Combining RapidEye Satellite Imagery and Lidar for Mapping of Mining and Mine Reclamation

The combination of RapidEye satellite imagery and light detection and ranging (lidar) derivatives was assessed for mapping land-cover within a mountaintop coal surface mine complex in the southern coalfields of West Virginia, USA. Support vector machines (SVM), random forests (RF), and boosted classification and regression trees (CART) algorithms were used. Incorporation of the lidar-derived data increased map accuracy in comparison to using only the five imagery bands, and SVM generally produced a more accurate classification than the ensemble tree algorithms based on overall map accuracy, Kappa statistics, allocation disagreement, quantity disagreement, and McNemar’s test of statistical significance. Based on measures of predictor variable importance within the ensemble tree classifiers, the normalized digital surface model (nDSM) was found to be more useful than first return intensity data for differentiating the classes. Introduction Commercial satellite imagery such as Ikonos, GeoEye, and RapidEye provide high spatial resolution but low spectral resolution compared to sensors such as Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM), Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+), or Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS) (Warner et al., 2009). Although high spatial resolution can yield fine detail for land-cover and vegetative mapping, classification is complicated by the increased spatial resolution and decreased spectral resolution. Fine spatial resolution tends to generate high internal variability within land-cover classes, which can lead to decreases in classification accuracy (Townshend, 1981; Cushnie, 1987; Townshend, 1992; Baker et al., 2013). This research investigated a potential means to enhance classification accuracy by combining high-resolution commercial satellite imagery with light detection and ranging (lidar) data. The analysis focused on mapping land-cover classes in a mountaintop coal surface mine complex in the southern coalfields of the eastern United States. Because surface mine complexes experience rapid change due to human disturbance and reclamation, they are particularly good examples of disturbed landscapes. Although this research focuses on mapping land-cover within a mountaintop coal mine, the challenges in mapping mining landscapes are typical of other disturbances, such as timber harvesting, urban sprawl, etc. This work adds to prior remote sensing of surface mines research by investigating information gained by combining lidar and commercial satellite data for mapping land-cover (Cowen et al., 2000). This research had two components. First, we assessed lidar-derived inputs as predictor variables when combined with commercial satellite imagery to enhance land-cover mapping. Second, we compared three machine learning algorithms for the classification: support vector machines (SVM), random forests (RF), and boosted classification and regression trees (CART). The image data consisted of commercial RapidEye imagery. Lidar-derived predictor variables included the normalized digital surface model (nDSM) generated by subtracting ground return data from the first return data, first return intensity data, and the first return intensity range within raster grid cells.

[1]  J. V. Bradley Distribution-Free Statistical Tests , 1968 .

[2]  A. T. Anderson,et al.  ERTS-1 data applied to strip mining , 1976 .

[3]  A. T. Anderson,et al.  Landsat imagery for surface-mine inventory , 1977 .

[4]  J. Townshend The spatial resolving power of earth resources satellites , 1980 .

[5]  J. R. Irons,et al.  The utility of Thematic Mapper sensor characteristics for surface mine monitoring , 1984 .

[6]  G. W. Petersen,et al.  High resolution remote sensing of spatially and spectrally complex coal surface mines of Central Pennsylvania: a comparison between simulated SPOT MSS and Landsat-5 Thematic Mapper , 1987 .

[7]  Jams L. Cushnie The interactive effect of spatial resolution and degree of internal variability within land-cover types on classification accuracies , 1987 .

[8]  R. Wright,et al.  Monitoring environmental impacts of surface coal mining , 1993 .

[9]  D. Sloane,et al.  An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis , 1996 .

[10]  R. DeFries,et al.  Classification trees: an alternative to traditional land cover classifiers , 1996 .

[11]  Vladimir Cherkassky,et al.  The Nature Of Statistical Learning Theory , 1997, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[12]  Anupma Prakash,et al.  Land-use mapping and change detection in a coal mining area - a case study in the Jharia coalfield, India , 1998 .

[13]  Thomas G. Dietterich Approximate Statistical Tests for Comparing Supervised Classification Learning Algorithms , 1998, Neural Computation.

[14]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Text Categorization with Support Vector Machines: Learning with Many Relevant Features , 1998, ECML.

[15]  J. C. BurgesChristopher A Tutorial on Support Vector Machines for Pattern Recognition , 1998 .

[16]  Alan H. Strahler,et al.  Maximizing land cover classification accuracies produced by decision trees at continental to global scales , 1999, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[17]  Roger LeB. Hooke,et al.  Spatial distribution of human geomorphic activity in the United States: comparison with rivers , 1999 .

[18]  A. Strahler,et al.  Application of the MODIS global supervised classification model to vegetation and land cover mapping of Central America , 2000 .

[19]  M. Hansen,et al.  A comparison of the IGBP DISCover and University of Maryland 1 km global land cover products , 2000 .

[20]  Brian M. Steele,et al.  Combining Multiple Classifiers: An Application Using Spatial and Remotely Sensed Information for Land Cover Type Mapping , 2000 .

[21]  Jonathan Cheung-Wai Chan,et al.  Multiple Criteria for Evaluating Machine Learning Algorithms for Land Cover Classification from Satellite Data , 2000 .

[22]  Michael E. Hodgson,et al.  A GIS-ASSISTED RAIL CONSTRUCTION ECONOMETRIC MODEL THAT INCORPORATES LIDAR DATA , 2000 .

[23]  Martin Flood,et al.  Laser altimetry : From science to commercial lidar mapping , 2001 .

[24]  Mark A. Friedl,et al.  Using prior probabilities in decision-tree classification of remotely sensed data , 2002 .

[25]  T. Negley A COMPARATIVE HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS OF SURFACE MINED AND FORESTED WATERSHEDS IN WESTERN MARYLAND , 2002 .

[26]  L. S. Davis,et al.  An assessment of support vector machines for land cover classi(cid:142) cation , 2002 .

[27]  Alan H. Strahler,et al.  Global land cover mapping from MODIS: algorithms and early results , 2002 .

[28]  Fabio Del Frate,et al.  Crop classification using multiconfiguration C-band SAR data , 2003, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[29]  Jennifer A. Miller,et al.  Land-Cover Change Monitoring with Classification Trees Using Landsat TM and Ancillary Data , 2003 .

[30]  M. Pal,et al.  Random forests for land cover classification , 2003, IGARSS 2003. 2003 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37477).

[31]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[32]  Johan A. K. Suykens,et al.  Benchmarking Least Squares Support Vector Machine Classifiers , 2004, Machine Learning.

[33]  Lorenzo Bruzzone,et al.  Classification of hyperspectral remote sensing images with support vector machines , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing.

[34]  G. Foody Thematic map comparison: Evaluating the statistical significance of differences in classification accuracy , 2004 .

[35]  Rick L. Lawrence,et al.  Classification of remotely sensed imagery using stochastic gradient boosting as a refinement of classification tree analysis , 2004 .

[36]  Eric Bauer,et al.  An Empirical Comparison of Voting Classification Algorithms: Bagging, Boosting, and Variants , 1999, Machine Learning.

[37]  Christopher J. C. Burges,et al.  A Tutorial on Support Vector Machines for Pattern Recognition , 1998, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery.

[38]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Bagging Predictors , 1996, Machine Learning.

[39]  John Tulip,et al.  The RapidEye mission design , 2005 .

[40]  Mahesh Pal,et al.  Random forest classifier for remote sensing classification , 2005 .

[41]  Juha Hyyppä,et al.  Study of surface brightness from backscattered laser intensity: calibration of laser data , 2005, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters.

[42]  Paul M. Mather,et al.  Support vector machines for classification in remote sensing , 2005 .

[43]  Johannes R. Sveinsson,et al.  Random Forests for land cover classification , 2006, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[44]  J. Wickham,et al.  The effect of Appalachian mountaintop mining on interior forest , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[45]  T. Webster,et al.  Object-oriented land cover classification of lidar-derived surfaces , 2006 .

[46]  Tomas Brandtberg Classifying individual tree species under leaf-off and leaf-on conditions using airborne lidar , 2007 .

[47]  D. R. Cutler,et al.  Utah State University From the SelectedWorks of , 2017 .

[48]  Andy Liaw,et al.  Classification and Regression by randomForest , 2007 .

[49]  E. Bork,et al.  Integrating LIDAR data and multispectral imagery for enhanced classification of rangeland vegetation: A meta analysis , 2007 .

[50]  J. A. Simmons,et al.  Forest to reclaimed mine land use change leads to altered ecosystem structure and function. , 2008, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[51]  Ibon Galparsoro,et al.  Coastal and estuarine habitat mapping, using LIDAR height and intensity and multi-spectral imagery , 2008 .

[52]  Timothy A. Warner,et al.  Does single broadband or multispectral thermal data add information for classification of visible, near‐ and shortwave infrared imagery of urban areas? , 2009 .

[53]  Clayton C. Kingdon,et al.  Changes in the extent of surface mining and reclamation in the Central Appalachians detected using a 1976-2006 Landsat time series , 2009 .

[54]  Jing Li,et al.  Hierarchical object oriented classification using very high resolution imagery and LIDAR data over urban areas , 2009 .

[55]  Björn Waske,et al.  Classifier ensembles for land cover mapping using multitemporal SAR imagery , 2009 .

[56]  Timothy A. Warner,et al.  The SAGE Handbook of Remote Sensing , 2009 .

[57]  Jon P. Mills,et al.  Factors Influencing Pulse Width of Small Footprint, Full Waveform Airborne Laser Scanning Data , 2010 .

[58]  Thomas R. Loveland,et al.  Land-use Pressure and a Transition to Forest-cover Loss in the Eastern United States , 2010 .

[59]  D. A. Word,et al.  Structural and functional characteristics of natural and constructed channels draining a reclaimed mountaintop removal and valley fill coal mine , 2010, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[60]  G. Likens,et al.  Mountaintop Mining Consequences , 2010, Science.

[61]  Jennifer A. Miller,et al.  Contextual land-cover classification: incorporating spatial dependence in land-cover classification models using random forests and the Getis statistic , 2010 .

[62]  Rick E. Landenberger,et al.  Seasonal Trends in Separability of Leaf Reflectance Spectra for Ailanthus altissima and Four Other Tree Species , 2011 .

[63]  Xiaofeng Li,et al.  Improved land cover mapping using random forests combined with landsat thematic mapper imagery and ancillary geographic data. , 2010 .

[64]  P. Atkinson,et al.  Incorporating Spatial Variability Measures in Land-cover Classification using Random Forest , 2011 .

[65]  R. Pontius,et al.  Death to Kappa: birth of quantity disagreement and allocation disagreement for accuracy assessment , 2011 .

[66]  Samia Boukir,et al.  Relevance of airborne lidar and multispectral image data for urban scene classification using Random Forests , 2011 .

[67]  M. Palmer,et al.  The environmental costs of mountaintop mining valley fill operations for aquatic ecosystems of the Central Appalachians , 2011, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[68]  J. Burger,et al.  Restoring Forests and Associated Ecosystem Services on Appalachian Coal Surface Mines , 2011, Environmental management.

[69]  R. Wynne,et al.  Identifying Revegetated Mines as Disturbance/Recovery Trajectories Using an Interannual Landsat Chronosequence , 2012 .

[70]  Mario Chica-Olmo,et al.  An assessment of the effectiveness of a random forest classifier for land-cover classification , 2012 .

[71]  Bernard De Baets,et al.  Random Forests as a tool for estimating uncertainty at pixel-level in SAR image classification , 2012, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinformation.

[72]  Bardan Ghimire,et al.  An Evaluation of Bagging, Boosting, and Random Forests for Land-Cover Classification in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA , 2012 .

[73]  Timothy A. Warner,et al.  Does spatial resolution matter? A multi-scale comparison of object-based and pixel-based methods for detecting change associated with gas well drilling operations , 2013 .

[74]  Timothy A. Warner,et al.  Assessment of carbon storage and biomass on minelands reclaimed to grassland environments using Landsat spectral indices , 2013 .

[75]  Ute Beyer,et al.  Remote Sensing And Image Interpretation , 2016 .