There are no author-identified significant results in this report

Hardy, E. E.

Wulff, R.

English

NASA Technical Reports Server

I"Mte irtVafbl R ~ AiJ T-rSfp
In the interest of-early and wide dis- E 7 4 - 1 0 4 02
semination of Earth Resources Survey
Program information and without liabilityfor any use made thereot."
PROGRESS REPORT
Evaluation of Satellite Imagery as an Information Service for Investigating
Land Use and Natural Resources (Skylab). NASA Contract NAS 9-13364
Prepared by
Rodney ulff
This report covers the period of
November 1-31, 1973
N74-1901
E74-10402) EVALUATION OF SATELLITE
IMAGEBY AS AN INFOMATION SERVICE 
FOE
INVESTIGATING LAND USE AND NATURAL Unclas
RESOUECES (SKYLAB) Progress epor G3/1t, 00402
(Cornell_ Univ.) 11 _C $4.0 CSCL 05B G3/13 OO2
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19740010897 2020-03-23T11:37:44+00:00Z
GENERAL COMMENTS
The Resource Information Laboratory in late October and early November,
1973, forwarded some 160 questionnaires to Regional Planning Boards, County
Planning Boards, County Cooperative Extension Agents, and private planning
consultants throughout the State of New York. The overall return was approxi-
mately 31.9% (51 responses).
The Regional Planning Boards, County Planning Boards, and private planning
consultants gave an approximate 61% return (29 out of 48). However, only 28
were calculated as one return was left blank and stated that they were not
qualified to answer the questionnaire. Generally, the response from the group
was quite high for most questions.
The response from the County Agents was rather poor. There were a total
of 112 questionnaires circulated to County Cooperative Extension agents
throughout the state and only 22 were answered (19.6%). Part of the poor
returns can be attributed to the type of questions asked e. g., regional
planning matters. Several responses stated that they were not qualified to
answer the type of questions asked, and one specifically said that this type of
information was not relevent to county agricultural agents' role in planning.
(This reply was not calculated in the tables.) Nevertheless, the present
situation indicates that there is a tremendous need to illustrate and educate
county agents on the potential of satellite data, if it is to serve a useful
purpose at the county level.
This report is a brief review of the returns. The paper will take the
following format: list of the question, main responses to the question, and
the significance of the replies.
Question I:
Do you conduct regional studies? If so, what is a typical area
covered (approximately to the nearest square mile)?
iTwo more responses have been received from County Planning Boards since
the initial calculations were made. However, they have not been included in
this paper. These returns would raise overall returns to 33% (53 out of 160)
and Regional Planning Boards, etc., to 64.5% (31 out of 48>.
2Response:
Table 1
Average = 4,210 square miles
Number of answers = 31
No responses = 18
There was a tremendous extreme in the areas of study. The smallest
area of coverage was 10 to 15 square miles to the largest area of
14,067 square miles.
Question 2
What is the size of the smallest data unit that you would use (i. e.,
for vegetation, it may be 10 acres; or for waterbodies, 1 acre, etc.)?
Response:
This question was asked in order to obtain an approximate idea of the
data unit size presently required by land planners.
Table 2: Size in Acres Percentage Number of Users
#1 #2
0 to 2.0 48.9 58.5 24
2.1 to 5.0 12.3 14.7 6
5.1 to 10.0 12.3 14.7 6
10.1 to 25.0 -- --
25.1 to 65.0 8.1 9.7 4
65.1 2.0 2.4 1
* 100.0% 41
NOTE: #1 - % of total received
#2 - % out of those actually answering the question
* - these questions allowed the user to respond to more than one
category
** - not all the answers are given in this report
Number of answers - 41
No responses - 8
The present ERTS information at 1:62,500 has an approximate resolution of
45 acres. However, the Skylab imagery is believed to have a greater resolution
and the user needs are more likely to be met. There were only a few responses
(5) that indicated an interest in using less definitive imagery (e. g., 25 acres
3+ data size) as a guide to indicate seasonal and general land use trends.
Moreover, the thinking of almost all planners and county agents was that land
assessment and planning should be conducted with information as specific as
1 to 10 acres.
Question 3
In what form do you want the initial data ( e. g., computer tapes,
acetate overlays, on topography maps similar to USGS, etc.)?
Response:
This question was asked for several reasons including what format is most
acceptable to present planning techniques, would output from the satellite
be compatible with these techniques, and are there any categories not
presently used that could be supplied by satellite data. The major
correlation was the use of acetate overlays with USGS-type maps.
Table 3
Percentage Number of Users
Form of data #1 #2
Topographic maps with
acetate overlays 55.1 57.4 27
Acetate overlays without
USGS 22.4 23.4 11
Computer tapes 18.4 19.1 9
Topographic maps 14.3 14.9 7
Number of answers = 47 ** ** *
No response = 2
Question 4
What is your area of concentration (e. g,, regional recreation planning,
water quality analysis, etc.)?
Response:
The question was asked to see what cross section of experts were answering
the form. It also was asked to clarify whether the given areas of concen-
tration could be obtained from remote sensing techniques. Factors such
as social, economic, and political concerns are obviously important in
planning. However, for the most part are difficult, if not impossible
to obtain from satellite imagery. There was a strong correlation for a
general category that was called County and Regional land use planning
(44 out of 48). This cateogry included environmental inventory, planning,
and land uses in general.
4Table 4
Percentage Number of Users
Area of concentration #1 #2
County and regional land use 89.8 91.7 44
planning
Water quality and utility
planning 16.3 16.7 8
Education 6.1 6.3 3
2
Transportation 6.1 6.3 3
Number. of answers = 48 ** ** **
Question 5
Do you use consultants and/or regional maps of other disciplines in your
analysis? If so, what disciplines?
Response:
The intent of this question was to ascertain what types of consultants
and maps are used by the people interviewed. Some 38 out of 48 responses
(79.2%) said that they used consultants in their operations. There was
a considerable variety of data maps (23 different types). The main
categories mentioned included soils 16 out of 48 (33.3%), geology 10 out
of 48 (20.8%), and transportation maps 9 out of 48 (18.8%).
Table 5
Percentage Number of Users
#1 #2
Consultants and/or type of regional
maps
Do you use regional consultants (yes) 77.5 79.2 38
Do you use regional consultants (no) 20.4 20.8 10
* 100.0 48
Soils maps 32.7 33.3 16
Geology maps 20.4 20.8 10
Transportation maps 18.4 18.8 9
2
It is assumed many, if not all, the Regional Land Use planning responses
dealt with transportation needs. However, the answers that specified trans-
portation mentioned it as a special consideration apart from-county and regional
land use planning.
Question 6
Do you use any of the following natural resource data? If not, please
state the data that you use.
topography slope
topography orientation
vegetation type
vegetation edges (ecotone)
water (if so, state type, e. g., ponds)
wildlife type
wildlife quality
wildlife habitat
unique resources
geology (surface)
geology (sub-surface)
soils
other
Response:
The main purpose of this question was to obtain an idea of what natural
resource data is presently being used in the planning fields. With this
information it would be possible to guide future data retrieval. Gen-
erally, the answers for this question had a strong correlation. Table 6
indicates that the following categories were used extensively: soils
46 out of 47 (97.8%), topographic slopes 45 out of 47 (95.7%), water,
ponds, lakes, and streams 39 out of 47 (83.0%), vegetation type 35 out of
47 (74.5%), geology (surface) 34 out of 47 (72.3%), unique resources
33 out of 47 (70.2%), and topographic orientation 32 out of 47 (68.0%).
Table 6
Percentage Number of Users
Natural Resource Data #1 #2
Soils 94.0 97.8 46
Topographic slopes 91.8 95.7 45
Water, ponds, lakes, and streams 79.6 83.0 39
Vegetation type 71.4 74.5 35
Geology (surface) 69.4 72.3 34
Unique resources 67.3 70.2 33
Topographic orientation 65.3 68.0 32
Geology (subsurface) 59.2 61.7 29
Wildlife habitat 51.0 52.2 25
Number of answers = 47 ** ** **
No response = 2
.6
Question 7
What existing cultural conditions are most important to your needs.
Present ownership
Distance from present development
Present use
Possible future use
Existing legislation and financing
Project demand
Cost of land
Present property taxation
Other
Response:
This question was designed to determine what cultural data is either
presently being used or is required by land planners. Several cate-
gories in the list would be impossible to obtain from either conven-
tional remote sensing methods (aerial photographs, etc.) or satellite
-imagery, and they include present land ownership, project demand,
and existing legislation and financing. However, other categories
may be obtainable from satellite imagery, and they include present
use and distance from present development, There were no questions
in the questionnaire that asked for weighting. The answers to this
question, however, had some weighted replies. Eight of the nine
gave first preference to present use (the last choices did not
correlate).
Table 7
Percentage Number of Users
Existing cultural conditions #1 #2
Present use 91.8 93.8 45
Possible future use 79.6 81.3 39
Present ownership 63.3 64.6 31
Cost of land 57.1 58.3 28
Distance from present development 53.1 54.2 26
Existing legislation and
financing 51.0 52.1 25
/
7Project demand 49.0 50.0 24
Present property tax 46.9 47.9 23
Sewage and water 10.2 10.4 5
Number of answers = 48 ** ** **
No response = 1
Question 8
Generally, there are several elements considered important as guides
for the spatial allocation of activities. The factors include type
of activity, surrounding uses, distance from other activities and
settlements, availability and diversity. Are there other factors
that you consider important?
Response:
This question was designed to see what guides planners used for locat-
ing activities on the land. There was no attempt to delineate every
factor affecting location. For example, people's values and choices
were not mentioned but they would play a major role in any planning.
Due to the general nature of this question there was a tremendous
variation in the answers. It was impossible to draw trends from the
responses. There were three categories that received more than four
responses.
Table 8
Categories Percentage Number of Users
#1 #2
Demand, need, feasibility 35.7 47.6 10
Transportation/accessibility 18.4 32.1 9
Natural factors/environmental
constraints 18.4 32.1 9
Population density/migration 8.2 14.3 4
Number of answers = 28 **- ** **
No response - 21
Question 9
What natural resource data not presently obtainable would you like
to see more available?
Response:
The intent of this question was to obtain ideas for possible new
data types. There were twenty-six responses that varied from the
need to know forest stands to historic settlements.
8Table 9
Category Percentage Number of Users
#1 #2
Floodplains (5, 10, 20, and 50 10.2 19.2 5
year levels)
Seasonal coverage 10.2 19.2 5
Forest (nature stands, heights,
type, boundaries, etc.) 8.2 15.4 4
Ground water data (movement
quantity, quality, etc.) 8.2 15.4 4
Historic settlement 6.1 11.5 3
Wildlife habitat 6.1 11.5 3
Publication on what information
is presently available 6.1 11.5 3
Number of answers = 26 ** ** **
No response = 23
Question 10
Any others comments?
Response:
The last question responses varied from enthusiastic, " practical
application of this new wealth of information is unlimited", to
skepticism: "I am a bit skeptical of your product, frankly. None-
theless, I hope you are successful in influencing the pattern of
development for the better." There were only two comments that
showed obvious skepticism and sixteen that gave positive responses.
Table 10
Response Percentage Number of Users
#1 #2
Keep us informed 16.3 42.1 8
Education on the matter needed 6.1 15.8 3
Data must be more detailed 6.1 15.8 3
Need to coordinate information
with other agencies 4.0 10.5 2
9When is it available 4.0 10.5 2
Skeptical/like to see documentation
on the value of satellite data 4.0 10.5 2
Number of answers = 19 ** ** **
No response = 30
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SURVEY
The survey, although being limited in sample size (restricted strictly
to New York State), gave some guides for future research with satellite
data and the need for better communications with the users. Many responders
asked to be kept informed and only a few voiced skepticism about the planning
potential of Skylab data. However, thirty-six (36 out of 41 for 77.9%)
answers stated that they used data units of 10 acres or less. Moreover, at
this time the resolution of present ERTS information at 1:62,500 is approxi-
mately 45 acres. This problem is one that can be resolved through education
on the Skylab's potential. For example, the phenological qualities did not
appear to be fully understood (5 responses). It is the feeling of the Resource
Information Laboratory that generalized data taken at regular intervals
3 can
be used to augment present more detailed information.
The survey indicated that the present information being used by land
planners can, to some extent, be supplied by satellite imagery. The natural
factors that were most widely used included soils, topographic slope, water
ponds, lakes, and-streams, vegetation type, geology (surface), unique resources,
and topographic orientation (approximately in that order of importance).
The most outstanding natural data required by planners but not presently
available included fldodplains (5, 10, 20, and 50 year levels), forest (mature
stands, heights, type boundaries, etc.), and ground water information.
3ERTS Evaluation for Land Use Inventory, Type II Report, December 13,
1972, to June 13, 1972, Contract # NAS 5-21886, Department of Natural Resources,
Cornell University, Appendix B, page 8 figures show 52.1% required update of
one year or less; this is more frequent than what is presently available.
10
A second questionnaire was sent out to about 100 people in state
and federal wildlife management programs at the districts or regional level.
Its aim is to determine the data used, and additional requirements desired,
for wildlife habitat evaluation. About 20% of the questionnaires have been
returned to date. Most indicate a need for very detailed natural information
such as forest species, agricultural crop type, and prey species. A more
detailed analysis of responses from this questionnaire is being postponed
until more responses are received.
No other activities have been st1t4ed on this project since the data
has not yet been received from Skylab.
Principal Investigator: Dr. Ernest E. Hardy
Agency: New York State College of Agriculture
and Life Sciences
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14850


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

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server