Multispectral Sentinel-2 and SAR Sentinel-1 Integration for Automatic Land Cover Classification
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- -
- allow the production of a 10 m land cover map on a national scale, exploiting the potential offered by free Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 data;
- -
- allow at least annual updates for the entire Italian territory;
- -
- ensure accuracy in line with Copernicus products;
- -
- adopt a structure that allows the updating and expansion of the methodology;
- -
- ensure compatibility with the main European and national initiatives in the field of land monitoring, such as Copernicus program and the Mirror Copernicus initiative of the Italian Ministry of Economic Development.
- unvegetated abiotic surfaces (subdivided into artificial surfaces and natural surfaces);
- vegetated biotic surfaces (distinguishing between woody vegetation, subdivided into broad-leaved and needle-leaved, and permanent and periodically herbaceous vegetation);
- water surfaces (water bodies and permanent snow and ice).
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Overview
2.2. Study Area
2.3. Classification System
- 1.
- Abiotic-non vegetated: The class includes any unvegetated surfaces, either covered with man-made artificial structures or geologically natural material surfaces (with or without anthropogenic influence or impact). It includes consolidated or unconsolidated unvegetated natural surfaces, such as rocky regions and sands.
- -
- Artificial abiotic surfaces include impervious surfaces but also those of reversible land consumption [62]. Impervious and sealed surfaces are mainly covered with features with a certain height above ground (artificial buildings and constructions) or features without a specific height above ground (flat waterproof surfaces) such as artificial surface pavements (e.g., asphalt, concrete, tarmacadam). Reversible land consumption includes all areas where natural surface material has been replaced by man-made material or where natural material has been removed, forming a non-impermeable and undeveloped surface. This includes soil compaction, excavation or temporary impervious cover. For example: unpaved roads, construction sites or courtyards or sports fields, permanent deposits of material, photovoltaic fields, and quarries not yet restored. The EAGLE classification system includes quarries and extraction sites in the 1.2.1.1 bare rock class, but in this research they are classified as artificial abiotic surfaces since quarries and extraction sites are strongly modified due to compaction and morphology changes caused by material removal. The physical characteristics of these areas are more similar to those of the EAGLE 1.1.2 “Non-Sealed Artificial Surfaces” class, which includes any open areas where natural surface material has been replaced by artificial material or where natural material has been removed from its place of origin as result of human activity forming an unsealed and non-built-up surface.
- -
- Natural abiotic surfaces are any kind of surface material that remains in its natural consistence or form, either with or without anthropogenic influence. Consolidated and unconsolidated surfaces include: unvegetated rocky mountainous regions, sand, and bare soil.
- 2.
- Biotic-vegetated: The class includes any terrestrial surface with spontaneous, semi-natural or artificial vegetation (e.g., crops and urban parks), with or without anthropogenic influence.
- -
- Woody vegetation includes perennial woody plants with a single, self-supporting main stem or trunk, containing woody tissue and branching into smaller branches and shoots.
- -
- Herbaceous vegetation includes annual, biennial or perennial plants such as most ferns and grasses that do not have a persistent woody stem above ground. On the opposite to woody plants, the buds of herbaceous plants die at the end of the growing season, to regenerate from the tissues left above or below the ground (e.g., bulbs, rhizomes, tubers, seeds).
- 3.
- Water surfaces class includes water in its liquid or solid state of aggregation (snow and ice), both of natural formation (water basins, rivers, streams, stagnant waters, glaciers) and of artificial origin.
- -
- Water bodies are water in a liquid state of aggregation regardless of location, shape, salinity and origin (natural or artificial). This includes all types of inland water surfaces without direct interference or interchange with open sea water, regardless of salinity and origin (natural or artificial). Watercourses (flowing water surfaces) come from: rivers, streams, canals, waterways. Stagnant waters (water surfaces of non-current waters, mainly lakes and ponds, or meanders of cut rivers) come from: natural lakes (both fresh and salt water), ponds, reservoirs, oxbow lakes, bottom pools, irrigation ponds, ponds for the production of artificial snow, river banks for the production of hydroelectric energy, and ponds for firefighting.
- -
- Permanent snow and ice includes the snow cover that persists all year round, above the climatic snow limit and the persistent ice cover formed by the accumulation of snow.
- 1.
- Land consumption is the replacement of a non-artificial land cover to an artificial abiotic surface, both permanent and reversible. Artificial abiotic surfaces that have been changed by, or are under the influence of human activities resulting in a land consumption process can be sealed or unsealed.
- 2.
- Restoration is the replacement of an artificial abiotic surface with a semi-natural land cover where permeable land is back, such as herbaceous (permanent and periodic), woody, or urban green.
- 3.
- Forest disturbances are drastic decreases or disappearances of vegetation in areas classified as woody vegetation, not associated with land consumption. Forest disturbances are further distinguished into two classes, through the introduction of two elements relating to the status segment of the landscape characteristics of the EAGLE matrix.
- -
- Burnt areas: The class includes natural woody vegetation affected by recent fires. This class includes recently burnt areas of forests, moors and heathlands, sclerophyllous vegetation, transitional forest-shrub formations, and areas with sparse vegetation.
- -
- Other disturbances: The class “other disturbances” identifies the removal of all or most of the trees, large and small, on a surface, following a disturbance event other than a fire. Virtually all woody vegetation is removed from the site in preparation for the settlement of new wood or another class of biotic vegetation.
2.4. Pre-Processing of Images and Collection of Training Areas
- -
- application of orbit file;
- -
- removal of GRD border noise (low intensity and invalid data);
- -
- thermal noise removal to reduce discontinuities between sub-swaths;
- -
- backscatter intensity calculation using radiometric calibration;
- -
- terrain correction (orthorectification using the SRTM 30 m DEM);
- -
- conversion of backscatter coefficient to dB; due to the wide dynamic range of SAR data, decibels were used to amplify the small variations and make the data more readable [64].
2.5. Classification Process
2.5.1. Water Surfaces
Permanent Snow and Ice
- 1.
- Snow raster ≥ 10%
- 2.
- Snow raster summer > 1%
- 3.
- Maximum NDVI < 0.4
Water Bodies
- 1.
- High NDWI raster ≥ 5%
- 2.
- Median NDVI < 0.3
- 3.
- Snow raster < 20%
- 4.
- Median VH polarization < −20 dB
- 5.
- Low VV backscatter < −15%
2.5.2. Abiotic Classes
- 1.
- Maximum NDVI ≤ 0.35
- 2.
- Not Water
Artificial Abiotic Surfaces
Natural Abiotic Surfaces
2.5.3. Biotic Classes
Woody Vegetation
- 1.
- High NDVI summer ≥ 70%
- 2.
- Maximum NDVI summer ≥ Threshold on minimum value of the Maximum NDVI summer
- 3.
- High vegetation
- 1.
- Woody vegetation raster = 1
- 2.
- Mean SWIR summer ≤ Threshold Mean SWIR summer (needle-leaved)Mean SWIR summer > Threshold Mean SWIR summer (broad-leaved)
- 3.
- High NDCI winter > Threshold high NDCI winter (needle-leaved)
Herbaceous Vegetation
- 1.
- Maximum NDVI > 0.35
- 2.
- Not woody vegetation
- 1.
- Low NDVI ≤ 5% (permanent herbaceous)Low NDVI > 5% (periodically herbaceous)
2.6. Land Cover Changes
- 1.
- NDVI Difference ≤ −0.2
- 2.
- NBR Difference ≤ −0.2
Distinction between “Burnt Areas” and “Other Distubances”
2.7. Accuracy Assessment
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
- -
- “DATA” shows the input data used for the classification.
- -
- “PRE-PROCESSING” illustrates the calculations of spectral indices and selected backscatter polarizations.
- -
- “BINARY RASTER” reports the conditions and thresholds defined for the various inputs in order to create binary rasters (whose values are 0 or 1). A binary raster is calculated by attributing to each pixel the value 1 if the conditions defined by the threshold are verified and 0 elsewhere. A binary raster is calculated for each valid image acquisition (i.e., the number of valid acquisitions can be lower or equal to the total number of satellite acquisitions, depending on cloud cover).
- -
- “VARIABLES” include the raster calculations derived from preprocessed data and binary rasters, which summarize the multi-temporal properties in a unique raster using statistics such as the median, or the percentage of occurrence calculated as:
- -
- The conditions for the classification of every land cover class are described in the lower boxes, which are based on the above “VARIABLES” and thresholds that are fixed or calculated from training input data.
References
- Sallustio, L.; Munafò, M.; Riitano, N.; Lasserre, B.; Fattorini, L.; Marchetti, M. Integration of land use and land cover inventories for landscape management and planning in Italy. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016, 188, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- European Parliament, Council of the E.U. Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE). Off. J. Eur. Union 2007, 1–14.
- Gómez, C.; White, J.C.; Wulder, M.A. Optical remotely sensed time series data for land cover classification: A review. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2016, 116, 55–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Steinhausen, M.J.; Wagner, P.D.; Narasimhan, B.; Waske, B. Combining Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 data for improved land use and land cover mapping of monsoon regions. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2018, 73, 595–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EEA. The European Environment—State and Outlook 2020: Knowledge for Transition to a Sustainable Europe; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2019; pp. 115–131. [Google Scholar]
- Del Río-Mena, T.; Willemen, L.; Vrieling, A.; Nelson, A. Understanding intra-annual dynamics of ecosystem services using satellite image time series. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kuenzer, C.; Ottinger, M.; Wegmann, M.; Guo, H.; Wang, C.; Zhang, J.; Dech, S.; Wikelski, M. Earth observation satellite sensors for biodiversity monitoring: Potentials and bottlenecks. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2014, 35, 6599–6647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Reba, M.; Seto, K.C. A systematic review and assessment of algorithms to detect, characterize, and monitor urban land change. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 242, 111739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNCCD. The Global Land Outlook, 1st ed.; United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification: Bonn, Germany, 2017; pp. 1–336. ISBN 9789295110489. [Google Scholar]
- Wunder, S.; Kaphengst, T.; Frelih-Larsen, A. Implementing Land Degradation Neutrality (SDG 15.3) at National Level: General Approach, Indicator Selection and Experiences from Germany. In International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy 2017; Ginzky, H., Dooley, E., Heuser, I.L., Kasimbazi, E., Markus, T., Qin, T., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Germany, 2018; pp. 191–219. ISBN 978-3-319-68885-5. [Google Scholar]
- Berger, M.; Aschbacher, J. Preface: The Sentinel missions-new opportunities for science. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 120, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torres, R.; Snoeij, P.; Geudtner, D.; Bibby, D.; Davidson, M.; Attema, E.; Potin, P.; Rommen, B.Ö.; Floury, N.; Brown, M.; et al. GMES Sentinel-1 mission. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 120, 9–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chatziantoniou, A.; Petropoulos, G.P.; Psomiadis, E. Co-Orbital Sentinel 1 and 2 for LULC mapping with emphasis on wetlands in a mediterranean setting based on machine learning. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bhattarai, R.; Rahimzadeh-Bajgiran, P.; Weiskittel, A.; Meneghini, A.; MacLean, D.A. Spruce budworm tree host species distribution and abundance mapping using multi-temporal Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 satellite imagery. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2021, 172, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nezry, E. Adaptive Speckle Filtering in Radar Imagery. In Land Applications of Radar Remote Sensing; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2014; pp. 1–55. [Google Scholar]
- Muro, J.; Varea, A.; Strauch, A.; Guelmami, A.; Fitoka, E.; Thonfeld, F.; Diekkrüger, B.; Waske, B. Multitemporal optical and radar metrics for wetland mapping at national level in Albania. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drusch, M.; Del Bello, U.; Carlier, S.; Colin, O.; Fernandez, V.; Gascon, F.; Hoersch, B.; Isola, C.; Laberinti, P.; Martimort, P.; et al. Sentinel-2: ESA’s Optical High-Resolution Mission for GMES Operational Services. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 120, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spadoni, G.L.; Cavalli, A.; Congedo, L.; Munafò, M. Analysis of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) multi-temporal series for the production of forest cartography. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2020, 20, 100419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teodoro, A.; Amaral, A. A statistical and spatial analysis of portuguese forest fires in summer 2016 considering landsat 8 and sentinel 2A data. Environments 2019, 6, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Malenovský, Z.; Rott, H.; Cihlar, J.; Schaepman, M.E.; García-Santos, G.; Fernandes, R.; Berger, M. Sentinels for science: Potential of Sentinel-1, -2, and -3 missions for scientific observations of ocean, cryosphere, and land. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 120, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ienco, D.; Interdonato, R.; Gaetano, R.; Ho Tong Minh, D. Combining Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 Satellite Image Time Series for land cover mapping via a multi-source deep learning architecture. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2019, 158, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erinjery, J.J.; Singh, M.; Kent, R. Mapping and assessment of vegetation types in the tropical rainforests of the Western Ghats using multispectral Sentinel-2 and SAR Sentinel-1 satellite imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 2018, 216, 345–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joshi, N.; Baumann, M.; Ehammer, A.; Fensholt, R.; Grogan, K.; Hostert, P.; Jepsen, M.R.; Kuemmerle, T.; Meyfroidt, P.; Mitchard, E.T.A.; et al. A review of the application of optical and radar remote sensing data fusion to land use mapping and monitoring. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mansaray, L.R.; Huang, W.; Zhang, D.; Huang, J.; Li, J. Mapping rice fields in urban Shanghai, southeast China, using Sentinel-1A and Landsat 8 datasets. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Clerici, N.; Valbuena Calderón, C.A.; Posada, J.M. Fusion of sentinel-1a and sentinel-2A data for land cover mapping: A case study in the lower Magdalena region, Colombia. J. Maps 2017, 13, 718–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dusseux, P.; Corpetti, T.; Hubert-Moy, L.; Corgne, S. Combined use of multi-temporal optical and Radar satellite images for grassland monitoring. Remote Sens. 2014, 6, 6163–6182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Iannelli, G.C.; Gamba, P. Jointly exploiting Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 for urban mapping. In Proceedings of the IGARSS 2018—2018 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Valencia, Spain, 22–27 July 2018; pp. 8209–8212. [Google Scholar]
- Colson, D.; Petropoulos, G.P.; Ferentinos, K.P. Exploring the Potential of Sentinels-1 & 2 of the Copernicus Mission in Support of Rapid and Cost-effective Wildfire Assessment. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2018, 73, 262–276. [Google Scholar]
- Duong, P.C.; Trung, T.H.; Nasahara, K.N.; Tadono, T. JAXA high-resolution land use/land cover map for Central Vietnam in 2007 and 2017. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Anderson, J.R. Land use and land cover changes-A framework for monitoring. J. Res. U. S. Geol. Surv. 1976, 5, 142–152. [Google Scholar]
- Arnold, S.; Kosztra, B.; Banko, G.; Smith, G.; Hazeu, G.; Bock, M. The EAGLE concept—A vision of a future European Land Monitoring Framework. In Proceedings of the 33rd EARSeL Symposium “Towards Horizon 2020”, Matera, Italy, 3–6 June 2013; pp. 551–568. [Google Scholar]
- Arnold, S.; Kosztra, B.; Banko, G.; Milenov, P.; Smith, G.; Hazeu, G. Explanatory Content Documentation of the EAGLE Concept 2021, Version 3.1. Available online: https://land.copernicus.eu/eagle/content-documentation-of-the-eagle-concept/manual/eagle-explanatory-documentation-v3-1-version-2021 (accessed on 4 March 2021).
- Chen, Y.; Gong, P. Clustering based on eigenspace transformation—CBEST for efficient classification. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2013, 83, 64–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Z.; Gallant, A.L.; Woodcock, C.E.; Pengra, B.; Olofsson, P.; Loveland, T.R.; Jin, S.; Dahal, D.; Yang, L.; Auch, R.F. Optimizing selection of training and auxiliary data for operational land cover classification for the LCMAP initiative. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2016, 122, 206–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Holloway, J.; Helmstedt, K.J.; Mengersen, K.; Schmidt, M. A decision tree approach for spatially interpolating missing land cover data and classifying satellite images. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thanh Noi, P.; Kappas, M. Comparison of random forest, k-nearest neighbor, and support vector machine classifiers for land cover classification using Sentinel-2 imagery. Sensors 2018, 18, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Colditz, R.R. An evaluation of different training sample allocation schemes for discrete and continuous land cover classification using decision tree-based algorithms. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 9655–9681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, K.; Shi, W.; Zhang, H. A fuzzy topology-based maximum likelihood classification. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2011, 66, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xin, Q.; Li, J.; Li, Z.; Li, Y.; Zhou, X. Evaluations and comparisons of rule-based and machine-learning-based methods to retrieve satellite-based vegetation phenology using MODIS and USA National Phenology Network data. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2020, 93, 102189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, X.; Liu, J.; Zhu, W.; Atzberger, C.; Liu, Q. The optimal threshold and vegetation index time series for retrieving crop phenology based on a modified dynamic threshold method. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Otukei, J.R.; Blaschke, T. Land cover change assessment using decision trees, support vector machines and maximum likelihood classification algorithms. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2010, 12, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kobayashi, N.; Tani, H.; Wang, X.; Sonobe, R. Crop classification using spectral indices derived from Sentinel-2A imagery. J. Inf. Telecommun. 2020, 4, 67–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinha, P.; Kumar, L. Independent two-step thresholding of binary images in inter-annual land cover change/no-change identification. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2013, 81, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Persson, M.; Lindberg, E.; Reese, H. Tree species classification with multi-temporal Sentinel-2 data. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agrillo, E.; Filipponi, F.; Pezzarossa, A.; Casella, L.; Smiraglia, D.; Orasi, A.; Attorre, F.; Taramelli, A. Earth observation and biodiversity big data for forest habitat types classification and mapping. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngadze, F.; Mpakairi, K.S.; Kavhu, B.; Ndaimani, H.; Maremba, M.S. Exploring the utility of Sentinel-2 MSI and Landsat 8 OLI in burned area mapping for a heterogenous savannah landscape. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0232962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belgiu, M.; Drăguţ, L. Random forest in remote sensing: A review of applications and future directions. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2016, 114, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lary, D.J.; Alavi, A.H.; Gandomi, A.H.; Walker, A.L. Machine learning in geosciences and remote sensing. Geosci. Front. 2016, 7, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maxwell, A.E.; Warner, T.A.; Vanderbilt, B.C.; Ramezan, C.A. Land cover classification and feature extraction from national agriculture imagery program (NAIP) Orthoimagery: A Review. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2017, 83, 737–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foody, G.M.; Mathur, A. The use of small training sets containing mixed pixels for accurate hard image classification: Training on mixed spectral responses for classification by a SVM. Remote Sens. Environ. 2006, 103, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulkarni, A.D.; Lowe, B. Random Forest Algorithm for Land Cover Classification. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 2016, 27, 294–300. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.; Gong, W.; Hu, X.; Gong, J. Forest type identification with random forest using Sentinel-1A, Sentinel-2A, multi-temporal Landsat-8 and DEM data. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rodriguez-Galiano, V.F.; Chica-Olmo, M.; Abarca-Hernandez, F.; Atkinson, P.M.; Jeganathan, C. Random Forest classification of Mediterranean land cover using multi-seasonal imagery and multi-seasonal texture. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 121, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Z.; Xu, R.; Du, W.; Wang, L.; Lu, D. High-resolution urban land mapping in China from sentinel 1A/2 imagery based on Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Houhoulis, P.F.; Michener, W.K. Detecting wetland change: A rule-based approach using NWI and SPOT-XS data. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2000, 66, 205–211. [Google Scholar]
- Berhane, T.M.; Lane, C.R.; Wu, Q.; Autrey, B.C.; Anenkhonov, O.A.; Chepinoga, V.V.; Liu, H. Decision-tree, rule-based, and random forest classification of high-resolution multispectral imagery for wetland mapping and inventory. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Phiri, D.; Simwanda, M.; Salekin, S.; Nyirenda, V.R.; Murayama, Y.; Ranagalage, M. Sentinel-2 Data for Land Cover/Use Mapping: A Review. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luti, T.; De Fioravante, P.; Marinosci, I.; Strollo, A.; Riitano, N.; Falanga, V.; Mariani, L.; Congedo, L.; Munafò, M. Land Consumption Monitoring with SAR Data and Multispectral Indices. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strollo, A.; Smiraglia, D.; Bruno, R.; Assennato, F.; Congedo, L.; De Fioravante, P.; Giuliani, C.; Marinosci, I.; Riitano, N.; Munafò, M. Land consumption in Italy. J. Maps 2020, 16, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giannetti, F.; Pegna, R.; Francini, S.; McRoberts, R.E.; Travaglini, D.; Marchetti, M.; Scarascia Mugnozza, G.; Chirici, G. A New Method for Automated Clearcut Disturbance Detection in Mediterranean Coppice Forests Using Landsat Time Series. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleeschulte, S.; Banko, G.; Smith, G.; Arnold, S.; Scholz, J.; Kosztra, B.; Maucha, G. Technical Specifications for Implementation of a New Land-Monitoring Concept Based on EAGLE, D5: Design Concept and CLC+ Backbone, Technical Specifications, CLC+ Core and CLC+ Instances Draft Specifications, Including Requirements Review; Version 5.4; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2020; pp. 1–78. [Google Scholar]
- Munafò, M. Consumo di Suolo, Dinamiche Territoriali e Servizi Ecosistemici; Edizione 2020; SNPA: Rome, Italy, 2020; p. 291. ISBN 9788844810139. [Google Scholar]
- Coluzzi, R.; Imbrenda, V.; Lanfredi, M.; Simoniello, T. A first assessment of the Sentinel-2 Level 1-C cloud mask product to support informed surface analyses. Remote Sens. Environ. 2018, 217, 426–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flores, A.; Herndon, K.; Thapa, R.; Cherrington, E. (Eds.) The SAR Handbook: Comprehensive Methodologies for Forest Monitoring and Biomass Estimation; NASA: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Rouse, J.W., Jr.; Deering, D.W.; Schell, J.A.; Harlan, J.C. Monitoring the Vernal Advancement and Retrogradation (Green Wave Effect) of Natural Vegetation; NASA: Greenbelt, MD, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
- Key, C.H.; Benson, N.C. The Normalized Burn Ratio (NBR): A Landsat TM Radiometric Measure of Burn Severity; USA Geological Survey Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center: Bozeman, MT, USA, 1999.
- McFeeters, S.K. The use of the Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI) in the delineation of open water features. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1996, 17, 1425–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dozier, J. Spectral signature of alpine snow cover from the Landsat Thematic Mapper. Remote Sens. Environ. 1989, 28, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ESA Level-2A Algorithm Overview. Available online: https://sentinels.copernicus.eu/web/sentinel/technical-guides/sentinel-2-msi/level-2a/algorithm (accessed on 4 March 2021).
- McFeeters, S.K. Using the normalized difference water index (ndwi) within a geographic information system to detect swimming pools for mosquito abatement: A practical approach. Remote Sens. 2013, 5, 3544–3561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gulácsi, A.; Kovács, F. Sentinel-1-imagery-based high-resolutionwater cover detection on wetlands, aided by google earth engine. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, T.; Pan, J.; Zhang, P.; Wei, S.; Han, T. Mapping winter wheat with multi-temporal SAR and optical images in an urban agricultural region. Sensors 2017, 17, 1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luti, T.; Segoni, S.; Catani, F.; Munafò, M.; Casagli, N. Integration of remotely sensed soil sealing data in landslide susceptibility mapping. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISPRA Il consumo di suolo in Italia—Edizione 2015. Available online: https://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/rapporti/il-consumo-di-suolo-in-italia-edizione-2015 (accessed on 18 March 2021).
- Holtgrave, A.K.; Röder, N.; Ackermann, A.; Erasmi, S.; Kleinschmit, B. Comparing Sentinel-1 and -2 data and indices for agricultural land use monitoring. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Formaggio, A.R.; Epiphanio, J.C.N.; dos Santos Simões, M. Radarsat backscattering from an agricultural scene. Pesqui. Agropecuária Bras. 2001, 36, 823–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lefebvre, A.; Sannier, C.; Corpetti, T. Monitoring urban areas with Sentinel-2A data: Application to the update of the Copernicus High Resolution Layer Imperviousness Degree. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chirici, G.; Giannetti, F.; Mazza, E.; Francini, S.; Travaglini, D.; Pegna, R.; White, J.C. Monitoring clearcutting and subsequent rapid recovery in Mediterranean coppice forests with Landsat time series. Ann. For. Sci. 2020, 77, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olofsson, P.; Foody, G.M.; Herold, M.; Stehman, S.V.; Woodcock, C.E.; Wulder, M.A. Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. Remote Sens. Environ. 2014, 148, 42–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. Map Accuracy Assessment and Area Estimation: A Practical Guide; National Forest Monitoring Assessment Working Paper; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Stehman, S.V.; Foody, G.M. Key issues in rigorous accuracy assessment of land cover products. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 231, 111199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stehman, S.V.; Czaplewski, R.L. Design and Analysis for Thematic Map Accuracy Assessment—An application of satellite imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 1998, 64, 331–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cochran, W.G.; William, G. Sampling Techniques; John Wiley& Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- Maxwell, A.E.; Warner, T.A.; Fang, F. Implementation of machine-learning classification in remote sensing: An applied review. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2018, 39, 2784–2817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vuolo, F.; Neuwirth, M.; Immitzer, M.; Atzberger, C.; Ng, W.T. How much does multi-temporal Sentinel-2 data improve crop type classification? Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2018, 72, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pesaresi, S.; Mancini, A.; Quattrini, G.; Casavecchia, S. Mapping mediterranean forest plant associations and habitats with functional principal component analysis using Landsat 8 NDVI time series. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rüetschi, M.; Small, D.; Waser, L.T. Rapid detection of windthrows using sentinel-1 c-band sar data. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zimmermann, N.E.; Edwards, T.C., Jr.; Moisen, G.G.; Frescino, T.S.; Blackard, J.A. Remote sensing-based predictors improve distribution models of rare, early successional and broadleaf tree species in Utah. J. Appl. Ecol. 2007, 44, 1057–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, F.; Yang, X. Improving land cover classification in an urbanized coastal area by random forests: The role of variable selection. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 251, 112105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millard, K.; Richardson, M. On the importance of training data sample selection in Random Forest image classification: A case study in peatland ecosystem mapping. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 8489–8515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pepe, M.; Pompilio, L.; Gioli, B.; Busetto, L.; Boschetti, M. Detection and Classification of Non-Photosynthetic Vegetation from PRISMA Hyperspectral Data in Croplands. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fassnacht, F.E.; Latifi, H.; Stereńczak, K.; Modzelewska, A.; Lefsky, M.; Waser, L.T.; Straub, C.; Ghosh, A. Review of studies on tree species classification from remotely sensed data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2016, 186, 64–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Modzelewska, A.; Fassnacht, F.E.; Stereńczak, K. Tree species identification within an extensive forest area with diverse management regimes using airborne hyperspectral data. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2020, 84, 101960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puletti, N.; Bascietto, M. Towards a tool for early detection and estimation of forest cuttings by remotely sensed data. Land 2019, 8, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Banskota, A.; Kayastha, N.; Falkowski, M.J.; Wulder, M.A.; Froese, R.E.; White, J.C. Forest monitoring using Landsat time series data: A review. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2014, 40, 362–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vangi, E.; D’Amico, G.; Francini, S.; Giannetti, F.; Lasserre, B.; Marchetti, M.; Chirici, G. The New Hyperspectral Satellite PRISMA: Imagery for Forest Types Discrimination. Sensors 2021, 21, 1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rast, M.; Ananasso, C.; Bach, H.; Ben-Dor, E.; Chabrillat, S.; Colombo, R.; Del Bello, U.; Feret, J.B.; Giardino, C.; Green, R.O. Copernicus Hyperspectral Imaging Mission for the Environment: Mission Requirements Document; European Space Agency: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Zakeri, F.; Mariethoz, G. A review of geostatistical simulation models applied to satellite remote sensing: Methods and applications. Remote Sens. Environ. 2021, 259, 112381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land Cover | ||
---|---|---|
I Level | II Level | III Level |
Abiotic-non vegetated | Artificial abiotic surfaces | |
Natural abiotic surfaces | ||
Biotic-vegetated | Woody vegetation | Broad-leaved |
Needle-leaved | ||
Herbaceous vegetation | Permanent | |
Periodically | ||
Water surfaces | Water bodies | |
Permanent snow and ice |
Land Cover Change | |
---|---|
Land consumption | |
Restoration | |
Forest disturbances | Burnt areas |
Other disturbances |
2018 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Artificial Abiotic Surfaces | Natural Abiotic Surfaces | Broad-Leaved | Needle-Leaved | Permanent Herbaceous | Periodic Herbaceous | Water Bodies | Permanent Snow and Ice | ||
2017 | Artificial abiotic surfaces | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Natural abiotic surfaces | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
Broad-leaved | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
Needle-leaved | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
Permanent herbaceous | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
Periodic herbaceous | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | |
Water bodies | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | |
Permanent snow and ice | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Satellite | Index Name | Brief Index Formula | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
Sentinel-2 | Normalized Difference Vegetation Index | [65] | |
Normalized Burn Ratio | [66] | ||
Normalized Difference Water Index | [67] | ||
Normalized Difference Snow Index | [68] | ||
Normalized Difference Coniferous Index | |||
Burned Index |
Land Cover Class | Area (ha) | Wi | Ui | Si | Wi*Si |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Artificial Abiotic | 2,127,999 | 0.071 | 0.6 | 0.490 | 0.035 |
Natural Abiotic | 953,574 | 0.032 | 0.6 | 0.490 | 0.015 |
Broad-leaved | 12,006,500 | 0.398 | 0.6 | 0.490 | 0.195 |
Needle-leaved | 1,607,582 | 0.053 | 0.6 | 0.490 | 0.026 |
Permanent herb. | 12,657,900 | 0.420 | 0.6 | 0.490 | 0.206 |
Periodic herb. | 239,834 | 0.008 | 0.6 | 0.490 | 0.004 |
Water bodies | 337,737 | 0.011 | 0.6 | 0.490 | 0.005 |
Permanent snow and ice | 111,773 | 0.004 | 0.6 | 0.490 | 0.002 |
Other disturbance | 78,490 | 0.003 | 0.6 | 0.490 | 0.001 |
Burned areas | 11,106 | 0.000 | 0.6 | 0.490 | 0.000 |
Land consumption | 6600 | 0.000 | 0.6 | 0.490 | 0.000 |
Restoration | 906 | 0.000 | 0.6 | 0.490 | 0.000 |
Total | 30,139,974 | 1 | |||
S(Ô) overall accuracy | 0.01 | ||||
Total number of samples | 2400 |
Classes | Allocation | ||
---|---|---|---|
Equal | Proportional | Final | |
Artificial Abiotic | 200 | 169 | 185 |
Natural Abiotic | 200 | 76 | 138 |
Broad-leaved | 200 | 956 | 578 |
Needle-leaved | 200 | 128 | 164 |
Permanent herb. | 200 | 1008 | 604 |
Periodic herb. | 200 | 19 | 110 |
Water bodies | 200 | 27 | 113 |
Permanent snow and ice | 200 | 9 | 104 |
Other disturbance | 200 | 6 | 103 |
Burned areas | 200 | 1 | 100 |
Land consumption | 200 | 1 | 100 |
Restoration | 200 | 0 | 100 |
Total | 2400 | 2400 | 2400 |
Overall Accuracy | ||
---|---|---|
0.83 | ||
Land Cover | ||
Class name | User’s accuracy | Producer’s accuracy |
Artificial abiotic surfaces | 0.92 | 0.88 |
Natural abiotic surfaces | 0.83 | 0.78 |
Water bodies | 0.98 | 0.90 |
Permanent snow and ice | 0.86 | 1.00 |
Broad-leaved | 0.87 | 0.81 |
Needle-laved | 0.90 | 0.88 |
Permanent herbaceous | 0.92 | 0.62 |
Periodic herbaceous | 0.86 | 0.81 |
Land Cover Change | ||
Class name | User’s accuracy | Producer’s accuracy |
Other disturbance | 0.35 | 0.71 |
Burned areas | 0.67 | 1.00 |
Land consumption | 0.81 | 1.00 |
Restoration | 0.50 | 1.00 |
ha | % Total | % Class | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Abiotic Surfaces | 3,081,573 | 10.22 | - | |
Artificial surfaces | 2,127,999 | 7.06 | 69.06 | |
Natural surfaces | 953,574 | 3.16 | 30.94 | |
Woody Vegetation | 13,614,064 | 45.17 | - | |
Broad-leaved | 12,006,482 | 39.84 | 88.19 | |
Needle-leaved | 1,607,582 | 5.33 | 11.81 | |
Herbaceous Vegetation | 12,897,724 | 42.79 | - | |
Periodic | 12,657,890 | 42.00 | 98.14 | |
Permanent | 239,834 | 0.80 | 1.86 | |
Water and Ice | 449,510 | 1.49 | - | |
Water bodies | 337,737 | 1.12 | 75.13 | |
Permanent snow and ice | 111,773 | 0.37 | 24.87 | |
Land Cover Change | 97,102 | 0.32 | ||
Italy | 30,139,974 | 100.00 | - |
Land Consumption | Restoration | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ha | % | m2chg/ha | ha | %% | m2chg/ha | ||
Abiotic Surfaces | 1311 | 19.9 | 4.2 | 91 | 10.0 | 0.3 | |
Artificial surfaces | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
Natural surfaces | 1311 | 19.9 | 13.6 | 91 | 10.0 | 0.9 | |
Woody Vegetation | 1049 | 15.9 | 0.8 | 169 | 18.6 | 0. | |
Broad-leaved | 1019 | 15.4 | 0.8 | 166 | 18.3 | 0.1 | |
Needle-leaved | 30 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | |
Herbaceous Vegetation | 4240 | 64.2 | 3.3 | 647 | 71.4 | 0.5 | |
Periodic | 4231 | 64.1 | 3.3 | 636 | 70.2 | 0.5 | |
Permanent | 9 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 11 | 1.2 | 0.3 | |
Water and Ice | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
Water bodies | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
Permanent snow and ice | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
Italy | 6600 | 100.0 | 2.2 | 906 | 100.0 | 0.3 |
2017–18 | ha | % | |
---|---|---|---|
Burnt areas | Total | 11,106 | 12.4 |
Broad-leaved | 6610 | 59.5 | |
Needle-leaved | 4496 | 40.5 | |
Other disturbances | Total | 78,490 | 87.6 |
Broad-leaved | 71,096 | 90.6 | |
Needle-leaved | 7394 | 9.4 | |
Total | 89,596 | 100.0 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
De Fioravante, P.; Luti, T.; Cavalli, A.; Giuliani, C.; Dichicco, P.; Marchetti, M.; Chirici, G.; Congedo, L.; Munafò, M. Multispectral Sentinel-2 and SAR Sentinel-1 Integration for Automatic Land Cover Classification. Land 2021, 10, 611. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10060611
De Fioravante P, Luti T, Cavalli A, Giuliani C, Dichicco P, Marchetti M, Chirici G, Congedo L, Munafò M. Multispectral Sentinel-2 and SAR Sentinel-1 Integration for Automatic Land Cover Classification. Land. 2021; 10(6):611. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10060611
Chicago/Turabian StyleDe Fioravante, Paolo, Tania Luti, Alice Cavalli, Chiara Giuliani, Pasquale Dichicco, Marco Marchetti, Gherardo Chirici, Luca Congedo, and Michele Munafò. 2021. "Multispectral Sentinel-2 and SAR Sentinel-1 Integration for Automatic Land Cover Classification" Land 10, no. 6: 611. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10060611
APA StyleDe Fioravante, P., Luti, T., Cavalli, A., Giuliani, C., Dichicco, P., Marchetti, M., Chirici, G., Congedo, L., & Munafò, M. (2021). Multispectral Sentinel-2 and SAR Sentinel-1 Integration for Automatic Land Cover Classification. Land, 10(6), 611. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10060611