mahamud, M.A.; Tan, M.L.; Maghsoodi Tilaki, M.J.; Tew, Y.L. Modelling Land Cover Changes in Peri-Urban Areas: A Case Study of George Town Conurbation, Malaysia. Land
**2020**, 9, 373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sun, X.; Crittenden, J.C.; Li, F.; Lu, Z.; Dou, X. Urban expansion simulation and the spatio-temporal changes of ecosystem services, a case study in Atlanta Metropolitan area, USA. Sci. Total Environ.
**2018**, 622–623, 974–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Liping, C.; Yujun, S.; Saeed, S. Monitoring and predicting land use and land cover changes using remote sensing and GIS techniques—A case study of a hilly area, Jiangle, China. PLoS ONE
**2018**, 13, e0200493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, S.; Zheng, X. Dominant transition probability: Combining CA-Markov model to simulate land use change. Environ. Dev. Sustain.
**2022**, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pal, S.; Ziaul, S. Detection of land use and land cover change and land surface temperature in English Bazar urban centre. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci.
**2017**, 20, 125–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Effat, H.A.; Taha, L.G.; Mansour, K.F. Change detection of land cover and urban heat islands using multi-temporal landsat images, application in Tanta City, Egypt. Open J. Remote Sens. Position.
**2014**, 1, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Negm, A.M.; Saavedra, O.; El-Adawy, A. Nile Delta Biography: Challenges and Opportunities. In The Nile Delta; Negm, A., Ed.; The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 55. [Google Scholar]
- Mostafa, E.; Li, X.; Sadek, M.; Dossou, J. Monitoring and Forecasting of Urban Expansion Using Machin Learning-Based Techniques and Remotely Sensed Data: A Case Study of Gharbia Governorate, Egypt. Remote Sens.
**2021**, 132, 4498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Erkan, U.; Gökrem, L. A new method based on pixel density in salt and pepper noise removal. Turk. J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci.
**2018**, 26, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sakthidasan, K.; Nagappan, N.V. Noise free image restoration using hybrid filter with adaptive genetic algorithm. Comput. Electr. Eng.
**2016**, 54, 382–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Taati, A.; Sarmadian, F.; Mousavi, A.; Pour, C.T.H.; Shahir, A.H.E. Land use classification using support vector machine and maximum likelihood algorithms by Landsat 5 TM images. Walailak J. Sci. Technol. (WJST)
**2015**, 12, 681–687. [Google Scholar] - Sadek, M.; Li, X. Low-cost solution for assessment of urban flash flood impacts using sentinel-2 satellite images and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: A case study of Ras Ghareb city, Egypt. Adv. Civ. Eng.
**2019**, 2019, 2561215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Almouctar, M.A.S.; Wu, Y.; Kumar, A.; Zhao, F.; Mambu, K.J.; Sadek, M. Spatiotemporal analysis of vegetation cover changes around surface water based on NDVI: A case study in Korama basin, Southern Zinder, Niger. Appl. Water Sci.
**2020**, 11, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rousta, I.; Sarif, M.O.; Gupta, R.D.; Olafsson, H.; Ranagalage, M.; Murayama, Y.; Zhang, H.; Mushore, T.D. Spatiotemporal analysis of land use/land cover and its effects on surface urban heat island using Landsat data: A case study of metropolitan city Tehran (1988–2018). Sustainability
**2018**, 10, 4433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Sadek, M.; Li, X.; Mostafa, E.; Freeshah, M.; Kamal, A.; Sidi Almouctar, M.A.; Mustafa, E.K. Low-Cost Solutions for Assessment of Flash Flood Impacts Using Sentinel-1/2 Data Fusion and Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling: Wadi El-Natrun Region, Egypt. Adv. Civ. Eng.
**2020**, 2020, 1039309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dissanayake, D.; Morimoto, T.; Murayama, Y.; Ranagalage, M. Impact of landscape structure on the variation of land surface temperature in sub-saharan region: A case study of Addis Ababa using Landsat data (1986–2016). Sustainability
**2019**, 11, 2257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hamdy, O.; Zhao, S.; Salheen, M.A.; Eid, Y.Y. Analyses the driving forces for urban growth by using IDRISI
^{®}Selva Models Abouelreesh Aswan as a Case Study. Int. J. Eng. Technol.**2017**, 9, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Eastman, J.R. Manual for Using Terrset; Clark Labs, Clark University: Worcester, MA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Landis, J.R.; Koch, G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical Data. Biometrics
**1977**, 33, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Van Vliet, J.; Bregt, A.K.; Hagen-zanker, A. Revisiting Kappa to account for change in the accuracy assessment of land-use change models. Ecol. Model.
**2011**, 222, 1367–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Flo, J.; Landmark, B.; Hatlevik, O.E.; Fagerström, L. Using a new interrater reliability method to test the modified oulu patient classification instrument in home health care. Nurs. Open
**2018**, 5, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pontius, R.G., Jr.; Millones, M. Death to Kappa: Birth of quantity disagreement and allocation disagreement for accuracy assessment. Int. J. Remote Sens.
**2011**, 32, 4407–4429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sadek, M.; Li, X.; Mostafa, E.; Dossou, J. Monitoring Flash Flood Hazard Using Modeling-Based Techniques and Multi-Source Remotely Sensed Data in Ras Ghareb City, Egypt. Arab. J.Geosci.
**2021**, 14, 2030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mustafa, E.K.; Co, Y.; Liu, G.; Kaloop, M.R.; Beshr, A.A.; Zarzoura, F.; Sadek, M. Study for Predicting Land Surface Temperature (LST) Using Landsat Data: A Comparison of Four Algorithms. Adv. Civ. Eng.
**2020**, 2020, 7363546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kampanart, P.A. Dynamic Settlement Simulation Model: Application to Urban Growth in Thailand. Ph.D. Thesis, University College London, London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Takeyama, M.; Couclelis, H. Map dynamics: Integrating cellular automata and GIS through Geo-Algebra. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci.
**1997**, 11, 73–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, X.; Yeh, A.G.O. Neural-network-based cellular automata for simulating multiple land use changes using GIS. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci.
**2002**, 16, 323–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Saaty, T.L.; Peniwati, K. Group Decision Making: Drawing Out and Reconciling Differences; RWS Publications: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Analytic Hierarchy Process; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, C.T. Extension of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst.
**2000**, 114, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nădăban, S.; Dzitac, S.; Dzitac, I. Fuzzy TOPSIS: A general view. Procedia Comput. Sci.
**2016**, 91, 823–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dubovyk, O.; Sliuzas, R.; Flacke, J. Spatio-temporal modeling of informal settlement development in Sancaktepe district, Istanbul, Turkey. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens.
**2011**, 66, 235–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Thapa, R.B.; Murayama, Y. Drivers of urban growth in the Kathmandu valley, Nepal: Examining the efficacy of the analytic hierarchy process. Appl. Geogr.
**2010**, 30, 70–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wu, K.; Zhang, H. Land use dynamics, built-up land expansion patterns, and driving forces analysis of the fast-growing Hangzhou metropolitan area, eastern China (1978–2008). Appl. Geogr.
**2012**, 34, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ahmed, B.; Ahmed, R.; Zhu, X. Evaluation of model validation techniques in land cover dynamics. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf.
**2013**, 2, 577–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Subasinghe, S.; Estoque, R.C.; Murayama, Y. Spatiotemporal analysis of urban growth using GIS and remote sensing: A case study of the Colombo Metropolitan Area, Sri Lanka. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf.
**2016**, 5, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kore, N.B.; Ravi, K.; Patil, S.B. A simplified description of fuzzy TOPSIS method for multi criteria decision making. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol (IRJET)
**2017**, 4, 2047–2050. [Google Scholar] - Malczewski, J. Gis and Multicriteria Decision Analy; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Artis, D.A.; Carnahan, W.H. Survey of emissivity variability in thermography of urban areas. Remote Sens. Environ.
**1982**, 12, 313–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liu, H.; Xu, L.; Ding, J.; Zhuoma, B.; Deng, X.; Liu, Z. Notice of Retraction Atmospheric correction and land surface temperature retrieval method for FY-3 IR observations. In Proceedings of the Geoscience and Remote Sensing (IITA-GRS), 2010 Second IITA International Conference on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Qingdao, China, 28–31 August 2010; Volume 2, pp. 131–134. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Z.L.; Becker, F.; Stoll, M.P.; Wan, Z. Evaluation of six methods for extracting relative emissivity spectra from thermal infrared images. Remote Sens. Environ.
**1999**, 69, 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pieper, M.L.; Manolakis, D.; Truslow, E.; Cooley, T.W.; Brueggeman, M.; Jacobson, J.; Weisner, A. Performance limitations of temperature–emissivity separation techniques in long-wave infrared hyperspectral imaging applications. Opt. Eng.
**2017**, 56, 081804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sobrino, J.A.; Jiménez-Muñoz, J.C.; Sòria, G.; Romaguera, M.; Guanter, L.; Moreno, J.; Martínez, P. Land surface emissivity retrieval from different VNIR and TIR sensors. IEEE Trans.Geosci. Remote Sens.
**2008**, 46, 316–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jin, M.; Dickinson, R.E.; Vogelmann, A.M. A comparison of CCM2–BATS skin temperature and surface-air temperature with satellite and surface observations. J. Clim.
**1997**, 10, 1505–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Van de Griend, A.A.; Owe, M. On the relationship between thermal emissivity and the normalized difference vegetation index for natural surfaces. Int. J. Remote Sens.
**1993**, 14, 1119–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Valor, E.; Caselles, V. Mapping land surface emissivity from NDVI: Application to European, African, and South American areas. Remote Sens. Environ.
**1996**, 57, 167–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sobrino, J.A.; Raissouni, N. Toward remote sensing methods for land cover dynamic monitoring: Application to Morocco. Int. J. Remote Sens.
**2000**, 21, 353–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Skoković, D.; Sobrino, J.A.; Jimenez-Munoz, J.C.; Soria, G.; Juşien, Y.; Mattar, C.; Cristóbal, J. Calibration and validation of land surface temperature for landsat8-tirs sensor. In LPVE (Land Product Validation and Evolution); ESA/ESRIN: Frascati, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Senanayake, I.P.; Welivitiya, W.D.D.P.; Nadeeka, P.M. Remote sensing based analysis of urban heat islands with vegetation cover in Colombo city, Sri Lanka using Landsat-7 ETM+ data. Urban Clim.
**2013**, 5, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ma, Y.; Kuang, Y.; Huang, N. Coupling urbanization analyses for studying urban thermal environment and its interplay with biophysical parameters based on TM/ETM+ imagery. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf.
**2010**, 12, 110–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sánchez, J.M.; Galve, J.M.; González-Piqueras, J.; López-Urrea, R.; Niclòs, R.; Calera, A. Monitoring 10-m LST from the Combination MODIS/Sentinel-2, Validation in a High Contrast Semi-Arid Agroecosystem. Remote Sens.
**2020**, 12, 1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - S2-PDGS-TAS-DI-PSD-V14.9.pdf. Available online: https://sentinel.esa.int/documents/247904/4756619/S2-PDGS-TAS-DIPSD-V14.9.pdf/3d3b6c9c-4334-dcc4-3aa7-f7c0deffbaf7 (accessed on 14 May 2022).
- Gascon, F.; Bouzinac, C.; Thépaut, O.; Jung, M.; Francesconi, B.; Louis, J.; Lonjou, V.; Lafrance, B.; Massera, S.; Gaudel-Vacaresse, A.; et al. Copernicus Sentinel-2A calibration and products validation status. Remote Sens.
**2017**, 9, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Athukorala, D.; Murayama, Y. Urban heat island formation in Greater Cairo: Spatio-temporal analysis of daytime and nighttime land surface temperatures along the urban–rural gradient. Remote Sens.
**2021**, 13, 1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, Q.; Ban, Y.; Liu, J.; Hu, Y. Simulation and analysis of urban growth scenarios for the Greater Shanghai Area, China. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst.
**2011**, 35, 126–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, X.; Zhou, W.; Ouyang, Z. Forty years of urban expansion in Beijing: What is the relative importance of physical, socioeconomic, and neighborhood factors? Appl. Geogr.
**2013**, 38, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Aburas, M.M.; Ho, Y.M.; Ramli, M.F.; Ash’aari, Z.H. Improving the capability of an integrated CA-Markov model to simulate spatio-temporal urban growth trends using an Analytical Hierarchy Process and Frequency Ratio. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf.
**2017**, 59, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Radwan, T.M.; Blackburn, G.A.; Whyatt, J.D.; Atkinson, P.M. Dramatic loss of agricultural land due to urban expansion threatens food security in the Nile Delta, Egypt. Remote Sens.
**2019**, 11, 332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Arsanjani, J.J.; Helbich, M.; Vaz, E.D.N. Spatiotemporal simulation of urban growth patterns using agent-based modeling: The case of Tehran. Cities
**2013**, 32, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**The study area of Gharbia governorate, Egypt [35].

**Figure 2.**The conceptual flowchart of the adopted methodology. (

**a**) Supervised classification of the processed images for obtaining LULC maps; (

**b**) simulating the LULCC using CA-Markov chain model and the integrated model of CA-Markov chain with FAHP; and (

**c**) estimation of LST and investigating the impact of LULCC on LST based on regression analysis; and (

**d**) conducting regression analysis to obtain the relationship between LULC and the corresponding LST.

**Figure 3.**Spatial distribution of LULC over the study area during the study period: (

**a**) LULC map in 1991; (

**b**) LULC map in 2003; and (

**c**) LULC map in 2018.

**Figure 7.**Spatial distribution of daytime land surface temperature (LST) over the study area during the study period in June 1991, 2003, and 2018, all at around 8:00 am.

**Figure 8.**Land surface temperature maps illustrating UHI intensity and UHI zones. The white color represents non-UHI zones, and UHI intensity is mentioned for each image.

**Figure 9.**Regression analysis to retrieve the relationship between the LST and LULC over Gharbia in (

**a**) 1991, (

**b**) 2003, and (

**c**) 2018.

Data Type | Capture Date | Resolution | Source | Output |
---|---|---|---|---|

Landsat 1991™ | 27 June 1991 | 30 m | USGS | LULC map |

Landsat 2003™ | 28 June 2003 | 30 m | USGS | LULC map |

Landsat 2018^{OLI-TIRS} | 21 June 2018 | 30 m | USGS | LULC map |

Google Earth historical images | June 1991, 2003, 2018 | Google Earth Pro | Training/validation | |

Road network layer | OSM | Distance to nearest road |

Criteria | LULC | Dist. to Persist. Built-Up | Dist. to Urban Centers | Dist. to Railway Stations | Dist. to Near Road | Neighbor. Effect | Population Density | Local Develop. | Employment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

LULC | (1,1,1) | $\left(\frac{1}{9},\frac{1}{8},\frac{1}{7}\right)$ | $\left(\frac{1}{9},\frac{1}{8},\frac{1}{7}\right)$ | $\left(\frac{1}{8},\frac{1}{7},\frac{1}{6}\right)$ | $\left(\frac{1}{9},\frac{1}{8},\frac{1}{7}\right)$ | $\left(\frac{1}{8},\frac{1}{7},\frac{1}{6}\right)$ | $\left(\frac{1}{6},\frac{1}{5},\frac{1}{4}\right)$ | $\left(\frac{1}{6},\frac{1}{5},\frac{1}{4}\right)$ | $\left(\frac{1}{8},\frac{1}{7},\frac{1}{6}\right)$ |

Dist. to persist. built-up | (7,8,9) | (1,1,1) | (1,1,1) | (4,5,6) | (2,3,4) | (1,1,1) | (2,3,4) | (2,3,4) | (2,3,4) |

Dist. to urban centers | (7,8,9) | (1,1,1) | (1,1,1) | (2,3,4) | (1,2,3) | (1,1,1) | (2,3,4) | (3,4,5) | (2,3,4) |

Dist. to railway stations | (6,7,8) | $\left(\frac{1}{6},\frac{1}{5},\frac{1}{4}\right)$ | $\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}\right)$ | (1,1,1) | $\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}\right)$ | $\left(\frac{1}{6},\frac{1}{5},\frac{1}{4}\right)$ | (1,1,1) | (2,3,4) | (1,1,1) |

Dist. to nearest road | (7,8,9) | $\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}\right)$ | $\left(\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2},1\right)$ | (2,3,4) | (1,1,1) | $\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}\right)$ | (2,3,4) | (3,4,5) | (2,3,4) |

Neighborhood effect | (6,7,8) | (1,1,1) | (1,1,1) | (4,5,6) | (2,3,4) | (1,1,1) | (1,1,1) | (2,3,4) | (2,3,4) |

Population density | (4,5,6) | $\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}\right)$ | $\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}\right)$ | (1,1,1) | $\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}\right)$ | (1,1,1) | (1,1,1) | $\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}\right)$ | (1,1,1) |

Local development | (4,5,6) | $\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}\right)$ | $\left(\frac{1}{5},\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{3}\right)$ | $\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}\right)$ | $\left(\frac{1}{5},\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{3}\right)$ | $\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}\right)$ | (2,3,4) | (1,1,1) | $\left(\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2},1\right)$ |

Employment | (6,7,8) | $\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}\right)$ | $\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}\right)$ | (1,1,1) | $\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}\right)$ | $\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}\right)$ | (1,1,1) | (1,2,3) | (1,1,1) |

Accuracy | LULC Class | 1991 | 2003 | 2018 |
---|---|---|---|---|

User’s accuracy (%) | Built-up | 80.7 | 85.7 | 91.8 |

Water | 82.1 | 82.6 | 94.7 | |

Agricultural land | 97.0 | 96.4 | 95.1 | |

Producer’s accuracy (%) | Built-up | 80.0 | 80.9 | 81.3 |

Water | 82.1 | 86.4 | 85.7 | |

Agricultural land | 97.1 | 97.2 | 98.1 | |

Overall accuracy (%) | 94.9 | 94.7 | 94.6 | |

Kappa coefficient | 0.78 | 0.81 | 0.84 |

LULC | 1991 | 2003 | 2018 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Area (km^{2}) | % | Area (km^{2}) | % | Area (km^{2}) | % | |

Built-up | 156.75 | 7.8 | 193.37 | 9.7 | 303.75 | 15.2 |

Water | 19.57 | 1.0 | 24.48 | 1.2 | 21.56 | 1.1 |

Agricultural land | 1832.01 | 91.2 | 1781.48 | 89.1 | 1674.02 | 83.7 |

Total | 1999.33 | 100 | 1999.33 | 100 | 1999.33 | 100 |

Model Criteria | AHP | FAHP |
---|---|---|

LULC | 0.017 | 0 |

Dist. to persistent built-up area | 0.202 | 0.260 |

Dist. to urban centers | 0.185 | 0.238 |

Dist. to railway stations | 0.07 | 0.040 |

Dist. to nearest road | 0.134 | 0.206 |

Neighborhood effect | 0.186 | 0.226 |

Population density | 0.071 | 0 |

Local development | 0.065 | 0 |

Employment | 0.07 | 0.030 |

LULC | 2018 | 2033 | 2048 | RD% 2018–2033 | RD% 2018–2033 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Area (km^{2}) | % | Area (km^{2}) | % | Area (km^{2}) | % | |||

Built-up | 251.62 | 12.6 | 414.90 | 20.7 | 514.00 | 25.7 | 64.9 | 104.3 |

Water | 24.48 | 1.2 | 21.56 | 1.1 | 21.56 | 1.1 | −11.9 | −11.9 |

Agricultural land | 1723.23 | 86.2 | 1562.87 | 78.2 | 1463.77 | 73.2 | −9.3 | −15.1 |

Total | 1999.33 | 100 | 1999.33 | 100 | 1999.33 | 100 |

**Table 7.**Calculation of urban heat island intensity from land surface temperature (LST) based on Landsat images.

Image Acquisition Date | Mean Urban LST (°C) | Mean Rural LST (°C) | UHI (°C) |
---|---|---|---|

1991 | 32.48 | 29.23 | 3.25 |

2003 | 37.29 | 32.57 | 4.72 |

2018 | 41.50 | 37.46 | 4.04 |

**Table 8.**Calculation of UHI intensities from land surface temperature (LST) based on Landsat images.

Urban LST (°C) | Rural LST (°C) | UHI (°C) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Districts | Mean Temperature (μ) 1991 | Mean Temperature (μ) 2003 | Mean Temperature (μ) 2018 | Mean Temperature (μ) 1991 | Mean Temperature (μ) 2003 | Mean Temperature (μ) 2018 | 1991 | 2003 | 2018 |

Mahalla Kubra | 32.16 | 36.62 | 40.63 | 28.65 | 31.09 | 36.26 | 3.51 | 5.53 | 4.37 |

Tanta | 32.87 | 37.95 | 41.29 | 29.77 | 33.30 | 37.38 | 3.10 | 4.65 | 3.91 |

Basyun | 32.80 | 36.77 | 40.42 | 29.89 | 32.44 | 38.19 | 2.91 | 4.33 | 2.23 |

Zefta | 32.32 | 37.84 | 41.50 | 29.29 | 33.86 | 38.26 | 3.03 | 3.98 | 3.24 |

Santah | 32.41 | 37.65 | 41.02 | 29.32 | 33.31 | 37.44 | 3.09 | 4.34 | 3.58 |

Kafr Elzayat | 32.74 | 38.03 | 41.40 | 29.43 | 34.44 | 39.48 | 3.31 | 3.59 | 1.92 |

Samanod | 31.72 | 36.53 | 40.53 | 28.52 | 31.92 | 36.58 | 3.2 | 4.61 | 3.95 |

Qotur | 32.74 | 36.70 | 41.04 | 29.45 | 31.76 | 37.77 | 3.29 | 4.94 | 3.27 |

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |

© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Mostafa, E.; Li, X.; Sadek, M.
Urbanization Trends Analysis Using Hybrid Modeling of Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchical Process-Cellular Automata-Markov Chain and Investigating Its Impact on Land Surface Temperature over Gharbia City, Egypt. *Remote Sens.* **2023**, *15*, 843.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15030843

**AMA Style**

Mostafa E, Li X, Sadek M.
Urbanization Trends Analysis Using Hybrid Modeling of Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchical Process-Cellular Automata-Markov Chain and Investigating Its Impact on Land Surface Temperature over Gharbia City, Egypt. *Remote Sensing*. 2023; 15(3):843.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15030843

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Mostafa, Eman, Xuxiang Li, and Mohammed Sadek.
2023. "Urbanization Trends Analysis Using Hybrid Modeling of Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchical Process-Cellular Automata-Markov Chain and Investigating Its Impact on Land Surface Temperature over Gharbia City, Egypt" *Remote Sensing* 15, no. 3: 843.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15030843