Detecting Land Cover Change over a 20 Year Time Period in the Niagara Escarpment Plan Using Satellite Remote Sensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Niagara Escarpment is one of Southern Ontario’s most important landscapes. Due to the nature of the landform and its location, the Escarpment is subject to various development pressures including urban expansion, mineral resource extraction, agricultural practices and recreation. In 1985, Canada’s first large scale environmentally based land use plan was put in place to ensure that only development that is compatible with the Escarpment occurred within the Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP). The southern extent of the NEP is of particular interest in this study, since a portion of the Plan is located within the rapidly expanding Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The Plan area located in the Regional Municipalities of Hamilton and Halton represent both urban and rural geographical areas respectively, and are both experiencing development pressures and subsequent changes in land cover. Monitoring initiatives on the NEP have been established, but have done little to identify consistent techniques for monitoring land cover on the Niagara Escarpment. Land cover information is an important part of planning and environmental monitoring initiatives. Remote sensing has the potential to provide frequent and accurate land cover information over various spatial scales. The goal of this research was to examine land cover change in the Regional Municipalities of Hamilton and Halton portions of the NEP. This was achieved through the creation of land cover maps for each region using Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper (TM) remotely sensed data. These maps aided in determining the qualitative and quantitative changes that had occurred in the Plan area over a 20 year time period from 1986 to 2006. Change was also examined based on the NEP’s land use designations, to determine if the Plan policy has been effective in protecting the Escarpment. To obtain land cover maps, five different supervised classification methods were explored: Minimum Distance, Mahalanobis Distance, Maximum Likelihood, Object-oriented and Support Vector Machine. Seven land cover classes were mapped (forest, water, recreation, bare agricultural fields, vegetated agricultural fields, urban and mineral resource extraction areas) at a regional scale. SVM proved most successful at mapping land cover on the Escarpment, providing classification maps with an average accuracy of 86.7%. Land cover change analysis showed promising results with an increase in the forested class and only slight increases to the urban and mineral resource extraction classes. Negatively, there was a decrease in agricultural land overall. An examination of land cover change based on the NEP land use designations showed little change, other than change that is regulated under Plan policies, proving the success of the NEP for protecting vital Escarpment lands insofar as this can be revealed through remote sensing. Land cover should be monitored in the NEP consistently over time to ensure changes in the Plan area are compatible with the Niagara Escarpment. Remote sensing is a tool that can provide this information to the Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) in a timely, comprehensive and cost-effective way. The information gained from remotely sensed data can aid in environmental monitoring and policy planning into the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".