Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography

ISSN: 0435-3676 (Print) 1468-0459 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tgaa20

Impact of different roughness coefficients applied

to relief diversity evaluation: Chełmno Lakeland
(Polish Lowland)

Rafał Kot & Krzysztof Leśniak

To cite this article: Rafał Kot & Krzysztof Leśniak (2017) Impact of different roughness coefficients
applied to relief diversity evaluation: Chełmno Lakeland (Polish Lowland), Geografiska Annaler:
Series A, Physical Geography, 99:2, 102-114, DOI: 10.1080/04353676.2017.1286547

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/04353676.2017.1286547

Published online: 02 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 76

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tgaa20
GEOGRAFISKA ANNALER: SERIES A, PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY, 2017
VOL. 99, NO. 2, 102–114
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/04353676.2017.1286547

Impact of different roughness coefficients applied to relief

diversity evaluation: Chełmno Lakeland (Polish Lowland)
Rafał Kota and Krzysztof Leśniakb
a
Faculty of Earth Sciences, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Toruń, Poland; bFaculty of Mathematics and
Computer Science, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Toruń, Poland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The study deals with the use of geodiversity indices for relief diversity Received 25 March 2015
evaluation in lowlands (exemplified by the Polish Lowland). These Revised 19 December 2016
indices involve three parameters: the number of relief types (n), the Accepted 11 January 2017
number of patches (m) and the roughness coefficient (r). The considered
KEYWORDS
indices take the form of V(n,m) × r, where V is one of the six real-valued Relief diversity; geodiversity
functions increasing with respect to n and m. The parameter r is one of index; roughness coefficient;
the four roughness coefficients based on slopes, aspects, and elevation. Kendall’s tau-b rank
Three of these coefficients are already described in the literature, while correlation; lowland
the fourth is a new coefficient conceived as a remedy for some
peculiarities of the lowland relief. Overall 30 possible relief diversity
indices arise (including the case of r = 1). Each index yields a relief
diversity ranking of units in the study area and these rankings are
compared. The impact of a roughness coefficient on the rankings is
discussed and confronted with the input of the number and
fragmentation of relief types. It turns out that the roughness of a relief
essentially determines the relief diversity. However the observed mosaic
with delimited relief types cannot be neglected. These conclusions find
explanation in the geomorphologic interpretation of the relief diversity
distribution.

Introduction
Relief diversity is one aspect of overall geodiversity (Zwoliński 2004; Serrano & Ruiz-Flaño 2007a;
Panizza 2009; Őrsi 2011; Kot 2006, 2012; Gray 2013; Silva et al. 2013). It is the structural, genetic,
morphological variability of morphosystems as well as single landforms (Zwoliński 2004, 2009;
Kostrzewski 2011). The term ‘relief diversity’ is not widely adopted in the literature. It should be
noted that several alternative names have been proposed: geomorphodiversity (Panizza 2009), land-
form geodiversity (Zwoliński 2009), relief geodiversity (Kostrzewski 2011).
Recently, many authors have proposed geodiversity indices based on the number of element types
and the topographical roughness, e.g. Serrano and Ruiz-Flaño (2007a, 2007b), Hjort and Luoto
(2010), Danz et al. (2011), Melelli (2014), Hjort et al. (2012). One such formula for a geodiversity
index, often referred to in the literature, reads as follows:
Eg · R
Gd = , (1)
ln S
where Eg is the number of different elements in the basic unit, R is the coefficient of roughness from
Serrano and Ruiz-Flaño (2007a, 2007b), see also Serrano et al. (2009), S is the surface area of the basic

CONTACT Rafał Kot rafalkot@umk.pl

© 2017 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography’
 GEOGRAFISKA ANNALER: SERIES A, PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY 103

unit, and ln stands for the natural logarithm. Observe that if eq. (1) is calculated in a grid of squares
(cf. Hjort & Luoto 2010), then the normalization factor ln S can be abandoned.
The geodiversity index (1) and its variants have been applied mainly to upland and highland
areas, e.g. Serrano and Ruiz-Flaño (2007a, 2007b), Hjort and Luoto (2010), and Melelli (2014).
On the other hand, there are not many works dealing with the application of (1) to lowland
areas. For instance, Őrsi (2011) and Kot (2012) refer to a proposal made by Serrano and Ruiz-
Flaño (2007a, 2007b), while Benito-Calvo et al. (2009) employ a classic circular statistic for rough-
ness, well known in the study of the Earth’s magnetism (Mark 1975).
The authors of the present paper aim to understand the general properties of the geodiversity
index (1) in lowland areas (i.e. plains no higher than 300 m a.s.l.). However, instead of evaluating
the overall geodiversity, the focus is on the use of Gd adapted to relief diversity evaluation. This
shift should amplify the impact of roughness in eq. (1). The need for such studies was suggested,
inter alia, in Hjort and Luoto (2010).
To put the analyses into a broader perspective, the behaviour of the relief diversity index in a gen-
eral form given by eq. (2), instead of eq. (1), is investigated:

Gd = V(n, m) · r. (2)

The variables in (2) have the following meaning: (a) n is the number of relief types known as patch
richness according to McGarigal and Marks (1995); (b) m is the number of patches, denoted NP by
McGarigal and Marks (1995); (c) V is a real-valued function non-strictly increasing with respect to
variables n and m separately; (d) r is a roughness coefficient.
A couple of remarks on (a) – (d) are in order. Concerning (a) note that the quantity related to n,
namely Eg appearing in eq. (1), takes into account geological, geomorphological, hydrological, and
pedological types. Hence, n in eq. (2) (the number of relief types) has a narrower meaning than Eg,
the number of different physical elements (cf. Serrano & Ruiz-Flaño 2007a; Hjort & Luoto 2010).
Concerning (b), observe that m expresses the patch fragmentation, so far omitted in the studies
related to eq. (1). Pertaining to (c) the reader is asked to consult section Simple indices depending
on the number of types and the number of patches, where a few possibilities to aggregate variables
n and m into a single index V(n,m) are briefly addressed. Regarding (d) four roughness coefficients
have been employed. Three of them are commonly applied in the evaluation of geodiversity and are
taken from Serrano and Ruiz-Flaño (2007a, 2007b), Hjort and Luoto (2010), and Danz et al. (2011).
The fourth roughness coefficient has been proposed in the present paper to rectify some issues
regarding the distribution of slopes in the lowland. The question of whether these roughness coeffi-
cients are appropriate for measuring the surface ruggedness, is only slightly touched upon. Namely,
the coefficients are discussed with the perspective of relief diversity in mind.
The main problem concerning the properties of (2), and in particular (1), reads as follows: to what
extent does the choice of a definition of the roughness coefficient, affect the final evaluation of the
relief diversity obtained with the aid of (2)? Precisely, each index yields a relief diversity ranking of
basic fields in the study area and the rankings can be compared using the correlation method. In this
way the impact of the roughness coefficient on (2) can be measured. To solve this problem, exper-
imental data were collected in a selected part of the Polish Lowland.
As it appears from the existing body of literature, nobody has been concerned about a comparison
of various roughness coefficients, in terms of their use for the evaluation of geodiversity. Only Man-
osso and Pellitero (2012) and Pellitero et al. (2015) studied a related problem, namely they compare
the geodiversity index (1) with the Shannon entropy. It should be emphasized that it is not the objec-
tive of the present paper to evaluate the relief diversity of a particular study area, by employing sev-
eral indices. As explained earlier, the purpose of the paper is to investigate the impact of the
roughness definition and its implementation in a wide class of geodiversity indices.
104 R. KOT AND K. LEŚNIAK

Study area
The research area consists of the Struga Toruńska basin (Figure 1(a,b)). This area plays an important
role in the Integrated Environmental Monitoring Program (Wójcik & Marciniak 1996). The basin cov-
ers 35 km2, including 26.75 km2 represented in the grid of squares (see Figure 1(a) and section Data
and methods for the details). According to the physico-geographical regionalization devised by Kon-
dracki (1998), this basin is situated on the border of the southern part of the physico-geographical
mesoregion, referred to as Chełmno Lakeland (315.11) (see Figure 1(b)). According to the regionali-
zation devised by Kot (2008), the study area is located in three microregions: Wytrębowice Moraine
Plateau (315.113), Chełmża Outwash Plain (315.112) and Turzno-Gronowo Hills (315.111).
The relief of the study area was formed during the Kujawy-Dobrzyń subphase of the Last Weich-
selian Glaciation. A dominant landform in the basin is a flat morainic plateau. In the east of the study
area, small patches of an undulating moraine plateau can be observed. The relief of the central part of
the area is enriched with dead ice morainic hummocks. Moreover, an erosional plain developed on
the flat morainic plateau, due to glacial meltwater activity. In the north of the area, depositional
activity of glacial meltwaters contributed to the development of an outwash plain. The Struga Tor-
uńska river forms an axis of the study area. The river does not form a valley in the studied section,
but rather uses anthropogenic canals and subglacial channels (Niewiarowski 1996; Molewski &
Weckwerth 2009).

Data and methods

The analyses were based on two sheets of topographic maps, on a scale of 1:25 000, N-34-98-Cb, N-
34-98-Cd, (coordinate system 1942, EPSG:3334). The maps were scanned, rectified and calibrated. A
digital elevation model (DEM) was created using the ArcInfo software (Topo to raster tool) from the
digitized contour lines of the topographical maps (1.25 m vertical interval; 1:25 000). The grid size of

Figure 1. Location of the study area. (a) Boundaries of the Struga Toruńska representative basin and the grid of squares (500 ×
500 m), (b) Boundaries of the Struga Toruńska representative basin against the background of physico-geographical mesoregions
devised by Kondracki (1998): 315.11 Chełmno Lakeland, 315.13 Drwęca Valley, 315.14 Dobrzyń Lakeland, 315.35 Toruń Basin,
315.55 Inowrocław Plaine; 1 − rivers, 2 − boundaries of mesoregions, 3 − Struga Toruńska representative basin.
 GEOGRAFISKA ANNALER: SERIES A, PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY 105

the resulting raster DEM was 25 m. A DEM such as this was used for example by Harris et al. (2012)
and suggested by Hengl (2006) as well as Hengl and Reuter (2009). Finally, the following maps were
generated: slopes, hypsometric and aspects (Figure 2(a)). Subsequently, the collected materials and a
geomorphological sketch prepared for the Detailed Geological Map of Poland 1:50 000 (Molewski &
Weckwerth 2009) were used for the digitization of 18 detailed relief types (see Table 1, Figure 2(b), cf.
Instruction to the Detailed Geomorphological Map of the Polish Lowland, scale 1:50 000 1962; Kot
2012). All the distinguished relief types are polygon objects; those appearing as points and lines on a
scale of 1:25 000 were simply omitted.
The grid of 107 squares (500 × 500 m) was inscribed in the boundary of the representative basin
of the Struga Toruńska river (Figure 1(a)). Fields of a similar size and shape were used previously in
the evaluation of geodiversity of lowland and upland areas (Hengl 2006; Kot 2006; Hjort and Luoto
2010; Őrsi 2011).
The material thus prepared was used to determine the values of the following three parameters in
grid squares, needed in section Results and discussion to conduct analyses of all variants of eq. (2): the
number of relief types n (Table 1), the number of patches m (Figure 3), and the roughness coefficient
r, which quantifies some topographical features, such as elevation and slopes, see section Various
concepts of roughness. The data with values of n and m in basic units are collated in Table 2.
To determine the statistical relationships between various quantities, Kendall᾿s tau-b rank corre-
lation coefficient is employed, because there is no reason to assume the normality of the underlying
data (Hollander et al. 2014).

Various concepts of roughness

The concept of roughness lies at the heart of the human perception of topography (Danz et al. 2011).
Nonetheless, its proper expression has long been debated (Mark 1975; Hoffman & Krotkov 1989;

Figure 2. (a) Altitude and (b) relief types (for numbers see Table 1) of the examined area.
106 R. KOT AND K. LEŚNIAK

Table 1. Relief types identified and mapped in the study area.

Pleistocene landforms produced by the depositional activity of inland ice
1 Elevationsa of undulating moraine plateau
2 Dead ice depressionsb (kettles) of undulating moraine plateau
3 Plains of undulating moraine plateau
4 Elevations of flat moraine plateau
5 Dead ice depressions (kettles) of flat moraine plateau
6 Plains of flat moraine plateau
Pleistocene landforms originated in the stagnant and dead ice zone
7 Dead ice morainic hummocks
Pleistocene landforms produced by the depositional activity of glacial meltwaters
8 Elevations of outwash plain
9 Depressions of outwash plain
10 Outwash plains
Pleistocene landforms produced by the erosional activity of glacial meltwaters
11 Elevations of meltwater erosional plain
12 Depressions of meltwater erosional plain
13 Meltwater erosional plains
Lateglacial and postglacial (Holocene) landforms or erosional and denudational origin
14 Denuded slopes
15 Denudation valleys
16 Depressions of various origin
Landforms produced by vegetation
17 Biogenic plains, mostly peat
Anthropogenic forms
18 Levelling areas
a
Convexity.
b
Concavity.

Hani et al. 2011). Among many roughness coefficients employed so far to quantify relief diversity,
the focus is placed on the following: (i) R applied in central Spain (Soria) by Serrano and Ruiz-Flaño
(2007a, 2007b), based on slopes; (ii) IR applied in northern Finland (Lapland) by Hjort and Luoto
(2010), based on slopes and aspects; (iii) topographic roughness, denoted in this study by REco,
applied in Minnesota by Danz et al. (2011), based on elevation. These roughness coefficients were
selected due to the fact that they represent different attributes of topography. The precise formulas
are to be found in the original papers. The reader should be warned that the definitions of IR as stated
in the papers by Hjort and Luoto (2010) and Grohmann et al. (2011) are different. See also Mark
(1975), Sappington et al. (2007) and Grohmann et al. (2011) for further explanations.
The coefficient R (Serrano et al. 2009) may be inadequate for a lowland. Namely, the series with
class intervals for slopes and the contribution of classes in the evaluation of R, is a delicate matter (see

Figure 3. The number of relief types (n) vs. the number of patches (m) in a square. The colours and the numbers within patches
represent relief types according to Table 1.
 GEOGRAFISKA ANNALER: SERIES A, PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY 107

Table 2. Squares (1–107) with a given number of types (n) and patches (m).
m n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 67
2 14, 19, 23, 26, 29, 45,
55, 73, 105, 107
3 9, 36, 75 1, 8, 20, 24, 32, 34, 46,
56, 59, 63, 74, 80, 95
4 48, 97, 103, 106 11, 13, 15, 22, 54, 57, 65 3, 4, 7, 25, 33, 38, 39, 60, 62,
79, 81, 84, 86, 99, 101
5 12, 18, 47, 58, 76, 104 2, 6, 17, 28, 40, 42, 43, 49, 64, 21, 31, 89
66, 71, 82, 83, 87, 96, 102
6 16, 100 5, 37, 68, 98 35, 41, 53,
77, 94
7 88 27, 30, 44, 50, 70, 93 10, 61,
78, 85
8 51, 52,
91
9 72 69,
90
10 92

Figure 2 on page 92 in Kot 2012). Some preliminary experimentation showed that, instead of fine
tuning the series, it is simpler to fix suitably fine series and average occurrences of slopes over the
evaluation area. Therefore, yet another quantity is introduced in this paper, namely the weighted
roughness coefficient Rw. It is calculated in the square as follows:


k
Rw = Ri · pi, (3)
i=1

where Ri is the number of points (cf. Kot 2015) ascribed to the interval of slopes according to Table 3,
pi is the per cent of the surface area with slopes in a given interval, and k is the number of distinct
slope intervals found in the square.

Simple indices depending on the number of relief types and the number of patches
The general form of the geodiversity index analysed in this study is V(n,m) · r, see Introduction, eq.
(2). From the previous section it follows that the choice of a discounting factor r may significantly
affect the resulting index. This section considers the effect of various simple combinations of n, m
employed as a function V(n,m). The following functions were selected for further analyses: (a) V
(n,m) = n, (b) V(n,m) = m, (c) V(n,m) = n+m = s (sum), (d) V(n,m) = n · m = p (product), (e) V(n,
m) = n+m/(m+1) = ks (Kot & Leśniak 2006), (f) V(n,m) = n · m/(m+1) = kp.
Now, a few words of comment on (a)–(f) are in order. The reason for including the parameter m
in addition to n, is that m is responsible for fragmentation (dissection of a given type into small
patches) (see Figure 3, cf. McGarigal & Marks 1995). The formulas (c) and (d) take into account
both parameters n and m unlike (a) and (b). The symmetry in treating n and m is broken in (e)
and (f). This results in the hierarchy of n above m: V(n,m) < V(n′ ,m′ ) if n < n′ regardless of whether
m < m’ or m > m’. The functions like (e) and (f) are introduced here, because some authors argue for
a leading role of the number of types n over other parameters (From Land Cover to Landscape Diver-
sity in the European Union 2000; Kot & Leśniak 2006).

Table 3. Intervals of slopes with corresponding points.

Range of slopes (°) 0–0.5 0.51–1 1.01–1.5 1.51–2 2.01–2.5 2.51–3 3.01–3.5 3.51–4 4.01–4.5 4.51–5
Number of points (Ri) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
108 R. KOT AND K. LEŚNIAK

The pair (n,m) forms the basis for evaluation of s, p, ks, kp. All of these parameters are strongly
interrelated. Namely, given any two of the quantities n, m, s, p, ks, and kp, it is possible to recover all of
the remaining ones. For the reader’s interest, a few characteristic cases are provided below: m(n,s) = s-
n, m(n,p) = p/n, m(n,ks) = 1/(1/(ks-n)-1), m(s,p) = (s+sqrt(s·s-4p))/2, where sqrt stands for the square
root. Other cases can be justified analogously.
One may ask whether the set of parameters: n, m, s, p, ks and kp could be reduced for the sake of
further investigations. Ideally, given two functions V1 and V2, one of them could be dismissed, if
V1(n′ ,m′ ) > V1(n,m) holds exactly whenever V2(n′ ,m′ ) > V2(n,m) holds. For instance, take a closer
look at the relation between s and p. Unfortunately, s and p may yield inverse valuations: n · m >
n′ · m′ and n+m ≤ n′ +m′ (n = m = 4, n′ = 3, m′ = 5) (cf. Figure 3). A more practical approach (in
view of applications) is to ask whether the per cent of compared pairs (n,m) and (n′ ,m′ ) with inversed
valuations is small. Indeed, this is the case for s and p: in the set of pairs (n,m) uniformly distributed
in the range 2≤n≤7, n≤m≤2n+1, less than 4% of the comparisons between two pairs exhibit inver-
sion. As observed by Dariusz Miklaszewski (private communication), the fraction of inversed valua-
tions for ranges of n and m tending to infinity stabilizes at the exact value of 1/24. Thus, it can be
concluded that there is no statistical difference between s and p. Therefore, p was dismissed in
Table 4. In a similar fashion, kp was dismissed.

Results and discussion

The experimental results (gathered in Table 4 and interpreted in Figure 4) can now be presented.
They concern relations between various indices of the form V(n,m) · r, eq. (2). Thus, according to
the convention that the multiplication dot is omitted, nIR will stand for V(n,m) · r, where V(n,m)
= n and r = IR is the roughness coefficient from Hjort and Luoto (2010) as denoted in section Var-
ious concepts of roughness. The subset of indices reported in Table 4 is selected based on the obser-
vations made in the previous two sections. The cartograms in Figure 4 show the classified values of a
few characteristic indices containing the parameter n.
Clearly, any two indices with a common parameter are statistically dependent; this is also sup-
ported by a p-value in Table 4. However, the strength of correlation often does not allow for the sub-
stitution of one index for another. Hence, even taking pragmatic approach, the plethora of metrics
aimed at the evaluation of relief diversity cannot be much restricted. The most visible feature of Table
4 is a blockwise grouping of correlations on the diagonal. The first block encompasses correlations in
the group of metrics which consists of n, m, s and ks. Other blocks seem to be organized upon the
choice of a roughness coefficient r.
Since the inter-block correlations are less transparent than intra-block correlations, as mentioned
previously, the impact of r has been further visualized in Figure 4: the metrics which contain the coef-
ficient r lead to the delimitation of larger areas of high geodiversity than those without r, i.e. r = 1 in
eq. (2). Therefore, accounting merely for topographic roughness, regardless of its quantification, has
the greatest influence on the evaluation process with the aid of eq. (2). A manifestation of this effect is
clearly reflected in squares 32, 33, 95 in Figure 4 (cf. area 2 in Figure 5(d)).
Nonetheless, to explain the causes of a high correlation between some indices (Table 4) and
the appearance of high and low relief diversity areas regardless of the selected index (Figure 4),
further maps were drawn in Figure 5. Map in Figure 5(a) shows a representative spatial distri-
bution of relief diversity (an evaluation map employing sREco has been used for that purpose)
with areas of high and low relief diversity exhibited via hachuring. Maps in Figures 5(b,c) and
2(b) (the last one put also as a background in Figure 5(d)) account directly or indirectly for mor-
phochronology, morphogenesis, morphometry and morphography. The location of hachured and
dotted areas in Figure 5(d) was decided according to Figure 5(a) (hachured areas). Their geomor-
phologic interpretation was given according to Figures 5(b,c) and 2(b). This resulted in six differ-
ent types of areas (four hachured 1–4 and two dotted areas 5–6 in Figure 5(d)) which are
described below.
Table 4. Correlations between geodiversity indices (Kendall’s tau-b rank, p-value < .001).
m s ks nR mR sR ksR nRw mRw sRw ksRw nREco mREco sREco ksREco nIR mIR sIR ksIR
0.69 0.83 0.90 0.56 0.46 0.50 0.48 0.75 0.63 0.71 0.72 0.63 0.60 0.62 0.59 0.56 0.49 0.52 0.53 n
0.93 0.82 0.39 0.56 0.50 0.42 0.52 0.77 0.68 0.51 0.37 0.57 0.49 0.35 0.45 0.57 0.53 0.44 m
0.94 0.46 0.53 0.54 0.48 0.62 0.75 0.73 0.61 0.47 0.60 0.55 0.44 0.51 0.56 0.55 0.49 s
0.48 0.49 0.51 0.50 0.66 0.70 0.73 0.64 0.51 0.59 0.57 0.48 0.52 0.53 0.54 0.50 ks
0.82 0.90 0.94 0.67 0.55 0.62 0.69 0.65 0.59 0.64 0.65 0.64 0.55 0.60 0.63 nR
0.94 0.86 0.56 0.65 0.63 0.58 0.50 0.60 0.58 0.51 0.56 0.62 0.60 0.56 mR

GEOGRAFISKA ANNALER: SERIES A, PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY

0.94 0.61 0.61 0.63 0.62 0.55 0.60 0.60 0.56 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.59 sR
0.59 0.55 0.59 0.61 0.56 0.57 0.59 0.57 0.58 0.55 0.57 0.58 ksR
0.69 0.82 0.97 0.74 0.70 0.74 0.71 0.77 0.64 0.70 0.74 nRw
0.87 0.69 0.52 0.72 0.65 0.51 0.65 0.77 0.73 0.64 mRw
0.82 0.63 0.76 0.73 0.62 0.74 0.76 0.77 0.72 sRw
0.73 0.71 0.74 0.71 0.79 0.67 0.73 0.77 ksRw
0.75 0.86 0.96 0.61 0.49 0.55 0.60 nREco
0.90 0.75 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.61 mReco
0.85 0.64 0.60 0.63 0.63 sREco
0.61 0.49 0.55 0.60 ksREco
0.80 0.88 0.97 nIR
0.91 0.80 mIR
0.89 sIR

109
110 R. KOT AND K. LEŚNIAK

Figure 4. Relief diversity maps based on: n, s, nR, nRw, nIR, nREco (Quantile method of classification).

Area type 1 comprises Pleistocene dead ice morainic hummocks, originated in the stagnant and dead
ice zone: squares 41, 42, 51, 52, 53, 78, 85, 86. Area type 2 comprises Pleistocene undulating moraine pla-
teaus, produced by the depositional activity of inland ice: squares 31, 32, 33, 35, 44, 95, 101. Area type 3 is
 GEOGRAFISKA ANNALER: SERIES A, PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY 111

Figure 5. (a) Areas of high and low relief diversity delineated according to indices from Table 4 (relief diversity based on sREco in
the background), (b) Slope map, (c) Altitude map and (d) Geomorphologic interpretation of areas with high (hachured areas 1−4)
and low (dotted areas 5−6) relief diversity on the background of thematic map with relief types (see Table 1 and Figure 2(b)): 1 −
morainic hummocks, 2 − undulating moraine plateaus, 3 − transition zone, 4 − high fragmentation of relief types, 5 − flat moraine
plateaus, 6 – biogenic plains (see text for detailed description). Figures (a)–(c) include a layer of grid of squares from Figure 1(a).

the transition zone (ecotone) between the two landform types of different genesis (moraine plateau-out-
wash plain, moraine plateau-meltwater erosional plain): squares 5, 10, 21, 38, 69, 77, 85, 90, 91. Area type
4 accounts for the square with high fragmentation and the number of types enriched by anthropogenic
112 R. KOT AND K. LEŚNIAK

Table 5. Kendall’s tau-b rank correlation between various

roughness coefficients (r); p-value < .001.
REco R Rw
IR 0.46 0.50 0.82
REco 0.51 0.61
R 0.61

Table 6. Relative standard deviation (rsd) for roughness coefficients.

R rsd
Rw 3.93
R 1.96
IR 1.20
REco 2.22

activity: square 72. Area type 5 comprises Pleistocene flat moraine plateaus, produced by the depositional
activity of inland ice: squares 45, 46, 47, 55, 56, 97, 103, 105. Area type 6 comprises biogenic plains, pro-
duced by vegetation, which occur within the Pleistocene landforms resulting from either the erosional or
depositional activity of glacial meltwaters: squares 8, 11, 12, 16, 18, 22, 23, 24, 100.
Area types 1, 2, 3, 4 exhibit high – and types 5, 6 low – relief diversity (Figure 5(d)). The areas of
high and low relief diversity are characterized, respectively, by large and small variability of topo-
graphic parameters: slopes, aspects, and relative heights (Figure 5(b,c)). Precisely these topographic
parameters give rise to all roughness coefficients (r). However the picture would not be full, if the role
of fragmentation in area type 4 against topography was neglected. Thus, at least in some sporadic
cases, topographic roughness may not account for all relief diversity phenomena.
Having discussed the dominating role of parameter r, the question now arises as to whether the
plethora of roughness coefficients could be reduced for the purpose of relief diversity evaluation. Unfor-
tunately, as it appears from Table 5, there is no clear relationship between various roughness coefficients.
Therefore, it was desirable to consider all of them during the analyses of eq. (2). Still, Rw is significantly
correlated with IR. In view of these statistics, Rw could be considered as a potential substitute for IR.
Moreover, Rw has the greatest variability (rsd, see Table 6) among all roughness coefficients considered
in the paper. High rsd for a quantity means that (the differences in) its values are visibly exaggerated,
relative to the magnitude of these values. Since Rw is established according to measurements (slopes)
with a precision adequate for the considered scale, one can feel justified to claim that Rw is suited to
expressing the roughness of a flat area better than coefficients with a lower rsd.

Conclusion and further questions

In the course of analyses conducted in the study area, it has been shown that the relief diversity rank-
ings yielded by the index (2) rely primarily on the selected definition of the roughness coefficient.
This is to some extent a surprise for the authors, since lowland areas are generally viewed as too
flat to support a significant amount of roughness. Contrary to this expectation, several barely com-
patible roughness coefficients visibly affect the process of geodiversity evaluation when the topogra-
phy is taken into account. Nevertheless, the observed effect can be geomorphologically explained, i.e.
hummock areas and slopes are responsible for this effect.
The classification of landforms (identification of relief types) is largely based on the topography.
Thus, the finding that the roughness coefficient plays a leading role in relief diversity evaluation may
appear justified. Still not all relief diversity can be explained in terms of roughness. Qualitative input
brought to diversity analysis by delimiting relief types, cannot be dismissed. Again geomorphologic
explanation shows its superiority over mere quantitative (morphometric) analyses.
Nevertheless, an important question arises as to whether an ambiguously quantified surface rug-
gedness can serve as the principal factor in the assessment of spatial geodiversity. For instance, the
 GEOGRAFISKA ANNALER: SERIES A, PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY 113

topography does not play any important role in recognizing geosites, which has a major impact on
geoconservation and geotourism (cf. Reynard et al. 2007; Gray 2008, 2013).
Additional investigation showed that a refinement Rw of Serrano’s and Ruiz-Flaño’s (2007a,
2007b) roughness coefficient R is a reasonable substitute for a known circular statistics IR (e.g.
used by Hjort & Luoto 2010). Taking the variability criterion into account one can even ask if Rw
is not more appropriate than IR, in accounting for roughness on flat lowland areas.
For a better understanding of the intricate role of a roughness in the relief diversity evaluation, it is
clear that further studies need to be performed in various landscapes (cf. Serrano et al. 2009; Hjort &
Luoto 2010).

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the reviewers for their thorough job.

Funding
Part of this work was financially supported by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education [grant number N
N306 721840].

Notes on contributors
Rafał Kot holds a PhD in Geography (2005). He is a member of the Polish Association for Landscape Ecology. His
main research interests include the evaluation of geodiversity, delimitation of spatial units, physico-geographical regio-
nalization, landscape structure, and environmental protection. In 2014 he worked in the team preparing the Internet
Atlas of Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship (http://atlas.kujawsko-pomorskie.pl/maps/app/map). The Map of Natu-
ral Landscapes prepared within that project, won him the first prize in the national competition organized by the
Association of Polish Cartographers, and received the title of the Internet Map of the Year 2014/2015.
Krzysztof Leśniak holds a PhD in Mathematics (2005). His research concentrates around fixed point theory, metric
topology, and fractal geometry. He is also interested in game theory and mathematical aspects of geography.

References
Benito-Calvo A, Pérez-González A, Magri O, Meza P. 2009. Assessing regional geodiversity: the Iberian Peninsula.
Earth Surf Proc Land. 34:1433–1445.
Danz NP, Reich PB, Frelich LE, Niemi GJ. 2011. Vegetation controls vary across space and spatial scale in a historic
grassland-forest biome boundary. Ecography. 34:402–414.
From Land Cover to Landscape Diversity in the European Union. 2000. Publication of the European Commission of
Agricultur, Brusseles, Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/reports/corine2000.pdf
Gray M. 2008. Geodiversity: developing the paradigm. Proc Geol Assoc. 119:287–298.
Gray M. 2013. Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell.
Grohmann CH, Smith MJ Riccomini C. 2011. Multiscale analysis of topographic surface roughness in the Midland
Valley, Scotland. IEEE Trans Geoscience Remote Sens. 49:1200–1213.
Hani AFM, Sathyamoorthy D, Asirvadam VS. 2011. A method for computation of surface roughness of digital
elevation model terrains via multiscale analysis. Comput Geosci 37:177–192.
Harris B, McDougall K, Barry M. 2012. Comparison of multi-scale digital elevation models for defining waterways and
catchments over large areas. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences,
I-2, XXII ISPRS Congress, 25 August – 01 September 2012, Melbourne, Australia, 75-80.
Hengl T. 2006. Finding the right pixel size. Comput Geosci 32:1283–1298.
Hengl T, Reuter H, editors. 2009. Geomorphometry: Concepts, Software, Applications. Elsevier, Developments in Soil
Science, 33:1–796.
Hjort L, Heikkinen RK, Luoto M. 2012. Inclusion of explicit measures of geodiversity improve biodiversity models in a
boreal landscape. Biodivers Conserv. 21:3487–3506.
Hjort L, Luoto M. 2010. Geodiversity of high-latitude landscapes in northern Finland. Geomorphology. 115:109–116.
Hoffman R, Krotkov E. 1989. Terrain Roughness Measurement from Elevation Maps. SPIE, 1195, Mobile Robots IV,
104–114.
Hollander M, Wolfe DA, Chicken E. 2014. Nonparametric statistical methods. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
114 R. KOT AND K. LEŚNIAK

Instruction to the Detailed Geomorphological Map of the Polish Lowland, scale 1:50 000. 1962. Polish Academy of
Sciences, Geographical Institute, Department of Geomorphology and Hydrography of the Polish Lowland, Toruń.
Kondracki J. 1998. Geografia regionalna Polski [Regional geography of Poland]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN,
Warszawa. Polish.
Kostrzewski A. 2011. The role of relief geodiversity in geomorphology. In: Rączkowska Z, Kotarba A, editors.
Landform evolution climate change and man. Geographia Polonica, 84, Special Issue 2, 69–74.
Kot R. 2006. Georóżnorodność – problem jej oceny i zastosowania w ochronie i kształtowaniu środowiska na
przykładzie fordońskiego odcinka doliny dolnej Wisły i jej otoczenia [Geodiversity – the issue of its evaluation
and application in conservation and forming of the environment on the example of the Fordon’s part of the
lower Vistula valley and its surroundings]. Studia Societatis Scientiarum Torunensis, Sectio C, 11, 2, Toruń, 1–
190. Polish with English summary.
Kot R. 2008. Problem delimitacji mikroregionów fizycznogeograficznych w krajobrazach dolin i nizin [The problem of
delimiting physical geographical microregions in valley and lowland landscapes]. Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu.
20:197–207. Polish with English abstract.
Kot R. 2012. Zastosowanie indeksu georóżnorodności dla określenia zróżnicowania rzeźby terenu na przykładzie
zlewni reprezentatywnej Strugi Toruńskiej, Pojezierze Chełmińskie [Application of the geodiversity index for defin-
ing the relief᾿s diversity based on the example of the Struga Toruńska representative basin, Chełmno Lakeland].
Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu. 33:87–96. Polish with English summary.
Kot R. 2015. The point bonitation method for evaluating geodiversity: a guide with examples (Polish Lowland). Geogr
Ann A Phys Geo. 97:375–393. doi:10.1111/geoa.12079
Kot R, Leśniak, K. 2006. Ocena georóżnorodności za pomocą miar krajobrazowych – podstawowe trudności meto-
dyczne [Geodiversity valuation with the aid of landscape indices – basic methodological obstructions]. Prz
Geogr 78:24–45. Polish with English summary.
Manosso FC, Pellitero R. 2012. Geodiversidade: Considerações Sorbe Quantificação e Avaliação da Distribuição
Especial [Geodiversity: Some considerations about quantification and evaluation of spatial distribution]. Anuário
do Instituto de Geociências – UFRJ, 35, 1, 90–100. Portuguese with English abstract.
Mark DM. 1975. Geomorphometric parameters: a review and evaluation. Geogr Ann A Phys Geo. 57:165–177.
McGarigal K, Marks BJ. 1995. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. General
Technical Report PNW-GTR-351, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
Melelli L. 2014. Geodiversity: a new quantitative index for natural protected areas enhancement. GeoJ Tourism
Geosites. VII:27–37.
Molewski P, Weckwerth P. 2009. Objaśnienia do Szczegółowej Mapy Geologicznej Polski w skali 1:50,000, arkusz
Toruń 321 [Explanations to Detailed Geological Map of Poland in scale 1:50,000, sheet Toruń 321]. Polish
Geological Institute, Warszawa. Polish.
Niewiarowski W. 1996. Budowa geologiczna i rzeźba terenu [Geological structure and relief]. In: Wójcik G, Marciniak
K, editors. Zintegrowany Monitoring Środowiska Przyrodniczego – Stacja Bazowa Koniczynka [Integrated
Monitoring of the Natural Environment – Base Station Koniczynka]. Biblioteka Monitoringu Środowiska,
Warszawa-Toruń; p. 41–57. Polish.
Őrsi A. 2011. Quantifying the geodiversity of a study area in the Great Hungarian Plain. J Environ Geo. 4:19–22.
Panizza M. 2009. The geomorphodiversity of Dolomites (Italy): a key of geoheritage assessment. Geoheritage. 1:33–42.
Pellitero R, Manosso FC, Serrano E. 2015. Mid- and large-scale geodiversity calculation in Fuentes Carrionas (NW
Spain) and Serra do Cadeado (Paraná, Brazil): methodology and application for land management. Geo Ann A
Phy Geo. 97:219–235. doi:10.1111/geoa.12057
Reynard E, Fontana G, Kozlik L, Scapozza C. 2007. A method for assessing ‘scientific’ and ‘additional values’ of geo-
morphosites. Geogr Helv. 62:148–158.
Sappington JM, Longshore KM, Thompson DB. 2007. Quantifying landscape ruggedness for animal habitat analysis: a
case study using bighorn sheep in the Mojave Desert. J Wildl Manage 71:1419–1426.
Serrano E, Ruiz-Flaño, P. 2007a. Geodiversity: concept, assessment and territorial application. The case of Tirmes-
Caracena (Soria). Boletin de la A.G.E. 45:389–393.
Serrano E, Ruiz-Flaño P. 2007b. Geodiversity: a theoretical and applied concept. Geogr Helv. 62:140–147.
Serrano E, Ruiz-Flaño P, Arroyo P. 2009. Geodiversity assessment in rural landscape: Tiermes-Caracena area (Soria,
Spain). Mem Descr Carta Geol d᾿It. 87:173–180.
Silva JP, Pereira DI, Aguiar AM, Rodrigues C. 2013. Geodiversity assessment of the Xingu drainage basin. J Maps.
9:254–262.
Wójcik G, Marciniak K, editors. 1996. Zintegrowany Monitoring Środowiska Przyrodniczego – Stacja Bazowa
Koniczynka [Integrated Monitoring of the Natural Environment – Base Station Koniczynka]. Biblioteka
Monitoringu Środowiska, Warszawa-Toruń. Polish.
Zwoliński Z. 2004. Geodiversity. In: Goudie AS, editors. Encyclopedia of Geomorphology 1. London: Routledge;
p. 417–418.
Zwoliński Z. 2009. The routine of landform geodiversity map design for the Polish Carpathian Mts. Landform Anal.
11:77–85.