LAND USE / LAND COVER CHANGE

DETECTION USING REMOTE SENSING

TECHNIQUES
(As a Case Study of Dehradun City Area from Year 2000 to 2006)
Supervised By
Mrs. MINAKSHI KUMAR
Scientist / Engineer SE
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Division
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF REMOTE SENSING

A. HARINDA LAKMAL SRI LANKA

A.M.K.B. ABEYSINGHE SRI LANKA
FAUSTO LAZARO ACOSTA AGUILA CUBA
JITENDRA KUMAR FIJI ISLANDS
MANOJ PRAKASH SINGH NEPAL

INTRODUCTION
LAND USE
Changes on the earths surface features brought about by the
intense human activities like agriculture, urbanization,
industrialization, hydroelectric and thermal power generation,
transportation network activity etc.

LAND COVER
Earths surface features which are not affected by
human activities. However, the land cover does change
by natural force like those associated with geological
activities, weather and climate.

Objective and Scopes

To determine the land use / land cover
changes during the specific period, in a
particular case study area by using
remote sensing techniques.
Scopes
Identify the case study area and satellite data
availability.
Classified each satellite data using Hybrid
Classification.
Identify land use/ land cover changes with respect to
the Level I Classification scheme.
Quantify the changes with in the individual classes.

OVERALL METHODOLOGY
IDENTIFICATION OF CASE STUDY
AREA & DATA AVAILABILITY

IMAGE CO-REGISTRATION &

RESAMPLING

HYBRID CLASSIFICATION,
ACCURACY ASSESSMENT &
CHANGE DETECTION

EXPERT CLASSIFICATION, CHANGE

DETECTION & QUANTIFCATION

STUDY AREA
Our study area in DehraDun lies between
33361281.41 N to 3550992.91 N and
211069.82 E to 222726.32 E coordinates
with respect to projection of zone no. 44N
UTM on WGS 84 datum.
It covers approximately 120 Sq. Km. of
DehraDun city area.
DehraDun is the capital of Uttarakhand
State, which is northern west part of India.

DATA AVAILABILITY
Satellite Data
Criteria

Landsat-7
Dataset

IRS 1C/1D
Dataset

Sensor

MSS

LISS

Year of captured

2000

2006

Spectral Resolution

Spatial Resolution

28.5

23.5

Radiometric
Resolution

Projection System

UTM,44N,WGS8
4

Not available

Capacity

1.01MB

0.6MB

DATA AVAILABILITY
Topographic sheets
53 F/15 and 53 J/3
Scale: 1:50,000
Software:
ERDAS EMAGINE Version 9.1

Satellite Data Preparation

Land sat-7 2000 was consisted with isolated 7
bands in geo TIFF format. Select Band No. 1-5
and 7. All 6 bands were staked into 1 image
and subset was used in this study.
IRS 1C/1D 2006 data consists of 4 band
image, which was co-registered with respect to
Landsat-7 image and relevant subset was used
in this study.

Study Area in LandSat 7 image

Study Area in IRS 1C, 1D image

Image Co-Registration and Resample

Firstly we selected 1st order polynomial
as a co-registration function according
to the same coordinate as Landsat 7
image, zone UTM 44N and WGS 84
Ellipsoid.
Then we select prominent control points
in LISS III 2006 IRS 1C/1D data with
respect to the reference points in
LandSat 7 - 2000 data.

Image Co-Registration and Resample

Likewise we gave around 9 control points
to the LISS 3 - 2006 data and obtained
RMS error of 0.4678 which was less than
0.5 as per the threshold value.

Image Co-Registration and Resample

Then we resampled the image using
nearest neighborhood method. However
this method uses the data file value of
the pixel closest to the target pixel to
assign to the output pixel size of 28.5.
Finally this is how we managed to coregister and resampled our image for
classification.

Image Co-Registration and Resample

HYBRID CLASSIFICATION

Hybrid Classification Flow diagram

LandSat 7 image

Co-registered IRS 1C, 1D

image

Selection of Training Data /

Signatures

Selection of Training Data /

Signatures

Evaluation of Training Data

/ Signatures

Evaluation of Training Data

/ Signatures

Supervised Classification
output of LandSat 7 image

Supervised Classification
output of IRS 1C, 1D image
at 7 image

Hybrid component, digitize,

Recode and overlay

Hybrid Classification
output of LandSat 7
image

94.3%

0.9309

Following signatures were used for

their respective classes,
Signature Name
Urban (UR)
Degraded (DE)
Agriculture (AG)
Stream (ST)
Fallow (FA)
Grassland (GR)
Dense Vegetation
(DVEG)

Va
lue
1
2
4
5
6
7
9

Or
de
r
25
15
23
28
24
33
22

No. of Pixels
2000

419
421
216
127
210
86
384

2006

378
364
133
127
110
132
287

Accuracy assessments were computed by

using contingency matrix and overall Kappa
statistic of each satellite image.

Hybrid Classification
output of IRS 1C, 1D
image

96.1%

OVERALL ACCURACY

0.9530

OVERALL Kappa Statistic

Final 2000

Final 2006

Class Name

URBAN AREA
DEGRADED
DENSE
VEGETATION
STREAM
FALLOW
GRASSLAND
AGRICULTURE

Landsat Data (2000)

LISS 3 Data(2006)
Difference
No. of
Area
No. of
Area
No.of
Area
Precentage
Pixel
(Sq. m)
Pixel
(Sq. m)
Pixel
(Sq. m)
(%)
33738
961533
49634
1414569
15896
453036
47.12
6600
188100
7555
215317.5
955
27217.5
14.47
25334
5974
37698
6948
31717

722019
170259
1074393
198018
903934.5

35171
5937
27496
3802
18481

1002373.5
169204.5
783636
108357
526708.5

9837
-37
-10202
-3146
-13236

280354.5
-1054.5
-290757
-89661
-377226

38.83
-0.62
-27.06
-45.28
-41.73

EXPERT CLASSIFICATION
Objective
Identify the pixel based qualitative changes of
two images.

Target
Identify the pixel based land use changes
from year 2000 to year 2006.
e.g.
Year 2000
Year 2006

URBAN

UR.

DE.

AG.

ST.

FA.

GR.

DV.

EXPERT CLASSIFICATION cont.

VARIBALES
YEAR
2000
CLASS
VALUE

RULE

YEAR
2006
CLASS
VALUE

1
2
4
5
6
7
9

Classified Year 2000

Image
Urban - 1
Degraded - 2
Agriculture - 4
Stream - 5
Fallow - 6
Grassland - 7
Dense Vegetation - 9
Classified Year 2006
Image
Urban - 1
Degraded - 2
Agriculture - 4
Stream - 5
Fallow - 6
Grassland - 7
Dense Vegetation - 9

EXPERT CLASSIFICATION cont.

HYPOTHESIS
YEAR
2000
CLASS
VALUE

YEAR
2006
CLASS
VALUE

1
2
4
5
6
7
9

URBAN
URBAN TO DEGRADE
URBAN TO AGRICULTURE

URBAN TO STRAM
URBAN TO FALLOW
URBAN TO GRASS LAND
URBAN TO DENSE VEG.

EXPERT CLASSIFICATION cont.

(KNOWLEDGE BASE MODEL)

QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION
OF RESULTS
Class Name

Class
No.

No. of Pixels

Area (sq. m)

Urban

29953

24329324.25

Urban to Degrade

85

69041.25

Urban to Agriculture

909

738335.25

Urban to Stream

34

27616.50

Urban to Fallow

1521

1235432.25

Urban to Grassland

35

28428.75

Urban to Dense Vegetation

1175

954393.75

Degrade

4271

3469119.75

Degrade to Urban

862

700159.50

Degrade to Agriculture

10

171

138894.75

Degrade to Stream

11

14

11371.50

Degrade to Fallow

12

759

616497.75

Degrade to Grassland

13

39

31677.75

OUTPUT MAP OF
EXPERT
CLASSIFICATION

CONCLUSIONS
RESULTS FROM THE HYBRID CLASSIFICATION, AREA OF
URBAN, DEGRADED AND DENSE VEGETATION WERE
INCREASED AND FALLOW, AGRICULTURE; GRASSLAND AND
STREAM WERE DECREASED DURING THE PERIOD OF 2000
2006.
AGRICULTURE AND FALLOW AREAS IN THE STUDY AREA WAS
HIGHLY DECREASED DURING 2000-2006.
EXPERT
CLASSIFICATION
CLEARLY
INDICATES
THAT
INCREASE OF URBAN AREA IS MAINLY DUE TO CHANGE FROM
AGRICULTURAL AND FALLOW LANDS TO URBAN AREAS.

THANK YOU.