Monitoring urban tree cover using object-based image analysis and public domain remotely sensed data

Remote Sensing

Volumn 3, Issue 10, 2011, Pages 2243-2262

  Moskal, L Monika ^a   Styers, Diane M ^b   Halabisky, Meghan ^a  

^a University of Washington   (United States)

^b WESTERN CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Hyperspatial; Object based image analysis (OBIA); Public domain data; Segmentation; Tree canopies; Tree cover assessment; Urban forest

Indexed keywords

HYPERSPATIAL; OBJECT BASED IMAGE ANALYSIS; PUBLIC DOMAINS; TREE CANOPY; TREE COVER; URBAN FORESTS;

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE SEGMENTATION; IMAGE TEXTURE; PIXELS; REMOTE SENSING; SATELLITE IMAGERY;

FORESTRY;

AIR CRAFT; FOREST CANOPY; FORESTS; IMAGE ANALYSIS; PHOTOGRAPHY; REMOTE SENSING; SEGMENTATION;

EID: 84856739699     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20724292     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/rs3102243     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Clark, J.R., Matheny, N.P.; Cross, G.; Wake, V. A model of urban forest sustainability. J. Arboricul. 1997, 23, 17-30.
2. Kerr, J.T.; Ostrovsky, M. From space to species: Ecological applications for remote sensing. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2003, 18, 299-305.
3. Fassnacht, K.S.; Cohen, W.B.; Spies, T.A. Key issues in making and using satellite-based maps in ecology: A primer. Forest Ecol. Manage. 2006, 222, 167-181.
4. Styers, D.M.; Chappelka, A.H.; Marzen, L.J.; Somers, G.L. Developing a land-cover classification to select indicators of forest ecosystem health in a rapidly urbanizing landscape. Landscape Urban Plan. 2010, 94, 158-165.
5. Pickett, S.T.A.; Cadenasso, M.L.; Grove, J.M.; Boone, C.G.; Groffman, P.M.; Irwin, E.; Kaushal, S.S.; Marshall, V.; McGrath, B.P.; Nilon, C.H.; et al. Urban ecological systems: Scientific foundations and a decade of progress. J. Environ. Manage. 2010, 92, 331-362.
6. Herold, M.; Couclelis, H.; Clarke, K.C. The role of spatial metrics in the analysis and modeling of urban land use change. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2005, 29, 369-399.
7. Hunsinger, T.; Moskal, L.M. Half a Century of Spatial & Temporal Landscape Changes in the Finley River Basin, Missouri. In Proceedings of Association of American Geographers Annual Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 5-9 April 2005.
8. Turner, M.G.; Gardner, R.H. Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology; Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, USA, 1991.
9. Moskal, L.M.; Dunbar, M.D.; Jakubauskas, M.E. Visualizing the forest: A forest inventory characterization in the yellowstone national park based on geostatistical models. In A Message from the Tatras: Geographical Information Systems & Remote Sensing in Mountain Environmental Research; Widacki, W., Bytnerowicz, A., Riebau, A., Eds.; Jagiellonian University Press: Kraków, Poland, 2004; pp. 219-232.
10. Anderson, J.R.; Hardy, E.E.; Roach, J.T.; Witmer, R.E. A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data; Geological Survey Professional Paper 964; US Geological Survey: Washington, DC, USA, 1976.
11. Blaschke, T. Object based image analysis for remote sensing. ISPRS J. Photogramm. 2010, 65, 2-16.
12. Cleve, C.; Kelly, M.; Kearns, F.R.; Moritz, M. Classification of the wildland-urban interface: A comparison of pixel- and object-based classifications using high-resolution aerial photography. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2008, 32, 317-326.
13. Zhou, W.; Troy, A. An object-oriented approach for analysing and characterizing urban landscape at the parcel level. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2008, 29, 3119-3135.
14. Environmental Action Agenda 2005; City of Seattle: Seattle, WA, USA, 2005. Available online: http://www.cityofseattle.net/environment/ActionAgenda.htm (accessed on 10 October 2010).
15. Parlin, M. Seattle, Washington Urban Tree Canopy Analysis Project Report: Looking Back and Moving Forward; Native Communities Development Corporation: Colorado Springs, CO, USA, 2009; p. 17.
16. Chambers, J.Q.; Asner, G.P.; Morton, D.C.; Anderson, L.O.; Saatchi, S.S.; Espírito-Santo, F.D.B.; Palace, M.; Souza, C., Jr. Regional ecosystem structure and function: Ecological insights from remote sensing of tropical forests. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007, 22, 414-423.
17. Nowak, D.J.; Rowntree, R.A.; McPherson, E.G.; Sisinni, S.M.; Kermann, E.R.; Stevens, J.C. Measuring and analyzing urban tree cover. Landscape Urban Plan. 1996, 36, 49-57.
18. Tuominen, S.; Pekkarinen, A. Performance of different spectral and textural aerial photograph features in multi-source forest inventory. Remote Sens. Environ. 2005, 94, 256-268.
19. Foster, B. Some urban measurements from landsat data. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing 1995, 48, 139-151.
20. Alberti, M.; Weeks, R.; Coe, S. Urban land cover change analysis in central puget sound. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing 2004, 70, 1043-1052.
21. Platt, R.V.; Rapoza, L. An evaluation of an object-oriented paradigm for land use/land cover classification. The Professional Geogr. 2008, 60, 87-100.
22. Hay, G.J.; Castilla, G.; Wulder, M.A.; Ruiz, J.R. An automated object-based approach for the multiscale image segmentation of forest scenes. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2005, 7, 339-359.
23. Halabisky, M.; Moskal, L.M.; Hall, S.A. Object-based classification of semi-arid wetlands. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 2011, 5, 13.
24. Gertsch, S. Census Bureau: 98118 the Most Diverse Zip Code in US; KOMOnews: Seattle, WA, USA, 2010.
25. Wilson, G.W. Opinion: America's most diverse zip code shows the way. Rainier Valley Post 31 March 2010.
26. Heynen, N.; Perkins, H.A.; Roy, P. The political ecology of uneven urban green space. Urban Affairs Rev. 2006, 42, 3-25.
27. Xian, G.; Homer, C.; Fry, J. Updating the 2001 national land cover database impervious surface products to 2006 using landsat imagery change detection methods. Remote Sens. Environ. 2009, 113, 1133-1147.
28. Definiens AG. Definiens Developer 7 Reference Book; Definiens AG: Munich, Germany, 2007; p. 195.
29. Moskal, L.M.; Franklin, S.E. Multi-layer forest stand discrimination with spatial co-occurrence texture analysis of high spatial detail airborne imagery. Geocarto Int. 2002, 17, 55-68.
30. Congalton, R.G.; Green, K. Assessing the Accuracy of Remotely Sensed Data: Principles and Practices, 2nd ed.; CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009; p. 183.
31. Chen, Y.; Su, W.; Li, J.; Sun, Z. Hierarchical object oriented classification using Very High Resolution imagery and lidar data over urban areas. Adv. Space Res. 2009, 43, 1101-1110.
32. Ke, Y.; Quackenbush, L.J.; Im, J. Synergistic use of quickbird multispectral imagery and lidar data for object-based forest species classification. Remote Sens. Environ. 2010, 114, 1141-1154.
33. Erdody, T.L.; Moskal, L.M. Fusion of lidar and imagery for estimating forest canopy fuels. Remote Sens. Environ. 2010, 114, 725-737.
34. Guindon, B.; Zhang, Y.; Dillabaugh, C. Landsat urban mapping based on a combined spectral-spatial methodology. Remote Sens. Environ. 2004, 92, 218-232.
35. Walker, J.S.; Briggs, J.M. An object-oriented approach to urban forest mapping in Phoenix. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing 2007, 73, 577-583.
36. Zhou, W.; Troy, A. Development of an object-based framework for classifying and inventorying human-dominated forest ecosystems. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2009, 30, 6343-6360.
37. Price, J. Spectral band selection for visible-near infrared remote sensing: Spectral-spatial resolution tradeoffs. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 1997, 35, 1277-1285.
38. Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E.; Stevens, J.C.; Hoehn, R.E.; Walton, J.T.; Bond, J. A ground-based method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services. Arboricul. Urban Forest. 2008, 34, 347-358.
39. Goodchild, M. Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 2007, 69, 211-221.