Northern New Hampshire Land Cover Reassessment - 2012

Metadata also available as - [Parseable text] - [SGML] - [XML]

Metadata:


Identification_Information:
Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Earth Systems Research Center, University of New Hampshire
Publication_Date: 20121001
Title: Northern New Hampshire Land Cover Reassessment - 2012
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: vector digital data
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Durham, New Hampshire
Publisher: Earth Systems Research Center, University of New Hampshire
Online_Linkage:
<URL:http://www.granit.sr.unh.edu/cgi-bin/nhsearch?dset=nhlc01/nh>
Larger_Work_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Earth Systems Research Center, University of New Hampshire
Publication_Date: 19860101
Title: NH GRANIT Database
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Durham, New Hampshire
Publisher: Earth Systems Research Center, University of New Hampshire
Online_Linkage: <URL:http://www.granit.sr.unh.edu>
Description:
Abstract:
The NH GRANIT project last created a land cover dataset in 2001. Since that time, there have been vast changes in the New Hampshire landscape, and the north country of the state is no exception. Since the forest lands of northern New Hampshire are of such vital importance to the region, it was decided that an update to the forested classes of this dataset would be especially useful for the region. As such, the primary goal of the project was to map forest change in terms of harvesting (clearcutting and thinning), conversion to other uses, and regrowth or succession/transition. The mapping was based on Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite imagery acquired in years 2001, 2002, 2005, and 2010. The TM data was processed using object based image analysis (OBIA) and classification methods provided via the eCogniton image segmentation software followed by visual, on-screen edits within the Esri ArMap environment. The product of the mapping effort is a digital land cover data layer covering Coos County and parts of Grafton and Carroll Counties, all in northern New Hampshire. This update includes 3 new classes not present in the previous dataset. The classes are "Forest Succesiion or Transitional”, “Forest Thinning”, and “Forest Clearcutting”. Assessing the accuracy of all the classes affected by the new mapping reveals that 78.1% of the types were correctly classified. The accuracy increases to 90.8% when grouping all forest change into a single class. See the associated report for a full explanation of the project.
Purpose:
Land cover polygons developed to quantify landscape changes in northern New Hampshire between 2001 and 2010.
Supplemental_Information:
Data distribution tile: Vector polygons covering Coos county and parts of Grafton and Carroll counties in Northern New Hampshire.

For processing information relevant to polygons coded as 0 in the Update_Status field, please see the "New Hampshire Land Cover Assessment - 2001" metadata record. For processing information relevant to polygons coded as 1 or 2 in the Update_Status field, please see the "Northern New Hampshire Land Cover Reassessment - 2012" report.

Development of the Northern New Hampshire Land Cover Reassessment - 2012 was made possible by financial support from the New Hampshire Space Grant Consortium. Development of the New Hamsphire Land Cover Assessment - 2001 was made possible by financial support from the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology CICEET), USDA Forest Service, NH Department of Resources and Economic Development, NH Department of Fish and Game, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, NH Space Grant, and UNH Cooperative Extension.

Please cite as "New Hampshire GRANIT. 2012. Northern New Hampshire Land Cover Reassessment - 2012. New Hampshire GRANIT, Durham, NH."

Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 19900908
Ending_Date: 20120831
Currentness_Reference:
Dates of TM imagery, field data collection, and final classification
Status:
Progress: Complete
Maintenance_and_Update_Frequency: None planned
Spatial_Domain:
Bounding_Coordinates:
West_Bounding_Coordinate: -72.088485
East_Bounding_Coordinate: -70.974680
North_Bounding_Coordinate: 45.307231
South_Bounding_Coordinate: 43.866702
Keywords:
Theme:
Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
Theme_Keyword: Land Cover
Theme_Keyword: Land Use
Theme_Keyword: Remote Sensing
Theme_Keyword: Classification
Place:
Place_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
Place_Keyword: United States
Place_Keyword: Northeast
Place_Keyword: New England
Place_Keyword: New Hampshire
Access_Constraints:
Acknowledgement of GRANIT would be appreciated in products derived from these data.
Use_Constraints:
Users must assume responsibility to determine the appropriate use of these data. Because of the nature of the source imagery (30m pixels), it is not recommended that the data be used at scales greater than 1:60,000. Consult the Attribute Accuracy Report for a more detailed description of the accuracy of these data.
Point_of_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: Earth Systems Research Center
Contact_Person: GRANIT Database Manager
Contact_Position: GRANIT Database Manager
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: Morse Hall, University of New Hampshire
City: Durham
State_or_Province: NH
Postal_Code: 03824
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: (603) 862-1792
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: (603) 862-0188
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: granit@unh.edu
Hours_of_Service: 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM, EST
Browse_Graphic:
Browse_Graphic_File_Name:
<URL:http://www.granit.sr.unh.edu/cgi-bin/load_file?PATH=/data/database/d-webdata/nnhlc12/browse.gif>
Browse_Graphic_File_Description: gif image file
Browse_Graphic_File_Type: gif
Native_Data_Set_Environment: ESRI ArcGIS Shapefile

Data_Quality_Information:
Attribute_Accuracy:
Attribute_Accuracy_Report:
For estimation of accuracies using classes from the LC2001 field, the following estimates can be used: The project achieved an overall accuracy of 82.2% at the full 23-class level. Below is a summary of User's and Producer's Accuracy for each of these classes.

CLASS - Code PRODUCER'S ACC. USER'S ACC. Ommission Commission Residential/Commercial/Industrial - 110 86.9% 88.3% Transportation - 140 100.0% 85.0% Row Crops - 211 94.6% 88.3% Hay/Pasture - 212 84.6% 91.7% Orchards - 221 97.4% 92.5% Beech/Oak - 412 68.1% 53.3% Paper Birch/ Aspen - 414 28.6% 28.6% Other Hardwood - 419 53.2% 70.0% White/Red Pine - 421 90.7% 81.7% Spruce/Fir - 422 93.8% 80.4% Hemlock - 423 95.1% 65.0% Pitch Pine - 424 100.0% 97.5% Mixed Forest - 430 39.7% 62.5% Alpine (Krumholz) - 440 100.0% 80.0% Water - 500 100.0% 100.0% Forested Wetland - 610 74.3% 86.7% Open Wetland - 620 88.2% 75.0% Tidal Wetland - 630 100.0% 100.0% Disturbed - 710 90.0% 90.0% Bedrock/ Veg. - 720 100.0% 100.0% Sand Dunes - 730 100.0% 100.0% Other Cleared - 790 82.4% 93.3% Tundra - 800 100.0% 100.0%

When the classification is collapsed to the 17-class level, the overall accuracy is 88.4%, and the User's and Producer's Accuracies are as follows:

CLASS - Code PRODUCER'S ACC. USER'S ACC. Ommission Commission Residential/Commercial/Industrial - 110 86.9% 88.3% Transportation - 140 100.0% 85.0% Crops/Pasture - 211-212 95.0% 95.8% Orchards - 221 97.4% 92.5% Deciduous Forest - 410-419 90.7% 94.8% Coniferous Forest - 420-429 97.3% 81.9% Mixed Forest - 430 39.7% 62.5% Alpine (Krumholz) - 440 100.0% 80.0% Water - 500 100.0% 100.0% Forested Wetland - 610 74.3% 86.7% Open Wetland - 620 88.2% 75.0% Tidal Wetland - 630 100.0% 100.0% Disturbed - 710 90.0% 90.0% Bedrock/ Veg. - 720 100.0% 100.0% Sand Dunes - 730 100.0% 100.0% Other Cleared - 790 82.4% 93.3% Tundra - 800 100.0% 100.0%

So that users can interpret the data most effectively, rules were created to develop broader ("fuzzier") categories of "right" and "wrong" and to assess the accuracy using these fuzzy sets. We applied the linguistic scale developed by Woodcock and Gopal (2000):

(1) Absolutely wrong: This answer is absolutely unacceptable. Very wrong. (2) Understandable but wrong: Not a good answer. There is something about the site that makes the answer understandable, but there is clearly a better answer. This answer would pose a problem for users of the map. Not right. (3) Reasonable or acceptable answer: May not be the best possible answer but it is acceptable; this answer does not pose a problem to the user if it is seen on the map. Right. (4) Good answer: Would be happy to find this answer on the map. Very right. (5) Absolutely right: No doubt about the match. Perfect.

Each accuracy assessment site was given a fuzzy rating (see fuzzyratings.pdf for definitions). The overall accuracy of the 23- class classification increases to 89.1% when the "good answers" are included as "right," and to 92.0% when "reasonable or acceptable answers" are included as well. Please see the project's final report for a full discussion of the accuracy assessment.

For estimation of accuracies using classes from the LC2010 field, the following estimates can be used: The project achieved an overall accuracy of 78.1% for classes that changed between 2001 and 2010. Below is a summary of User's and Producer's Accuracy for each of the change classes (note that we presume the unchanged classes maintain the same accuracy as found in the 2001 study).

CLASS - Code PRODUCER'S ACC. USER'S ACC. Ommission Commission Residential/Commercial/Industrial - 110 100% 98% Forest transition/successional - 320 71% 46% Forest thinning - 340 83% 83% Forest clearcut - 350 83% 64% Other - comprises many codes 71% 96%

When the classification is collapsed to combine the 3 forest change classes, the overall accuracy is 90.8%, and the User's and Producer's Accuracies are as follows:

CLASS - Code PRODUCER'S ACC. USER'S ACC. Ommission Commission Residential/Commercial/Industrial - 110 100% 95% Forest change 99% 86% Other - comprises many codes 71% 96%

Since the forested classes were not re-evaluated, fuzzy accuracies were not calculated.

Logical_Consistency_Report: These data are believed to be logically consistent.
Completeness_Report:
These data are considered complete for the study area - Coos county, and parts of northern Grafton and Carroll counties.
Positional_Accuracy:
Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy:
Horizontal_Positional_Accuracy_Report:
The data were derived from the classification of several Landsat Thematic Mapper images (see citation details). For the 2001 classification, two of these images were georeferenced by the staff at the Complex Systems Research Center to SPOT panchromatic 10m resolution images, and the rest were georeferenced by the USGS or ImageLinks, Inc. RMS error for the data georeferenced by CSRC was less than 0.5 pixel. For the 2012 classification, all TM data was downloaded from the USGS and processed by USGS in the Standard Terrain Correction (Level 1T) format.
Vertical_Positional_Accuracy:
Vertical_Positional_Accuracy_Report: Vertical positional accuracy was not assessed.
Lineage:
Source_Information:
Source_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: USGS and NASA
Publication_Date: 20121001
Title: Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery
Edition: One
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: Image
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Sioux Falls, SD
Publisher: EROS Data Center, USGS
Other_Citation_Details:
The primary source data for this project was Landsat Thematic Mapper images. For a list of images used in the 2001 classification, see the "New Hampshire Land Cover Assessment - 2001" metadata record. For a list of images used in the 2012 classification, see the "Northern New Hampshire Land Cover Reassessment - 2012" report.
Type_of_Source_Media: Image
Source_Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 19900908
Ending_Date: 20100829
Source_Currentness_Reference: Ground condition
Source_Citation_Abbreviation: TM
Source_Contribution: Basis of image processing for the classification
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
The classifcation process consisted of a complex series of steps for both the 2001 and the 2012 classifications. For a detailed description of the 2001 classification, see the "New Hampshire Land Cover Assessment - 2001" metadata record. For the detailed description of the 2012 data, see the "Northern New Hampshire Land Cover Reassessment - 2012" report.
Source_Used_Citation_Abbreviation: TM
Process_Date: 20121001

Spatial_Data_Organization_Information:
Direct_Spatial_Reference_Method: Vector
Point_and_Vector_Object_Information:
SDTS_Terms_Description:
SDTS_Point_and_Vector_Object_Type: GT-polygon composed of chains
Point_and_Vector_Object_Count: 628603

Spatial_Reference_Information:
Horizontal_Coordinate_System_Definition:
Planar:
Grid_Coordinate_System:
Grid_Coordinate_System_Name: State Plane Coordinate System 1983
State_Plane_Coordinate_System:
SPCS_Zone_Identifier: New Hampshire
Transverse_Mercator:
Scale_Factor_at_Central_Meridian: 0.999967
Longitude_of_Central_Meridian: -71.666667
Latitude_of_Projection_Origin: 42.500000
False_Easting: 984250.000000
False_Northing: 0.000000
Planar_Coordinate_Information:
Planar_Coordinate_Encoding_Method: row and column
Coordinate_Representation:
Abscissa_Resolution: 93.500000
Ordinate_Resolution: 93.500000
Planar_Distance_Units: survey feet
Geodetic_Model:
Horizontal_Datum_Name: North American Datum of 1983
Ellipsoid_Name: Geodetic Reference System 80
Semi-major_Axis: 6378137.000000
Denominator_of_Flattening_Ratio: 298.257222

Entity_and_Attribute_Information:
Overview_Description:
Entity_and_Attribute_Overview:
New Hampshire Land Cover Assessment Data Key

Developed: 110 Residential, commercial, or industrial 140 Transportation Active agricultural land: 211 Row crops 212 Hay/rotation/permanent pasture 221 Fruit orchards Forest Change: 320 Transitional/successional 340 Forest thinning 350 Forest clearcut Forested: 412 Beech/oak 414 Paper birch/aspen 419 Other hardwoods 421 White/red pine 422 Spruce/fir 423 Hemlock 424 Pitch pine 430 Mixed forest 440 Alpine (Krumholz) Water: 500 Open water Wetlands: 610 Forested wetlands 620 Non-forested wetlands 630 Tidal wetlands Barren Land: 710 Disturbed 720 Bedrock/vegetated 730 Sand dunes 790 Cleared/other open Tundra: 800 Tundra

Entity_and_Attribute_Detail_Citation:
The following rules were used to determine forest type: Deciduous stands (41x) are forested stands comprising less than 25% coniferous basal area per acre. Coniferous stands (42x) are forested stands comprising greater than 65% coniferous basal area per acre. Mixed stands (430) are forested stands comprising greater than 25% and less than 65% coniferous basal area per acre. Alpine areas (440) contain stunted vegetation, either hardwood or softwood (usually paper birch or spruce/fir), and occur just below tree line in the White Mountains.

Beech/oak stands (412) are deciduous stands comprising at least 30% beech and oak. Paper birch/aspen stands (414) are deciduous stands comprising at least 20% paper birch and aspen. Other deciduous stands (419) are deciduous stands not meeting either the beech/oak or paper birch/aspen criteria.

White/red pine stands (421) are coniferous stands in which white and red pine constitute a plurality of the coniferous basal area. Spruce/fir stands (422) are coniferous stands in which spruce and fir constitute a plurality of the coniferous basal area. Hemlock stands (423) are coniferous stands in which hemlock constitutes a plurality of the coniferous basal area. Pitch pine stands (424) are coniferous stands in which pitch pine constitutes a plurality of the coniferous basal area.

Other class definitions are as follows:

Developed (110) - built-up areas. (Note that this class was coded as 100 in early releases of the data.) Active agriculture (200) - hay fields, row crops, plowed fields, etc. Water (500) - lakes, ponds, some rivers or any other open water feature. Wetlands (600) - areas dominated by wetland characteristics defined by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory. Basically hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and the hydrologic conditions that result in water at or near the surface for extended periods of the growing season. Disturbed (710) - gravel pits, quarries or other areas where the earth and vegetation have been altered or exposed. Bedrock/vegetated (720) - exposed bedrock or ledge (usually in the mountains) that may have some forms of stunted vegetation growing in cracks or lichens growing on the surface rock. Sand dunes (730) - areas along the seacoast that are dominated by sand. Cleared/other open (790) - clear cut forest, old agricultural fields that are reverting to forest, etc. Tundra (800) - areas dominated by short vegetation that occurs above tree line in the White Mountains (only mapped on Mt Washington). (Note that this class was previously coded as 810 in early releases of the data.)

The 2012 reassessment includes 3 additional classes: Forest Transition/successional (320) - an area previously clearcut (or otherwise cleared) with regrowth between 5 and 25' in height. Forest Thinning (340) - an area harvested to such an extent that disturbance is visible in the TM image but remaining basal area per/acre is greater than 20 square feet. Forest clearcut (350) - an area harvested to such an extent that the remaining basal area per/acre is less than 20 per acre and any regrowth is less than 5' in height.


Distribution_Information:
Distributor:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: Complex Systems Research Center
Contact_Person: GRANIT Database Manager
Contact_Position: GRANIT Database Manager
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: Morse Hall, University of New Hampshire
City: Durham
State_or_Province: NH
Postal_Code: 03824
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: (603) 862-1792
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: (603) 862-0188
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: granit@unh.edu
Hours_of_Service: 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM, EST
Distribution_Liability:
Digital data in NH GRANIT represent the efforts of the contributing agencies to record information from the cited source materials. Complex Systems Research Center (CSRC), under contract to the NH Office of State Planning (OSP), and in consultation with cooperating agencies, maintains a continuing program to identify and correct errors in these data. OSP, CSRC, and the cooperating agencies make no claim as to the validity or reliability or to any implied uses of these data.
Standard_Order_Process:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Format_Name: Esri shapefile
Transfer_Size: 227 MB
Digital_Transfer_Option:
Offline_Option:
Offline_Media: CD-ROM
Recording_Format: ESRI shapefile
Fees:
No charge when downloaded from the internet. Cost of reproduction when provided on CD-ROM or other media.
Ordering_Instructions:
Contact the GRANIT Database Manager, granit@unh.edu or (603) 862-1792, for more information.

Metadata_Reference_Information:
Metadata_Date: 20121001
Metadata_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: Complex Systems Research Center
Contact_Person: GRANIT Database Manager
Contact_Position: GRANIT Database Manager
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: Mailing and physical address
Address: Morse Hall, University of New Hampshire
City: Durham
State_or_Province: NH
Postal_Code: 03824
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: (603) 862-1792
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: (603) 862-0188
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: granit@unh.edu
Hours_of_Service: 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM, EST
Metadata_Standard_Name: FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata
Metadata_Standard_Version: FGDC-STD-001-1998

Generated by mp version 2.8.13 on Thu Dec 13 10:07:25 2007