LCCS2 Manual En

7/31/2019 LCCS2 Manual En

1/212

8

G E O - S

P A T I A L D A T A A N D I N F O R M A T I O N

E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A

N A G E M E N T

A S S E S S M E N T A N D M O

N I T O R I N G

G L O B A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H A N G E

E N

V

I R

O

N

M E

N

T

A

N

D

N A

T U

R

A

L

R

E S

O

U

R

C

E S

S E R

I E SLand Cover

ClassificationSystemClassification concepts anduser manual

Software version 2

[

]

ISSN 1684-8241


2/212

Copies of FAO publications can be requested from

E-mail:Fax:

Web site:

Sales and Marketing Group - Information DivisionFood and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsViale delle Terme di Caracalla - 00100 Rome, Italy

[email protected](+39) 06 57053360www.fao.org

Cover illustrations andbackground image in this page elaborated from LEncyclopdie Diderot et DAlembert

E n v

i r o n m e n

t a n

d N a

t u r a

l R e s o u r c e s s e r i e s

d e s i g n :

P i e t r o

B a r t o

l e s c

h i , 2 0 0 4


3/212

Land CoverClassificationSystemClassification concepts anduser manualSoftware version 2

Revised byAntonio Di Gregorio

Based on the original software version 1Prepared byAntonio Di GregorioandLouisa J.M. Jansen

F

A O

-

E N

V I R

O N

M E N T

A N D N A T U RA L

R ES

OU

RC

ES S

E R V

I

C E

G E O -

S P A T IA L

D A TA A N D I N F O R M A T I O N

A S

S E S S

M E N

T

A N D

M O N I

T O R

I N

G

E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M

E N T

G L

O B A

L

E N V I R O N M E

N T

A L

C H

A N

G E

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome, 2005

8

G E O - S

P A T I A L D A T A A N D I N F O R M A T I O N

E N V I R O N M E N T A L M A N A G E M E N T

A S S E S S M E N T A N D M O N I T O R I N G

G L O B A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H A N G E

E N

V

I R

O

N

M

E N

T

A

N

D

N

A

T U

R

A

L

R

E S

O

U

R

C

E S

S E

R

I E S

[

]


4/212

The conclusions given in this report are considered appropriate at the time of its preparation. They may be modified

in the light of further knowledge gained at subsequent stages of the project.

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, orconcerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

FAO declines all responsibility for errors or deficiencies in the database or software or in the documentationaccompanying it, for program maintenance and upgrading as well as for any damage that may arise from them.

FAO also declines any responsibility for updating the data and assumes no responsibility for errors and omissionsin the data provided. Users are, however, kindly asked to report any errors or deficiencies in this product to FAO.

ISBN: 92-5-105327-8

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product for educational orother non-commercial purposes are authorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holders

provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale orother commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders.

Applications for such permission should be addressed to:

Chief Publishing Management ServiceInformation DivisionFAOViale delle Terme di Caracalla00100 RomeItaly

or by e-mail to:[email protected]

FAO 2005


5/212

iii

FOREWORD

Efficient assessment of land cover and the ability to monitor change are fundamental tosustainable management of natural resources, environmental protection, food security andsuccessful humanitarian programmes. Such information is also required by the Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in achieving its mandate of raisinglevels of nutrition, improving agricultural productivity, enhancing the lives of ruralpopulations and contributing to sustainable growth of the world economy. However, in thepast, policy-makers and planners have not had access to reliable and comparable land coverdata, not only for lower-income countries but also at the regional and global levels.

FAO and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have beencollaborating in numerous initiatives for improving the reliability and compatibility of land cover data sets, and enabling access to the information for a large user community.A recent example of such collaboration is the Global Land Cover Network (GLCN),launched in 2004, with the support of the Government of Italy, the Government of theNetherlands and numerous institutes worldwide.

A critical factor in implementing such global activities is the availability of a common,harmonized land cover classification system that provides a reliable basis for interactionamong the increasing number of national, regional and global land cover mapping andmonitoring activities.

In the absence of a generally accepted or applicable system, FAO and UNEP have

developed the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS), which enables comparison of land cover classes regardless of mapping scale, land cover type, data collection method orgeographic location. Currently, LCCS is the only universally applicable classificationsystem in operational use. LCCS' inherent flexibility, its applicability in all climatic zonesand environmental conditions, and the built-in compatibility with other classificationsystems has given LCCS the potential to be accepted as the international standard. Forthese reasons, LCCS is currently in the approval process to become a standard of theInternational Organization for Standardization (ISO).

LCCS is already an important tool in global mapping, being used in initiatives such asthe Global Land Cover 2000 project, and for the next global assessment, GLOBCOVER,

which aims to produce a global land cover map for the year 2005. Developed initiallythrough the practical experience of the Africover project, LCCS has been widely adoptedat the national level throughout Africa, Asia, Near East and Latin America. The feedbackfrom this large user community has resulted in the improved and updated version 2 of thesoftware that accompanies this document.

David HarcharikDeputy Director-General FAO


6/212

iv

]

L

A

N

D

C

O

V

E

R

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I C

A

T

I O

N

S

Y

S

T

E

M

L

C

C

S

[

ABSTRACT

The Land Cover Classification System (LCCS) has been developed by the Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP) to meet the need for improved access to reliable andstandardized information on land cover and land cover change.

LCCS is a comprehensive, standardized a priori classification system designed to meetspecific user requirements, and created for mapping exercises, independent of the scale ormeans used to map. It enables a comparison of land cover classes regardless of data source,thematic discipline or country. The LCCS system enhances the standardization processand minimizes the problem of dealing with a very large amount of pre-defined classes.

To facilitate the complex classification process and ensure standardization, innovativesoftware has been developed to guide the user to select the appropriate class.

The following manual accompanies version 2 of the LCCS software, which has beendeveloped on the experience gained from numerous FAO/UNEP and country mappingactivities including the Africover East Africa Project. The new version of the LCCSsoftware is fully compatible with the previous version to ensure continuity of past andfuture LCCS mapping activities.

Land Cover Classification System (LCCS), version 2:Classification Concepts and User ManualBy A. Di Gregorio

208 pages, 76 figures, 12 tables, and CD-ROM with software

FAO Environment and Natural Resources Service Series, No. 8 - FAO, Rome, 2005

Keywords :Land cover; classification; classification system; standardization; harmonization.

This series replaces the following:

Environment and Energy Series

Remote Sensing Centre Series

Agrometeorology Working Paper

A list of documents published in the above series and other information can be found at the Web site:

www.fao.org/sd


7/212

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The first full operational version of the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS) wasdeveloped for the implementation of the Africover - East Africa Project, which wassupported by the Government of Italy (Trust Fund GCP/RAF/287/ITA) in collaborationwith the Environment and Natural Resources Service (SDRN) and the Soil Resources,Management and Conservation Service (AGLS) of FAO.

These land cover classification concepts were discussed and endorsed at the meeting of the International Working Group on Classification and Legend (Senegal, July 1996)supported by Government of France Trust Fund GCP/RAF/311/FRA (FAO, 1997).

The second version of the LCCS was developed through an interactive feedbackapproach involving a large global community, as well as from the experience gainedthrough the implementation of the Africover and other projects.

In particular, the following are thanked for their contribution to the development of theLCCS software: Louisa Jansen, Luca Morandini, Antonio Martucci, Wolfgang Prante,Keya Choudhury, Enrico Botte, Andrea Bellancini, Simone Maffei and Davide De Marchi(see Appendix E).

Appreciation also goes to the many other institutions and individuals who respondedto earlier versions of the system, especially the U.S. Federal Geographic Data Committee- Vegetation Sub-committee and Earth Cover Working Group, Washington, October 1996and Rome, January 1997 (with special thanks to Gyde Lund of the USDA Forest Service,

Washington, D.C.); the LANES concerted action funded under the 4th FrameworkProgramme of Research on Environment and Climate of the European Commission,which focused on the development of a harmonized framework for multipurpose landcover and land use information (with special thanks to Christophe Duhamel of CESD-Communautaire, Luxembourg, coordinating the LANES concerted action). Furthermore,Salomon B. Kroonenberg of the Geology Section, Subfaculty of Applied Earth Sciences,Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands, is thanked for provision of theinformation on lithology. Finally, UNEP is gratefully acknowledged for its financialcontribution to this publication.

Gratitude also goes to Reuben Sessa, Paolo Prosperi, Thorgeir Lawrence, Carlos Tapia,

Gaia V. Laurin and the Studio Bartoleschi for assisting in the preparationand printingof the manual.

Antonio Di GregorioSenior Remote Sensing Officer, SDRN


8/212


9/212

vii

CONTENTS

iiiivv

ixx

33345

7788

101111121314142025263438383940414143434344

464647

ForewordAbstractAcknowledgementsAcronymsExecutive Summary

PART ONECLASSIFICATION CONCEPTS

1. INTRODUCTION2. DEFINITIONS2.1 Land Cover2.2 Land use2.3 Classification and Legend2.4 Hierarchical versus Non-Hierarchical Systems2.5 A priori and A posteriori Systems3. THE CONCEPTUAL BASIS3.1 Problems with current classification systems

3.1.1 Purpose3.1.2 Consistency3.1.3 Underlying common principle

3.1.4 A priori classification systems3.2 The basis for a new approach

3.2.1 Definition adopted for land cover3.2.2 New approach to classification3.2.3 Land Cover Classification System design criteria3.2.4 Dichotomous Phase3.2.5 Modular-Hierarchical Phase

3.3 Working with the LCCS Mode Function3.4 Concepts for Primarily Vegetated Areas

3.4.1 Natural and Semi-Natural Vegetation (A12 and A24)3.4.2 Cultivated and Managed Terrestrial Areas (A11 and A23)

3.5 Classification Concepts for Primarily Non-Vegetated Areas3.5.1 Artificial Surfaces and Associated Areas (B15)3.5.2 Bare Areas (B16)3.5.3 Artificial and Natural Waterbodies, Snow and Ice (B27 and B28)

3.6 Environmental and Specific Technical Attributes3.6.1 Environmental Attributes3.6.2 Specific Technical Attributes

3.7 The Advantages of the Method Adopted3.7.1 Advantages from the conceptual point of view3.7.2 Advantages from the practical point of view

3.8 From Classification To Legend3.8.1 The Minimum Mappable Area concept3.8.2 The Occurrence of Mixed Mapping Units


10/212

viii

]

L

A

N

D

C

O

V

E

R

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I C

A

T

I O

N

S

Y

S

T

E

M

L

C

C

S

[

515252

5353

57

5757596565656776767680

83838585858790

91

95155175181189

PART TW OLAND COVER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: USER MANUAL

4. INSTALLATION4.1 Minimum system requirements4.2 Installation procedure4.3 Directory structure5. OPERATION5.1 Selection techniques5.2 Screen objects6. THE PROGRAM MODULES6.1 Classification Module

6.1.1 Purpose6.1.2 Dichotomous Phase6.1.3 Modular-Hierarchical Phase

6.2 Legend Module6.2.1 Purpose6.2.2 How to create a legend6.2.3 Using the Legend Management Menu

6.3 Translator Module6.3.1 Purpose6.3.2 How to translate a classification or legend6.3.3 Comparison of External Classes

6.3.4 Comparison of Two LCCS Classes6.3.5 Export table/Import table

6.4 Links Function6.4.1 Purpose6.4.2 Links Management Menu6.4.3 How to create a link

6.5 Close

REFERENCES

APPENDIX A: Glossary of classifiers, modifiers and attributesAPPENDIX B: Presentation of major land cover categoriesAPPENDIX C: Overview of environmental attributes of each land cover typeAPPENDIX D: Translator module comparison and similarity assessment valuesAPPENDIX E: Development teams for versions 1 and 2


11/212

ix

ACRONYMS

AGLS Soil Resources, Management and Conservation Service, FAOAVHRR Advanced Very High Resolution RadiometerCEC Commission of the European CommunitiesCORINE Coordination of Information on the Environment, EUDIS Data and Information SystemECWG Vegetation Subcommittee and Earth Cover Working Group, USAFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsFGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee, USAGIS Geographical Information SystemIGBP International Geosphere-Biosphere ProgrammeLCC Land Cover ClassificationLCCS Land Cover Classification SystemLGP Length of Growing PeriodLUCC Land Use and Land Cover ChangeNOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USAP / P PrecipitationPET Potential Evapotranspirationppm parts per millionSCS Soil Conservation Service, USA

SDRN Environment and Natural Resources Service, FAOSOTER Soils and Terrain [methodology]T / T TemperatureTDS Total Dissolved SolidsUNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and DevelopmentUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationUSDA United States Department of Agriculture


12/212

x

]

L

A

N

D

C

O

V

E

R

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I C

A

T

I O

N

S

Y

S

T

E

M

L

C

C

S

[

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Land Cover Classification System (LCCS) is a comprehensive, standardized a prioriclassification system, designed to meet specific user requirements, and created for mappingexercises, independent of the scale or means used to map. The system can be used for anyland cover classification initiative anywhere in the world, using a set of independentdiagnostic criteria that allow correlation with existing classifications and legends.

Land cover classes are defined by a combination of a set of independent diagnostic criteria the so-called classifiers that are hierarchically arranged to assure a high degree of geographical accuracy. Due to the heterogeneity of land cover, the same set of classifierscannot be used to define all land cover types. The hierarchical structure of the classifiers maydiffer from one land cover type to another. Therefore, the classification has two main phases:

an initial Dichotomous Phase, where eight major land cover types are distinguished, anda subsequent Modular-Hierarchical Phase, where the set of classifiers and theirhierarchical arrangement are tailored to the major land cover type.

This approach allows the use of the most appropriate classifiers and prevents the useof inaccurate classifier combinations. To facilitate the complex classification process andensure standardization, an innovative programme has been developed that should reduceheterogeneity between interpreters and between interpretations over time. The softwareassists the user to select the appropriate class using a step-by-step process, i.e. classifierby classifier. The flexible manner in which the classification is set up involves the

creation of classes at different levels of the system and the optional use of modifiers,environmental attributes and specific technical attributes in combination, coupled withthe tremendous number of classes possible. The software can be used as a stand-aloneproduct or used in combination with a digital image interpretation software suite, whichwill allow interpretation of imagery followed by labelling of the mapping units with theland cover classes.

Further definition of the Land Cover Class can be achieved by adding attributes. Twotypes of attributes, which form separate levels in the classification, are distinguished:

Environmental Attributes are attributes (e.g. climate, landform, altitude, soil,lithology and erosion) that influence land cover but are not inherent features of it,

and which should not be mixed with pure land cover classifiers, andSpecific Technical Attributesare associated with specific technical disciplines. Thusfor (Semi)Natural Vegetation, the Floristic Aspect can be added; for CultivatedAreas, the Crop Type; and for Bare Soil, the Soil Type.

All Primarily Vegetated land cover classes are derived from a consistent physiognomic-structural conceptual approach that combines the classifiers Life Form, Cover and Height(in (Semi-)Natural Vegetation) and Life Form (in Cultivated Areas) with Spatial Distribution . The Primarily Non-Vegetated classes have a similar approach, usingclassifiers that deal with surface aspects, distribution or density, and height or depth.

The classification system generates mutually exclusive land cover classes, which

comprise: (1) a unique Boolean formula (a coded string of classifiers used); (2) a standard


13/212

xi

name; and (3) a unique numerical code. Both the numerical code and standard name can beused to build an automatically generated Legend, with the classes that have been createdbeing grouped according to the main land cover categories and their domains according tothe level of detail. The nomenclature can be linked to a user-defined name in any language.

The advantages of the classifier, or parametric, approach are manifold. The systemcreated is a highly flexiblea priori land cover classification in which each land cover class isclearly and systematically defined, thus providing internal consistency. The system is trulyhierarchical and applicable at a variety of scales. Re-arrangement of the classes based on re-grouping of the classifiers used facilitates extensive use of the outputs by a wide variety of end-users. Accuracy assessment of the end product can be generated by class or by theindividual classifiers forming the class. All land covers can be accommodated in this highlyflexible system; the classification could therefore serve as a universally applicable referencebase for land cover, thus contributing towards data harmonization and standardization

LCCS VERSION 2

Version 2 of LCCS is an upgrade of the original version 1 (FAO, 2000) and has beendeveloped on the experience gained from numerous FAO/UNEP and country mappingactivities, including the Africover East Africa Project as well as feedback from the end-usercommunity. The new version of the LCCS software is fully compatible with the previousversion to ensure continuity of past and future LCCS mapping activities.

The modifications, upgrades and improvements in the new version of the software,

LCCS2, can be divided into eight groups:Change of the programming language. The software has been re-programmed, fromAccess to Visual Basic. Amelioration of the user interface of the software. Amelioration and modification of class names and class descriptions. Augmented types of classifiers and modifiers and environmental attributes to definean LCCS class.Increased number of possible combinations of classifiers/modifiers.Increased flexibility in class creation. There is now more possibility to skipclassifier functions, and a new function to introduce an activate classifier.

Upgrade of the cartographic standards section. In addition to the original(cartographic) mixed-unit functions, another three types of mixed-unit functionhave been added.Establishment of a new function LCCS LINK.

The upgrading of the software has been implemented in a manner that ensurescompatibility between the old and new versions of LCCS.

The proposed modifications were made available for six months to the user communitythrough both the LCCS and Africover Web sites, to allow comments and suggestions.


14/212


15/212

PART ONE

CLASSIFICATIONCONCEPTS

Classification is easy: it is something you just do.[ F.C. Bawden ]

A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees.[ W. Blake, Marriage of Heaven and Hell ]


16/212


17/212

1

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I

C

A

T

I

O

N

C

O

N

C

E

P

T

S

P

A R T ONE

C H A P T E R

I N T R O D U C T I O N1

The main resource controlling primary productivity for terrestrial ecosystems can bedefined in terms of land: the area of land available, land quality, moisture regime andedaphic character. Despite successful substitution of land-based resources with fossil fuelsand mineral resources, land remains of prime importance (Darwin et al ., 1996). Land coverand land use represent the integrating elements of the resource base. Changes in land coverand land use affect global systems (e.g. atmosphere, climate and sea level) or occur in alocalized fashion in enough places to have a significant effect (Meyer and Turner, 1992).Land cover is the expression of human activities and, as such, changes with alterations inthese. Hence, land cover is a geographical feature that can form a reference base forapplications ranging from forest and rangeland monitoring, through production of statistics, planning, investment, biodiversity, climate change, to desertification control.

Humans have continually reshaped the Earth, but the present magnitude and rate areunprecedented. Nowadays, it is realized that it is very important to know how land coverhas changed over time, in order to make assessments of the changes one could expect in the(near) future and the impact these changes will have on peoples lives. As people are themain users of the land, it is important for any system to be oriented towards them.

Due to the lack of appropriate land cover data, many assessments have used models todelimit potential land cover (e.g. Alexandratos, 1995). Although the use of potential landcover is important in modelling simulated future scenarios, there are major limitations.Information describing current land cover is an important input for planning andmodelling, but the quality of such data defines the reliability of the simulation outputs(Townshend, 1992; Belward, 1996).

In addition to a high demand for improved land cover data sets because of an increasing

need to be able to precisely describe and classify land cover in order to develop sustainableland use systems, there is also a growing need for standardization and compatibilitybetween data sets and for the possibility to map, evaluate and monitor wide areas in aconsistent manner (Di Gregorio, 1991; Reichert and Di Gregorio, 1995; Thompson, 1996;FAO, 1995, 1997). Technical advances, such as the vast amount of remote sensing data thathas become available from earth observation satellites, makes this increasingly possible(Di Gregorio, 1995).

In 1993, UNEP and FAO organized a meeting to catalyse coordinated actiontowards harmonization of data collection and management and to take a first steptowards an internationally agreed reference base for land cover and land use

(UNEP/FAO, 1994). This was required by the Africover Programme of the


18/212

2

]

L

A

N

D

C

O

V

E

R

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I C

A

T

I O

N

S

Y

S

T

E

M

L

C

C

S

[

Environment and Natural Resources Service (SDRN), with its objective to map landcover for the whole of Africa, and needed a land cover reference system for operational use.

The objectives of the Africover Programme are to:respond to the need of a variety of end-users for land cover data;apply the methodology in mapping exercises, independent of the means used, whichmay range from high resolution satellite imagery to aerial photography;link with existing classifications and legends, allowing comparison and correlation;andsupport, to the extent possible, international ongoing initiatives in classification anddefinition of land cover.

The main objective of the initiative is the definition of a reference classification torespond to the need for standardization or harmonized collection of data, as mentioned inthe United Nations Conference on Environment and Developments (UNCED) Agenda21 Chapter 10, for which FAO is Task Manager within the United Nations system and todevelop a common integrated approach to all aspects of land cover. This implies amethodology that is applicable at any scale, and which is comprehensive in the sense thatany land cover identified anywhere in the world can be readily accommodated.

When developing LCCS, existing published classifications and legends, as well asnomenclatures, were analysed (Danserau, 1961; Fosberg, 1961; Eiten, 1968; UNESCO,1973; Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg, 1974; Anderson et al ., 1976; Kuechler andZonneveld, 1988; CEC, 1993; UNEP/FAO, 1994; Duhamel, 1995; Beek, De Bie andDriessen, 1997), together with relevant FAO documents (Ngre, 1995; Barisano, 1996;Wyatt et al ., unpubl.).

The initial concepts of the classification were discussed by the international AfricoverWorking Group on Classification and Legend (Senegal, July 1996; Di Gregorio and Jansen, 1996c; FAO, 1997). The system was developed in collaboration with otherinternational ongoing activities on classification of land cover, such as the U.S. FederalGeographic Data Committee (FGDC) Vegetation Subcommittee and Earth CoverWorking Group (ECWG); the South African National Land Cover Database Project(Thompson, 1996); and the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) Data and Information System (DIS) Land Cover Working Group and Land Use and Land

Cover Change (LUCC) Core Project. The first full operational version of theclassification and software program was developed by the Africover East Africa project(GCP/RAF/287/ITA) in cooperation with the Soil Resources, Management andConservation Service (AGLS) of FAO.

The approach developed serves as the basis for a reference classification system withlinks to specific expertise, because it describes and allows correlation of land cover througha set of independent diagnostic criteria, the so-called classifiers, rather than beingnomenclature based. Also, existing classifications and legends can be translated into thereference system, thus facilitating the use of existing historical materials. Re-arrangementof the classes, based on re-grouping of the classifiers used, facilitates the extensive use of

the outputs by a wide variety of end-users.


19/212

3

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I

C

A

T

I

O

N

C

O

N

C

E

P

T

S

P

A R T ONE

C H A P T E R

D E F I N I T I O N S2

2.1 LAND COVERThe definition of land cover is fundamental, because in many existing classifications andlegends it is confused with land use:

Land cover is the observ ed (bio)physica l cover on the ea rths surface.When considering land cover in a very pure and strict sense, it should be confined to

the description of vegetation and man-made features. Consequently, areas where thesurface consists of bare rock or bare soil are land itself rather than land cover . Also, it isdisputable whether water surfaces are real land cover. However, in practice, the scientificcommunity usually includes these features within the term land cover .

2.2 LAND USELand use is characterized by the arrangements, activities and inputs people undertake in acertain land cover type to produce, change or maintain it. Definition of land use in this wayestablishes a direct link between land cover and the actions of people in their environment.

The following examples are a further illustration of the above definitions:grassland is a cover term, while rangeland or tennis court refer to the use of a grass cover; andrecreation area is a land use term that may be applicable to different land covertypes: for instance sandy surfaces, like a beach; a built-up area like a pleasure park;woodlands; etc.

2.3 CLASSIFICATION AND LEGENDClassification is an abstract representation of the situation in the field using well-defineddiagnostic criteria: the classifiers (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). Sokal (1974) defined it as: the

ordering or arrangement of objects into groups or sets on the basis of their relationships.A classification describes the systematic framework with the names of the classes and thecriteria used to distinguish them, and the relationship between classes. Classification thusrequires the definition of class boundaries, which should be clear, precise, possiblyquantitative, and based upon objective criteria.

A classification should therefore be:scale independent, meaning that the classes should be applicable at any scale or levelof detail; andsource independent, implying that it is independent of the means used to collectinformation, whether it be through satellite imagery, aerial photography, field

survey or using a combination of sources.


20/212

4

]

L

A

N

D

C

O

V

E

R

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I C

A

T

I O

N

S

Y

S

T

E

M

L

C

C

S

[

A legend is the application of a classification in a specific area using a defined mappingscale and specific data set (Figure 2.3). Therefore a legend may contain only a proportion,or sub-set, of all possible classes of the classification. Thus, a legend is:

scale and cartographic representation dependent (e.g. occurrence of mixed mappingunits if the elements composing this unit are too small to be delineatedindependently); anddata and mapping methodology dependent (e.g. an aerial photograph shows

different features from a satellite false colour composite image).

2.4 HIERARCHICAL VERSUS NON-HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMSClassification systems come in two basic formats, hierarchical and non-hierarchical . Mostsystems are hierarchically structured because such a classification offers more consistencyowing to its ability to accommodate different levels of information, starting withstructured broad-level classes, which allow further systematic subdivision into moredetailed sub-classes. At each level the defined classes are mutually exclusive. At the higherlevels of the classification system few diagnostic criteria are used, whereas at the lowerlevels the number of diagnostic criteria increases. Criteria used at one level of the

classification should not be repeated at another lower level.

A B C D E F G H I L

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

F I G U R E 2 . 1

Abstract presentation of a classification

consisting of a continuum with two gradients(Source: from Kuechler and Zonneveld, 1988)

F I G U R E 2 . 2

Concrete situation in the field

in a particular area(Source: from Kuechler and Zonneveld, 1988)

Circles and triangles in blue and whiterepresenting the actual situation


21/212

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I

C

A

T

I

O

N

C

O

N

C

E

P

T

S

P

A R T ONE

5

DEFINITIONS

2.5 A PRIO RI AND A POST ERIORI SYSTEMSClassification can be done in two ways: either a priori or a posteriori (Figure 2.4). In an a priori classification system, the classes are abstract conceptualizations of the types actuallyoccurring. The approach is based upon definition of classes before any data collectionactually takes place. Thus all possible combinations of diagnostic criteria must be dealtwith beforehand in the classification. Basically, in the field, each sample plot is identifiedand labelled according to the classification adopted. This method is used extensively in

plant taxonomy and soil science, such as The Revised Legend of the Soil Map of the World(FAO, 1988) and the USDA Soil Taxonomy (SCS, 1975). The main advantage is that classesare standardized independent of the area and the means used. The disadvantage, however,is that this method is rigid, as some of the field samples may not be easily assignable to oneof the pre-defined classes.

A posteriori classification differs fundamentally by its direct approach and its freedomfrom preconceived notions. The approach is based upon definition of classes afterclustering the field samples collected. An example is the Braun-Blanquet method, used invegetation science. This is a floristic classification approach using the total speciescombination to cluster samples in sociological groups (Kuechler and Zonneveld, 1988).

The advantage of this type of classification is its flexibility and adaptability compared with

F I G U R E 2 . 3

Legend as application of a classification in a particular area

Given scale anddata type

DEFINEDGEOGRAPHIC

AREA

Derived legend

> 50 m

100%

50%

10%

30 m > 5 m

33

83

47

78

1 2 3 4 5

97 98 99 100


22/212

]

[

the implicit rigidity of an a priori classification. The a posteriori approach implies aminimum of generalization. This type of classification better fits the collected fieldobservations in a specific area. At the same time, however, because an a posterioriclassification depends on the specific area described and is adapted to local conditions, it isunable to define standardized classes. Clustering of samples to define the classes can onlybe done after data collection and the relevance of certain criteria in a certain area may belimited when used elsewhere or in ecologically different regions.

6

]

L

A

N

D

C

O

V

E

R

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I C

A

T

I O

N

S

Y

S

T

E

M

L

C

C

S

[

C O N C R E T E F I E L D S I T U A T I O N

Example of a very general a prioriclassification based on four classes(triangle in blue and white and circle inblue and white)representing thefield situation onthe right.Due to thegeneralization of the classes, the user is obliged to makethe best fit of oneof the hundred

possibilities in thefield into one of thefour classes, whichmay result in selecting a classthat does not represent well theactual situation.

Example of a posterioriclassification.The classes fit better the actual field situation but the area described is a portion of the total.

F I G U R E 2 . 4

Example of an a priori (left) and an a posteriori (right) classification of a concrete

situation in the field(Source: Adapted from Kuechler and Zonneveld, 1988)


23/212

7

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I

C

A

T

I

O

N

C

O

N

C

E

P

T

S

P

A R T ONE

C H A P T E R

T H E C O N C E P T U A LB A S I S

3

3.1 PROBLEMS WITH CURRENT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMSDespite the need for a standard classification system, none of the current classificationshave been internationally accepted (Danserau, 1961; Fosberg, 1961; Eiten, 1968;UNESCO, 1973; Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg, 1974; Kuechler and Zonneveld, 1988;CEC, 1993; Duhamel, 1995). This is because often the land cover classes have beendeveloped for a specific purpose or scale and are therefore not suitable for other initiatives.Furthermore, factors used in the classification system often result in an undesirablemixture of potential and actual land cover (e.g. including climate as a parameter). Thereasons why none of the current classifications could serve as a reference system aremanifold, as will be explained below.

3.1.1 PurposeA proportion of the existing classifications are either vegetation classifications (e.g.Danserau, 1961; Fosberg, 1961; Eiten, 1968; UNESCO 1973; Mueller-Dombois andEllenberg, 1974; Anderson et al ., 1976; Kuechler and Zonneveld, 1988), broad land coverclassifications, or systems related to the description of a specific feature (e.g. agriculturalareas). Thus, they are limited in their capacity to define the whole range of possible landcover classes. An illustration is the UNESCO Vegetation Classification (designed to serveprimarily for vegetation maps at a scale of 1:1 000 000), which considers only naturalvegetation, while all other vegetated areas, such as cultivated areas and urban vegetatedareas, are ignored. Other vegetation classifications, even if they consider agricultural areas,do not describe these classes with the same level of detail as that used for the naturalvegetation areas. In contrast, systems used to describe agricultural areas give very few

details in their description of natural vegetation.Many systems have been developed for a certain purpose, at a certain scale, and using acertain data type, such as the IGBP-DISCover global 1 km data set based on the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration Advanced Very High ResolutionRadiometer (NOAA-AVHRR). Hence the derived classes are strictly dependent on themeans used (e.g. in the last-named example, the classes will be only those that can bedetected using NOAA-AVHRR).

Many current classification systems are not suitable for mapping and subsequentmonitoring purposes. The use of the type of diagnostic criteria and their hierarchicalarrangement to form a class is very often in conflict with the ability to define a clear

boundary between two classes. For monitoring, land cover changes take two forms:


24/212

8

]

L

A

N

D

C

O

V

E

R

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I C

A

T

I O

N

S

Y

S

T

E

M

L

C

C

S

[

conversion from one category to another (e.g. from forest to grassland), and modificationof conditions within one category (e.g. from cultivated area to intensively cultivated area).The broader and fewer the categories used to describe land cover, the fewer the instances of conversion from one to another. If land cover classes are as broad as forest and woodland,arable land and permanent meadows and pastures (from the FAO ProductionYearbook) then forest fragmentation, shifts from rainfed to irrigated cultivated areas andless dense grass cover due to overgrazing will be registered as neither conversion normodification. A multi-user-oriented classification system should capture both.

3.1.2 ConsistencyIn most current classifications, the criteria used to derive classes are not systematicallyapplied. Often, the use of different ranges of values depends on the importance given bythe user to a particular feature (e.g. in many systems the cover ranges to distinguish tree-dominated areas are many, whereas only one single cover range is used to define shrub- orgrass- dominated areas).

In some classifications the class definition is imprecise, ambiguous or absent. This meansthat these systems fail to provide internal consistency. An example is the frequency withwhich classes in the CORINE (Coordination of Information on the Environment) LandCover system overlap with other classes elsewhere in the same classification (CEC, 1993).

In most systems, the full combination of diagnostic elements describing a class is notconsidered, e.g. a system that describes vegetation with the diagnostic criteria of threeranges of cover matched with three ranges of height must consistently apply these rangesfor all life forms considered. The reason why most systems fail in application of this basicclassification rule is that the entire set of permutations of the possible classifiers would leadto a vast number of classes that cannot be handled with the current methods of classdescription. Thus, in the example above, if there were 10 classes of each, the result wouldbe 100 combinations. Therefore, the current systems often leave gaps in the systematicapplication of the diagnostic criteria used.

Very often the systems contain a number of classes, which, due to their interrelationand hierarchical structure, appear to be a proportion of a broader set of classes. Thus, thesetypes of systems are mere legends. The characteristic of legends is that only a proportion

or sub-set of the entire range of possible classes is described. Such legends have thedisadvantage that the user cannot refer back to a classification system, which precludescomparisons with other systems.

Threshold values are very often derived from knowledge of a specific geographic area,so that elsewhere the class boundary definition between two classes may become unclear,due to overlaps or gaps. In these cases, any comparisons will be impossible or inaccurate.

3.1.3 Underlying common principleAn underlying common principle has not often been defined in land cover classification.A mixture of different features is used to define a class, especially features such as climate,

geology, soil type and landform (thus, in tropical rain forest the term tropical, which


25/212

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I

C

A

T

I

O

N

C

O

N

C

E

P

T

S

P

A R T ONE

9

THE CONCEPTUAL BASIS

is usually climate related, is used to describe a certain floristic composition). Features suchas climate, geology and landform influence land cover but are not inherent features of it.This type of combination is frequently found and is often applied in an irregular way, withno hierarchy. This may lead to ambiguity in the definition of the class.

Classification of vegetation using the diagnostic criteria of height and cover willlead to a different perspective of the same feature in comparison with the use of leaf phenology and leaf type (Figure 3.1). It is therefore important to come to a basicunderstanding of the criteria to be used as underlying principles for land cover description.

aphyllous

needle

leaved

broadleaved(very small)

broadleaved(very large)

evergreen mixed deciduous

L E A F P H E N O L O G Y

L E A F

T Y P E

> 50 m

100%

50%

10%

30 m > 5 m

1 2 3 4 5

23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5

97 98 99 100

S P E C I F I C G E O G R A P I C A R E A

N A T U R A L V E G E T A T I O N

H E I G H T

C O

V E R

F I G U R E 3 . 1

Example of description of a land cover using a different underlying principle


26/212

10

]

L

A

N

D

C

O

V

E

R

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I C

A

T

I O

N

S

Y

S

T

E

M

L

C

C

S

[

3.1.4 A pr io ri classification systemsIn an a priori classification system classes are pre-arranged. The use of such a classificationassumes that all possible classes can be derived, independent of scale and tools used, fromthe system. Having all classes pre-defined in the system is the intrinsic rigidity of an a priori classification system. The advantage of such a system is mainly that it is the mosteffective way to produce standardization of classification results among user communities.The disadvantage is that to be able to describe consistently any land cover occurringanywhere in the world, one needs an enormous number of pre-defined classes. Such asystem should be flexible in the sense that any occurring land cover can be accommodated.How can one introduce this type of flexibility while using the classical approach of classnames and descriptions?

This can be achieved by increasing the number of classes in an a priori system, but theproblem then arises of how the users will find their way through a jungle of class names(Figure 3.2). Furthermore, this situation makes standardization more difficult to attain, asevery user may have a slightly different opinion on how to interpret some classes because theclass boundary definitions between classes will be based on very slight, subjective differences.

The wrong, or different, designation of the same land cover feature among variousclasses will undermine the standardization process that is one of the primary objectives of the classification system. Ultimately, the attempt to harmonize will fail. The a prioriclassification approach appears to be a vicious circle: the attempt to create this type of classification as a tool for standardization obliges one to accommodate the enormousvariety of occurring land cover in a limited number of more generic classes, while theendeavour to create more classes increases the danger of lack of standardization, thussabotaging the basic principle forming the starting premise.

The above illustrates that there is not as much compatibility between classificationsystems, or between classification and legend, as may be desired. There are numerousinconsistencies in definition of classes, class boundaries, in the use of threshold values, etc.However useful the current classifications may be, these factors limit the possibility of using these methods on a broad range of applications.

In the context of developing a new system, it is fundamental to identify the criteria towhich any reference classification, to the extent possible, should adhere (Box 3.1).

I N C R E A S I N G N U M B E R O F C L A S S E S

F I G U R E 3 . 2

Problem of the current a priori classifications in relation to their flexibility

LOW flexbility

HIGH flexbility

ENORMOUS LIST OF CLASS NAMES WITHUNCLEAR OR TOO NARROW CLASS BOUNDARY

LOW level of standardization

HIGH level of standardization

UNDERSTANDABLE LIST OF CLASS NAMES

ADEQUATE NUMBER OF DETAILED CLASSES

LIMITED NUMBER OF GENERIC CLASSES


27/212

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I

C

A

T

I

O

N

C

O

N

C

E

P

T

S

P

A R T ONE

11


B O X 3 . 1

GENERAL CRITERIA FOR A REFERENCE CLASSIFICATION

The reference classification should be:comprehensive, scientifically sound and practically oriented ;capable of meeting the needs of a variety of users (neither single-projectoriented nor taking a sectoral approach); users can use just sub-sets of theclassification and develop them to their own specific needs;potentially applicable as a common reference system and facilitatingcomparisons between classes derived from different classifications;a flexible system that can be used at different scales and at different levelsof detail, allowing cross-reference of local and regional maps withcontinental and global maps without loss of information;able to describe the complete range of land cover features (e.g. forest andcultivated areas as well as ice and bare land, etc.), with clear class boundarydefinitions that are unambiguous and unique;adapted to fully describe the whole variety of land cover types with theminimum set of classifiers necessary (the fewer the classifiers used in thedefinitions, the less the error expected and the less time and resourcesnecessary for field validation); andbased on a clear and systematic description of the class , where the diagnosticcriteria used to define a class must be clearly defined, with pure land covercriteria distinct from environmental criteria (e.g. climate, floristic andaltitude), as the latter influence land cover but are not inherent features of it.

3.2 THE BASIS FOR A NEW APPROACH3.2.1 Definition adopted for land coverThe common integrated approach adopted here defines land cover as the observed(bio)physical cover on the earths surface(see Section 2.1, above), but, in addition, it is

emphasized that land cover must be considered a geographically explicit feature thatother disciplines may use as a geographical reference (e.g. for land use, climatic orecological studies).

Land is a basic source of mass and energy throughput in all terrestrial ecosystems, andland cover and land use represent the integrating elements of the resource base. Land cover,being the expression of human activities, changes with modifications in these activities.Therefore, land cover as a geographically explicit feature can form a reference basis forother disciplines.


28/212

12

]

L

A

N

D

C

O

V

E

R

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I C

A

T

I O

N

S

Y

S

T

E

M

L

C

C

S

[

3.2.2 New approach to classification3.2.2.1 Increasing flexibility while maintaining mappabilityTo create a standardized, hierarchical, consistent, a priori classification system containingsystematic and strict class boundary definitions implies the basic requirement of having tobuild flexibility into the classification system. In this context, flexibility can have variousmeanings. First of all, flexibility should address the potential for the classification systemto describe enough classes to cope with the real world. At the same time, however,flexibility should adhere to strict class boundary definitions that should be unambiguousand clear. In addition, the classes in such a system should be as neutral as possible in thedescription of a land cover feature in order to answer to the needs of a wide variety of end-users and disciplines.

Many current classification systems are not generally suitable for mapping, andsubsequent monitoring, purposes. The integrated approach requires clear distinction of class boundaries. Furthermore, the use of diagnostic criteria and their hierarchicalarrangement to form a class should be a function of the mappability, i.e. the ability todefine a clear boundary between two classes. Hence, diagnostic criteria should behierarchically arranged in order to assure at the highest levels of the classification a highdegree of geographical accuracy.

How does one increase the classification systems flexibility while maintaining theprinciple of mappability and aiming at standardization? These prerequisites can only beaccomplished if the classification has the possibility of generating a high number of classeswith clear boundary definitions. In other words, it should be possible to delineate a largenumber of classes in order to match the enormous variation of land cover features, whilemaintaining the clear distinction of class boundaries. In current classification systems thispossibility is hampered by the manner in which these classifications are set up. Differencesbetween classes can only be derived from class descriptions. Therefore, it would be verydifficult for the user to distinguish between such classes just based upon class names orunsystematic descriptions, as is the case with most of the current classification systems.

3.2.2.2 Basic principleOne of the basic principles adopted in the new approach is that a given land cover class is

defined by the combination of a set of independent diagnostic attributes, the so-calledclassifiers. The increase of detail in the description of a land cover feature is linked to theincrease in the number of classifiers used. In other words, the more classifiers added, themore detailed the class. The class boundary is then defined either by the different amountof classifiers or by the presence of one or more different types of classifiers. Thus, emphasisis no longer on the class name, but on the set of classifiers used to define this class.

3.2.2.3 Issues impeding application of the new approachThe straightforward application of this approach is hampered by two main factors. First,land cover should describe the whole observable (bio)physical environment and therefore

deals with a heterogeneous set of classes. Obviously, a forest is best defined using a set of


29/212

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I

C

A

T

I

O

N

C

O

N

C

E

P

T

S

P

A R T ONE

13


classifiers that differ from those used to describe snow-covered areas. Instead of using thesame set of classifiers to describe such heterogeneous features, in the new approach theclassifiers are tailored to each land cover feature. According to the general concept of an a priori classification, it is fundamental to the system that all the combinations of theclassifiers must be created in the system. By tailoring the set of classifiers to the land coverfeature, all combinations can be made without having a tremendous number of theoreticalbut redundant combinations of classifiers. Secondly, two distinct land cover features,having the same set of classifiers to describe them, may differ in the hierarchicalarrangement of these classifiers in order to ensure high mappability.

3.2.3 Land Cover Classification System design criteriaLand cover classes are defined by a string of classifiers, but due to the heterogeneity of landcover, and with the aim of achieving a logical and functional hierarchical arrangement of the classifiers, certain design criteria have been applied.

The Land Cover Classification System (LCCS) has two main phases (Figure 3.3).The initial Dichotomous Phase, has eight major land cover types:

Cultivated and Managed Terrestrial AreasNatural and Semi-Natural Terrestrial VegetationCultivated Aquatic or Regularly Flooded AreasNatural and Semi-Natural Aquatic or Regularly Flooded VegetationArtificial Surfaces and Associated AreasBare AreasArtificial Waterbodies, Snow and Ice, andNatural Waterbodies, Snow and Ice.

This is followed by a subsequent so-called Modular-Hierarchical Phase, in which landcover classes are created by the combination of sets of pre-defined classifiers. Theseclassifiers are tailored to each of the eight major land cover types.

The tailoring of classifiers in the second Phase allows the use of most appropriateclassifiers to define land cover classes derived from the major land cover types and at thesame time reduces the likelihood of impractical combinations of classifiers. This results ina land cover class defined by:

a Boolean formula showing each classifier used (all classifiers are coded);a unique number for use in Geographical Information Systems (GIS), anda name, which can be the standard name as supplied or a user-defined name.


30/212

14

]

L

A

N

D

C

O

V

E

R

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I C

A

T

I O

N

S

Y

S

T

E

M

L

C

C

S

[

3.2.4 Dichotomous PhaseAs stated above, a dichotomous key is used at the main level of classification to define themajor land cover classes (Figure 3.3). Each major land cover type is defined as shown inTables 3.1 to 3.3.

Three classifiers are used in the Dichotomous Phase, namely Presence of Vegetation,Edaphic Condition and Artificiality of Cover. These three classifiers have beenhierarchically arranged, although independent of this arrangement the same eight majorland cover types would be keyed out. The hierarchical arrangement is thus not importantin this Phase, but is a guiding principle in the subsequent Modular-Hierarchical Phase.

3.2.5 Modular-Hierarchical PhaseIn this phase the creation of the land cover class is given by the combination of a set of pre-defined pure land cover classifiers. This set of classifiers is different for each of the eightmain land cover types. This difference is due to the tailoring of the classifiers to theirrespective type (Figure 3.4).

These pure land cover classifiers can be combined with so-called attributes for furtherdefinition. Two types of attributes, which form separate levels in the classification, aredistinguished (see Figure 3.4 for two examples):

Environmental Attributes. These attributes (e.g. climate, landform, altitude, soils,lithology, erosion) influence land cover but are not inherent features of it and shouldnot be confused with pure land cover classifiers. These attributes can be combinedin any user-defined order.Specific Technical Attributes.These attributes refer to the technical discipline. Thus,for (Semi-)Natural Vegetation, the Floristic Aspect can be added (e.g. themethodology of how this information was collected, as well as a list of species); forCultivated Areas, the Crop Type can be added, either according to broad categoriescommonly used in statistics or by crop species; and for Bare Soil, the Soil Typeaccording to the FAO/UNESCO Revised Soil Legend can be added. Theseattributes can be added freely to the pure land cover class without any conditions.

The user is obliged to start with the pure land cover classifiers. However, at any timethe user can stop dependent upon the level of detail required and derive a land cover

class (Table 3.4). Further definition of this class can be achieved by adding a single or acombination of any of the other types of attributes. These attributes are not hierarchicallyordered and selection of them will generate a separate coded string.


31/212

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I

C

A

T

I

O

N

C

O

N

C

E

P

T

S

P

A R T ONE

15


Land Cover Class Name and Description

A1. Terrestrial Primarily Vegetated AreasThe vegetation is influenced by the edaphic substratum.

B1. Terrestrial Primarily Non-Vegetated AreasThe cover is influenced by the edaphic substratum.

A2. Aquatic or Regularly Flooded Primarily Vegetated AreasThe environment is significantly influenced by the presence ofwater over extensive periods of time. The water is the dominantfactor determining natural soil development and the type of plantcommunities living on its surface. Includes marshes, swamps, bogsand all areas where water is present for a substantial periodregularly every year. This class includes floating vegetation.

B2. Aquatic or Regularly Flooded Primarily Non-Vegetated AreasThe environment is significantly influenced by the presence ofwater over an extensive period of time each year.

Classifiers used

Primarily vegetatedEdaphic Condition:Terrestrial

Primarily non-vegetatedEdaphic Condition:Terrestrial

Primarily vegetatedEdaphic Condition:

Aquatic or regularly flooded

Primarily non-vegetatedEdaphic Condition:

Aquatic or regularly flooded

T A B L E 3 . 2

Distinctions at the second level

DICHOTOMOUS PHASE: SECOND-LEVEL DISTINCTION


A. Primarily Vegetated AreasThis class applies to areas that have a vegetative cover of at least4% for at least two months of the year. This cover may consist ofWoody life forms (Trees, Shrubs), Herbaceous life forms (e.g. Forbs,and Graminoids) or a combination of them, or consist of life formsof Lichens/Mosses (only when other life forms are absent). Aseparate cover condition exists for Lichens/Mosses that can be onlyapplied if this life form contributes at least 25% to the totalvegetative cover (see Appendix A: Glossary).

B. Primarily Non-Vegetated AreasThis class includes areas that have a total vegetative cover of lessthan 4% for at least 10 months of the year, or an absence ofWoody or Herbaceous life forms and with less than 25% cover ofLichens/Mosses

Classifiers used

Presence of Vegetation:Primarily vegetated

Presence of Vegetation:Primarily non-vegetated

T A B L E 3 . 1

Distinction at the main dichotomous level

DICHOTOMOUS PHASE: INITIAL-LEVEL DISTINCTION


32/212

16

]

L

A

N

D

C

O

V

E

R

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I C

A

T

I O

N

S

Y

S

T

E

M

L

C

C

S

[

]

[


A11. Cultivated and Managed Terrestrial AreasThis class refers to areas where the natural vegetation has beenremoved or modified and replaced by other types of vegetativecover of anthropogenic origin. This vegetation is artificial andrequires human activities to maintain it in the long term. In betweenthe human activities, or before starting crop cultivation, the surfacecan be temporarily without vegetative cover. Its seasonalphenological appearance can be regularly modified by humans (e.g.tillage, harvest, and irrigation). All vegetation that is planted orcultivated with an intent to harvest is included in this class (e.g.wheat fields, orchards, rubber and teak plantations).

A12. Natural and Semi-Natural VegetationNatural vegetated areas are defined as areas where the vegetativecover is in balance with the abiotic and biotic forces of its biotope.Semi-natural vegetation is defined as vegetation not planted byhumans but influenced by human actions. These may result fromgrazing, possibly overgrazing the natural phytocenoses, or else frompractices such as selective logging in a natural forest whereby thefloristic composition has been changed. Previously-cultivated areasthat have been abandoned and where vegetation is regeneratingare also included. The secondary vegetation developing during thefallow period of shifting cultivation is a further example. The humandisturbance may be deliberate or inadvertent. Hence semi-naturalvegetation includes vegetation due to human influences but whichhas recovered to such an extent that species composition andenvironmental and ecological processes are indistinguishable from,or in a process of achieving, its undisturbed state. The vegetativecover is not artificial, in contrast to classes A11 and A24, and it doesnot need human action to be maintained in the long term.

A23. Cultivated Aquatic or Regularly Flooded AreasThis class includes areas where an aquatic crop is purposely planted,cultivated and harvested and which is standing in water overextensive periods during its cultivation period (e.g. paddy rice, tidalrice and deepwater rice). In general, it is the emerging part of theplant that is fully or partly harvested. Other plants (e.g. forpurification of water) are free-floating. They are not harvested butthey are maintained. This class excludes irrigated cultivated areas.

Classifiers used

Primarily vegetated Terrestrial Artificiality of Cover: Artificial/managed

Primarily vegetated Terrestrial Artificiality of Cover:(Semi-)natural

Aquatic or Regularly Flooded Artificiality of Cover: Artificial/managed

T A B L E 3 . 3

Distinction at the third level of the dichotomous phase into eight major land cover types

DICHOTOMOUS PHASE: TERTIARY-LEVEL DISTINCTION


33/212

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I

C

A

T

I

O

N

C

O

N

C

E

P

T

S

P

A R T ONE

17



A24. Natural and Semi-Natural Aquatic or Regularly FloodedVegetationThis class describes areas that are transitional between pure terres-trial and aquatic systems and where the water table is usually at ornear the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. Thepredominant vegetation, at least periodically, compriseshydrophytes. Marshes, swamps, bogs or flats where drasticfluctuations in water level or high concentration of salts mayprevent the growth of hydrophytes are all part of this class. Thevegetative cover is significantly influenced by water and dependenton flooding (e.g. mangroves, marshes, swamps and aquatic beds).Occasionally-flooded vegetation within a terrestrial environment isnot included in this class. Natural Vegetated Aquatic habitats aredefined as biotopes where the vegetative cover is in balance withthe influence of biotic and abiotic forces. Semi-Natural Aquaticvegetation is defined as vegetation that is not planted by humansbut which is influenced directly by human activities that areundertaken for other, unrelated purposes. Human activities (e.g.urbanization, mining and agriculture) may influence abiotic factors(e.g. water quality), affecting species composition. Furthermore, thisclass includes vegetation that developed due to human activities butwhich has recovered to such an extent that it is indistinguishablefrom its former state or which has built up a new biotope which is inbalance with the present environmental conditions. A distinctionbetween Natural and Semi-Natural Aquatic Vegetation is not alwayspossible because human activities distant to the habitat may createchain reactions that ultimately disturb the aquatic vegetative cover.Human activities may also take place deliberately to compensate fordisruptive effects with the aim of keeping a natural state.

B15. Artificial Surfaces and Associated AreasThis class describes areas that have an artificial cover as a result ofhuman activities such as construction (cities, towns, transportation),extraction (open mines and quarries) or waste disposal.

B16. Bare AreasThis class describes areas that do not have an artificial cover as aresult of human activities. These areas include areas with lessthan 4% vegetative cover. Included are bare rock areas, sandsand deserts.

B27. Artificial Waterbodies, Snow and IceThis class applies to areas that are covered by water due to theconstruction of artefacts such as reservoirs, canals, artificial lakes,etc. Without these, the area would not be covered by water, snowor ice.

B28. Natural Waterbodies, Snow and IceThis class refers to areas that are naturally covered by water, suchas lakes, rivers, snow or ice. In the case of rivers, the lack ofvegetation cover is often due to high flow rates and/or steepbanks. In the case of lakes, their geological origin affects the lifeconditions for aquatic vegetation. The following circumstancesmight cause water surfaces to be without vegetation cover: depth,rocky basins, rocky and/or steep shorelines, infertile washed-in

material, hard and coarse substrates.

Classifiers used

Primarily vegetated Aquaticor Regularly Flooded

Artificiality of Cover:(Semi-)natural

Primarily non-vegetatedTerrestrial

Artificiality of Cover: Artificial/managed

Primarily non-vegetatedTerrestrial


Primarily non-vegetatedAquatic or Regularly Flooded

Artificiality of Cover: Artificial/managed

Primarily non-vegetatedAquatic or Regularly Flooded



34/212

18

]

L

A

N

D

C

O

V

E

R

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I C

A

T

I O

N

S

Y

S

T

E

M

L

C

C

S

[

D I C H O T O M O U S P H A S E M O D U L A R - H I E R A R C H I C A L P H A S E

F I G U R E 3 . 3

Overview of the Land Cover Classification System, its two phases and the classifiers


35/212

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I

C

A

T

I

O

N

C

O

N

C

E

P

T

S

P

A R T ONE

19


Since the classification is suitable for mapping purposes, the system gives high priority tomappability and the user needs to follow specific rules:

A higher level of land cover classifier must be used before going to a lower level(because mappability is high at higher levels and decreases with lower levels).The modifiers, which refine the classifier further, are optional and do not necessarilyneed to be determined.All land cover classifiers at one level of the classification have to be determinedbefore the system allows one to go to the next level.

At any time inside a land cover classifier level the user can stop, and a mutuallyexclusive class is defined.All land cover classes defined in such a way are hierarchically arranged in theLegend (see Legend Module).At any time the user can further define the land cover class using environmental orspecific technical attributes, alone or in combination. These attributes will add asecond, separate code to the land cover class because they are not inherent featuresof land cover.Each land cover class is defined by a Boolean formula (i.e. a combination of theclassifiers used), a unique code (numerical) and a name (nomenclature).

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

VII

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

pureland cover classifiers

environmental attributes

specifictechnical attributes

F I G U R E 3 . 4

The Modular-Hierarchical Phase

Example of tailoring of the classifiers and attributes for Cultivated and Managed Terrestrial Lands(left) and Natural and Semi-Natural Aquatic or Regularly Flooded Vegetation (on the right).


36/212

20

]

L

A

N

D

C

O

V

E

R

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I C

A

T

I O

N

S

Y

S

T

E

M

L

C

C

S

[

3.3 WORKING WITH THE LCCS MODE FUNCTIONThe LCCS Mode function allows the user to skip the dichotomous phase for the classesbelonging to primarily vegetated areas. This function has been added in recognition thatfor some specific mapping applications it is not feasible to separate Terrestrial fromAquatic and/or Artificial from Natural/Semi-Natural Vegetation. The software allows theuser to work in five different mode functions:

Mode 0 This is the default mode and it will indicate that the user has previously gonethrough the dichotomous phase to build up the class using the classifier combination.

Mode 1 Here the user skips the division between terrestrial and aquatic in thedichotomous phase. The activation of the skip button at this stage will allow the user toaccess the modular hierarchical phase only for Terrestrial Cultivated and Managed Areas,

and Semi-Natural Vegetation (See Figure 3.5).All the classes of Cultivated and Managed Land and/or Semi-Natural/NaturalVegetation generated under this mode function will therefore have no differentiationbetween edaphic conditions (Terrestrial or Aquatic Regularly Flooded)

Standard class name

Closed forest

High closed forest

Continuous closed forest

Broad-leaved closed forest

Broad-leaved deciduous forest

Multi-layered broad-leaveddeciduous forest

Multi-layer broad-leaveddeciduous forest with emergents

Code

20005

20006

20007

20095

20097

20628

20630

Boolean formula

A3A10

A3A10B2

A3A10B2C1

A3A10B2C1D1

A3A10B2C1D1E2

A3A10B2C1D1E2F2F5F7G2

A3A10B2C1D1E2F2F5F7G2

Classifiers used

Life form and cover

Height

Spatial distribution

Leaf type

Leaf phenology

2nd layer: LF, C, H

3rd layer: LF, C, H

T A B L E 3 . 4

Example of the formation of land cover classes

EXAMPLE: NATURAL AND SEMI-NATURAL TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION (A12)


37/212

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I

C

A

T

I

O

N

C

O

N

C

E

P

T

S

P

A R T ONE

21


Mode 2 Here the user selects the Primarily Vegetated and Terrestrial options. Thesecond skip button can then be activated which allows the user to omit the differentiationbetween Cultivated and Managed Terrestrial Area(s) and Natural and Semi-NaturalTerrestrial Vegetation. With Mode 2 setting there is only access to the modular hierarchicalphase from Terrestrial Natural/Semi-Natural Vegetation (See Figure 3.6). That means thatall classes of Terrestrial Natural/Semi-Natural Vegetation generated with this modefunction will not be differentiated according to the artificiality of vegetation.

F I G U R E 3 . 5

Mode 1 occurs when the buttons shown in the figure are selected

F I G U R E 3 . 6

Mode 2 activation


38/212

22

Mode 3 This is similar to Mode 2, with the exception that in the upper part of thedichotomous phase the Aquatic or Regularly Flooded alternative has been selectedinstead of the Terrestrial option. This allows access to the modular hierarchical phase onlyfrom Aquatic/Regularly Flooded Natural/Semi-Natural Vegetation (See Figure 3.7).

]

L

A

N

D

C

O

V

E

R

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I C

A

T

I O

N

S

Y

S

T

E

M

L

C

C

S

[

F I G U R E 3 . 7

Mode 3 activation


39/212

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I

C

A

T

I

O

N

C

O

N

C

E

P

T

S

P

A R T ONE

23

Mode 4 Here both skip buttons in the dichotomous phase are activated, therebyskipping the division between Terrestrial Aquatic or Regularly Flooded and Cultivatedand Managed Terrestrial Area(s) Natural and Semi-Natural Terrestrial Vegetation. Thiswill allow access to the modular hierarchical phase only from Terrestrial Semi-Natural/Natural Vegetation (See Figure 3.8).

A legend can be set up combining classes built up in different mode functions. Themode type used is added automatically to the LCCS GIS code and to the classifiersequence. (See Figure 3.9 and 3.10)

The activation of the LCCS cartographic standard (mixed units) can be done in anyLCCS mode function. However, to form a mixed unit (example A/B), the user has toremain in the same mode function.


F I G U R E 3 . 8

Mode 4 activation


40/212

24

]

L

A

N

D

C

O

V

E

R

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I C

A

T

I O

N

S

Y

S

T

E

M

L

C

C

S

[

F I G U R E 3 . 9

Land Cover Class window showing what a class description will look like when Mode

function is used

F I G U R E 3 . 1 0

Display Legend window showing a class defined in Mode function


41/212

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I

C

A

T

I

O

N

C

O

N

C

E

P

T

S

P

A R T ONE

25


3.4 CONCEPTS FOR PRIMARILY VEGETATED AREASThere are different ways of making an orderly arrangement of the Primarily Vegetated Areas, with varying success according to region or purpose. Vegetation has a multitude of properties and features and a certain degree of abstraction is required when classifying.However, agreement could be reached on selection of a relatively small number of diagnostic criteria to identify plant communities.

Plant communities, or phytocenoses, are characterized by two important features:all plant communities consist of growth forms; andall plant communities consist of plant species.

This applies to all phytocenoses on earth (Kuechler and Zonneveld, 1988). Growthforms (e.g. trees, shrubs, herbaceous, etc.) are so important that various vegetationscientists have used them as criteria for classification (Danserau, 1961; Mueller-Domboisand Ellenberg, 1974). The growth forms are distributed within the plant community inlayers or strata . This stratification is common and the distinction of the individual strata isof fundamental importance when analysing the plant community. Plant communities arenot limited to vertical arrangement into layers: they are also arranged horizontally (i.e. thehorizontal spatial distribution).

Thus, when observing plant communities and considering their growth forms, twofactors are fundamental:

physiognomy,the overall appearance of the vegetation; andvegetation structure, which is defined as the spatial distribution pattern of growthforms in a plant community (Kuechler and Zonneveld, 1988). The structure, then,describes the individual strata, usually characterized by height and density orcoverage of the respective growth forms.

At the same time, a plant community consists of taxa (botanical species) that are usuallyunevenly distributed insofar as some may be common, or dominant, while others are lessconspicuous. The component taxa can be used to describe the plant community as well asthe structure. A description using taxa is called floristic composition of the plantcommunity. The floristic composition usually contains all species, though it is unusual toinclude the rare or incidental ones.

The various existing classification systems have emphasized one or other of the above

(e.g. physiognomic-structural systems; floristic systems and physiognomic-floristicsystems). There is no doubt that a full description of a plant community must considerboth physiognomic-structural and floristic aspects. A phytocenose can have the samestructural aspect but different floristic composition, as well as the same floristiccomposition but a different structural aspect. However, problems arise when attempting toincorporate both types of information in a single classification system.

In LCCS, Natural and Semi-Natural Vegetation , both in the Terrestrial Areas (A12)and Aquatic or Regularly Flooded Areas (A24), is classified using a pure physiognomic-structural method. The parameters considered are: (1) physiognomy; (2) vertical andhorizontal arrangement; (3) leaf type; and (4) leaf phenology of plants. This concept has

been adopted with the conviction that only a pure structural representation of vegetation


42/212

26

]

L

A

N

D

C

O

V

E

R

C

L

A

S

S

I F

I C

A

T

I O

N

S

Y

S

T

E

M

L

C

C

S

[

is able to incorporate, without any confusion of terms, floristic aspects of vegetation aswell as environmental attributes (e.g. landform, climate, altitude, etc.). The proposedclassification allows the user to add freely these attributes at any level of the structural landcover class created.

Users not familiar with classical vegetation classification and mapping (Eiten, 1968;UNESCO, 1973; White, 1983; Kuechler and Zonneveld, 1988) or ecological studies shouldbe able to build up a scientifically sound vegetation classification by following the LandCover Classification System. This will avoid the separation between classical vegetationclassification and land cover classification. A variety of users should be able to apply theresults of the classification, even those who are not specialized in vegetation mapping.

The physiognomic-structural approach selected for classification of vegetated areas ina land cover classification system poses a challenge with regard to classification of vegetated areas other than (semi-)natural vegetated areas, namely cultivated and urbanvegetated areas. These managed vegetated areas are also characterized by plantcommunities having growth forms and taxa, a structure and a floristic composition.Therefore, the physiognomic-structural approach adopted is equally applicable to suchareas. Using the same approach to describe and classify this type of area at a certain levelof detail has the advantage that all Primarily Vegetated Areas can be compared.

3.4.1 Natural and Semi-Natural Vegetation (A12 and A24)General rules for classificationBefore starting to use the classifiers, the user has to take into account some basic rulesgoverning the concepts of classification of (Semi-)Natural Vegetation, namely:

the definition of Life Form, andthe definition of dominance.

These two main aspects are very important and must be carefully determined becausein the software the determination of main Life Form has consequences for the optionsavailable at subsequent levels. Certain choices at a high level of the system may disablechoices at lower levels.

Life Form of a plant is defined by its physiognomic aspect: Woody Life Forms aredistinguished from Herbaceous Life Forms and from Lichens/Mosses Life Forms.

The Woody Life Form is subdivided into Trees and Shrubs. A condition of Heightis applied to separate Trees and Shrubs. Plants higher t

LCCS2 Manual En

Documents

Transcript of LCCS2 Manual En