File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Remotely-sensed imagery vs. eye-level photography: Evaluating associations among measurements of tree cover density

TitleRemotely-sensed imagery vs. eye-level photography: Evaluating associations among measurements of tree cover density
Authors
Issue Date2017
PublisherElsevier BV. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan
Citation
Landscape and Urban Planning, 2017, v. 157, p. 270-281 How to Cite?
AbstractThe easy availability and widespread use of remotely-sensed imagery, especially Google Earth satellite imagery, makes it simple for urban forestry professionals to assess a site and measure tree cover density without visiting the site. Remotely-sensed tree cover density has become the dominant criterion for urban forestry regulations in many countries, but it is unclear how much such measures match the eye-level tree cover density that people experience; or the information gained through site visits, eye-level photography, or from consulting with citizens. To address this uncertainty, we assessed associations among two remotely-sensed and three eye-level tree cover density measures for 140 community street sites across the Midwestern United States with low, medium, or high tree cover coverage by using linear regression analysis. We found significant associations among the two remotely-sensed measures and the three eye-level measures across the three levels of tree cover. The associations between any pair of remotely-sensed and eye-level measures, however, diminish dramatically as canopy cover increased. At high levels of canopy cover, all associations between the remotely-sensed measures and the eye-level measures became statistically insignificant. These findings suggest that measures from remotely-sensed imagery fail to represent the amount of tree cover people perceive at eye-level when canopy cover is medium or high at the site scale. Therefore, the current urban forestry planning regulations, which rely heavily on remotely-sensed tree cover density measurements, need to be revised. We suggest strategic spots where eye-level measures of tree cover density should be emphasized.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/229058
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.654
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.699

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorJiang, B-
dc.contributor.authorDeal, B-
dc.contributor.authorPan, HZ-
dc.contributor.authorLarsen, L-
dc.contributor.authorHsieh, CH-
dc.contributor.authorChang, CY-
dc.contributor.authorSullivan, WC-
dc.date.accessioned2016-08-23T14:08:44Z-
dc.date.available2016-08-23T14:08:44Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.citationLandscape and Urban Planning, 2017, v. 157, p. 270-281-
dc.identifier.issn0169-2046-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/229058-
dc.description.abstractThe easy availability and widespread use of remotely-sensed imagery, especially Google Earth satellite imagery, makes it simple for urban forestry professionals to assess a site and measure tree cover density without visiting the site. Remotely-sensed tree cover density has become the dominant criterion for urban forestry regulations in many countries, but it is unclear how much such measures match the eye-level tree cover density that people experience; or the information gained through site visits, eye-level photography, or from consulting with citizens. To address this uncertainty, we assessed associations among two remotely-sensed and three eye-level tree cover density measures for 140 community street sites across the Midwestern United States with low, medium, or high tree cover coverage by using linear regression analysis. We found significant associations among the two remotely-sensed measures and the three eye-level measures across the three levels of tree cover. The associations between any pair of remotely-sensed and eye-level measures, however, diminish dramatically as canopy cover increased. At high levels of canopy cover, all associations between the remotely-sensed measures and the eye-level measures became statistically insignificant. These findings suggest that measures from remotely-sensed imagery fail to represent the amount of tree cover people perceive at eye-level when canopy cover is medium or high at the site scale. Therefore, the current urban forestry planning regulations, which rely heavily on remotely-sensed tree cover density measurements, need to be revised. We suggest strategic spots where eye-level measures of tree cover density should be emphasized.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherElsevier BV. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan-
dc.relation.ispartofLandscape and Urban Planning-
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License-
dc.titleRemotely-sensed imagery vs. eye-level photography: Evaluating associations among measurements of tree cover density-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailJiang, B: jiangbin@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityJiang, B=rp01942-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.07.010-
dc.identifier.hkuros261706-
dc.identifier.volume157-
dc.identifier.spage270-
dc.identifier.epage281-
dc.publisher.placeNetherlands-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats