Journal of Geographical Sciences >
Land use/land cover classification and its change detection using multi-temporal MODIS NDVI data
Received date: 2014-11-08
Accepted date: 2015-06-10
Online published: 2015-12-31
Copyright
Detailed analysis of Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) using remote sensing data in complex irrigated basins provides complete profile for better water resource management and planning. Using remote sensing data, this study provides detailed land use maps of the Lower Chenab Canal irrigated region of Pakistan from 2005 to 2012 for LULC change detection. Major crop types are demarcated by identifying temporal profiles of NDVI using MODIS 250 m × 250 m spatial resolution data. Wheat and rice are found to be major crops in rabi and kharif seasons, respectively. Accuracy assessment of prepared maps is performed using three different techniques: error matrix approach, comparison with ancillary data and with previous study. Producer and user accuracies for each class are calculated along with kappa coefficients (K). The average overall accuracies for rabi and kharif are 82.83% and 78.21%, respectively. Producer and user accuracies for individual class range respectively between 72.5% to 77% and 70.1% to 84.3% for rabi and 76.6% to 90.2% and 72% to 84.7% for kharif. The K values range between 0.66 to 0.77 for rabi with average of 0.73, and from 0.69 to 0.74 with average of 0.71 for kharif. LULC change detection indicates that wheat and rice have less volatility of change in comparison with both rabi and kharif fodders. Transformation between cotton and rice is less common due to their completely different cropping conditions. Results of spatial and temporal LULC distributions and their seasonal variations provide useful insights for establishing realistic LULC scenarios for hydrological studies.
M USMAN , R LIEDL , M A SHAHID , A ABBAS . Land use/land cover classification and its change detection using multi-temporal MODIS NDVI data[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2015 , 25(12) : 1479 -1506 . DOI: 10.1007/s11442-015-1247-y
Table 1 Summary of selected regional to country level Land Use/Land Cover datasets |
Sr. No | Name of the dataset | Data description | Source | Coverage/ Spatial scale |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | FAOSTAT | Agricultural lands | http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E | Country level |
2 | FORIS | Inland waters, forest and woodland | http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/fra/en | Country level |
3 | GLCC | Built-up areas, water resources, barren or sparsely vegetated areas, grasslands, open shrub lands, forests | http://edc2.usgs.gov/glcc/glcc.php | 1 km × I km |
4 | GLCC-2000 | Forests, cultivated and managed areas, bare areas, water bodies, urban and built-up areas | http://forobs.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ | 1 km × 1 km |
5 | MOD12Q1 Land Cover and Land Cover Dynamics products | Land cover change vectors | http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/about/ | 500 m × 500 m |
6 | GISS | Forests, cultivated land and grasslands | http://data.giss.nasa.gov/landuse/ | 1o (≈ 111 km) |
7 | GLCF | Land tree cover, forest cover change, Geo cover | http://glcfapp.glcf.umd.edu:8080/esdi/index.jsp | 500 m × 500 m |
8 | PELCOM | Coniferous, deciduous and mixed forests, grassland, rainfed and irrigated arable land, perennial crops, shrub, barren land, ice and snow cover, wetlands, inland waters, sea and urban area | www.geo-informatie.nl/projects/pelcom/public/index.htm | 1 km × 1 km (Covers only European countries) |
9 | Global land cover map | Cultivated areas, built-up lands, forests, barren lands, etc. | Yu et al. (2013); Gong et al. (2013) | 30 m × 30 m |
Figure 1 Map of LCC (East), Rechna Doab, Punjab, Pakistan and ground truthing points |
Figure 2 Crop calendar adopted in LCC |
Figure 3 Flow diagram showing methodological and analytical steps |
Figure 4 Highlights of the field visit in the study area |
Figure 5 Mean NDVI temporal trends for major crops: rabi 2005-06 to rabi 2011-12 |
Table 2 Summary of producer’s and user’s accuracies for different classes of rabi and kharif seasons |
Year & Accuracy | Season & Class | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Producer’s accuracy (%) | User’s accuracy (%) | ||||||||||||||||
2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | Avg. | 2005-06 | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | Avg. | ||
Rabi | 1 | 75 | 83.3 | 77.8 | 71.4 | 81.8 | 75 | 75 | 77.0 | 64.3 | 62.5 | 77.8 | 62.5 | 81.8 | 66.7 | 75.0 | 70.1 |
2 | 81.3 | 86.4 | 85.8 | 90.5 | 90.4 | 91.3 | 89.5 | 87.9 | 77.4 | 82.1 | 83.7 | 83.5 | 91.2 | 84.1 | 88.0 | 84.3 | |
3 | 70.8 | 71.1 | 81.3 | 82.5 | 71.7 | 76.0 | 86.2 | 77.1 | 75.6 | 76.2 | 77.6 | 81.3 | 73.3 | 80.9 | 82.4 | 78.2 | |
4 | 71.4 | 70.8 | 73.1 | 72.0 | 78.2 | 69.6 | 72.3 | 72.5 | 76.4 | 78.0 | 80.3 | 84.4 | 75.4 | 80.0 | 78.3 | 79.0 | |
Kharif | 5 | 88.0 | 94.7 | 90.0 | 86.4 | 88.2 | 94.1 | 90.2 | 68.8 | 66.7 | 69.2 | 76.0 | 71.4 | 80.0 | 72.0 | ||
6 | 75.6 | 93.0 | 74.5 | 74.5 | 71.4 | 74.0 | 77.2 | 70.8 | 72.7 | 74.5 | 76.1 | 83.3 | 72.5 | 75.0 | |||
7 | 72.2 | 72.7 | 83.3 | 84.9 | 84.8 | 75.7 | 79.0 | 76.5 | 78.4 | 74.1 | 71.4 | 77.8 | 77.9 | 76.0 | |||
8 | 76.7 | 74.5 | 75.2 | 73.1 | 75.0 | 86.0 | 76.8 | 81.2 | 90.5 | 86.4 | 82.9 | 80.5 | 87.1 | 84.7 | |||
9 | 73.7 | 78.1 | 77.8 | 73.0 | 81.3 | 75.8 | 76.6 | 77.8 | 73.5 | 75.7 | 75.0 | 74.3 | 78.1 | 75.7 |
*Numbers in this column represent as follows: 1&5=Residential/Fallow/Barren; 2=Wheat; 3&7=Sugarcane; 4&8= Fodder; 6=Cotton; 9=Rice |
Table 3 Summary of seasonal accuracies and K (Kappa coefficient) |
Sr. No. | Year | Rabi Season | Kharif Season | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Avg. Prod. Accur. | Avg. User Accur. | Overall accuracy | K | Avg. Prod. Accur. | Avg. User Accur. | Overall accuracy | K | ||
1 | 2005-06 | 74.7 | 73.4 | 87.4 | 0.77 | ||||
2 | 2006-07 | 77.9 | 74.7 | 79.5 | 0.66 | 77.2 | 75.0 | 76.2 | 0.69 |
3 | 2007-08 | 80.6 | 80.4 | 83.6 | 0.74 | 82.6 | 76.4 | 79.3 | 0.73 |
4 | 2008-09 | 78.0 | 77.9 | 81.9 | 0.71 | 80.2 | 76.0 | 78.1 | 0.71 |
5 | 2009-10 | 79.5 | 79.9 | 81.2 | 0.71 | 78.4 | 76.3 | 77.0 | 0.70 |
6 | 2010-11 | 80.8 | 80.9 | 83.8 | 0.75 | 80.2 | 77.5 | 78.6 | 0.72 |
7 | 2011-12 | 79.0 | 77.9 | 82.5 | 0.74 | 81.1 | 79.1 | 80.1 | 0.74 |
Average | 78.6 | 77.9 | 82.8 | 0.73 | 79.9 | 76.7 | 78.2 | 0.71 |
Table 4 Comparison of accuracy values and K from earlier studies with present study |
Sr. No. | Classification accuracy | K | Type of data | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 91.5 | 0.89 | RADARSAT | Shao et al., 2001 |
2 | 77.2 | 0.736 | MODIS | Giri et al., 2005 |
3 | 84.4-87.1 | 82.3-83.6 | Landsat MSS. ETM+ | Reis, 2008 |
4 | 77 | 0.73 | SPOT | Cheema et al., 2010 |
5 | 94 | 0.93 | SPOT | Thi et al., 2012 |
6 | 78-99 | - | Landsat | Ding et al., 2013 |
7 | 84-93 | 0.78-0.92 | Landsat | Lu et al., 2013 |
8 | 78.2-82.8 | 0.71-0.73 | MODIS | Present study |
Figure 6 Relationship between reported cropped-area fraction and remotely-sensed cropped-areas fraction for wheat, cotton, sugarcane and rice crops (1:1 Plot) |
Figure 7 Comparison of crop area estimates with Cheema and Bastiannssen (2010) |
Table 5 Summary of soil texture, elevation and slope for each LULC |
Class Name | Texture Class | Texture | Elevation (m) | Slope (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Wheat | Moderately fine/ Moderately-coarse | Sandy-clay-loam, clay-loam, silty-clay-loam/sandy-loam, fine sandy-loam | 187 | 1.98 |
Rice | Moderately-fine | Sandy-clay-loam, clay-loam, silty-clay-loam | 192 | 2.40 |
Cotton | Moderately-coarse | Sandy-loam, fine sandy-loam | 176 | 1.14 |
Sugarcane | Moderately fine/Moderately-coarse | Sandy-clay-loam, clay-loam, silty-clay-loam/sandy-loam, fine sandy-loam | 169 | 2.00 |
Rabi fodder | Moderately-coarse | Sandy-loam, fine sandy-loam | 175 | 1.41 |
Kharif fodder | Moderately-coarse | Sandy-loam, fine sandy-loam | 179 | 1.91 |
Figure 8 Relationship of NDVI to temperature and precipitation for wheat, cotton, sugarcane and rice |
Table 6 Areal distribution of LULC classes during rabi seasons in LCC |
Table 7 Areal distribution of LULC classes during kharif seasons in LCC |
Table 8 Pixel-by-pixel LULC change detection between maximum and minimum cropped areas for rabi seasons |
Table 9 Pixel-by-pixel LULC change detection between maximum and minimum cropped areas for kharif seasons |
Crop class | Change matrix for area (ha) | Spatial change detection | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rice | 2008 | ||||||||
2009 | Fallow* | Cotton | S. cane | K. fodder | Rice | Total | |||
Fallow* | 18388 | 0 | 0 | 16913 | 1118 | ||||
Cotton | 0 | 75533 | 8266 | 32982 | 184 | ||||
S. cane | 0 | 23966 | 61450 | 928 | 821 | ||||
K. fodder | 3937 | 17799 | 672 | 275465 | 25388 | ||||
Rice | 131 | 13726 | 35831 | 88378 | 224125 | 362218 | |||
Total | 251654 | ||||||||
Cotton | 2007 | ||||||||
2011 | Fallow | Cotton | S. cane | K. fodder | Rice | Total | |||
Fallow | 12566 | 0 | 0 | 4395 | 190 | ||||
Cotton | 12 | 8623 | 81034 | 143959 | 25881 | 259529 | |||
S. cane | 0 | 23407 | 102895 | 7993 | 3485 | ||||
K. fodder | 8480 | 59 | 1701 | 154152 | 5156 | ||||
Rice | 1392 | 44662 | 12435 | 65239 | 218285 | ||||
Total | 76758 | ||||||||
Kharif fodder | 2011 | ||||||||
2008 | Fallow | Cotton | S. cane | K. fodder | Rice | Total | |||
Fallow | 14088 | 0 | 0 | 7826 | 541 | ||||
Cotton | 0 | 83704 | 40660 | 1290 | 4775 | ||||
S. cane | 0 | 13006 | 81129 | 36 | 12049 | ||||
K. fodder | 2866 | 154378 | 10104 | 152249 | 95069 | 414699 | |||
Rice | 196 | 8421 | 5888 | 7553 | 229578 | ||||
Total | 169562 |
* Fallow/Residential/Barren |
Table 10 Irrigation-subdivision wise seasonal average evapotranspiration (mm) and percent of total cultivated area for each LULC class in the study area |
LULC | Sagar | Chuharkana | Paccadala | Mohlan | Buchiana | Tandla | Tarkhani | Kanya | Bhagat | Sultanpur | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cotton | Evapotranspiration | 563.4 | 537.9 | 550.9 | 557.4 | 579.3 | 545.1 | 525.0 | 520.6 | 518.4 | 539.8 |
% area | 1.1 | 2.9 | 5.8 | 11.8 | 15.4 | 21.9 | 13.7 | 14.1 | 9.6 | 3.6 | |
Sugarcane | Evapotranspiration | 602.1 | 578.4 | 576.1 | 587.5 | 595.0 | 595.1 | 571.9 | 560.8 | 583.5 | 595.3 |
% area | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.61 | 7.35 | 7.44 | 19.17 | 19.26 | 16.40 | 8.16 | 21.48 | |
Kharif fodder | Evapotranspiration | 529.3 | 525.6 | 513.1 | 534.3 | 544.7 | 516.5 | 482.9 | 505.1 | 460.7 | 530.5 |
% area | 4.1 | 4.6 | 16.7 | 9.9 | 16.6 | 10.2 | 11.7 | 6.9 | 17.8 | 1.6 | |
Rice | Evapotranspiration | 589.9 | 581.4 | 576.9 | 604.4 | 619.4 | 604.6 | 555.6 | 553.1 | 565.6 | 600.1 |
% area | 30.5 | 24.4 | 9.6 | 16.2 | 0.6 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 7.5 | 5.4 |
Table 11 LULC change scenarios and water utilization (ha-m) |
Sr. No. | Scenario | Type | Sagar | Chuharkana | Paccadala | Mohlan | Buchiana | Tandla | Tarkhani | Kanya | Bhagat | Sultanpur | CWU* |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 25% decrease in Rice area by replacing it with K.fodder & S.cane | Type-I | 100% Rice to K.fodder | 50% each to K.fodder & S.cane (600.7) | 100% Rice to K.fodder (37.5) | 100% Rice to S.cane (15.9) | 50% Rice each to K.fodder & S.cane | 4452.4 | |||||
1579.6 | 1163.8 | 524.3 | 47.1 | 32.7 | 280.2 | 170.5 | |||||||
2 | 25% decrease in Rice area by its major conversion to K.fodder | 100% Rice to K.fodder | 100% to S.cane (15.9) | 100% Rice to K.fodder | 4402.7 | ||||||||
1579.6 | 1163.8 | 524.3 | 484.2 | 37.5 | 60.7 | 39.1 | 337.8 | 159.7 | |||||
3 | 25% decrease in Rice area by replacing it with S.cane | 100% Rice to K.fodder | 100% to S.cane (116.4) | 100% to K.fodder (37.5) | 100% to S.cane (15.9) | 100% Rice to S.cane | 3370.8 | ||||||
1579.6 | 1163.8 | 524.3 | -13.6 | -6.4 | -57.6 | 10.8 | |||||||
4 | 50% decrease in Cotton area by its conversion to S.cane & K.fodder | 100% Cotton to S.cane | 50% Cotton each to K.fodder and S.cane | 100% to K.fodder (722.8) | 100% to S.cane (-263.0) | -139.7 | |||||||
-56.4 | -151.7 | 47.9 | -53.8 | 189.0 | -305.1 | -43.5 | -225.9 | ||||||
5 | 50% decrease in Cotton area by its major conversion to S.cane | Type II | 100% Cotton to S.cane | 100% to K.fodder (722.8) | 100% to S.cane (-263.0) | -1729.7 | |||||||
-56.4 | -151.7 | -94.9 | -230.9 | -157.6 | -711.6 | -418.2 | -368.3 | ||||||
6 | 50% decrease in Cotton area by its major conversion to K.fodder | Type-I | 100% to S.cane | 100% Cotton to K.fodder | 100% to S.cane (-263.0) | 1841.8 | |||||||
-56.4 | -151.7 | 142.8 | 177.1 | 346.6 | 406.4 | 374.7 | 142.4 | 722.8 | |||||
7 | 50% increase in K.fodder by replacing Rice, Cotton and S.cane | 100% K.fodder from Rice | 50% each from Rice and Cotton (718.3) | 50% K.fodder each from S.cane and Cotton | 50% each from Cotton & Rice (1225.7) | 50% K.fodder each from Cotton and Rice 55.2 | 4662.4 | ||||||
208.3 | 217.5 | 320.6 | 595.1 | 462.1 | 650.5 | 209.2 | |||||||
8 | 50% increase in K.fodder by major replacement of S.cane & Cotton | 100% K.fodder from Rice | 100% K.fodder from S.cane | 100% from K. fodder Cotton | 2838.6 | ||||||||
208.3 | 217.5 | 450.9 | 223.6 | 352.7 | 338.9 | 441.7 | 163.6 | 435.0 | 6.5 | ||||
9 | 50% increase in K.fodder area by major replacement of Cotton & Rice | 100% K.fodder from Rice | 100% K.fodder from Cotton | 100% from Rice (790.7) | 100% from Rice (48.6) | 2249.6 | |||||||
208.3 | 217.5 | 267.4 | 97.0 | 242.4 | 123.2 | 208.7 | 45.6 |
(to be continued on the next page) |
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
|
13 |
|
14 |
|
15 |
|
16 |
|
17 |
|
18 |
Giri, Chandra, Jenkins C, 2005. Land cover mapping of greater Mesoamerica using MODIS data. Remote Sensing, 31(4): 274-282. Retrieved at .
|
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
|
35 |
|
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
|
42 |
|
43 |
|
44 |
|
45 |
|
46 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
|
49 |
|
50 |
|
51 |
|
52 |
|
53 |
|
54 |
|
55 |
|
56 |
|
57 |
|
58 |
|
59 |
|
60 |
|
61 |
|
62 |
|
/
〈 | 〉 |