Urban Forest

Research Winter 2005

Center for Urban Forest Research • Pacific Southwest Research Station • USDA Forest Service

Replace field surveys with AVIRIS infrared imagery. Can we?

Imagine flying over your com-
munity forest and taking a picture
that allows you to identify and map
species. No more field surveys.
Then imagine the possibilities and
cost savings.

AVIRIS—Airborne Visible
Infrared Imaging Spectrometer
Tree type and species informa-
tion are critical parameters for
urban forest management, benefit-
cost analysis, and urban planning.
Traditionally, urban forest manag-
ers have obtained these parameters
from an analysis of field surveys.
However, our Center’s recent work
with AVIRIS, under the leadership
of Dr. Qingfu Xiao, suggests that in
the future, there may be a much Illustrations courtesy Jet Propulsion Lab
cheaper, and just as effective, alter-
native. AVIRIS is an acronym for the Airborne Visible InfraRed Imaging
Spectrometer. AVIRIS is a world class instrument in the realm of Earth
Understanding the Urban Forest Remote Sensing. It is a unique optical sensor that delivers calibrated images
To understand how urban of the upwelling spectral radiance in 224 contiguous spectral channels
forests function and to estimate (also called bands) with wavelengths from 400 to 2500 nanometers (nm).
the value of their environmental AVIRIS has been flown on two aircraft platforms: a NASA ER-2 jet and the
services we must first be able to Twin Otter turboprop. The ER-2 is a U2 aircraft modified for increased
identify properties related to urban performance which flies at approximately 20 km above sea level, at about
forest structure and composition 730 km/hr. The Twin Otter aircraft flies at 4km above ground level at
(McPherson et al. 1997). Also, a 130km/hr. AVIRIS has flown all across the US, plus Canada and Europe.
good understanding of the structure
of the urban forest provides other
information useful to urban manag- Basic information required to dimensions, and growing condi-
ers, such as planning tree pruning, describe urban forest structure tions. Traditionally, this informa-
removal, and insect or disease con- includes tree numbers, spatial dis- tion has been collected in field
trol activities. tributions, species composition, (continued next page)
2

(continued from previous page)

Comparison of various
instrument’s ability to “see”
trees.
Channels Spatial Resolution
AVIRIS 224 4m
Landsat 7 30m
SPOT 4 30m
IKONOS 4 4m

surveys. However, such surveys are

expensive and time consuming, and
require periodic updates to remain
valid. Aerial photograph interpreta-
tion has been used successfully, but
is slow and expensive to conduct
the mapping on a large scale.
What About Infrared Imagery?
Vegetation has unique spectral-
reflectance characteristics, which
makes infrared imagery so attrac-
tive. Vegetation has a high absorp-
tion rate in red wavelengths and
a strong reflectance rate in near-
infrared wavelengths. This allows
us to separate plants from other
ground-surface covers because
non-plant covers absorb and reflect
infrared at a different rate.
Differences in foliage, branch-
es, and architecture among tree
species provides information
to uniquely identify them with
Costs
Desired Parameters: species
identification, tree health (stress
and vigor), leaf area, and canopy
cover area.
Urban forest size: 25,000 trees
AVIRIS: Images = $3,000 – 5,000.
Remote sensing specialist for 4
months = approximately $15,000.
Total cost = under $20,000.
Typical inventory: $1 to $5 per tree.
Tree type spatial distribution of study area. (a) Colour-infrared
Airborne Visible Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) image (R~850
nm, G~650 nm, B~550 nm). (b) Conifer classified pixels in red, (c)
broadleaf evergreen tree pixels in green, and (d ) broadleaf deciduous
tree pixels in blue.
AVIRIS. Differences in canopy identify and map vegetation, land
architecture, such as leaf area use, and land cover in regional or
density, leaf and branch angles, sub-regional assessments. Landsat
leaf shape, internal anatomy, and Thematic Mapper (TM) seven-band,
leaf and branch surface roughness, 30m, data, and four-band, 20m,
cause individual tree species to re- Satellite pour l’Observation de la
flect differently. (continued next page)
Other Methods
The Normalized Difference Veg-
etation Index, red-edge, and other
band ratio methods are currently
being used to separate vegetation
types. However, these simple meth-
ods cannot be used to identify tree
species because they do not cap- Urban Forest Research
ture the unique spectral character- is a publication of the Center
for Urban Forest Research,
istics of each tree species. Another Pacific Southwest Research
method, texture analysis, works Station, USDA Forest Service.
well in natural forest mapping to For more information, contact
the Center at the Department
identify species, but it doesn’t work of Environmental Horticulture, University
well in the urban forest because ur- of California, 1 Shields Ave, Suite 1103,
ban tree species are too similar in Davis, CA 95616-8587. (530) 752-7636
texture. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer, and prohibits discrimination in all
Remote Sensing
programs and activities.
Editor: Jim Geiger
Remotely sensed data have Production: Laurie Litman, InfoWright
been used for quite a few years to

Urban Forest Research Winter 2005


Tree species spatial distribution of a selected area of Modesto. (a) Colour
infrared AVIRIS image, (b) tree species identification from the GIS
database, and (c) tree species identification derived from AVIRIS data.
Terre (SPOT) data, and four-band,
4m, IKONOS data have signifi-
cantly improved the accuracy of
identifying vegetation, especially
estimates of dominant tree species.
However, the accuracy in urban
settings becomes a problem be-
cause urban areas are a mosaic of
many different species, land uses,
and man-made structures, each of
which has different spectral reflec-
tance characteristics.
Unlike trees in rural forests,
which tend to form continuous can-
opies, trees in urban settings are of-
ten single trees or isolated groups.
The influence of background, such
as soil and shadow, makes the
problem of characterizing trees
by remote sensing even more dif-
Winter 2005
ficult. In such cases, high spatial
resolution of remotely sensed data
is important for mapping individual
trees (Avery and Berlin 1992).
Why AVIRIS?
AVIRIS compensates for the va-
riety of backgrounds in urban areas
by delivering calibrated images in
224 contiguous spectral channels
with wavelengths from 400nm to
2500 nm. This enriched spatial
and spectral data reduces the reso-
lution problems associated with
broad-band low-spatial resolution
sensors, such as Landsat with just
7 channels, and SPOT and IKONOS
with just 4, thus giving AVIRIS the
ability to “see” trees 30 to 70 times
better than other methods.
3
AVIRIS: Description of Sensor
System
• Scanner type: nadir-viewing,
whiskbroom
• Image width (swath): 11 km
(high altitude), 1.9 km (low
altitude)
• Typical image length: 10 - 100
km
• Spatial response: 1.0 mrad,
corresponding to a “pixel” 20m
x 20m (high altitude) or 4m x
4m (low altitude) on the ground
• Spectral response: visible to
near-infrared (400 to 2500 nm),
with 224 contiguous channels,
approximately 10 nm wide
• Data quantization: 12 bits
• Data capacity: 10 gigabytes,
corresponding to about 850 km
of ground track data, per flight
Adding GIS
Combing AVIRIS with GIS sig-
nificantly improves the accuracy
of the AVIRIS results. The spatial
location ability of GIS is a standard
method for registering images to
base maps, as shown in a recent
report (Shao et al. 1998). This abil-
ity to accurately locate individual
trees using GIS, combined with the
AVIRIS analysis, makes it relatively
easy to confirm the AVIRIS results.
Plus, it significantly raises the con-
fidence level when replicating the
procedure in other city areas or
nearby regions.
Study Objectives
There were three objectives for
this study. The intent being that
the results would provide tree can-
opy information to urban planning
and projects related to analysis of
regional urban energy budgets, air
(continued next page)
Urban Forest Research
4

pollution, and hydrology.

1. identify urban tree species by
physiognomic type based on
their spectral character as de-
tected by the AVIRIS sensor,
that is, whether they are broad-
leaf deciduous, broadleaf ever-
green, or conifer types.
2. identify urban trees by species
based on their canopy reflec-
tance characteristics.
3. map these urban trees.

Findings
We checked our results against
ground reference data and by com-
parison to tree information in an
existing GIS database. We found at
the tree type level, mapping was ac- Your city on AVIRIS. Aerial photo, left, AVIRIS, right
complished with 94% accuracy. At
the tree species level, the average
accuracy was 70% but this varied
with both tree type and species.
Of the four evergreen tree species, used for characterizing land cover. results with less sophisticated tech-
the average accuracy was 69%. For For example, we can now separate niques. Because most trees will still
the 12 deciduous tree species, the man-made structures, such as be within mixed pixels at this scale
average accuracy was 70%. The buildings or type of pavement (po- (3.5m), increasing spatial resolu-
relatively low accuracy for several rous, concrete, asphalt, gravel), by tion of the hyperspectral dataset
deciduous species was due to small the materials that are used. could improve the accuracy of tree
tree size and overlapping among AVIRIS data acquired in spring identification.
tree crowns at the 3.5m spatial or summer rather than October
might provide better identifica- Caveats
resolution of the AVIRIS data.
tion of some species or additional This urban forest tree species
So…Conclusions information about tree condition. mapping method has the potential
For example, data acquired in both to improve our ability to more ac-
What this means is that we can
summer and winter seasons could curately map urban trees while
now identify individual tree spe-
be used to easily identify deciduous reducing costs compared to field
cies with fairly high accuracy us-
and evergreen trees. sampling or other traditional meth-
ing high spatial resolution (3.5m)
The mix of land cover for street ods. However, what we also found
AVIRIS data. Therefore, the answer
trees also plays an important part was that it is not fully transferable
to our question is—yes, we can
in the outcome. You can expect from one city to another without
replace field surveys with AVIRIS.
pixels of most street trees in resi- some calibration from ground
And when combined with GIS, it
dential areas to be mixed with road truthing. We also found that using
adds the ability to validate the final
and/or turf grass. Street trees will this method to identify trees in lo-
maps.
also be mixed with bare soil and/or cations other than along the street
The potential value of these
road in median strips and in some may not yield the same results due
data for urban forest applications,
commercial areas. This mixing to the potential for more complex
besides species identification,
reduces the number of possible mixing combinations off street.
includes estimating tree health
combinations and is the greatest
(stress and vigor), leaf area, and —Jim Geiger
reason that accuracy increased in
canopy cover. In addition to tree
this study compared to our earlier
characterization, AVIRIS can be

Urban Forest Research Winter 2005


Fitting Trees into the Planning Process
Another Look at How to do Parking Lots Right
In urban areas, perhaps the
greatest benefit from trees is the
role they play in reducing the im-
pacts of parking lots. Our Center’s
2001 study found that parking lots
occupy about 10 percent of the
land in our cities. They act as min-
iature heat islands and are sources
of motor vehicle pollutants. By
shading cars and lowering parking
lot temperatures, trees can reduce
evaporative emissions of hydrocar-
bons (HC) that leak from fuel tanks
and hoses (Scott et al. 1999). HC
emissions are involved in O3 for-
mation; parked cars contribute 15
to 20 percent of total motor vehicle
HC emissions. Parking lot tree
planting is one practical strategy
communities can use to meet and
sustain mandated air quality stan-
dards.
Many parking lot ordinances
Figure 1. Developed from several sources by Urban (1992), this graph
shows the relationship between tree size and required soil volume. For
example, a 16-inch DBH tree with 640 ft2 of crown projection area under
the dripline requires 1,000 ft3 of soil.
Winter 2005
specify one tree for a certain num-
ber of parking spaces or a certain
amount of planted area per space.
However, under these ordinances,
trees can be clustered in islands
or along the lot perimeter, often
resulting in large areas of unshaded
pavement.
To obtain more extensive shade
it is necessary to increase tree
numbers and provide more soil vol-
ume for tree roots, approximately
200 cubic feet (2.5 feet deep) for
a 4-inch diameter tree, and about
1,500 cubic feet for a 24-inch diam-
eter tree (see figure 1, Urban 1992).
After the trees are installed, it is
important that the new trees are
pruned early to train their growth,
the crowns are allowed to reach
their full potential (no drastic prun-
ing that disfigures the tree), and
any dead trees are replaced.
5
Keys to Successful Parking Lot
Shading
Perhaps most important, make key
planning decisions prior to starting
the project:
1. Provide adequate time to review
shade plans and parking lot
ratios.
2. Certify that parking spaces and
trees are located as per the
ordinance.
3. Inspect, inspect, inspect.
Parking Lot Tree Planting Rules
of Thumb
Where appropriate, consult with
your local city forester/arborist or
other tree expert:
• Ensure adequate soil volume for
tree roots by specifying a mini-
mum planter width of six feet
(see figure 2).
• Encourage the use of structural
soils, a designed medium that
can meet or exceed pavement
design and installation require-
ments while remaining root
penetrable and supportive of tree
growth. An additional reference
for structural soils is Reducing
Infrastructure Damage by Tree
Roots (Costello and Jones 2003).
• Develop tree planting details (see
figure 3) and specifications that
require loosening a large volume
of soil where the tree will be
planted. Because soils are heav-
ily compacted prior to paving the
lot, planting trees in small holes
reduces root extension and poor
drainage can kill the trees.
• Install parking lot lighting that
does not conflict with required
shade tree locations or growth.
Light standards no greater than
(continued next page)
Urban Forest Research
6

Figure 2. Two feet of vehicle overhang into planter area
is allowed, provided the planter is the correct minimum
width. Vehicle overhang is not allowed into required
setback areas (City of Sacramento 2002).
Illustrations courtesy City of Sacramento.
Figure 3. Because soils are heavily compacted
prior to paving the lot, planting trees in small holes
reduces root extension and poor drainage can kill the
trees. Excavating the native soil and planting into
the loosened backfill will improve tree growth and
establishment (City of Sacramento 2002).

16 feet in height are strongly en- tually planted and not removed

•
couraged.
Do not allow planting of trees
not on a community’s Recom-
mended Tree List (developed by
the city forester or arborist). Re-
vise the tree list if necessary.
• Consult the Recommended Tree
List to identify tree species suit-
able for parking lots.
• Be sure crown diameters on
parking lot plans correctly re-
flect crown diameters specified
in the tree list. Correct diam-
eters in the tree list if necessary.
• Be sure crown diameters for
mature trees are not overstated
in the tree list, thus allowing
parking lot plans to reflect more
shade than they can actually
achieve. Correct if necessary.
• Follow up to ensure trees are ac-
shortly after planting.
• Pay particular attention to trees
planted near store fronts, to
make sure trees will not obstruct
signs.
• Do not allow small-stature trees
to be substituted for large-stat-
ure trees after the plans have
been approved.
• Increase use of one-way aisles,
angled parking spaces, and
shared parking to reduce overall
imperviousness (CRCOG 2002;
Center for Watershed Protection,
1998).
For more information, see
Where are all the cool parking lots?
In addition, Sacramento’s parking
lot ordinance: environmental and
economic costs of compliance pro-
vides further background.
Sign up for Urban
Forest Research
NOTE: This newsletter is only
available in electronic format
To sign up for Urban Forest
Research, please visit our website
at http://cufr.ucdavis.edu/
newsletter.asp
Send comments or suggestions
to Jim Geiger, Center for
Urban Forest Research, Pacific
Southwest Research Station,
USDA Forest Service, c/o
Department of Plant Sciences,
Mail Stop 6, University of
California, 1 Shields Avenue,
Suite 1103, Davis, CA 95616-
8780 or contact jgeiger@fs.fed.us.

Urban Forest Research Winter 2005