Comparison of land usage of KNUBetween 2006 and 2010

2005014001 지리학과 강인수2006034284 경영학부 이동구

2008014028 지리학과 쳔하오

Contents

• Introduction– Reason why chose the Subject– Introduce about KNU

• Main Subject– Comparison 2006 & 2010 KNU– Automatic analysis + Individual analysis– Field Survey– Result analysis

• Conclusion– How to use the result– Power of Remote Sensing

INTRO- Many buildings are being built in KNU

INTRO- Many buildings are being built in KNU

INTRO- Many buildings are being built in KNU

INTRO

• There are many small and big changes in KNU

• Entrance of Global Plaza, BTL Dorm, Techno building, East gate – Law school, extension of College of social science and so on

• By using the remote sensing tool, we will figure out how many changes are done

About KNU

• Kyungpook National UniversitySlogan : Truth · Pride · Service Establishment : 1946. 5.28Type : NationalPresident : Ham, In sukNation : Republic of KoreaLocation : Gyeongbuk National Univ., Sangyeok 3-dong, Buk-gu, Daegu, Korea (Main campus)The number of student : undergraduate -28,170(2010)graduate school : 6,640 (2010) Teaching staff : 1,118 (2010) Symbol : Cheomseongdae

About KNU

Main Subject

• Comparison of land usage of KNU be-tween 2006 and 2010

2006 KNU

2010 KNU

2006 KNU vs 2010 KNU

Comparison 2006 & 2010 KNUcolor Type

green Forest

grey Road

brown Building

Light brown Open space

blue Water

Field Survey

BIG 5 Changes

1. Entrance of Techno Building and BTL dor-mitory

BTL dormitory

Techno Building

Techno Building

BIG 5 Changes

2. Global Plza (GP)

Global Plaza

BIG 5 Changes

3. East Gate+ extension of College of social sci-ence + Entrance of Law school

BIG 5 Changes

4. Entrance of parking lot at college of IT Engineer-ing 2

BIG 5 Changes

5. Faculty Apartment

Comparison 2006 & 2010 KNU

Raster Attribute Editor 2006 & 2010 KNU

Comparison 2006 & 2010 KNU

2006• forest : 43.12 %

• road : 25.18 %

• water : 0.46 %

• open : 8.65 %

• building : 22.59%

• Total : 100 %

2010• forest : 38.93 %

• road : 27.48 %

• water : 0.45 %

• open : 8.40 %

• building : 24.74 %

• Total : 100 %* Round off at three decimal places

Comparison 2006 & 2010 KNU

Forest43%

Road25%

Water0%

Open9%

Building23%

2006 KNU

Forest39%

Road27%

Water0%

Open8%

Building25%

2010 KNU

Conclusion

• Thanks to the Remote Sensing tool, We can display very objective fig-

ures how changed the usage of land by entrance of buildings in KNU

• Compared to the field survey, • It is convenient to access the spot. If field survey can’t approach the

spot, but remote sensing can

Conclusion

• Fast, objective, save money & time.• Very useful to keep the information• Remote Sensing is very powerful tool• It can be used many kinds of infor-

mation