skip to main content
10.1145/1401890.1401993acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Land cover change detection: a case study

Published:24 August 2008Publication History

ABSTRACT

The study of land cover change is an important problem in the Earth Science domain because of its impacts on local climate, radiation balance, biogeochemistry, hydrology, and the diversity and abundance of terrestrial species. Most well-known change detection techniques from statistics, signal processing and control theory are not well-suited for the massive high-dimensional spatio-temporal data sets from Earth Science due to limitations such as high computational complexity and the inability to take advantage of seasonality and spatio-temporal autocorrelation inherent in Earth Science data. In our work, we seek to address these challenges with new change detection techniques that are based on data mining approaches. Specifically, in this paper we have performed a case study for a new change detection technique for the land cover change detection problem. We study land cover change in the state of California, focusing on the San Francisco Bay Area and perform an extended study on the entire state. We also perform a comparative evaluation on forests in the entire state. These results demonstrate the utility of data mining techniques for the land cover change detection problem.

References

  1. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Incidents Database. http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/incidents/incidents.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. NASA Earth Observing System. http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center. http://edcdaac.usgs.gov.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. In the California desert, they use water like there's no tomorrow-but tomorrow is coming. U.S. Water News Online, June 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. A. Allen. Environmental planning and management of the peri-urban interface: perspectives on an emerging field. Environment and Urbanization, 15(1):135--148, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. M. Basseville and I. V. Nikiforov. Detection of Abrupt Changes: Theory and Application. Prentice Hall, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. B. Brodsky and B. Darkhovsky. Nonparametric Methods in Change-Point Problems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. P. K. Chan and M. V. Mahoney. Modeling multiple time series for anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pages 90--97, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. R. Charbonneau and G. Kondolf. Land use change in California, USA: Nonpoint source water quality impacts. Environmental Management, 17(4):453--460, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. C. Chatfield. The Analysis of Time Series: An Introduction. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. S. S. Chen and P. Gopalakrishnan. Speaker, environment and channel change detection and clustering via the Bayesian information criterion. In Proceedings of the DARPA Broadcast News Transcription and Understanding Workshop, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. P. Coppin, I. Jonckheere, K. Nackaerts, B. Muys, and E. Lambin. Digital change detection methods in ecosystem monitoring: a review. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 25(9):1565--1596, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. R. Dickinson and P. Kenneday. Impacts on regional climate of Amazon deforestation. Geophysical Research Letters, 19 (19):1947--1950, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. H. Eva and E. F. Lambin. Burnt area mapping in Central Africa using ATSR data. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 19(18):3473--3497, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. X. Fern, C. E. Brodley, and M. A. Friedl. Correlation clustering for learning mixtures of canonical correlation models. In SDM 2005: Proceedings of the 5th SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, pages 439--448, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. R. H. Fraser, Z. Li, and J. Cihlar. Hotspot and NDVI Differencing Synergy (HANDS): A New Technique for Burned Area Mapping over Boreal Forest. Remote Sensing of Environment, 74(3):362--376, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. X. Ge and P. Smyth. Segmental semi-Markov models for change-point detection with applications to semiconductor manufacturing. Technical Report UCI-ICS 00-08, University of California, Irvine, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. V. Guralnik and J. Srivastava. Event detection from time series data. In KDD '99: Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 33--42, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. F. Gustafsson. Adaptive Filtering and Change Detection. John Wiley & Sons, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. A. Henderson-Sellers, R. E. Dickinson, T. B. Durbidge, P. J. Kennedy, K. McGuffie, and A. J. Pitman. Tropical deforestation: Modeling local- to regional-scale climate change. Journal of Geophysical Research, 98:7289--7315, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. A. Huete, K. Didan, T. Miura, E. P. Rodriguez, X. Gao, and L. G. Ferreira. Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Remote Sensing of Environment, 83(1-2):195--213, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. C. Inclán and G. C. Tiao. Use of cumulative sums of squares for retrospective detection of changes of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89(427): 913--923, 1994. ISSN 0162-1459.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. E. Keogh, S. Chu, D. Hart, and M. Pazzani. Segmenting time series: A survey and novel approach. In Data mining in Time Series Databases. World Scientific Publishing Company, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. T. L. Lai. Sequential changepoint detection in quality control and dynamical systems. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 57(4): 613--658, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. D. Lu, P. Mausel, E. Brondízio, and E. Moran. Change detection techniques. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 25(12):2365--2401, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. R. S. Lunetta, J. F. Knight, J. Ediriwickrema, J. G. Lyon, and L. D. Worthy. Land-cover change detection using multi-temporal MODIS NDVI data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 105(2):142--154, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. M. Matson and B. Holben. Satellite detection of tropical burning in Brazil. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 8(3):509--516, 1987.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. D. Mazzoni, K. Wagsta , and M. C. Burl. Active learning with irrelevant examples. In ECML 2006: Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Machine Learning, volume 4212 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 695--702. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. J. Pereira. A comparative evaluation of NOAA/AVHRR vegetation indexes for burned surface detection and mapping. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 37(1):217--226, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. A. Singh. Digital change detection techniques using remotely-sensed data. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 10(6):989--1003, 1989.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. A. N. Srivastava and J. Stroeve. Onboard detection of snow, ice, clouds and other geophysical processes using kernel methods. In Proceedings of the ICML 2003 Workshop on Machine Learning Technologies for Autonomous Space Sciences, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. M. Steinbach, P.-N. Tan, V. Kumar, S. Klooster, and C. Potter. Discovery of climate indices using clustering. In KDD '03: Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 446--455, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. W. C. Sullivan, O. M. Anderson, and S. T. Lovell. Agricultural buffers at the rural-urban fringe: an examination of approval by farmers, residents, and academics in the midwestern United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(2-3):299--313, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. K. Yamanishi and J. Takeuchi. A unifying framework for detecting outliers and change points from non-stationary time series data. In KDD '02: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 676--681, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Land cover change detection: a case study

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        KDD '08: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining
        August 2008
        1116 pages
        ISBN:9781605581934
        DOI:10.1145/1401890
        • General Chair:
        • Ying Li,
        • Program Chairs:
        • Bing Liu,
        • Sunita Sarawagi

        Copyright © 2008 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 24 August 2008

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        KDD '08 Paper Acceptance Rate118of593submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

        Upcoming Conference

        KDD '24

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader