ENDAU ROMPIN NATIONAL PARK LAND USE LAND COVER CHANGES USING REMOTE SENSING APPROACH

Noordyana Hassan; Atif Abdullah

doi:10.33579/krvtk.v8i2.4662

Noordyana Hassan UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
Atif Abdullah UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33579/krvtk.v8i2.4662

Keywords: land use and land cover change, protected area, remote sensing, maximum likelihood, random forest.

Abstract

Identification of land use and land cover in forest areas can be challenging due to various land cover types within a forest can be similar, making it hard to differentiate between them using remote sensing techniques. We hypothesized that random forest classification (RF) would outperform maximum likelihood (ML) in the classification of land use and land cover (LULC) in forest areas compared to maximum likelihood (ML). To verify this hypothesis, we conducted a comparative analysis, assessing the accuracy of RF and ML in the classification of LULC within the Taman Negara Endau-Rompin (TNER) region, utilizing Landsat 8 imagery. An accuracy assessment demonstrated that the RF classifier (overall accuracy: 87% kappa coefficient: 0.778, performed better than ML classifying land cover (overall accuracy 77% with kappa accuracy: 0.473) Our results suggest that both methods are able to classify land cover of forest area, but RF is more accurate than ML. From the classification result of RF classification, we calculate the land cover changes of TNER from 2013 to 2022. results showed that there are small changes of forest area were found in TNER. The total forest area decreases from 163250.089 ha to 144765.46 ha during 2013 to 2022. This finding suggests that the effectiveness of the protected area in mitigating deforestation in its surrounding regions may be somewhat limited, as indicated by the observed minor changes.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Y. Sin Foo and S. Numata, “Deforestation and forest fragmentation in and around Endau-Rompin National Park, Peninsular Malaysia,” Tropics, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 23–37, 2019, doi: 10.3759/tropics.ms18-16.

D. B. Kintz, K. R. Young, and K. A. Crews-Meyer, “Implications of Land Use/Land Cover Change in the Buffer Zone of a National Park in the Tropical Andes,” Environ. Manage., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 238–252, 2006, doi: 10.1007/s00267-005-0147-9.

R. A. Schowengerdt, “Remote Sensing: Models and Methods for Image Processing,” Remote Sens., p. 560, 2007, doi: 10.1016/B978-012369407-2/50014-0.

W. Cui, Z. Jia, X. Qin, J. Yang, and Y. Hu, “Multi-temporal satellite images change detection algorithm based on NSCT,” Procedia Eng., vol. 24, pp. 252–256, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2636.

G. Foody, “Hard and soft classifications by a neural network with a non-exhaustively defined set of classes,” no. March 2015, pp. 37–41, 2002, doi: 10.1080/01431160110109570.

M. E. Fagan et al., “Mapping Species Composition of Forests and Tree Plantations in Northeastern Costa Rica with an Integration of Hyperspectral and Multitemporal Landsat Imagery,” Remote Sensing, vol. 7, no. 5. pp. 5660–5696, 2015, doi: 10.3390/rs70505660.

Y. Liu, W. Gong, X. Hu, and J. Gong, “Forest Type Identification with Random Forest Using Sentinel-1A, Sentinel-2A, Multi-Temporal Landsat-8 and DEM Data,” Remote Sensing, vol. 10, no. 6. 2018, doi: 10.3390/rs10060946.

R. Cutler et al., “Random Forests for Classification in Ecology,” Ecology, vol. 88(11), no. 11, pp. 2783–2792, 2007.

L. Guo, N. Chehata, C. Mallet, and S. Boukir, “Relevance of airborne lidar and multispectral image data for urban scene classification using Random Forests,” ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 56–66, 2011, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2010.08.007.

T. G. Dietterich, “An Experimental Comparison of Three Methods for Constructing Ensembles of Decision Trees: Bagging, Boosting, and Randomization,” Mach. Learn., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 139–157, 2000, doi: 10.1023/A:1007607513941.

L. Breiman, “Random Forests,” Mach. Learn., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 5–32, 2001, doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324.

R. G. Congalton and K. Green, Assessing the Accuracy of Remotely Sensed Data: Principles and Practices. 2005.

G. M. Foody, “Explaining the unsuitability of the kappa coefficient in the assessment and comparison of the accuracy of thematic maps obtained by image classification,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 239, p. 111630, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111630.

S. V Stehman and G. M. Foody, “Key issues in rigorous accuracy assessment of land cover products,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 231, p. 111199, 2019, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.05.018.

F. Ait El Haj, L. Ouadif, and A. Akhssas, “Monitoring Land Use and Land Cover Change Using Remote Sensing Techniques and the Precipitation-Vegetation Indexes in Morocco,” Ecol. Eng. Environ. Technol., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 272–286, 2023, doi: 10.12912/27197050/154937.

A. Balha and C. K. Singh, “Comparison of Maximum Likelihood, Neural Networks, and Random Forests Algorithms in Classifying Urban Landscape,” in Application of Remote Sensing and GIS in Natural Resources and Built Infrastructure Management, V. P. Singh, S. Yadav, K. K. Yadav, G. A. Corzo Perez, F. Muñoz-Arriola, and R. N. Yadava, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 29–38.