Leah Bennett

Using Unsupervised Classification to Detect Forest Change in Whatcom County, Wa

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to use unsupervised classification to classify an image of

Whatcom County, Washington to be able to detect forest change; specifically timber harvest. The image

was split into 50 spectral categories that were then visually classified into different time periods based

on when timber harvesting occurred. If no harvest occurred, it was considered no change. In total, there

were six time intervals, spanning from 1988 to 2011. Processing was done to further reclassify any areas

that may have been wrong using data on elevation and forested areas. In total, 237,825 hectares were

harvested in the study area and 119,946.1 of those hectares were in forested land. The harvest data was

also considered with land ownership data to see what types of land most of the harvest occurs on.

Because of states and country laws defining each ownership, the majority of the harvesting happens on

privately owned land. This study showed that this process of analysis is useful for detecting forest

change.

METHODS
The initial image was a 25- by 25- meter pixel image taken by Landsat TM. This image was

created by Wallin (2016) who combined images from 1988, 1992, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2011 into one

change image that contained both the Tasseled Cap brightness and the greenness index values as

previously done by Cohen et. al. (1998). All of the images used in this analysis depicts the area from

Mt. Baker to Bellingham Bay located in Whatcom County Washington. I used bands 1-5 and 7 for this

study because they are the ones that show difference reflectance/absorbance levels depending on the

amount of vegetation present.

The methods performed for the analysis were as followed from Wallin (2016). I used ISODATA

unsupervised classification on the change image to create 50 spectral classes. Then by using visual

interpretation based on Landsat TM images from each of the years stated above taken during the
Leah Bennett

summer and the values from the cursor location I put each of these spectral classes into 6 information

classes; no change, timber harvested between 1988-1992, between 1992-1995, between 1995-2000,

between 2000-2005, and between 2005-2011 (Figure 1). Because agriculture at low elevations can be

misclassified easily as timber harvest, I used an elevation mask to change any harvest below 100 meters

to no change. In addition, year to year variations in snowpack at higher elevations, especially near Mt.

Baker could lead to misclassification, thus any areas above 1700 meters were changed to no change as

well. This resulting image was then multiplied by a forest mask that classified all land as either 0 for

non-forest or 1 for forest to further help with any misclassification in urban or residential areas (Figure

2). Finally, to eliminate any small discrepancies inside large harvest polygons, I used the sieve and

clumping method to remove harvest smaller than 2 ha and fill in any pixel gaps using the same

technique as Cohen et. al. (2002). This produced the final image that had the area classified in each of

the harvest time periods (Figure 3). Lastly, to gain more insight into what land is being harvested, these

information classes were compared to land ownership; Wilderness areas, National Forest, Private Lands

and Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

RESULTS
The analysis I performed showed that a total of 23,7825 hectares were harvested from 1988 to

2011. The most of this was done from 1988 to 1992 with 7,855.56 hectares being harvested. 2005 to

2011 had the least amount of harvest with only 834.62 hectares being harvested. The same relationships

hold for when looking at how much land was harvested in forested areas per year. A total of 119,946.1

ha of land contained forests. 1988 had the most with 1.63% being harvested in forested areas and 2005

to 2011 had the least with only .11% being harvested (Table 1).
Leah Bennett

Table 1- This table shows the total area that was harvested in the study area. It also shows how much was
harvested each year in hectares and how much was harvested per year in forested areas.
Time Period Years Total Area Harvest Rate (% forest
Harvested (ha) harvested per year)
Unchanged NA 219922.7 NA
88-92 4 7855.56 1.63
92-95 3 1743.31 0.48
95-00 5 4941.62 0.82
00-05 5 2527.18 0.42
05-11 6 834.62 0.11
TOTAL AREA= TOTAL FOREST AREA =
237825 119946.1 ha

There is a clear difference in the amount of timber harvested in different land ownership area.

Private land had the most area harvested with over 120,000 hectares, while only 27,399.63 hectares were

harvested in Wilderness Areas. Private land also had the biggest percent of timber harvested though in

forested land. During 1992-1995 Wilderness areas harvested no timber at all and during the whole time

period of 1988-2011 National Forest lands decreased their harvest amounts every year (Table 2).

Table 2- This table shows the total area harvested in each of the land ownerships areas. It also shows the percent
harvested each year in forested areas within the different ownerships.
Wilderness National Forest Private DNR
Time Years Total Area Harvest Total Harvest Total Harvest Total Harvest
Period Harvested Rate (% Area Rate Area Rate Area Rate
(ha) forest
harvested
per year)
Unchanged NA 27136.31 NA 43367.06 NA 116145. NA 33230 NA
4
88-92 4 187.625 .63% 1008.12 .81% 4242.12 2.2% 2417.68 1.7%

92-95 3 0 0% 182.06 .19% 1079.12 .76% 48.12 .45%

95-00 5 32.25 .08% 63.5 .04% 3054.25 1.3% 17.91 1.02%
00-05 5 10.87 .02% 54.31 .03% 1498.56 .64% 963.46 .55%
05-11 6 32.56 .07% 63.62 .03% 539 .19% 199.43 .09%
TOTAL 27399.63 .82% 44738.69 1.12% 126558 5.18% 39084.25 3.85%
Leah Bennett

Figure 1- This image shows the study area classified into the 6 information classes based off of the ISODATA
unsupervised classification and visual interpretation.

Figure 2- This image shows the study area after the elevation and forest masks are added. The left of the image
that is now unchanged represents areas that were water, pasture and urban/residential areas. The circular area in
the right of the image that is now unchanged represents Mt. Baker where snowpack was misclassified.
Leah Bennett

Figure 3- This image shows

the final image of the study

area after the sieve and

clump methods were used.
The tiny little area were
classified as unchanged and
the bigger polygons were filled in with no gaps.

DISCUSSION

Overall, this study showed that most of the timber harvest in Whatcom County is on privately

owned lands. In Washington, each type of land ownership has to adhere to different regulations when it

comes to timber harvest and this is clearly shown in the amounts that each one harvested. National

Forests and Wilderness Areas have stricter regulations on harvesting and thus show lower numbers.

While timber harvest in Forest Service lands (DNR) have historically been quite large and intensive, in

recent years since the late 1900s, the timber harvest rates have decreased. This is shown by the decrease

in the amounts of hectares harvested on DNR land over the 23 year time period (Wallin, 2016). Timber

harvest is important to quantify and analyze especially in the north west of the United States. Ecosystem

processes and services are affected by the harvest and this can change the landscape for long after the

harvest occurs (Cohen, 2002).

Leah Bennett

One matter of question with this analysis is the fact that I used visual interpretation to assign the

original 50 spectral classes into the 6 information. There is room for error in this because when only

relying on visual interpretation it is easy to misclassify certain areas. Also, the original ISODATA

unsupervised classification could have misclassified some of the spectral classes because the spectral

signature of harvested areas is very similar to areas that have experienced natural disasters (such as

floods, fires or wind damage). In addition, when the elevation mask was made, the values used were

very strict. While they probably caught most if not all of the misclassified areas, there is the potential

that there were areas harvested above or below the threshold that I used. No ground truth data was used

in this analysis and in a further study this may be a point to consider to help increase the accuracy of all

of the classification.

In the end, this analysis was effective in measuring and calculating the amounts of timber harvest

from 1988 to 2011. When taking into consideration the legal regulations put in place, the data collected

makes sense are expected.

WORKS CITED
Cohen, W. B., M. Florella, J. Gray, E. Helmer, & K. Anderson. 1998. An Efficient and Accurate Method
for Mapping Forest Clearcuts in the Pacific Northwest Using Landsat Imagery. Photogrammetric
Engineering & Remote Sensing, 64(4), 293-300.
Cohen, W. B., T.A. Spies, R.J. Alig, D.R. Oetter, T.K. Maiersperger, & M. Fiorella. 2002. Characterizing
23 Years (1972-95) of Stand Replacement Disturbance in Western Oregon Forests with Landsat
Imagery. Ecosystems(5), 122-137. doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0060-X
Wallin, D. 2015. Lab V: Change Detection Using Unsupervised Classification with ENVI. Retrieved
from http://faculty.wwu.edu/wallin/envr442/ENVI/442_change_lab_ENVI.htm