Monitoring Agricultural Land and Land Cover Change from 2001–2021 of the Chi River Basin, Thailand Using Multi-Temporal Landsat Data Based on Google Earth Engine
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Study Area and Materials
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Reference Data
- 2021 year: A total of 3290 sampling points were collected as reference data from a field survey performed between 15 May 2021 and 30 July 2021. Point position was then georeferenced with high accuracy by a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) version Garmin 62 s [30].
- 2006, 2011 and 2016 years: The same 3290 sampling points considered in the 2021 year were photo-interpreted and digitized using very high-resolution data available within the Google Earth pro imagery database.
- 2001 year: In addition, the same reference points were photo-interpreted, digitized and finally acquired through very high-resolution color orthophoto images provided by the Land Development Department (LDD) [11]. LDD color orthophoto images were used to search and record different agricultural land fields/LC within the Chi River Basin. LDD is characterized by having spatial resolution equal to 1 m. Moreover, to improve sampling point dataset reliability, authors interviewed 20 local farmers who have been farming and living for over 20 years in the area.
2.3. Landsat Image Datasets
2.4. Auxiliary Geo-Data
3. Methods
3.1. Supervised Classification
3.2. Accuracy Evalutation
- The accuracy of the crop type/LC maps was generated using an independent validation dataset (987 reference points). As mentioned previously, the validation dataset was collected from a field survey for 2021 and from visual interpretation by using very high-resolution data available within the Google Earth pro imagery for 2001, 2006 and 2011 (Table 1). The maps’ accuracy evaluations were assessed by combining typical statistics resulting from the confusion matrix, such as overall accuracy (OA), user’s accuracy (UA), producer’s accuracy (PA) [47] and the kappa statistic [48].
3.3. Post-Classification
4. Results
4.1. Crop Type/LC Classification
4.2. Crop Type Dynamics
5. Discussion
5.1. Crop Type/LC Classification Assessment
5.2. Agricultural Land Change Dynamics
- The irrigated crop plantation system was fully supported by the governmental sector;
- Agricultural industries needed crop production demands, which led to increased prices for specific crops such cassava and sugarcane;
- The government policies aimed to extend crop cultivation areas, as well as support capital for the farmers for land management.
- The government encouraged farmers to warranty a stable price for economic crop production;
- The production demands were increased due to the rapid expansion of agricultural industries in this region.
- The international para rubber demand was increased, as well as the government support for famers for enhancing supply of para rubber production;
- The unsuitable areas of rice production have been promoted by the government to sugarcane cultivations.
- The sugarcane cultivation was promoted by the government to replace unsuitable rice production.
- The farmers were encouraged to produce sugarcane through financial loans and capital support from the sugar mills.
- Farmers’ incomes were stabilized with balanced production by contract farming.
- The government policies deal with young, smart farmer groups to learning new technology and address a lack of agricultural labor, while also increasing production and productivity per area.
6. Conclusions
- The derived crop type/LC transitions are highly significant for food security planting and other agricultural land management, especially in developing countries;
- Evaluations of biomass, carbon stock, and yield highly rely on accurate information on crop type/LC classification maps over a large region;
- Using multi-temporal Landsat data (i.e., L5, L7, L8 and L9) based on GEE properly enables crop type mapping in small fields and complex landscapes. A dense time series analysis of earth observation data should be adopted for higher accuracy and satisfaction. This improves persistent cloud and compositing methods for crop type classification across the vast region;
- While our study demonstrated that the RF classifier method was highly efficient, additional research towards using the method in small field sizes and combining with multiple EO data sets is recommended;
- The joint use of the GEE computing platform and multi-temporal Landsat dataset make it possible to map crop types on cloudy and rainy days in Northeast Thailand, and ongoing research should be applied to this cloud platform to monitor the crop types throughout all of Thailand;
- The estimated areas of the derived crop type/LC results in this study should be compared to the official land use and land cover statistics from the government, exploring the potential biases in crop transitions and external validation using independent datasets;
- Our results offer up-to-date and reliable information for sustainable agricultural land management in Thailand, as well as for dealing with policymakers, decision-making and production planning.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Indices | Abbreviation | Formula | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
Normalized Difference Vegetation Index | NDVI | Rouse [58] | |
Maximum NDVI | maxNDVI | Cihlar, et al. [59] | |
Minimum NDVI | minNDVI | ||
Enhance Vegetation Index | EVI | Huete, et al. [60] | |
Normalized Difference Water Index | NDWI | McFeeters [61] | |
Soil-Adjusted Vegetation Index | SAVI | Huete [62] | |
Ratio Vegetation Index | RVI | Jordan [63] | |
Normalized Difference Infrared Index | NDII | Hardisky [64] | |
Normalized difference moisture Index | NDMI | Gao [65] |
Time Periods | Feature Variables |
---|---|
2021 | maxNDVI_L8, SWIR2_L9, EVI_L8, SWIR1_L9, NIR_L8, SWIR1_L8, SAVI_L8, Green_L9, EVI_L9, minNDVI_L9 |
2016 | NIR_L8, maxNDVI_L8, EVI_L8, SWIR1_L8, SAVI_L8, Green_L8, NDWI_L8, SWIR2_L8, Red_L8, NDII_L8 |
2011 | maxNDVI_L5, SWIR2_L5, SWIR1_L5, EVI_L5, NIR_L5, RVI_L5, SAVI_L5, Red_L5, Green_L5, NDVI_L5 |
2006 | maxNDVI_L5, EVI_L5, SWIR1_L5, Blue_L5, NIR_L5, SWIR2_L5, SAVI_L5, Green_L5, NDVI_L5, RVI_L5 |
2001 | NDWI_L5, NDVI_L5, SWIR1_L5, maxNDVI_L7, SWIR_L7, NIR_L7, Red_L7, RVI_L5, maxNDVI_L5, EVI_L7 |
References
- Arowolo, A.O.; Deng, X.; Olatunji, O.A.; Obayelu, A.E. Assessing changes in the value of ecosystem services in response to land-use/land-cover dynamics in Nigeria. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 636, 597–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kelly-Fair, M.; Gopal, S.; Koch, M.; Pancasakti Kusumaningrum, H.; Helmi, M.; Khairunnisa, D.; Kaufman, L. Analysis of land use and land cover changes through the lens of SDGs in Semarang, Indonesia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarvia, F.; De Petris, S.; Borgogno-Mondino, E. Exploring climate change effects on vegetation phenology by MOD13Q1 data: The piemonte region case study in the period 2001–2019. Agronomy 2021, 11, 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arifeen, H.M.; Phoungthong, K.; Mostafaeipour, A.; Yuangyai, N.; Yuangyai, C.; Techato, K.; Jutidamrongphan, W. Determine the land-use land-cover changes, urban expansion and their driving factors for sustainable development in Gazipur Bangladesh. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basu, T.; Das, A.; Pereira, P. Exploring the drivers of urban expansion in a medium-class urban agglomeration in India using the remote sensing techniques and geographically weighted models. Geogr. Sustain. 2023, 4, 150–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kavvada, A.; Metternicht, G.; Kerblat, F.; Mudau, N.; Haldorson, M.; Laldaparsad, S.; Friedl, L.; Held, A.; Chuvieco, E. Towards delivering on the sustainable development goals using earth observations. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 247, 111930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, H.; Hu, B.; Zhang, Z. Impacts of land use change on ecosystem service value based on SDGs report--Taking Guangxi as an example. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 133, 108366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basu, B.; Sannigrahi, S.; Sarkar Basu, A.; Pilla, F. Development of novel classification algorithms for detection of floating plastic debris in coastal waterbodies using multispectral Sentinel-2 remote sensing imagery. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. Socio-Economic Context and Role of Agriculture. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/I8684EN/i8684en.pdf (accessed on 23 July 2022).
- Office of Agriculture Economics. Agricultural statistics of Thailand 2021; Report of Organiztion Nation Statistical Office Ministry of Digital Economy and Society; Office of Agriculture Economics: Bangkok, Thailand, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Som-ard, J.; Immitzer, M.; Vuolo, F.; Ninsawat, S.; Atzberger, C. Mapping of crop types in 1989, 1999, 2009 and 2019 to assess major land cover trends of the Udon Thani province, Thailand. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2022, 198, 107083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choenkwan, S.; Fox, J.M.; Rambo, A.T. Agriculture in the mountains of Northeastern Thailand: Current situation and prospects for development. Mt Res Dev. 2014, 34, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Som-ard, J. Rice security assessment using geo-spatial analysis. Int. J. Geoinformatics. 2020, 16, 21–37. [Google Scholar]
- Vityakon, P.; Subhadhira, S.; Limpinuntana, V.; Srila, S.; Trelo-Ges, V.; Sriboonlue, V. From forest to farmfields: Changes in land use in undulating terrain of Northeast Thailand at different scales during the past century. Jpn. J. Southeast Asian Stud. 2004, 41, 444–472. [Google Scholar]
- Pipitpukdee, S.; Attavanich, W.; Bejranonda, S. Climate change impacts on sugarcane production in Thailand. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lacombe, G.; Polthanee, A.; Trébuil, G. Long-term change in rainfall distribution in Northeast Thailand: Will cropping systems be able to adapt? Cah. Agric. 2017, 26, 25001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boukabara, S.-A.; Eyre, J.; Anthes, R.A.; Holmlund, K.; Germain, K.M.S.; Hoffman, R.N. The Earth-Observing Satellite Constellation: A review from a meteorological perspective of a complex, interconnected global system with extensive applications. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. 2021, 9, 26–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, K.A.; Reddy, G.O.; Masilamani, P.; Turkar, S.Y.; Sandeep, P. Integrated drought monitoring index: A tool to monitor agricultural drought by using time-series datasets of space-based earth observation satellites. Adv. Space Res. 2021, 67, 298–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitcraft, A.K.; Becker-Reshef, I.; Justice, C.O. A framework for defining spatially explicit earth observation requirements for a global agricultural monitoring initiative (GEOGLAM). Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 1461–1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuchler, P.C.; Simões, M.; Ferraz, R.; Arvor, D.; de Almeida Machado, P.L.O.; Rosa, M.; Gaetano, R.; Bégué, A. Monitoring complex integrated crop–livestock systems at regional scale in Brazil: A big earth observation data approach. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borgogno-Mondino, E.; Sarvia, F.; Gomarasca, M.A. Supporting insurance strategies in agriculture by remote sensing: A possible approach at regional level. In Proceedings of the Computational Science and Its Applications–ICCSA 2019: 19th International Conference, Saint Petersburg, Russia, 1–4 July 2019; Part IV 19. pp. 186–199. [Google Scholar]
- Samuele, D.P.; Filippo, S.; Enrico, B.-M. Multi-temporal mapping of flood damage to crops using sentinel-1 imagery: A case study of the Sesia River (October 2020). Remote Sens Lett. 2021, 12, 459–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarvia, F.; De Petris, S.; Borgogno Mondino, E. Multi-scale remote sensing to support insurance policies in agriculture: From mid-term to instantaneous deductions. GIsci Remote Sens. 2020, 57, 770–784. [Google Scholar]
- Kluger, D.M.; Wang, S.; Lobell, D.B. Two shifts for crop mapping: Leveraging aggregate crop statistics to improve satellite-based maps in new regions. Remote Sens Environ. 2021, 262, 112488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, C.; Bian, Y.; Zhou, T.; Pan, J. Using of multi-source and multi-temporal remote sensing data improves crop-type mapping in the subtropical agriculture region. Sensors 2019, 19, 2401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tariq, A.; Yan, J.; Gagnon, A.S.; Riaz Khan, M.; Mumtaz, F. Mapping of cropland, cropping patterns and crop types by combining optical remote sensing images with decision tree classifier and random forest. Geo-Spat. Inf. Sci. 2022, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calderón-Loor, M.; Hadjikakou, M.; Bryan, B.A. High-resolution wall-to-wall land-cover mapping and land change assessment for Australia from 1985 to 2015. Remote Sens. Environ. 2021, 252, 112148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Office of Agriculture Economics. Chi River. Available online: https://mis-app.oae.go.th/ (accessed on 18 July 2022).
- Thai Meteorological Department. Weather of Thaialnd in 2021. Available online: https://tmd-dev.azurewebsites.net/en (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Hodgson, M.E. On the accuracy of low-cost dual-frequency GNSS network receivers and reference data. GIsci Remote Sens. 2020, 57, 907–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masek, J.G.; Wulder, M.A.; Markham, B.; McCorkel, J.; Crawford, C.J.; Storey, J.; Jenstrom, D.T. Landsat 9: Empowering open science and applications through continuity. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 248, 111968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irons, J.R.; Dwyer, J.L.; Barsi, J.A. The next Landsat satellite: The Landsat data continuity mission. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 122, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matongera, T.N.; Mutanga, O.; Sibanda, M.; Odindi, J. Estimating and monitoring land surface phenology in rangelands: A review of progress and challenges. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 2060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffiths, P.; Nendel, C.; Hostert, P. Intra-annual reflectance composites from Sentinel-2 and Landsat for national-scale crop and land cover mapping. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 220, 135–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffiths, P.; van der Linden, S.; Kuemmerle, T.; Hostert, P. A pixel-based Landsat compositing algorithm for large area land cover mapping. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2013, 6, 2088–2101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- White, J.; Wulder, M.; Hobart, G.; Luther, J.; Hermosilla, T.; Griffiths, P.; Coops, N.; Hall, R.; Hostert, P.; Dyk, A. Pixel-based image compositing for large-area dense time series applications and science. Can. J. Remote Sens. 2014, 40, 192–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vancutsem, C.; Pekel, J.F.; Bogaert, P.; Defourny, P. Mean Compositing, an alternative strategy for producing temporal syntheses. Concepts and performance assessment for spot vegetation time series. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2007, 28, 5123–5141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pflugmacher, D.; Rabe, A.; Peters, M.; Hostert, P. Mapping pan-European land cover using Landsat spectral-temporal metrics and the European LUCAS survey. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 221, 583–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farr, T.G.; Rosen, P.A.; Caro, E.; Crippen, R.; Duren, R.; Hensley, S.; Kobrick, M.; Paller, M.; Rodriguez, E.; Roth, L. The shuttle radar topography mission. Rev. Geophys. 2007, 45, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. learn. 2001, 45, 5–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Immitzer, M.; Vuolo, F.; Atzberger, C. First experience with Sentinel-2 data for crop and tree species classifications in central Europe. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vuolo, F.; Neuwirth, M.; Immitzer, M.; Atzberger, C.; Ng, W.-T. How much does multi-temporal Sentinel-2 data improve crop type classification? Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2018, 72, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Xiao, X.; Liu, L.; Wu, X.; Qin, Y.; Steiner, J.L.; Dong, J. Mapping sugarcane plantation dynamics in Guangxi, China, by time series Sentinel-1, Sentinel-2 and Landsat images. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 247, 111951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Hou, J.; Huang, C.; Zhang, Y.; Li, X. Mapping maize area in heterogeneous agricultural landscape with multi-temporal sentinel-1 and sentinel-2 images based on random forest. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 2988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Immitzer, M.; Neuwirth, M.; Böck, S.; Brenner, H.; Vuolo, F.; Atzberger, C. Optimal input features for tree species classification in Central Europe based on multi-temporal Sentinel-2 data. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liaw, A.; Wiener, M. Classification and regression by random forest. R News 2002, 2, 18–22. [Google Scholar]
- Congalton, R.G. A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data. Remote Sens. Environ. 1991, 37, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Edu. Psychol. Meas. 1960, 20, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olofsson, P.; Foody, G.M.; Stehman, S.V.; Woodcock, C.E. Making better use of accuracy data in land change studies: Estimating accuracy and area and quantifying uncertainty using stratified estimation. Remote Sens. Environ. 2013, 129, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Som-Ard, J.; Atzberger, C.; Izquierdo-Verdiguier, E.; Vuolo, F.; Immitzer, M. Remote sensing applications in sugarcane cultivation: A review. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 4040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasiri, V.; Deljouei, A.; Moradi, F.; Sadeghi, S.M.M.; Borz, S.A. Land use and land cover mapping using Sentinel-2, Landsat-8 satellite images, and Google Earth Engine: A comparison of two composition methods. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, T.; Johansen, K.; McCabe, M.F. A machine learning approach for identifying and delineating agricultural fields and their multi-temporal dynamics using three decades of Landsat data. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2022, 186, 83–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, H.; Qi, S.; Li, X.; Gao, C.; Wei, Y.; Liu, C. Monitoring three-decade dynamics of citrus planting in Southeastern China using dense Landsat records. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2021, 103, 102518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghassemi, B.; Dujakovic, A.; Żółtak, M.; Immitzer, M.; Atzberger, C.; Vuolo, F. Designing a European-wide crop type mapping approach based on machine learning algorithms using LUCAS field survey and Sentinel-2 data. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emparanza, P.R.; Hongkarnjanakul, N.; Rouquette, D.; Schwob, C.; Mezeix, L. Land cover classification in Thailand’s Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) using convolutional neural network on satellite images. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2020, 20, 100394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kruasilp, J.; Pattanakiat, S.; Phutthai, T.; Vardhanabindu, P.; Nakmuenwai, P. Evaluation of land use land cover changes in Nan province, Thailand, using multi-sensor satellite data and Google Earth Engine. Environ. Nat. Resour. J. 2023, 21, 186–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daraneesrisuk, J.; Ninsawat, S.; Losiri, C.; Sitthi, A. Sugarcane and cassava classification using machine learning aproach based on multi-temporal remote sensing data analysis. In Applied Geography and Geoinformatics for Sustainable Development: Proceedings of ICGGS 2022; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 183–194. [Google Scholar]
- Rouse, J.W.; Hass, R.H.; Schell, J.A.; Deering, D.W. Monitoring vegetation systemsin the Great Plains with ERTS. In Proceedings of the 3rd ERTS Symposium, Washington, DC, USA, 1 January 1974; pp. 309–317. [Google Scholar]
- Cihlar, J.; Manak, D.; D’Iorio, M. Evaluation of compositing algorithms for AVHRR data over land. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 1994, 32, 427–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huete, A.; Didan, K.; Miura, T.; Rodriguez, E.P.; Gao, X.; Ferreira, L.G. Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Remote Sens. Environ. 2002, 83, 195–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFeeters, S.K. The use of the Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI) in the delineation of open water features. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1996, 17, 1425–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huete, A.R. A soil-adjusted vegetation index (SAVI). Remote Sens. Environ. 1988, 25, 295–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jordan, C.F. Derivation of leaf-area index from quality of light on the forest floor. Ecology 1969, 50, 663–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hardisky. The influence of soil salinity, growth form, and leaf moisture on-the spectral radiance of. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens 1983, 49, 77–83. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, B.-C. NDWI—A normalized difference water index for remote sensing of vegetation liquid water from space. Remote Sens. Environ. 1996, 58, 257–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Crop Type/LC | 2001 | 2006 | 2011 | 2016 | 2021 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Color Orthophoto | Google Earth Pro | Field Campaigns | ||||||||
Training | Validation | Training | Validation | Training | Validation | Training | Validation | Training | Validation | |
Rice | 261 | 112 | 341 | 146 | 335 | 144 | 301 | 129 | 340 | 146 |
Sugarcane | 890 | 381 | 836 | 358 | 742 | 318 | 615 | 264 | 452 | 194 |
Cassava | 61 | 26 | 63 | 27 | 180 | 77 | 235 | 101 | 240 | 103 |
Para rubber | 247 | 106 | 227 | 97 | 209 | 90 | 311 | 133 | 365 | 156 |
Built-up | 350 | 150 | 350 | 150 | 350 | 150 | 350 | 150 | 350 | 150 |
Forest | 303 | 130 | 272 | 117 | 268 | 115 | 243 | 104 | 225 | 96 |
Water | 118 | 51 | 126 | 54 | 125 | 54 | 136 | 58 | 150 | 64 |
Bare soil | 73 | 31 | 88 | 38 | 94 | 40 | 112 | 48 | 181 | 78 |
Total | 2303 | 987 | 2303 | 987 | 2303 | 987 | 2303 | 987 | 2303 | 987 |
Image Data (January–December) | Sensor | Years (Scenes) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2001 | 2006 | 2011 | 2016 | 2021 | ||
Landsat-5 | TM | 45 | 78 | 48 | ||
Landsat-7 | ETM+ | 33 | ||||
Landsat-8 | OLI | 90 | 112 | |||
Landsat-9 | OLI-2 | 22 | ||||
Total (scenes) | 78 | 78 | 48 | 90 | 134 |
Feature Data | 2001 | 2006 | 2011 | 2016 | 2021 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
L5 & L7 | L5 | L5 | L8 | L8 & L9 | |
Spectral bands | 12 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 12 |
Vegetation indices (VIs) | 18 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 18 |
Topographic | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Total (Full Set of Features) | 32 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 32 |
2001 Crop Types | Reference Data | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cassava | Rice | Para Rubber | Sugarcane | Built-Up | Forest | Water | Bare Soil | Total | UA (%) | |
Cassava | 96 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 112 | 85.71 |
Rice | 22 | 339 | 0 | 12 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 381 | 88.98 |
Para rubber | 0 | 0 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 100.00 |
Sugarcane | 10 | 5 | 0 | 88 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 106 | 83.02 |
Built-up | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 144 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 150 | 96.00 |
Forest | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 125 | 0 | 0 | 130 | 96.15 |
Water | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 43 | 0 | 51 | 84.31 |
Bare soil | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 31 | 100.00 |
Total | 129 | 356 | 33 | 106 | 152 | 136 | 44 | 31 | 987 | |
PA (%) | 74.42 | 95.22 | 78.79 | 83.02 | 94.74 | 91.91 | 97.73 | 100.00 | ||
OA = 90.37%; Kappa = 87.80% | ||||||||||
2006 | Cassava | Rice | Para rubber | Sugarcane | Built-up | Forest | Water | Bare soil | Total | UA (%) |
Cassava | 114 | 12 | 0 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 146 | 78.08 |
Rice | 25 | 319 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 358 | 89.11 |
Para rubber | 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 92.59 |
Sugarcane | 16 | 5 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 97 | 77.32 |
Built-up | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 147 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 150 | 98.00 |
Forest | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 113 | 0 | 0 | 117 | 96.58 |
Water | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 48 | 0 | 54 | 88.89 |
Bare soil | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 34 | 38 | 89.47 |
Total | 155 | 340 | 27 | 106 | 154 | 121 | 48 | 36 | 987 | |
PA (%) | 73.55 | 93.82 | 92.59 | 70.75 | 95.45 | 93.39 | 100.00 | 94.44 | ||
OA = 88.65%; Kappa = 85.78% | ||||||||||
2011 | Cassava | Rice | Para rubber | Sugarcane | Built-up | Forest | Water | Bare soil | Total | UA (%) |
Cassava | 110 | 12 | 0 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 144 | 76.39 |
Rice | 18 | 283 | 0 | 12 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 318 | 88.99 |
Para rubber | 0 | 0 | 74 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 77 | 96.10 |
Sugarcane | 16 | 3 | 0 | 71 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 90 | 78.89 |
Built-up land | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 148 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 150 | 98.67 |
Forest | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 110 | 0 | 0 | 114 | 96.49 |
Water | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 49 | 0 | 54 | 90.74 |
Bare soil | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 37 | 40 | 92.50 |
Total | 144 | 299 | 76 | 108 | 154 | 118 | 49 | 39 | 987 | |
PA (%) | 76.39 | 94.65 | 97.37 | 65.74 | 96.10 | 93.22 | 100.00 | 94.87 | ||
OA = 89.36%; Kappa = 87.08% |
2016 Crop Types | Reference Data | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cassava | Rice | Para Rubber | Sugarcane | Built-Up | Forest | Water | Bare soil | Total | UA (%) | |
Cassava | 106 | 5 | 1 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 129 | 82.17 |
Rice | 18 | 237 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 264 | 89.77 |
Para rubber | 2 | 0 | 98 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 101 | 97.03 |
Sugarcane | 16 | 4 | 2 | 111 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 133 | 83.46 |
Built-up | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 145 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 150 | 96.67 |
Forest | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 101 | 0 | 0 | 104 | 97.12 |
Water | 0 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 45 | 0 | 58 | 77.59 |
Bare soil | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 46 | 48 | 95.83 |
Total | 142 | 260 | 101 | 139 | 148 | 105 | 45 | 47 | 987 | |
PA (%) | 74.65 | 91.15 | 97.03 | 79.86 | 97.97 | 96.19 | 100.00 | 97.87 | ||
OA = 90.07%; Kappa = 88.21% | ||||||||||
2021 | Cassava | Rice | Para rubber | Sugarcane | Built-up | Forest | Water | Bare soil | Total | UA (%) |
Cassava | 119 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 146 | 81.51 |
Rice | 3 | 185 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 194 | 95.36 |
Para rubber | 0 | 0 | 98 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 103 | 95.15 |
Sugarcane | 18 | 2 | 0 | 136 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 156 | 87.18 |
Built-up | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 147 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 150 | 98.00 |
Forest | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 94 | 0 | 0 | 96 | 97.92 |
Water | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 60 | 0 | 64 | 93.75 |
Bare soil | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 78 | 78 | 100.00 |
Total | 140 | 193 | 103 | 156 | 148 | 107 | 60 | 80 | 987 | |
PA (%) | 85.00 | 95.85 | 95.15 | 87.18 | 99.32 | 87.85 | 100.00 | 97.50 | ||
OA = 92.91%; Kappa = 91.76% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Suwanlee, S.R.; Keawsomsee, S.; Pengjunsang, M.; Homtong, N.; Prakobya, A.; Borgogno-Mondino, E.; Sarvia, F.; Som-ard, J. Monitoring Agricultural Land and Land Cover Change from 2001–2021 of the Chi River Basin, Thailand Using Multi-Temporal Landsat Data Based on Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4339. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15174339
Suwanlee SR, Keawsomsee S, Pengjunsang M, Homtong N, Prakobya A, Borgogno-Mondino E, Sarvia F, Som-ard J. Monitoring Agricultural Land and Land Cover Change from 2001–2021 of the Chi River Basin, Thailand Using Multi-Temporal Landsat Data Based on Google Earth Engine. Remote Sensing. 2023; 15(17):4339. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15174339
Chicago/Turabian StyleSuwanlee, Savittri Ratanopad, Surasak Keawsomsee, Morakot Pengjunsang, Nudthawud Homtong, Amornchai Prakobya, Enrico Borgogno-Mondino, Filippo Sarvia, and Jaturong Som-ard. 2023. "Monitoring Agricultural Land and Land Cover Change from 2001–2021 of the Chi River Basin, Thailand Using Multi-Temporal Landsat Data Based on Google Earth Engine" Remote Sensing 15, no. 17: 4339. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15174339
APA StyleSuwanlee, S. R., Keawsomsee, S., Pengjunsang, M., Homtong, N., Prakobya, A., Borgogno-Mondino, E., Sarvia, F., & Som-ard, J. (2023). Monitoring Agricultural Land and Land Cover Change from 2001–2021 of the Chi River Basin, Thailand Using Multi-Temporal Landsat Data Based on Google Earth Engine. Remote Sensing, 15(17), 4339. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15174339