Herold lccs intro - GOFC-GOLD Land Cover Project Office(Sokal, 1974). It is an abstract representation of the situation in the field using well-defined diagnostic criteria. Difference

1

Global Observation of Forest and Land Cover Dynamics

UN Land Cover Classification System

needs-concepts-implementation Martin Herold (1) & Antonio Di Gregorio (2)

(1) ESA GOFC-GOLD Land Cover Project OfficeFSU Jena, Germany

(2) FAO & UN Global Land Cover Network

Overview

• Content:1. Land cover mapping – status quo2. Harmonization and standardization3. UN Land Cover Classification System4. Implementation activities

• Purpose:Introduction of evolving initiatives (global)Invitation for scientific community to participateOpen discussion forum for European experts

GEO(SS), UNFCCC, UNCBD, MEA, …

STRATEGY

IMPLEMENTATION

GCOS Global Terrestrial Observing System

(GTOS)

IGOS Partnership

Committee on Earth

Observation Satellites (CEOS)

incl.Cal-Val

International Sponsors of GTOS: FAO, UNEP, ICSU, UNESCO, WMO

GOOSAssociates

of CEOS

REQUIREMENTS

GOFC-GOLDCol

labor

ative

Proje

cts

Technical panel

Data“producer” Science Data

“users”

Background• Land cover is the most important element for description

and study of the environment

• Land cover is the easiest detectable indicator of human interventions on the land (proxy for processes)

• Land cover is a critical parameter for (multi-purpose) environmental databases

• Land cover can be considered the key explicitkey explicit featurefeaturewhich other disciplines may use as geographical reference

• Land observations are not operational – in a weather forecasting sense

• Dealing with heterogeneity:Land surface itself, mapping standards, users of land information

• Growing RS data bases and evolving technologies

International drivers• International initiatives outline land observation requirements,

e.g. GEOSS reference plan:Land cover is important for all areas of societal benefitTerrestrial domain is least developedGEO 2006-09 work plan and Forest Community of Practice

• UNFCCC-GCOS impl. Plan tasks GTOS and GOFC-GOLD:Establish international standards for land-cover characterization Develop an in situ reference network and apply validation protocols Generate products documenting global land-cover characteristics

• Reliable and accepted land (or carbon) change estimates assume international consensus on approaches

• Ongoing/planned global mapping efforts:– GLOBCOVER, UN GLCN, FAO/FRA 2010, UNFCCC-REDD

• the derived legends too discipline specific(good detail for the some specific theme poor for others)

Each discipline producing is ownland cover data base

RangelandAgriculture

Forestry

Natural vegetation classes

Agricultural classes

Forestry classes

Mapping Tradition

Agriculture map 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 1g 1h 1i 1l 1m 2a 2b 3a 3b

Forestry map 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 1g 1h 2a 2b 3a

Derived consequences • the same geographic area mapped several time (at different scales, for different purposes, in different times, whit different type of data, whit different accuracy etc.)

Rangeland map 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 1g 1h 1i 1l 1m 2a 2b 3a 3b 3c 3d

Land cover mapping

2

In the past (more than 15 years ago) not a severe constraint

Presently, and especially in the future, it is a severe limiting factor

spatial analysis (GIS capabilities) very limited

different disciplines were building up their own data set

spatial analysis (GIS capabilities) very powerful and diffuse at any levelEarth observation and land cover mapping technology evolving

exchange and/or use of environmental data between disciplines, organizationsand countries an essential step to enhance any management of natural resources

Each discipline producing is own land cover data base

Land cover mappingIt seems straightforward to produce land

cover datasets!

• World rich of data and advanced algorithms• Age of GIS and spatial analysis has vastly

enhanced the users for land cover information• National/international land mapping initiatives:

• reflect different interests, requirements and methodologies

• Current maps exist as independent datasets:• limited compatibility, validation, and no or irregular updates

• Low efficiency and applications (change, scaling)• Technology has not solved problem of

standardization

Land cover dataset heterogeneity

• Seek compatibility and comparability:For multi-temporal analysis and updatesWithin and between countriesWithin and between applications, disciplines and agenciesFrom local to global scales

• Syntactic heterogeneity:e.g. logical data models (e.g. raster/vector)

• Schematic heterogeneity:e.g. database models/spatial reference system

• Semantic heterogeneity:Naming : trees … woodland … forestCognitive (conceptualizations/categories)

Vision for integrated & operational observations

IN-SITU (+ IKONOS type)periodically (usually 1-10 yrs)

Detailed physionomyFloristics and species distributionCrop type and rotation etc.

Effort f

or frequent u

pdatehigh

Thematic detail

Spat

ial d

etai

l

high

highlow

LANDSAT/SPOT – typeinter-annual (1-5 yrs)

Vegetation physionomy

Land type/Phenology

MODIS/MERIS

(intra

-)annual

Harmonization and Standardization

Harmonization - “Bottom up process”:

• from an existing divergence to a state of comparability/compatibility

• union of similarities in existing definitions • does not necessarily eliminate all inconsistencies

Standardization - “Top down process”:

• introduces a new, common definition or standard• application of standards should eliminate all

inconsistencies

Developments for land cover harmonization • Harmonization of soil maps/legends through FAO• Originally strong push for single lc/lu legend• Too much standardization reduces application relevance• Standardizing terminology rather than categories

Consensus on criteria and thresholds

• Workshops: FAO/UNEP 1994, LUCC 2002, GOFC-GOLD 2004• Rationales:

Separation of land cover and useCommon language (LCCS)Need for case studies and researchImpact on operational lc/lu data collection

• Implementation e.g. through GOFC-GOLD/GTOS, UN Global Land Cover Network (GLCN), research networks (LUCC, GLP)

3

Overview of classification systems: The USGS Land CoverClassification System

(Anderson e al. 1972/1976)

LEVEL I Mapping scale 1:250000

LEVEL IIMapping scale 1:1000000

URBAN OR BUILT UPLAND

ResdentialCommercial and service IndustrialTransportation, communication utilitiesIndustrial and commercial complexesMixed urban or built up landOther urban or built up land

Agricultural land

Cropland and pastureOrchards, grves, vineyards, nurseries, etc.Confined feeding operationsOther agriculture land

RangelandHerbaceous rangelandShrub and brush rangelandMixed rangeland

Forest landDecidous forest landEvergreen forest landMixed forest land

Water Streams and canalsLakesReservoirsBays and estuaries

Barren land Dry salts flatBeachesSandy areas other than beachesBare exposed rocksStrip mines, quarries, and gravel pitsTransitional areasMixed baren land

Tundra Shrub and brush tundraHerbaceous tundraBare ground tundraWet tundraMixed tundra

Perennial snow or ce Perennial snowfieldsGlaciers

Mixing L.C.with L.U. terms or useof others (geographic etc.)

Absence of imp. veg. physionomicparam ( Canopy cover, Leaf type)

Absence of imp. Veg. aspects:Savannas, , Woodlands

Inproper use of mixed classes

Imbalance between classes( Tundra vs other veg.) etc.Unclear classes, inproperclass names, absence of imp.L. C. classes.

Common problem of legends• Confusion between classification system and

legend • Improper thematic definitions

e.g. spectral classes resulting from interpretation process

• Mix of terminology:land use/cover terms Regional specifics names, ecology, floristics …

• Internal unbalance/inconsistency:thematic overlaps and gaps

Classification is defined as the “ordering or arrangement of ordering or arrangement of objects into groups or sets on the basis of their relationshipsobjects into groups or sets on the basis of their relationships”(Sokal, 1974). It is an abstract representation of the situation in the field using well-defined diagnostic criteria.

Difference between Classification and Legend

Abstract representation of a classification consisting of a continuum with two gradients: circles and triangles in red and white (Küchler and Zonneveld, 1988).

Concrete situation in the field in a particular area (Küchler and Zonneveld, 1988). One should note that not all possible combinations of circles and triangles in black and white here represented occur in the left side (abstract representation).

UN Land cover classification system (LCCS)

• Classification system to describe land cover features worldwide at any scale or level of detail

• High level of flexibilityflexibility with absolute level of standardizationstandardization of definitions

• Harmonized and standardized collection of land cover data

• A system that allows a dynamic creation of classes without to oblige the user to relate to a pre-defined list of names

• Comparison and correlation of land cover classes

• Endorsed by UN, GEOSS, UNFCCC, GTOS …

• Submitted to ISO, widely approved’06, some edits

Basic concept of a land cover class (the idea)the idea)

Defined geographic

area100%

10%

>50m 30m >5m1 2 3 4 ...

97 98 99 100

3347

7883

Reference Classification System

trees

closedopen

shrubsherbaceous

sparse

evergreenbroadleaved

?

?

?

LCCS method(the language)(the language)

Trees A3Closed A10

Height 14-7m B6Needeleaved D2

Evergreen E1

=A3+A10+B6+D2+E1

Legend development in LCCS code(the concept expression)(the concept expression)

End usersMapping units

Interpretation process(the map product)(the map product)

LCCS 2 Software

4

Mixed unit concept in LCCS LCCS initial structure

Understanding of classifiers• Concept of Language: The problem is to find the

right combination of words to describe things = correct combination of classifiers to describe a certain land cover feature

• Users can easily refer to classifiers• Common LCCS classifiers:

– Vegetation life form (trees, shrubs, herbaceous vegetation, lichen and mosses, non-vegetated)

– Leaf type (needle-leaf, broad-leaf) and leaf longevity (deciduous, evergreen)

– Non-vegetated covers (bare soil/rock, built up, snow, ice, water)– Density of each land category in percent cover– Additional options:

• Terrestrial / aquatic or regularly flooded• Cultivated and managed / (semi-natural)• User defined attributes• Link tool

Common ground for land characterization

Existing global land cover datasets

Deciduous

ArtificialSnow & Ice

BareHerbaceous

Shrubs

Common land cover classifiers (LCCS)

TreesCover type/ life form

Evergreen

Leaf longevity

Leaf type

BroadleavedNeedle-leaved

Cultivated/managed

Cultivated and managed/(semi-)natural

Aquatic/ flooded

Terrestrial / aquatic+ regularly flooded

The future - LCCS 3

• LCCS syntax in mathematical formulization

From LCCS 2 to 3

LCCS 2 concept and software LCCS 3

mathematicalformulation PROLOG

implementation

DLL

JAVA Other????

5

Harmonization mechanisms

• Harmonization resources:– Capacity building and web-based resources (LCCS)– Raise awareness and foster use of harmonized products

• Harmonization experiences for existing datasets:– Develop legend translation protocols/case studies– Translated legends: IGBP/CORINE/GLC2000/Anderson/IPCC …– Compatibility/Comparability of datasets – Synergy among land cover products

• Harmonization in future mapping products:– Impact on future projects and operational programs– Standardized legend generation (e.g. MERIS products)– Consider inconsistencies in previous maps

• Harmonization and validation are parallel efforts

Heterogeneity of forest estimates in global land cover maps

Forest definitions:IGBP legend : percent tree cover >60% / tree height >2m GLC2000 legend : percent tree cover >15% / tree height >3m

Global forest observations from satellite data

0% 100%tree cover threshold

Credit: M. Hansen/University of Maryland

GLC2000 translated to IPCC

GLC2000 IPCC land use guidance for carbon/greenhouse gas inventory calc.

LCCS

Legend Translator

Har

mon

ized

map

Synergy of existing global land cover maps for carbon cycle modeling

The SYNMAP data set (life form assemblages) compiled using synergy of IGBP DIS, GLC2000, MODIS land cover, and MODIS/AVHRR VCF to provide best estimate for land cover characteristics. Leaf attributes of trees (evergreen, deciduous, needle, broad) are not shown for reasons of visibility but are defined for each class that has a tree component (Jung et al., 2006, RSE).

Trees

Trees & ShrubsTrees & Grasses

Trees & Crops

Shrubs

Shrubs & Grasses

Shrubs & Barren

Grasses

Crops

Barren

Snow & Ice

UN Global land cover network (GLCN)• Direction, focus and guidance for harmonized land cover

classification and mapping strategy

• Implementation through resources (data, mapping strategies …), coordination, and capacity building

• Developed LCCS resources and experiences

• Several regional capacity building workshops:– West Africa 10-14 Nov 2003– South-East Asia 1-6 Dec 2003– South America 15-19 Nov 2004– Southern Africa 13-17 Dec 2004– India National 15-19 Feb 2005– North Africa/Middle East 19-25 Mar 2005– RP of China National 25-29 Apr 2005– Central America 5-9 Dec 2005– Asia Pacific 4-8 Dec 2006– NIS/CIS states 2007

6

Africover BurundiCongo D.R.EgyptEritreaKenyaRwandaSomaliaSudanTanzaniaUganda

Regional Program

UN Global Land Cover Network

Asiacover Cambodia

China (Yunnan)

Lao PDR

Malaysia

Myanmar

Thailand

Viet Nam

Regional Program


New Full Country Mapping - ongoing Albania

Iraq

Libyan A.J. -ong.

Moldova R.

Romania

Yemen

Oman - ong.


SADC Angola

Botswana

Lesotho

Malawi

Mozambique

Namibia

South Africa

Swaziland

Zambia

Zimbabwe

Regional Program – proposed new harmonisation project


Sahel Senegal

Gambia

Guinea

Bissau

Mauritania

Mali

Burkina

Faso

Niger

Chad

Regional Program – proposed new harmonisation project


Official Translation Afghanistan

Lebanon

New Zealand

South Africa


7

Translation in Progress Burkina FasoCambodiaCameroonYunnan(China)GhanaGuineaJava (Indonesia)Iran Isl.R.Lao P'sD.R.MalaysiaMaliMongoliaMyanmarNepalNigerNigeriaSenegalThailandTogoViet Nam


Partial Country Mapping Brazil

Bulgaria

Chile

Indonesia

Madagascar

Mexico

Tunisia


Harmonization/Validation framework

Deg

ree

of c

ompa

rabi

lity

and

harm

oniz

atio

n

Updated valid./change

Validation of new products

Design based sample of reference sites

In-s

itu

glob

al

Primary validation

LCCS-based interpretation Reference database:

statistically robust, consistent, harmonized, updated, and accessible

Updated interpretations

Comparative validation

Productsynergy

Existing globalLC products

Lege

nd t

rans

latio

ns

GLOBCOVER

• Global land cover using ENVISAT/MERIS (300 m resol.)• ESA, JRC, industry consortium (Medias France…) …• Link to international initiatives and mapping programs• Built upon previous experiences (GLC2000, LCCS)• Attempts to link with CORINE program

Global MERIS mosaic

Linking GLOBCOVER and CORINE?

• Interest by both ESA and EEA• Further involvements:

GOFC-GOLD GLOBCOVER consortiumGEOVILLE info systems (DUE Innovator: Cartochange )

• Possible avenues to link global and regional land cover mapping efforts

2005 land characterizationIntegration on data/product level?

• GOFC-GOLD has provided:CORINE – LCCS legend translation and evaluationDataset comparison and assessment of inconsistencies

Translating CORINE legend• LCCS is classification system / CORINE is legend• CORINE is internally consistent (for very most part)• Translation OK, but sometimes hard to find a common

ground with a consistent land cover description• Threshold differences:

– Many CLC vegetation classes contain no cover density information– Some qualitative (“dense”)– Some quantitative (forests, urban = 30%)

• Terminology:– Land cover and use – Processes: ‘Transitional woodland-shrub’ and ‘Construction sites’– Environmental events: ‘Burnt areas’– Cultural practices: ‘Permanently irrigated land’ and ‘Pastures’

8

Translating CORINE legend• Mixing of definition criteria:

– Vegetation physiognomy versus floristic terms:• Broad-leaved versus coniferous forests• Sclerophyllous vegetation

– 1st-level class ‘Agricultural areas’ contains level 2 subclasses ‘Arable land’ and ‘Permanent crops’

• Permanent crops also among ‘Arable land’ (inside of class 212 ‘Permanently irrigated land’)

• Mixed unit categories with complex land cover:– Heterogeneous agricultural areas– Moors and heathland– Transitional woodland-shrub

• Problem of some “synthetic“ internal consistency:– Extension: pastures up to 50% trees

Vision for integrated & operational observations

IN-SITU (+ IKONOS type)periodically (usually 1-10 yrs)

Detailed physionomyFloristics and species distributionCrop type and rotation etc.

Effort f

or frequent u

pdatehigh

Thematic detail

Spat

ial d

etai

l

high

highlow

LANDSAT/SPOT – typeinter-annual (1-5 yrs)

Vegetation physionomy

Land type/Phenology

MODIS/MERIS

(intra

-)annual

Translation conclusions• Translation as process of assessing inconsistencies

and compatibility• GLOBAL:

– CORINE level II shows fair amount of agreement for classes in global LC data

– Known inconsistencies• In situ - experiences from CORINE validation:

– Classes being most subjective LUCAS in situ data interpretations also highlighted in LCCS translation

– Subjectivity index:• agriculture with significant amount of natural vegetation (42.3 %)• transitional woodland, shrub (36.1 %)• complex cultivation patterns (34.0 %)

Translation conclusions

CORINE translation conclusions • Special attention should be paid to the less accurate

classes which means that there is a need for improvement of the definition of mapping rules

• Importance for the decomposition of CLC mixed classes into pure land cover classes

• Efforts in the context of GLOBCOVER

• GEO task AG-06-03 for global land cover towards “high resolution land cover change dataset”

Towards more standardized land cover observations

• Discussion/adoption of evolving standards:– e.g. common land cover “language” – LCCS

• Assessment of user requirements and development of specifications and international consensus

• Link with existing mapping programs:– National and international– Cooperation and willingness of actors – Assess interoperability and inconsistencies (legend harmonization)

• Link with in situ data and validation protocols• Possible tradeoffs:

– Between quality - application requirements – level of standardization

9

Summary

• Global activities:– Evolve LCCS and related resources and products– Implementation activities

• Evolving standards in other areas:– Land cover validation (CEOS protocols)– Land Use Classification System

• Invitation to community to participate –feedback to be expected

• North American Land Cover Summit (last week)

Web resources• GTOS:

– http://www.fao.org/gtos/• GLCN and LCCS:

– http:/www.glcn-lccs.org

• GOFC-GOLD: – http://www.fao.org/gtos/gofc-gold/

• GOFC-GOLD land cover project office:– http://www.gofc-gold.uni-jena.de/

• Land cover IT newsletter:– http://www.gofc-gold.uni-jena.de/sites/letter.html

Documents

Herold lccs intro - GOFC-GOLD Land Cover Project Office(Sokal, 1974). It is an abstract representation of the situation in the field using well-defined diagnostic criteria. Difference