There are no author-identified significant results in this report

Hardy, E. E.

Stevens, D.

English

NASA Technical Reports Server

"Made available under NASA sponsorship E 7. 4- 1 0.3 0.2
in the interest of early and wide dis- -.-3
semination of Earth Resources Survey
Program information and without liability
for any use made thereot." PROGRESS REPORT
Evaluation of Skylab Imagery as an Information Service for Investigating
Land Use and Natural Resources. NASA 9-13364.
This report covers the period of January 1-31, 1974. During the
month of January S190A and S190B imagery from the SL3 mission was received.
This imagery has now been cataloged and work is progressing on enlarging
selected test areas for detailed interpretation and comparison of the
Skylab S190A data to that of the S190B and ERTS data.
Three general test sites have been selected on the basis of coverage
and variation in land use features. These sites include part of the
Finger Lakes region between Ithaca and Syracuse, N. Y. , part of the Lower
Hudson Valley from West Point to Kingston and extending west into the
Catskill Mountains, and Suffolk County on Long Island. Investigations
are currently under way for each site to determine the type of land use
inventory anddata correlation which can be done with the SL3 data.
The following is data obtained from a survey of wildlife biologists
and environmentalists from the Northeast regional area:
E74-10302) EVALUATION OF SKYLAB IMAGERY N74-17091"
AS AN INFORMATION SERVICE FOR
INVESTIGATING LAND USE AND NATURAL
RESOURCES Progress Report, 1-31 Jan. Unclas
(Cornell Univ.) 11 p HC $4.00 CSCL 05B G3/13 00302
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19740008978 2020-03-23T11:06:25+00:00Z
NATURAL RESOURCE INQUIRY
Deborah Stevens
A questionaire was sent out to wildlife biologists 
and envircnmentalists
on the reqional level in state and federal agencies. 
It's aim was to assess
the value of satellite data to people involved in environmental 
studies.
Eightyone questionaires were distrubuted and 31 returned. 
This was a 38
percent return. However, 7 of those returned did 
not reach the addressees,
presumably because they had moved. The return 
of actual responses was 24
or a 32 percent response.
A few of the responders indicated that they did. not actually feel
qualified to answer the questionaire because either they 
only reviewed studies,
or remote sensing data was not applicable to their work. This may explain
the poor response received.
The review of the questionaire data includes a listing of 
the questions
and the responses along with an analysis of the responses.
1. Do you conduct regional studies:
If so, what is the nature of the study (i.e., analysis of wildlife habitat,
hunting activity, etc.)?
Response:
9548% conducted regional studies:
The type of study could be grouped into several major categories:
Environmental analysis 
12.5%
Wildlife and fisheries habitat 58.3%
Wetlands 
20.8%
Timber 
8.3%
Of the responders studying wildlife and fisheries habitat 38percent
were working on the applied field level while the other 62 percent were 
in
regional supervisory capacity. Some of the responders were studying one
or more species such as: pheasent, wild turky, beaver, bear. Others studied
specific regions.
2. What is the typical area covered in your regional study (approximately in
square miles)?
There was a great range in responses to this question. Some responders
listed several regions of different sizes.
Size in square miles % of responders
less than 100 37.5
1,000 - 5,000 25.0
5,000 - 10,000 8.3
greater than 10,000 29.2
3. What is the minimum size of the data unit required for your study (i.e.,
for vegetation it may be 10 acres, or for waterbodies one acre, etc.)?
Response:
This question was included to see how the data unit requirement for
wildlife habitat analysis corresponded to the interpretable unit size of
satellite imagery. The minimum interpretable unit for the ERTS imagery was
about 25 acres at a scale of 1:62,500.
Data type minimum unit size(acres) % of responders
Forest 5-20 8.6
Open land 1-10 45.7
40-100 8.6
Wetlands .1-10 17.1
Water 1-10 11.4
Not applicable 8.6
This indicates that 74.2 percent of the responders required data in
a unit size of 1 to 10 acres. This resolution capability is not possible
with the present ERTS imagery using manual interpretation. However a
preliminary view of the Skylab imagery indicates that it has considerably
greater resolution so it may be useful for these studies.
4. Do you currently use any of the following data sources:
% responding yes Scale
airphotos 100 varied
USGS topographic maps 100 1:24,000 90%
county maps 70.8 varied
tax maps 16.8 varied
other
If you do not use any of the above or similar sources, what is your
data source?
This question was included to find whether the personnel in wildlife
used any map data. It is clear that they do use at least some data of this
kind. Other specialty maps used were soil maps, road maps and flood
plain maps,in approximate order of importance.
5. Do you use consultants or information from other disciplines in your
analysis? If so, what disciplines?
Response:
none 7 landscape architects 3 National marine fisheries
soil 9 hydrolic tables 3 archeology
forestry 6 geologists 2 planners
engineers 5 extension agents 2 weather
State fish& game 5 census 2 transportation
EPA water quality 3 outdoor recreation 2 power transmission
Response to this question indicates a variety of disciplines are used in
wildlife habitat evaluation. Only 29 percent did not use any consultants.
6. In what form would you like your initial data (i.e., computer tapes,
acetate overlays, topography maps similar to USGS)?
Response:
Data type % responders
Topographic maps 95.8
Acetate overlays with
topographic maps 79.2
Computer printout 4.2
Vegetative diversity 4.2
Undecided 4.2
This question was asked to find what format was desired by researchers,
and whether satellite imagery could be presented in a compatible format.
79.2 percent wanted acetate overlays that could be used with topographic
maps. This would be a suitable format for mapping vegetational or cultural
information from satellite imagery. Only one person desired computer in-
formation, several said they definitely did not want any computer analysis.
7. Do you use any of the following resource data? Please check whether the
data is required, or of no use for your analysis.
% responses
Required Desirable No Use
topography
slope 43.5 52.2 4.3
aspect 23.8 61.9 14.3
_ --
7. continued % response
Required Desirable No Use
geology
surface 26 60.9 13
subsurface 13.6 54.5 31.8
soil type 45.5 54.5 0
climate
rainfall
monthly averages 21.7 60.9 17.3
seasonal averages 23.,8 52.3 23.8
other largest storm; evapotranspiration
temperature
monthly averages 22.7 50 27.3
seasonal averages 17 50 33
other first and last frost; solar radiation
vegetation type
forest general 66.6 19 14.3
deciduous 77.3 13.6 9.1
coniferous 77.3 13.6 9.1
species composition 56.5 34.8 88.7
brushland general 72.7 18.2 9.1
species composition 43.5 39.1 17.4
agricultural general 66.6 19 14.3
abandoned fields 54.2 33.3 8.3
pastures 56.5 34.8 8.7
7. continued % response
Required Desirable No Use
active cropland general 33.3 42.9 J8.5
crop type 33.3 42.9 1 5-
index of diversity of
vegetative types 50 31.8
water
ponds and lakes 90.5 9.5 0
streams and rivers 85.7 14.3 0
wetlands 82.6 17.4 0
seasonal fluctuations 61.9 33.3 4.8
other developed areas; tidal range; marsh vegetation; topography
of lake bottoms; beaver flowage; native hay
This list of resource information was included to find what types of
data were used. Some of this information can not be obtained from satellite
imagery (i.e., weather information) however it can be monitored in other
ways by satellite. The vegetation was broken down into several levels of
precision in hopes of determining how specific the needs of the responders
were. Unfortunately most responders indicated they wanted all levels rather
than distinguishing between levels. 56 percent of the responders required
species of vegetation. Information this specific is difficult if not
impossible to obtain from satellite imagery. However 20.8 percent could use
a break down of forest into deciduous and coniferous types which can be
determined from satellite imagery. Specific agricultural information
was required by only 33.3 percent of the responders.
8. What factors do you feel are necessary to define wildlife habitat?
Please indicate what specific species, if any, you are considering.
Cover % responders
.generalized vegetation types 66.6
specific species 66.6
specific vegetation conformations 58.3
topographic features 58.3
Food
generalized vegetation types 50
generalized animal types 50
specific species 45.8
abundance 54.1
Water
type 62.5
minimum amount 54.1
seasonal fluctuation 45.8
Space
minimum area characterized by:
vegetation type 58.3
human density 41.6
Diversity 33.3
No response 16.6
This was asked to determine what factors were required for habitat
analysis; to determine if habitat could be analysed by satellite. Vegetative
cover was judged the most important factor. However species was required.
Many of the other factors could be determined by satellite imagery.
9. Do you feel wildlife habitat can be accurately mapped over extensive
areas using any of the above criteria?
response:
83.3 percent of the responders did feel that habitat could be mapped
with the above information. 16.7 percent did not respond to this
question.
10. What cultural information is .necessary for your needs?
% response
population density 62.5
present land ownership 54.2
present land use 87.5
size of land parcel 54.2
possible future use 66.6
cost of land 33.3
present property taxation 12.5
hunting/fishing pressure 62.5
hunting/fishing success 62.5
other: shoreline development; recreational habits
no response 8.3
This question was designed to see what cultural information was
used or would be used by wildlife biologists. Some factors such as
cost of land, land ownership, and hunting/fishing pressure or success
cannot be determined by satellite data or other remote sensing methods.
However others such as present land use and parcel size could possibly
be determentd by satellite. Present land use was the factor of most
use to the responders (87.5%).
11. Are there natural resource data not presently obtainable that you would
like to see more available?
response:
Response to this question was 54 percent. The responses varied widely,
some requests did not deal with data applicable to remote sensing, The
responses can be roughly grouped into categories as follows:
Needs % response
digest of information available 23
shoreline vegetation inventories 15.4
analysis of critical habitat 23
i.e., endangered species
breeding or wintering habitat
analysis of urban fringes 15.4
data on specific game species habitat 15.4
time pursuing game 7.8
Apparently the other 46 percent of the responders did not have
any need for new information.
In general .it would seem that personnel responding to this questionaire
would like to obtain information in the same general format that it has
been available to them in the past. This would be in the form of acetate
overlays showing cultural or natural configurations.
The vegetational information required by wildlife personnel, such
as species composition of forests, is not feasible from satellites.
however generalized vegetational types, agricultural areas, water and
topography can be obtined using satellite data. The greatest difficulty
in application of satellite data to this field is the requirement of data
units less than 10 acres for most features.
This questionaire did indicate the need for greater communication
with wildlife personnel since 23 percent requested greater availability
of satellite data. These people were apparently not aware of the
distribution sources currently available.
Although this questionaire is of limited extent (24 replies)
it does give some idea of the needs of wildlife personnel and feasibility
of using satellite data to meet these needs.
Principal Investigator: Ernest E. Hardy
Agency: New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Cornell University
Ithaca, N. Y. 14850
-/7---


Evaluation of Skylab imagery as an information service for investigating land use and natural resources

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server