Using LandTrendr Data to Detect Change in the

North cascades National Park Service Complex

by Sarah Thomas, 02/28/2014
ABSTRACT
This Lab focuses on the use of processed LandTrendr data to determine agents of change
for areas within the North Cascades National Park Service Complex (NOCA) between 2007 and
2009. Landtrendr data can be used for image interpretation and statistical classification of
landscape changes. During the first stage of interpretation, agents of change were assigned to a
sample subset of 55 change patches using visual analysis of study area imagery and tasseled-cap
transformation images that demonstrated yearly differences in wetness values. An entire 412
change patches were classified using Random Forest classification model in R (statistical
software). Resulting classifications were analyzed for accuracy, and coverage per change agent
per year. The Random Forest classification resulted in the greatest amount of change occurring
due to Progressive defoliation at 67.22% all change parcels and approximately 0.0029% of the
entire study region. The greatest overall change between the years of 2007 and 2009 occurred in
2007 at 49.42% of overall change and 0.0021% of the study region. The statistical analysis
resulted in an out-of-bag error of 41.82%, where land parcels were classified to likely agents of
change approximately 58.18% for all parcels based upon attribute information. Assignment of
agents of change requires experience, and consideration of the attribute data for each change
patch.
METHODS
The North Cascades National Park Service Complex (NOCA) study area encompasses
approximately 275473 hectares. Agents of change were assigned within using three sets of
information. During the first stages of change detection, Google Earth images were used in
combination with processed Landtrendr data. The change patch polygons were derived by the
North Coast and Cascade Network (NCCN) as a part of the U.S. National Park Service Vital
Signs Monitoring Program with a minimum patch size of approximately 0.8 hectares (Antonova,
2014, 2013). Secondly, tasseled cap transformation images were viewed to determine the agents
of change based upon spectral differencing. The tasseled-cap images focus on near-infrared (TM
band 4) and visible red (TM band 3) portions of the electromagnetic spectrum to derive wetness
values used in change detection. Each image centered on change patches in the study area over
25 years. The images covered pixels by pixels with a spatial resolution of 30 meters by 30
meters.
Following the procedures outlined on the class website (Antonova, 2014), change patch
polygons within the NOCA study area boundary for years between 2007 and 2009 were analyzed
to using image interpretation and statistical classification techniques. First, change patch
polygons were overlaid with Google Earth land cover images in order to view change patch
polygon landscape positions and proximity to fire regions. Next, tasseled-cap transformation
images were compared using image differencing techniques in TimeSync software. Agents of
change were assigned to the sample data based upon differences in imagery, with specific focus
on spectral changes in the wetness index demonstrated in the tasseled-cap images. Agents of

change include Avalanche, Fire, Mass Movement, Progressive Defoliation (insects and disease),
Riparian, and Tree Toppling (wind throw and root rot).
The remaining change patches within the study area were assigned using Random forest
classification model in R (statistical software). R assigned each of the 412 change polygons to an
agent of change based upon similar attribute data and an out-of-bag error was assigned to the
complete dataset to determine accuracy. The dataset was further analyzed to determine the
coverage of each agent of change per year and within the entire study area.
RESULTS
The assignment of agents of change to the sample dataset using visual interpretation
resulted in an out-of-bag error of 41.82% for the entire NOCA study area, where change patch
polygons were classified to likely agents of change with approximately 58.18% accuracy based
upon attribute data correlation (figure 1). According to the Random Forest classification, all
change patch polygons assigned to the Avalanche agent of change were incorrectly assigned,
where the four polygons would be more accurately assigned to change agents of Mass Movement
(2), Progressive Defoliation (1), and Riparian (1). Progressive Defoliation was assigned with the
least amount of error with only 1 of 22 polygons misclassified as Tree Toppling.
The total 55 sample patches with detected changes between 2007 and 2009 covered
193.68 hectares (table 1). Sample change patch polygons were assigned to agents of change
using image interpretation. A majority of sample change patches were assigned to the agent of
change of Fire (table 2), where approximately 36% of the sample area was assigned to Fire agent
of change. Conversely, the least amount of change was assigned to Riparian agent of change at
4% of overall change patches. Also, a majority of the sample data had detected change in 2008
and the least amount of detected change occurred in 2009 (figure 2). These sample assignments
were applied to the Random Forest Classification to create a predicted dataset for the full
Landtrendr dataset of the NOCA study area.
Using the entire dataset of change patches in the NOCA study area, most change was
detected in the year 2007, followed by 2009, and the least in 2008 at approximately 15% (table
3). The Random Forest classification for the entire NOCA Study area resulted in most of the
change occurring due to Progressive Defoliation (figure 3) at approximately 67% of the change
area. The least amount of change occurred due to Avalanche, just under 2% of the change area
(table 3). In considering overall change within the NOCA study area, approximately 0.0043% of
the entire study area changed between 2007 and 2009. The combined percentage of change
occurring due to Progressive Defoliation equaled approximately 0.0029 % and Avalanche an
estimated 0.00006 % of the entire NOCA study area (table 4, figure 4). Using Google Earth and
TimeSync software for image interpretation will result different classifications in Random Forest
classification. The use of these programs is applicable when users have a prior knowledge of the
study area and experience in the initial assignment of agents of change.
Table 1. Table of 55 LandTrendr sample patches and assigned agent of change, with corresponding areas
within the NOCA study area.

Grid
Code

Change
Year

5767

2009

6308

2007

6415
6434
6484

Agent of
Change
Mass Movement

Area
(Hectares)

Grid
Code

Change
Year

1.26

11564

2007

0.90

12080

2007

2009
2009
2009

Progressive
Defoliation
Avalanche
Avalanche
Riparian

11.25
0.81
0.90

12154
12158
12159

2007
2008
2008

6588

2008

Mass Movement

2.07

12199

2007

6753

2007

Mass Movement

0.90

12231

2007

6822

2007

Avalanche

1.62

12311

2007

6845

2007

Mass Movement

1.62

12625

2007

6862

2008

Mass Movement

0.90

12701

2007

6863

2007

Riparian

1.08

12862

2007

6943

2007

Riparian

0.99

12872

2008

7004

2007

Riparian

0.90

12900

2007

8262

2007

Riparian

0.81

12940

2007

8936

2009

Tree Toppling

1.35

13356

2009

8973
9050
9850
9935
10275
10276

2009
2009
2008
2008
2008
2008

20.97
4.86
3.33
11.61
3.24
1.08

13374
13451
13533
13603
13610
13707

2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007

6562

2007

1.89

13723

2007

8006

2007

1.62

13758

2007

10490

2008

Mass Movement
Fire
Tree Toppling
Mass Movement
Riparian
Tree Toppling
Progressive
Defoliation
Progressive
Defoliation
Progressive
Defoliation

0.99

13761

2007

10811

2008

Tree Toppling

1.35

13772

2007

10958

2008

Progressive
Defoliation

2.25

12229

2007

11008

2008

Avalanche

1.17

12757

11088

2009

Progressive
Defoliation

2.52

Agent of
Change
Progressive
Defoliation
Progressive
Defoliation
Fire
Mass Movement
Fire
Progressive
Defoliation
Progressive
Defoliation
Progressive
Defoliation
Progressive
Defoliation
Progressive
Defoliation
Progressive
Defoliation
Progressive
Defoliation
Progressive
Defoliation
Tree Toppling
Progressive
Defoliation
Fire
Fire
Fire
Fire
Fire
Mass Movement
Progressive
Defoliation
Progressive
Defoliation
Progressive
Defoliation
Progressive
Defoliation
Fire

Progressive
Defoliation
Total Change for 55 sample patches:
2009

Area
(Hectares)
1.98
2.25
0.81
3.42
44.37
1.26
7.74
1.08
1.71
1.17
1.35
1.35
6.57
2.79
0.81
8.55
1.26
4.14
2.34
2.70
0.90
1.80
3.96
1.80
1.08
1.35
0.90
193.68
Hectares

LandTrendr Polygon
Study Area Boundary
Change patches
Fire Patches

Figure 1. Image of the

NOCA study area. Patch polygons derived by the North Coast and Cascade Network (NCCN) as
a part of the U.S. National Park Service Vital Signs Monitoring Program (Antonova et al, 2013).
Table 1. Out-of bag (OOB) estimate of error rate for classification of agent of change for
sample patches in the NOCA study area. Rows in the matrix represent the classes assigned
during image interpretaion; column represent the incorrectly assigned patch classes; and
class.error represents the total error in classification for each assigned agent of change class.

Table 2. Table depicting the annual number of patches assigned to agents of change within the
NOCA study area.
Sample Data Assigned
Agent of Change
Avalanche
Fire
Mass Movement
Progressive Defoliation
Riparian
Tree Toppling
Total/Agent
Percent/Agent

Year of Detected Change

2007
2008
2009
1.62
1.17
12.06
21.15
44.37
4.86
3.42
18
22.23
38.16
4.59
4.23
3.78
3.24
0.9
2.79
5.76
1.35
70.92
77.13
45.63
36.62

39.82

Total/Year Percent/Year
14.85
7.67
70.38
36.34
43.65
22.54
46.98
24.26
7.92
4.09
9.9
5.11
Sample Change
Area:193.68

23.56

Yearly Area for Assigned Agents of Change

for the NOCA Study Area Sample Dataset
50

Avalanche

45

Area (Hectares)

40

Fire

35
30

Mass Movement

25
20

Progressive
Defoliation
Riparian

15
10
5

Tree Toppling

0
2007

2008
Year of Detected Change

2009

Figure 2. Annual area of change detected per change agent within the NOCA study area.

Table 3. Annual and overall number of patches assigned to each agent of change within the
NOCA study area.
Agent
Count
Avalanche 10
2007 1
2008 1
2009 8

Fire
2007
2008
2009

58
34
10
14

Agent
Count
Mass
Movement 56
2007 16
2008 28
2009 12

Agent
Count
Riparian
19
2007 11
2008 3
2009 5

Progressive
Defoliation
2007
2008
2009

Tree
Toppling
2007
2008
2009

249
138
29
82

20
3
13
4

Total number of Change

Patches:
412

Amount of Yearly Change per Agent of Change

160

Change Area (Hectares)

140
120
100
80
60
Total
40
20
0
2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009
Avalanche

Fire

Mass Movement

Progressive
Defoliation

Riparian

Tree Toppling

Agent of Change

Figure 3. Annual amount of hectares assigned to agent of change within the NOCA study area.

Table 4. Overall and annual changes within the NOCA study area between 2007 and 2009.

Classified Agent of Change

Year
2007
2008
2009
Total/
Agent
Percent
(%)/
Agent

Avalanche
0.9
1.08
15.21

Fire
140.2
22.5
21.51

Mass
Movement
24.03
55.62
27.54

Progressive
Defoliation
400.5
68.13
328.5

Riparian
14.85
2.88
24.12

Tree
Toppling
5.58
24.75
7.92

17.19

184.2

107.19

797.13

41.85

38.25

1.45

15.54

9.04

67.22

3.53

3.23

Yearly Landscape Area for Assigned Agent of Change

in the NOCA study Area
450
400

Percent
(%)/Year
49.42
14.75
35.82

Total Change: 1185

Hectares

Avalanche
Fire

350
Area (Hectares)

Total/
Year
586.08
174.96
424.8

300

Mass Movement

250
Progressive
Defoliation
Riparian

200
150
100
50

Tree Toppling

0
2007

2008

2009

Year of Detected Change

Figure 4. Annual agents of change within the NOCA study area between 2007 and 2009
assigned using visual analysis.

Table 5. Annual percentage of change per change agent for the NOCA study area.

Year

Classified Agent of Change

Mass
Progressive
Fire
Movement Defoliation

Avalanche

2007
2008
2009
Total/Agent

3.2671E-06
3.9205E-06
5.5214E-05
6.2402E-05

5.0894E-04
8.1678E-05
7.8084E-05
6.6870E-04

8.7232E-05
2.0191E-04
9.9974E-05
3.8911E-04

1.4539E-03
2.4732E-04
1.1925E-03
2.8937E-03

Riparian

Tree
Toppling

Total/Year

5.3907E-05
1.0455E-05
8.7558E-05
1.5192E-04

2.0256E-05
8.9845E-05
2.8751E-05
1.3885E-04

2.1275E-03
6.3513E-04
1.5421E-03
4.3047E-03

Yearly Percentage of Change for Assigned Agents

in NOCA study Area
0.25

Avalanche
Fire

Percent of NOCA

0.2

Mass
Movement
Progressive
Defoliation
Riparian

0.15
0.1
0.05

Tree Toppling
0
2007

2008

2009

Year of Detected Change

Figure 5. Annual percentage of change per change agent for the NOCA study area.

DISCUSSION
Random forest variables used to classify the landscape patches into specific categories
were calculated prior to analysis. These variables include elements of geometry, landscape,
spectral, and time of change for each patch. The resulting Random Forest classification from the
initial assignment of agents of change to sample patches resulted in an out of bag error of
41.82% (table 1). This error signifies that a mere 58.18% of classes were accurately assigned to
appropriate agents of change based upon similar attribute data. Errors in assignments may have
resulted from noticing differences in imagery between 2007 and 2009, and applying assumption
based upon landscape position and closeness to fire region. For instance, several patches were reassigned because they did not appear to be in a region of fire occurrence, but after zooming out
from the change polygon fire was noted to have affected the general change area. Conversely,
many patches may have been incorrectly assigned as fire, when change may have affected the
area prior or precedent of fire occurrence. Notably, 1/3 of Mass Movement patches were
incorrectly assigned to Fire agents of change and 1/3 of Fire patches were assigned as other
agents (table 1). Generally, the assignment of agents of change should heavily rely on the change
in spectral values for a change polygon, which requires experience. Furthermore, the assignment
of agents should include consideration of the attribute data. For instance, a correlation between
slope position and occurrence of mass movements.
Nuisances in the classification results may have also resulted from a confusion between
different spectral value differences occurring throughout the change patches. For instance, the
assignment of agents of change for riparian areas resulted in an out-of-bag error of 66%, where
all incorrectly assigned patches would be more-accurately assigned to mass movement.
According the NCCN Landscape Dynamics Monitoring Protocol (2012), mass movements are
likely to occur due to debris flows from stream discharge, and should be classified in change
areas with a slope greater than 15%. In general riparian areas within the NOCA study area occur
at the base of large slopes or in relatively flat valleys (slope less than 15%). Even in considering
the landscape position and the wetness index of vegetation, riparian areas will have a greater
wetness index than surrounding areas. Therefore, spectral values for wetness should be compared
to surrounding landscape, and also take into account the landscape position relative values for
change.
The category of annual variability was not included in this analysis, however it is none
the less important in considering overall change within the NOCA study area. Annual variability
usually results from changes in snow or cloud cover, terrain shadows, or vegetation lifecycles
that are not removed from images during processing. This category of variability should be noted
because misclassification may occur due to the red, orange, or brown hues in the wetness index
of tasseled-cap imagery (Kennedy et al, 2012). Also, even though a particular region may be
classified as annual variability one year, the change patch may actually experience change in
another. In order to accurately assigned annual variably as an agent of change, the date and time
of acquisition must be considered (Kennedy et al, 2012) in order to determine such factors as sun
angle and climatic conditions. Considerations for annual variability must also be made in
examining change patch polygons in Google Earth.

Google Earth was a useful tool in examining change patch polygon landscape position
and closeness of region of fire occurrence. The use of Google Earth, however, should only be
considered as a tool for understanding general location of aspects within a study. For instance,
several change patch polygons were located in regions that experienced shadowing on the
Google Earth image. Therefore, most of the image interpretation should rely on TimeSync
software when using this method for analysis. TimeSync software is a tool that can help users
examine the spectral values for regions of interests, which is the main focus of remote sensing
processes for analysis. The magnification of regions is a useful aid in detecting change for a
small region, and computation on a large scale can be made possible thought other programs.
Large scale imagery would also be useful in ENVI software, however, Timesync was applicable
in this particular analysis. Comparisons between the software classification results could also be
made for a further in depth analysis. Overall, any remotely sensed analysis would be less timely
than field collection of data, but distinguishing between change agents would be easier in the
field.

LITERATURE CITED
Antonova, Natasha. 2014. Lab 3: Environmental Warfare in the Persian Gulf.
<http://staff.wwu.edu/antonon/envr442/ENVI/442_lab7_ENVI.html>
Antonova N et al. 2013. Landsat-based monitoring of landscape dynamics in the North Cascades
National Park Service Complex: 1985-2009. Natural Resource Data Series.
NPS/NCCN/NRDS2013/532. National Park Service. Fort Collins, Colorado.
Published Report-2198729
Kennedy, R.E, W.B. Cohen, A.A. Kirschbaum and E. Haunreiter. 2007. Protocol for Landsatbased monitoring of landscape dynamics and North Coast and Cascades Network Parks:
U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and methods 2-G1.
Kennedy, R.E., W.B. Cohen and T.A. Schroeder. 2007. Trajectory-based change detection for
automated characterization of forest disturbance dynamics. Remote Sensing of
Environment 110:370-386.