Elsevier

Computers & Geosciences

Volume 35, Issue 2, February 2009, Pages 373-389
Computers & Geosciences

A semi-automatic method for analysis of landscape elements using Shuttle Radar Topography Mission and Landsat ETM+ data

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2007.09.019Get rights and content

Abstract

In this paper, we demonstrate artificial neural networks—self-organizing map (SOM)—as a semi-automatic method for extraction and analysis of landscape elements in the man and biosphere reserve “Eastern Carpathians”. The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) collected data to produce generally available digital elevation models (DEM). Together with Landsat Thematic Mapper data, this provides a unique, consistent and nearly worldwide data set.

To integrate the DEM with Landsat data, it was re-projected from geographic coordinates to UTM with 28.5 m spatial resolution using cubic convolution interpolation. To provide quantitative morphometric parameters, first-order (slope) and second-order derivatives of the DEM—minimum curvature, maximum curvature and cross-sectional curvature—were calculated by fitting a bivariate quadratic surface with a window size of 9×9 pixels. These surface curvatures are strongly related to landform features and geomorphological processes.

Four morphometric parameters and seven Landsat-enhanced thematic mapper (ETM+) bands were used as input for the SOM algorithm. Once the network weights have been randomly initialized, different learning parameter sets, e.g. initial radius, final radius and number of iterations, were investigated. An optimal SOM with 20 classes using 1000 iterations and a final neighborhood radius of 0.05 provided a low average quantization error of 0.3394 and was used for further analysis. The effect of randomization of initial weights for optimal SOM was also studied. Feature space analysis, three-dimensional inspection and auxiliary data facilitated the assignment of semantic meaning to the output classes in terms of landform, based on morphometric analysis, and land use, based on spectral properties.

Results were displayed as thematic map of landscape elements according to form, cover and slope. Spectral and morphometric signature analysis with corresponding zoom samples superimposed by contour lines were compared in detail to clarify the role of morphometric parameters to separate landscape elements. The results revealed the efficiency of SOM to integrate SRTM and Landsat data in landscape analysis. Despite the stochastic nature of SOM, the results in this particular study are not sensitive to randomization of initial weight vectors if many iterations are used. This procedure is reproducible for the same application with consistent results.

Introduction

Information about landforms and landscape is one of the fundamental requirements for a large variety of modeling problems in environmental science. Most researchers define landscape as an essentially visual phenomenon or as a particular configuration of topography, land use, vegetation cover and settlement pattern (Blankson and Green, 1991; Otero Pastor et al., 2007). Landscapes are dynamic systems that involve interrelation between physical characteristics (such as landform, soil) and anthropogenic processes (such as land use). Relationship between these physical properties and human impact on the land has led to the development of different analysis models. These models vary from visual analysis and quantitative techniques to rule-based geoecosystem techniques (Benefield and Bunce, 1982; Bernert et al., 1997; Blankson and Green, 1991).

However, all these models are based on the common task to find the basic elements of a heterogeneous landscape. The basic concept of natural landscape units, called geochores, was developed in the 1950s and 1960s. The term ‘geochore’ means a geographically defined or limited unit and can be regarded as mosaics of basic topic elements (Bastian, 2000). Landform as physical constituent of landscape may be extracted from digital elevation data using various approaches including classification of morphometric parameters (Dikau, 1989; Dehn et al., 2001), fuzzy set methods and unsupervised (ISODATA) classification (Adediran et al., 2004; Burrough et al., 2000; Irvin et al., 1997), probabilistic clustering algorithm (Stepinski and Collier, 2004; Stepinski and Vilalta, 2005), multivariate descriptive statistics (Dikau, 1989; Evans, 1972; Dehn et al., 2001) and double ternary diagram classification (Crevenna et al., 2005). Landforms possess at least two important properties. They are the result of past geomorphic and geologic processes and provide a controlling boundary condition for actual geomorphic processes (Dehn et al., 2001). For disciplines dealing with landforms, the properties of consideration are different. For geomorphologists both properties of landforms are important. But a common perspective of all landform studies regardless of discipline is to delimit homogeneous areas from digital elevation data. Digital elevation models (DEM) can be compiled from contour lines or other sources like the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM). On 11 February 2000, the space shuttle Endeavour with the SRTM payload on board was launched. A single technique, synthetic aperture radar (SAR) interferometry, was used for producing a consistent DEM covering all landmasses on earth between 60°N and 57°S (Blumberg, 2006; Rabus et al., 2003; Wright et al., 2006). The 3 arc sec. (∼90 m) SRTM data are publicly available at http://seamless.usgs.gov.

Describing the shape of surface features on earth using a set of numerical measures (derivatives) such as profile curvature, plan convexity, slope, cross-sectional curvature, minimum and maximum curvature from DEMs is known as morphometry. Morphometric characterization identifies morphometric features such as saddle, channel, ridge and plane based on these measures (Fisher et al., 2004; Pike, 2000; Wood, 1996). Integrating land surface forms (morphometric features) with spectral information from remotely sensed data contributes to the explanation of relationships between landscape component processes (physical, biotic and human activities) on one hand and delimiting boundaries of homogenous landscape elements on the other hand.

In recent years, there has been considerable interest in using neural networks with remotely sensed data. Self-organizing map (SOM) is an unsupervised neural network algorithm, which clusters or visualizes high-dimensional input vectors into low-dimensional (usually two-dimensional) output based on regularities and correlations between them (Jianwen and Bagan, 2005; Kohonen, 2001; Li and Eastman, 2006). SOM has been used in a wide variety of areas such as classification of remote-sensing data (Duda and Canty, 2002; Jianwen and Bagan, 2005), information visualization and knowledge discovery (Koua et al., 2006), class modeling (Marini et al., 2005) and semi-automatic terrain analyses (Ehsani and Quiel, in press).

The main objective of this paper is characterization of landscape elements through the combination of morphometric parameters and remotely sensed spectral data. The emphasis is on morphologically homogeneous landscape elements characterized mainly by similar slope conditions. SOM as unsupervised paradigm of neural networks is used to reduce large multidimensional data to one output layer consisting of 20 map units. This output indicates land cover of landscape elements on one hand and impact of geologic and geomorphological processes (morphometric features) on the other hand.

Section snippets

Study area

The study area is centered on the common border point of Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine and located between 48°52′N and 49°25′N latitude, 21°59′E and 23°1′E longitude with a total area of about 4500 Km2 (Fig. 1). It covers the biosphere reserve “Eastern Carpathians” with the Bieszczady national park in Poland, Uzanski national park in Ukraine and Poloniny national park in Slovakia.

Historically, the region had similar land management policies. After World War II, fundamental changes in political

Data

The data set in this study consists of:

  • Landsat ETM+ data path 186, row 26 dated 30 September 2000 (Fig. 1) were acquired from the Global Land Cover Facility (GCLF) server at the University of Maryland, Institute for Advanced Computer Studies (UMIACS). GLCF provides free access to an integrated collection of critical land cover and earth science data (http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu).

  • The 3 arcsec digital elevation model derived from SRTM data (∼90 m) was acquired from the USGS server in geographic

Optimal self-organizing map

Learning of SOM was performed with randomly initialized weights of the map units. Table 3 shows the 16 SOM with different configuration of learning control parameters.

The initial radius for learning was set to 3, 2 and 1, respectively. The map with an initial radius of three and a final radius of one produced the highest average quantization error. Results indicate that the final radius should be much smaller than 1. In several trials with different configurations of learning parameters, SOM 16

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the effectiveness of self-organizing map (SOM) algorithms of artificial neural networks as semi-automatic methods to extract both spectral and morphometric information from SRTM and Landsat 7 data. Analyzing and interpreting this information yielded 20 classes of homogeneous landscape elements. Morphometric analysis of first- and second-order derivatives of DEM data, such as slope, cross-sectional curvature, maximum curvature and minimum curvature, led to the description

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Swedish Institute for funding all travel expenses in the framework of the Visby program. We thank all our colleagues, especially, Docent Ivan Kruhlov, Department of Physical Geography; Ivan Franko, University in Lvov, Ukraine and Dr. Mieczyslaw Sobik, Institute of Geography and Regional Development, University Wroclaw, Poland for interesting discussions and for providing facilities and support. We thank Dr. Kuemmerle for providing his land use map of the project area.

References (37)

  • T. Kuemmerle et al.

    Cross-border comparison of land cover and landscape pattern in Eastern Europe using a hybrid classification technique

    Remote Sensing of Environment

    (2006)
  • F. Marini et al.

    Class-modeling using Kohonen artificial neural networks

    Analytica Chimica Acta

    (2005)
  • I. Otero Pastor et al.

    Landscape evaluation: comparison of evaluation methods in a region of Spain

    Journal of Environmental Management

    (2007)
  • B. Rabus et al.

    The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission—a new class of digital elevation models acquired by spaceborne radar

    ISPRS (International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing) Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing

    (2003)
  • A.J. Richardson et al.

    Using self-organizing maps to identify patterns in satellite imagery

    Progress in Oceanography

    (2003)
  • R. Wright et al.

    An assessment of Shuttle Radar Topography Mission digital elevation data for studies of volcano morphology

    Remote Sensing of Environment

    (2006)
  • Benefield, C.B., Bunce, R.G.H., 1982. A preliminary visual presentation of land classes in Britain. Merlewood Research...
  • J.A. Bernert et al.

    A quantitative method for delineating regions: an example for the western Corn Belt plains ecoregion of the USA

    Environmental Management

    (1997)
  • Cited by (26)

    • Self-Organizing Maps for identification of zeolitic diagenesis patterns in closed hydrologic systems on the Earth and its implications for Mars

      2021, International Journal of Sediment Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      SOMs are different from other artificial neural network (ANN) methods since they apply competitive learning instead of error-correction learning, such as backpropagation, and they organize the clusters in a two dimensional space according to the similarity of the cluster centroids themselves (Dowla & Rogers, 1995; Wehrens & Buydens, 2007). SOMs can be applied in every field of geosciences including geochemistry (e.g. Penn, 2005), petrology (e.g. Chang et al., 2002), seismology (e.g. Kohler et al., 2009), GIS (e.g. Bacao et al., 2005) and remote sensing (e.g. Ehsani & Quiel, 2009), geomorphology (e.g. Bue & Stepinski, 2006), volcanology (e.g. Ersoy et al., 2007), and marine geology (e.g. Ferentinou et al., 2012). SOMs can be used for both continuous and categorical data.

    • Hyper-temporal remote sensing data in bare soil period and terrain attributes for digital soil mapping in the Black soil regions of China

      2020, Catena
      Citation Excerpt :

      These processed data could represent some characteristics of the study area in a new form (Kunkel et al., 2011; Dobos et al., 2001). Previous studies show that the combination of terrain factors and RS image data could provide more accurate soil type information (Ehsani and Quiel, 2009; Dobos et al., 2000). Terrain is one of the five major soil-forming factors, and is also one of the most commonly used covariates for predicting soil types and properties, especially for DSM (McBratney et al., 2003).

    • Hyper-temporal remote sensing for digital soil mapping: Characterizing soil-vegetation response to climatic variability

      2017, Geoderma
      Citation Excerpt :

      Terrain attributes and spectral indices often exhibit considerable cross correlation due to the strong interrelationships between factors in the soil environment. Nonetheless, previous studies have shown that the combination of both terrain and RS data produces the most accurate classifications of soils in complex geomorphic landscapes (Dobos et al., 2000; Ehsani and Quiel, 2009; Martin and Franklin, 2005; Taramelli and Melelli, 2009), indicating that terrain and spectral indices each possess some unique amount of explanatory power. Future research is needed to examine the added benefit of incorporating both hyper-temporal RS and terrain attributes into soil prediction models.

    • Uncoupling the complexity of forest soil variation: Influence of terrain indices, spectral indices, and spatial variability

      2016, Forest Ecology and Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      While considerable shared variance can exist between terrain and spectral indices, large portions of modeled variance is also unique to each data type. Previous studies also confirm this where the combination of both terrain and remotely sensed spectral data has been shown to produce the most accurate classifications of soils in complex geomorphic landscapes (Dobos et al., 2000; Ehsani and Quiel, 2009; Martin and Franklin, 2005; Miller et al., 2015; Taramelli and Melelli, 2009). For example, Dobos et al. (2000) found that AVHRR data accurately delineated soils formed on different parent materials, i.e., sandy regions, clayey fluvial deposits, loess areas; however, within each parent material type, different soil classes were found depending upon differences in elevation.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Postal address: Brinellvägen 34, 10044 Stockholm, Sweden.

    View full text