Testing Ikonos and Landsat 7 ETM+ Potential for Stand-Level Forest Type Mapping by Soft Supervised Approaches

  • G. Chirici
  • P. Corona
  • M. Marchetti
  • D. Travaglini
Part of the Forestry Sciences book series (FOSC, volume 76)


Forest types can be adopted as a suitable reference for classifying survey units within multipurpose forest resources inventories, at the properly considered level. This kind of hierarchical classification approach integrates an ecologically meaningful per-habitat perspective with practical survey, planning and management requirements. Advanced remote sensing technologies can be valuable tools for a cost-effective implementation of such an approach. In the present paper, data from high (Landsat 7 ETM+) and very high (Ikonos) spatial resolution satellite sensors were tested to understand their potential contribution supporting stand-level forest type mapping under Mediterranean conditions. Ikonos and Landsat images were used to differentiate forest coverages by so called soft classifiers: fuzzy maximum likelihood procedure for Ikonos and subpixel unmixing procedure for Landsat. Fuzzy classified images are then contrasted with forest type map made by photointerpretation of Ikonos imagery. Perfomances are showed and drawbacks discussed.


Forest Type Land Cover Class Landsat Data Mixed Pixel Soft Classification 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barbati, A., Corona, P., De Natale, F., Marchetti, M., Tosi, V. 2000. Forest remote sensing in Italy in the framework of FRA2000. In Remote sensing and forest monitoring, pp. 284–299. Edited by Zawila-Niedzwiecki T., Brach M. EUR 19530, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  2. Barbati, A., Carraro, G., Corona, P., Del Favero, R., Dissegna, M., Lasen, C., Marchetti, M. 1999. Developing biodiversity assessment on a stand forest type management level in north-eastern Italy. Annali Accademia Italiana di Scienze Forestali 48: 157–176.Google Scholar
  3. Blasi, C., Capotorti, G., Filesi, L., Paolanti, M. 1999. Il ruolo della Riserva del Litorale nella pianificazione delle risorse naturalistiche dell’Area Metropolitana di Roma. Quaderni IAED 13: 20–23.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, J.B. 1996. In Introduction to Remote Sensing. 2nd ed. Taylor & Francis: London 622 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Chirici, G., Corona, P., Dellisanti, R., Di Giovine, M., Marchetti, M., Rossini, P., Travaglini, D. 2001. Confronto e integrazione di dati telerilevati IKONOS e LANDSAT7 ETM+ nella valutazione dei danni da incendio in ambiente mediterraneo: il caso della pineta di Castel Fusano, pp. 529–537. In Atti 5° Confrenza Nazionale ASITA: “La qualità nell’informazione geografica”, 9–12 ottobre, Rimini, I Volume.Google Scholar
  6. Congalton, R.G. 1991. A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data. Remote Sensing of Environment 37: 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Del Favero, R. 2000. Direttive per i piani di gestione delle proprietà forestali nella regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Regione Autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Direzione Regionale delle Foreste: Udine, Italy.Google Scholar
  8. Del Favero, R., Andrich, O., Carraro, G. 1998. Norme per la redazione dei piani di riordino forestale. Direzione Regionale delle Foreste e dell’Economia Montana, Regione del Veneto: Mestre, Italy.Google Scholar
  9. Eastman, J.R. 1999. Idrisi 32–Guide to GIS and image processing. Clark University: Worcester, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Faraklioti, M., Petrou, M. 2000. Recovering more classes than avilable bands for sets of mixed pixels in satellite images. Image and Vision Computing 18: 705–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foody, G.M. 1996. Fuzzy modelling of vegetation from remotely sensed imagery. Ecological Modelling 85: 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foody, G.M. 2000. Estimation of sub-pixel land cover composition in the presence of untrained classes. Computer & Geosciences 26: 469–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Franklin, S.E. 2001. Remote sensing for sustainable forest management. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, pp. 407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hector, F.L., Alan, R.E., Marvin, E.B. 2001. Estimation and mapping of forest stand density, volume, and cover type using the k-nearest neighbors method. Remote Sensing of Environment 77: 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hyyppä, J., Hyyppä, H., Inkinen, M., Engdahl, M., Linko, S., Zhu, Y. H. 2000. Accuracy comparison of various remote sensing data source in the retrieval of forest stand attributes. Forest Ecology and Management 128: 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Oleson, K.W., Sarlin, S., Garrison, J., Smith, S., Privette, J.L., Emery, W.J. 1995. Unmixing Multiple Land-Cover Type Reflectances from Coarse Spatial Resolution Satellite Data.Google Scholar
  17. Richards, J.A. 1993. Remote Sensing digital image analysis. An introduction. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Salvador, R., Pons, X 1998. On the applicability of Landsat TM images to Mediterranean forest inventories. Forest Ecology and Management 104: 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Settle, J.J., Drake, N.A. 1993. Linear mixing and the estimation of ground proportions. International Journal of Remote Sensing 14: 1159–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shimabukuro, Y.E., Smith, J.A. 1991. The least-squares mixing models to generate fraction images derived from remote sensing multispectral data. IEEE Transaction on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 29: 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sohn, Y., McCoy, R. M. 1997. Mapping desert shrub rangeland using spectra unmixing and modeling spectra mixture with TM data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 63: 707–716.Google Scholar
  22. Wang, F. 1990. Fuzzy Supervised Classification of Remote Sensing Images. IEEE Transaction on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 28: 194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Chirici
    • 1
  • P. Corona
    • 2
  • M. Marchetti
    • 3
  • D. Travaglini
    • 1
  1. 1.geoLAB — Laboratory of Geomatics, Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Ambientali ForestaliUniversità di FirenzeFirenzeItaly
  2. 2.sisFOR — Laboratory of Forest Inventory and Information Systems, Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Ambiente Forestale e delle sue RisorseUniversità della TusciaViterboItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Colture ArboreeUniversità di PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations