Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T08:00:10.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Research Article: A Comparison of Land Use and Land Cover Data in Watersheds of the Mid-Atlantic Region, USA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2009

Colleen Burch Johnson ,
George W. Weaver  and
David P. Larsen
Colleen Burch Johnson*
Affiliation:
OAO Corporation, Corvallis, Oregon
George W. Weaver
Affiliation:
OAO Corporation, Corvallis, Oregon
David P. Larsen
Affiliation:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon
*
OAO Fair Contract, Senior computer specialist/GIS analyst, c/o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, OR 97333; (fax) 541-754-4716; (email) cjohnson@mail.cor.epa.gov
Get access

Abstract

We compared different sources of land use/land cover data using the percentages of forest, agriculture, urban, and mined lands in approximately 400 watersheds of the U.S. Mid-Atlantic region. The primary data sources were digital Land Use/Land Cover maps (LULQ from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and data derived from Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery obtained by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLQ Consortium and interpreted at the Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center (version 2). The latter is referred to as MRLC-TM. We also used aerial photographs (AP), topographic maps, field comments, and qualitative watershed assessments as ancillary information. The LULC and MRLC-TM data differed in age, source material, classifications, format (vector vs. raster), and resolution. However, Pearson correlation coefficients between LULC and MRLC-TM were high for broad (composite) forest, agriculture, and urban categories (0.95, 0.96, and 0.92, respectively). Correspondence varied by forest type and by percentage. Where deciduous forests comprised less than 50% of the watershed, MRLCTM data depicted greater amounts than did LULC, while the reverse was true where deciduous forests were dominant Agriculture and forest percentages were inversely related in all cases. Urban land percentages were consistently lower for MRLC-TM than LULC. Relatively few watersheds contained strip mines, quarries, or gravel pits and the MRLC-TM vs. LULC relationship was weak (correlation coefficient = 0.41). Detection of reclaimed mines seemed problematic for LULC and MRLC-TM, but these were readily discerned on AP. A single “snapshot” of land cover data will inadequately characterize a watershed if rapid landscape changes occur (e.g., forest clearcuts). Each data type has strengths and weaknesses, depending on a study's objectives, but individual limitations may be alleviated by using multiple data sources.

Type
Features & Reviews
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , December 1999 , pp. 209 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J.R., Hardy, E.E., Roach, J.T., and Witmer, R.E.. 1976. A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964. 28 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryce, S.A. 1997. Unpublished data. Biogeographer. EPA contract 68-C6-0005, Dynamac Corporation, Corvallis, OR.Google Scholar
Bureau of the Census. 1991. Census of Population and Housing, 1990, Public Law 94–171 Data. Summary Tape File 1 on CD-ROM, produced and distributed by The Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Bureau of the Census. 1992. TIGER/Line Files, Census of Population and Housing, 1990, Public Law 94–171 Data. Summary Tape File 1 on CD-ROM, produced and distributed by The Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
EROS Data Center. 1996. EPA Region III Land Cover Data Set, Version 2. Computer text File.Google Scholar
EROS Data Center. 1997. EPA Region III Land Cover Data Set Version 3alb. Computer Text File.Google Scholar
Field, C.K., Siver, P.A., and Lott, A. 1996. Estimating the Effects of Changing Land Use Patterns in Connecticut Lakes. Journal of Environmental Quality 25:325–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, R.H., Warren, M.V., and Barten, P.K.. 1995. Comparative Evaluation of Land Cover Data Sources for Erosion Prediction. Water Resources Bulletin 31(6): 991–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haack, B., Bryant, N., and Adams, S.. 1987. Assessment of Landsat MSS and TM Data for Urban and Near-Urban Land Cover Digital Classification. Remote Sensing of Environment 21(2): 210–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, J.S., Benfield, E.F., Bolstad, P.V., Helfman, G.S., and Jones, E.B.D. III. 1998. Stream Biodiversity: The Ghost of Land Use Past. Ecology 95: 14843–14847.Google ScholarPubMed
Harris, P.M., Kim, K.H., Ventura, S.J., Thum, P.G., and Prey, J.. 1991. Linking a GIS with an Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution Model Proceedings of the GIS/LIS 1991 Conference of American Society for Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing, Bethesda, MD, pp. 606–616.Google Scholar
Kelly, P.M., and White, J.M.. 1993. Preprocessing Remotely Sensed Data for Efficient Analysis and Classification. Applications of Artificial Intelligence 1993; Knowledge-Based Systems in Aerospace Land Industry. Proceedings of SPIE, pp. 24–30.Google Scholar
Khorram, S.J., Brockhaus, A., and Cheshire, H.M.. 1985. Comparison of Landsat MSS and TM Data for Urban Classification. Digest of International Geoscience & Remote Sensing Symposium, Amherst, MA, p. 898.Google Scholar
Khorram, S.J., Brockhaus, A., and Cheshire, H.M.. 1987. Comparison of Landsat MSS and TM Data for Urban Land-Use Classification. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing. GE-25(2): 238–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loveland, T.R., and Shaw, D.M.. 1996. Multi-Resolution Land Characterization: Building Collaborative Partnerships. In Gap Analysis: A Landscape Approach to Biodiversity Planning, Scott, I. M., Tear, T., and Davis, F., eds. Proceedings of the ASPRS/GAP symposium, Charlotte, NC.National Biological Service, Moscow, ID, pp. 83–89.Google Scholar
Mata, Larry. 1997. Personal communication 21 March. Deputy Program Manager for Remote Sensing, Lockheed-Martin, Las Vegas, NV. 1994, EMAP Watershed Stressor Mapping. EPA/EPIC Project 95403. Lockheed Environmental Services.Google Scholar
McKibben, B. 1996. What good is a forest? Audubon 98(3): 54–63.Google Scholar
Mladenoff, D.J., Niemi, G.J., and White, M.A.. 1997. Effects of Changing Landscape Pattern and USGS Land Cover Data Variability on Ecoregion Discrimination across a Forest-Agriculture Gradient. Landscape Ecology 12(6): 379–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP). 1993. New York City's 1993 Long-Term Watershed Protection and Filtration Avoidance Program, vol. 1.Google Scholar
Paulsen, S.G., Larsen, D.P., Kaufmann, P.R., Whittier, T.R., Baker, J.R., Peck, D.V., McGue, J., Hughes, R.M., McMullen, D., Stevens, D.L. Jr., Stoddard, J.L., Lazorchak, J., Kinney, W., Selle, A.R., Hjort, R., Overton, W.S., Pollard, J., Heggem, D., Collins, G., Morrison, M., Johnson, C. Burch, Thiele, S., Tallent-Halsell, N., Peres, K., Christie, S.J., and Mello, J.. 1991. EAMP-Surface Waters Monitoring and Research Strategy-Fiscal Year 1991. EPA/600/3–91/022, PB91-168518, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.Google Scholar
Riitters, K.H., O'Neill, R.V., Hunsaker, C.T., Wickham, J.D., Yankee, D.H., Timmins, S. P., Jones, K.B., and Jackson, B. L.. 1995. A Factor Analysis of Landscape Pattern and Structure Metrics. Landscape Ecology 10(1): 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uram, R.J. 1994. Remarks of Robert J. Uram, Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, to the Appalachian Rivers and Watershed Symposium, 3 June. Morgantown, WV.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Municipal Pollution Control (WH-595). 1987. Municipal Facility/Waterbody Computerized Information: An Introduction. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Information Resources Management (SDC-0055-065-JB-5057). 1996. Locational Data Improvement Project Plan. EPA Systems Development Center (a contractor operated facility), Science Applications International Corporation. Contract No. 68-W1-0055, Delivery Order No. 065. Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
U.S. Geological Survey. 1990. Land Use and Land Cover Digital Data from 1:250,000-and 1:100,000-Scale Maps. Data Users Guide 4. Reston, VA, 33 pp.Google Scholar
Vogelmann, J.E., Sohl, T., and Howard, S.M.. 1998. Regional Characterization of Land Cover Using Multiple Sources of Data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 64(1): 45–57.Google Scholar
Vogelmann, J.E. 1999. Personal communication, June 9. Principal Scientist. EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.Google Scholar
Wickham, J.D. and Norton, D.J.. 1994. Mapping and Analyzing Landscape Patterns. Landscape Ecology 9(1): 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar