Data from: Mapping canopy cover for municipal forestry monitoring: Using free Landsat imagery and machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paper 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 (R2: 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 (R2: 0.67, RMSE: 2.73%), and in residential areas, capturing the totality of canopy cover variation (R2: 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 (R2: 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. Data details: See paper: Mapping canopy cover for municipal forestry monitoring: Using free Landsat imagery and machine learning - ScienceDirect See code on GitHub: ZZMitch/PredictTreeCC_Landsat_1972to2020: Code from the portion of my PhD about using Landsat time-series to predict tree canopy cover from 1972 - 2020. Code will be released as papers are published. (github.com) If you use these data, please reference: Bonney, M.T., He, Y., Vogeler, J., Conway, T., Kaye, E., 2024. Mapping canopy cover for municipal forestry monitoring: Using free Landsat imagery and machine learning. Urban For. Urban Greening 128490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128490.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".