 |
| Final LULC Classification Map for Pascagoula, Mississippi |
This week’s lab was a whirlwind of both excitement and frustration! We learned about the concepts of Land Use Land Cover (LULC) classifications, which are important tools for understanding areas that have been photographed. Land use and land cover maps help governments, scientists, and others understand the biological and structural composition of areas on Earth. Remote sensing allows us to collect data in remote and hard-to-access locations while being unobtrusive to the geographic phenomena being observed. Land cover describes the biophysical features of the Earth’s surface, while land use refers to how humans shape the land for their purposes. There are multiple levels of land cover classifications, denoted by numerical values; the higher the numerical value, the more detailed and specific the use or cover. In this lab, we focused on the broader classifications 1 and 2. For example, a level 1 classification would be "water," however, this category is further subdivided into “rivers and canals,” lakes, etc. If we were to go into further detailed classifications, we would differentiate between trophic and eutrophic lakes, for example. As you can see, these classifications are essential for understanding different geographic areas.
To classify these areas, we created a polygon feature class for the LULC classifications, drew the polygons over the areas deemed a certain classification, and labeled them accordingly in the attribute table. An important distinction to make is between the minimum mapping unit (MMU) and map scale, which are closely related. The MMU is the smallest feature that can be reliably seen on a map, while scale dictates that minimum mapping unit by determining the ratio of a distance on a map to the distance on the ground. The map scale used in this lab was 1:5,000. This scale was large enough to create the polygons efficiently but small enough to distinguish features on the map, such as shapes, textures, and tones. Creating these polygons was time-consuming and extensive; one has to pay attention to detail. However, ArcGIS Pro's features, like autocomplete polygons and edge/vector snapping, were key in ensuring that the polygons were neat and fit together properly. In a way, we created a giant jigsaw puzzle that represented the different land use classifications, up to level 2, for Pascagoula, Mississippi. Once completed, we ensured that we used "unique values" in the symbology for the polygons to make different land use classes distinct from one another. I ensured that the general level 1 classifications had similar gradient values for their corresponding level 2 classifications to make it easy for the reader to distinguish.
Ultimately, we must double-check our work whenever we present results. The same applies to remote sensing; we want people to be confident in our findings, and therefore we validate. There are three types of accuracy assessments used in remote sensing: overall accuracy, producer's accuracy, and user's accuracy. User's accuracy takes the user's perspective to determine the probability that a classification on the map represents what is on the ground. Producer's accuracy assesses how correctly the mapmaker classified something on the ground. For this lab, we used "overall accuracy." This is the simplest of the methods, where the number of correctly classified sites is divided by the total number of items and multiplied by 100 to express it as a percentage. This method is not without some drawbacks, including not accounting for accuracy among individual classes. This can be an issue if a single class is dominant in an area compared to other classes, which might have occurred during this lab.
Additionally, there are different sampling methods. The selected method was random sampling. This was because it provided an easy, non-biased sample selection for validation, making the process easier, more valid, and offering broader representation of the extent. Since we cannot collect in situ data, we used Google Maps, specifically the satellite view and street mode, to validate our data most closely. We created a feature class for truthing. Using the random sampling mentioned above, we went to the points on Google Maps that corresponded to our sampling locations. A drawback to this method was that there were a large number of points in land classes 51 and 61. Although these were valid sampling sites, they were the simplest areas to classify due to clear distinctions based on color, shape, size, and texture. I believe this might have skewed the accuracy of my results. Had more random sites been selected in the urban built-up area, I believe the accuracy might have been lower.
The calculated overall accuracy percentage is 26 correctly classified sites out of 30 total sites, which equals 86%.