Mapping canopy cover for municipal forestry monitoring: Using free Landsat imagery and machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trees across the urban-rural continuum are recognized for their ecological importance and ecosystem services. Municipalities often utilize spatial canopy cover data for monitoring this resource. Monitoring frameworks typically rely on fine-scale maps derived from very high spatial resolution sensors, which are high quality but expensive and unwieldy for consistent wide-area monitoring. In this paper, we explore how free Landsat imagery, supported by very high-resolution imagery interpretation and/or digital hemispherical photographs, can be used to effectively map canopy cover at a scale appropriate for municipal monitoring. We compare linear models and random forest machine learning for predicting canopy cover across a landscape (general) and within specific land covers (specialized). We create 2018 canopy cover maps and track progress towards forestry objectives in a region of southern Ontario, Canada. Random forest models using all reference data perform best for general use (R 2 : 0.90, RMSE: 10.1 %), separating non-canopy vegetation (e.g., agricultural fields) from tree canopy. Specialized models are useful in forest land cover patches, where hemispherical photographs relate with Landsat at a moderate strength (R 2 : 0.67, RMSE: 2.73 %), and in residential areas, capturing the totality of canopy cover variation (R 2 : 0.85, RMSE: 5.66 %). Accuracy was assessed with standard cross-validation, which is useful given limited resources. However, following best practice, an independent reference sample was also leveraged to assess the best general model (R 2 : 0.86, RMSE: 11.4 %), indicating that cross-validation was slightly overoptimistic. Results show that Caledon, a rural-dominant municipality within the study area, is the greenest (34 % canopy cover). The two cities (Brampton and Mississauga) have 15.9 % and 17.5 % canopy cover. Residential canopy criteria indicate “Good” performance in Caledon, “Moderate” in Mississauga, and “Low” in Brampton based on our 2018 assessment. The methods described here can provide municipalities with a low-cost approach for tree canopy monitoring across complex landscapes. The data used for this paper are available at: https://zenodo.org/records/12549244 . The code created for this paper are available at: https://github.com/ZZMitch/PredictTreeCC_Landsat_1972to2020 .
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".