4.7 Article

Land-use data collection using the land cover classification system: results from a case study in Kenya

期刊

LAND USE POLICY
卷 20, 期 2, 页码 131-148

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0264-8377(02)00081-9

关键词

land-use classification; land cover classification; mapping; standardisation; data harmonisation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a systematic methodology to derive land-use classes from a remotely sensed data derived land cover map at a scale of 1:200,000. The aim of the study is to better understand the land cover/land-use relationship and to enhance the value of a land cover mapping product for the planning and management of natural resources and/or environmental change studies. In the case of the study, the land cover product is generated using the FAO/UNEP land cover classification system. The methodology is heavily determined by the spatial resolution of the satellite imagery, the classification system used and the expert knowledge of the study area. For any given land cover the associated land-uses are identified as well as the land cover/land-use relationship. It is assumed that these relations can be of four types: one to one, one to many, many to one or a combination of any of the aforementioned possibilities. The land cover/land-use relation need not be consistent across the study area. The parameters used for land-use classification are based on a comprehensive review of the literature, in which land cover and land-use are usually amalgamated. A set of decision rules was established to define land-use classes. These decision rules were tested during the field survey, after which they were applied to the whole study area. The concurrence of land cover and land-use delineations is discussed for the classes identified. The result of the study is a detailed, flexible land-use data set in which the various parameters used for classification can be re-grouped according to user needs. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据