Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment (환경영향평가)

Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment (한국환경영향평가학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Accuracy between Analysis Tree Detection in UAV Aerial Image Analysis and Quadrat Method for Estimating the Number of Treesto be Removed in the Environmental Impact Assessment

환경영향평가의 훼손수목량 추정을 위한 드론영상 분석법과 방형구법의 정확성 비교

  • Received : 2021.03.03
  • Accepted : 2021.05.18
  • Published : 2021.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The number of trees to be removed trees (ART) in the environmental impact assessment is an environmental indicator used in various parts such as greenhouse gas emissions and waste of forest trees calculation. Until now, the ART has depended on the forest tree density of the vegetation survey, and the uncertainty of estimating the amount of removed trees has increased due to the sampling bias. A full-scale survey can be offered as an alternative to improve the accuracy of ART, but the reality is that it is impossible. As an alternative, there is an individual tree detection using aerial image (ITD), and in this study, we compared the ARTs estimated by full-scale survey, sample survey, and ITD. According to the research results, compared to the result of full-scale survey, the result of ITD was overestimated by 25. While 58 were overestimated by the sample survey (average). However, as the sample survey is an estimate based on random samples, ART will be overestimated or underestimated depending on the number and size of quadrats.

환경영향평가의 훼손수목량은 온실가스 배출량, 임목폐기물 산정 등 다양한 부분에 활용되는 환경지표이다. 지금까지 훼손수목량은 식생조사표의 임목밀도에 의존하였고, 이에 따른 표본편향으로 훼손수목량 추정의 불확실성이 가중되었다. 훼손수목량 추정의 정확성을 높이려면 전수조사를 대안으로 제시할 수 있으나 불가능한 것이 현실이다. 대안으로 드론영상을 이용한 개별 수목 탐지 방법이 있으며, 이 연구는 개별 수목 탐지 방법론으로 표본조사(방형구법)와 드론영상 분석법으로 추정된 훼손수목량을 전수조사 결과와 비교하였다. 연구 결과 전수조사 기준으로 드론 영상 분석법은 25주 과대추정 하였고 방형구법(평균)은 58주 과대 추정하였다. 그러나 기존 환경영향평가에서 시행하는 방형구법은 방형구의 개수, 방형구의 위치에 따른 표본편향의 영향을 많이 받을 것으로 예상된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Birdal AC, Avdan U, Turk T. 2017. Estimating tree heights with images from an unmanned aerial vehicle. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk 8: 1144-1156. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2017.1300608
  2. Chang H, Huang K, Wu C. 2006a. Determination of sample size in using central limit theorem for weibull distribution. International Journal of Information and Management Sciences 17: 31. [Korean Literature]
  3. Chang AJ, Kim YI, Lee BK, Yu KY. 2006b. Estimation of individual tree and tree height using color aerial photograph and LiDAR data. Korean Journal of Remote Sensing 22: 543-551. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.7780/KJRS.2006.22.6.543
  4. Cho DY, Kim EM. 2012. Extraction of street tree Information using airborne LiDAR data. Spatial Information Research 20: 45-57. [Korean Literature]
  5. Choi KA, Lee IP. 2008. Automatic change detection of urban areas using LIDAR data. Journal of the Korean Society of Surveying, Geodesy, Photogrammetry and Cartography 26: 341-350. [Korean Literature]
  6. Comas C, Mateu J, Delicado P. 2011. On tree intensity estimation for forest inventories: Some statistical issues. Biometrical Journal 53: 994-1010. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201000193
  7. Duncanson L, Rourke O, Dubayah R. 2015. Small Sample Sizes Yield Biased Allometric Equations in Temperate Forests. Scientific Reports 5: 17153. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep17153
  8. Fujimoto A, Haga C, Matsui T, Machimura T, Hayashi K, Sugita S, Takagi H. 2019. An end to end process development for UAV-SfM based forest monitoring: Individual tree detection, species classification and carbon dynamics simulation. Forests 10: 680. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10080680
  9. Gray AN, Brandeis TJ, Shaw JD, McWilliams WH, Miles P. 2012. Forest inventory and analysis database of the United States of America (FIA). In: Dengler J, Oldeland J, Jansen F, Chytry M, Ewald J, Finckh M, Glockler F, Lopez-Gonzalez G, Peet RK, Schaminee J, HJ, editors. Vegetation databases for the 21st century. Biodiversity and Ecology 4: 225-231. https://doi.org/10.7809/b-e.00079
  10. Hwang SR, Lee MJ, Lee IP. 2012. Detection of Individual Trees and Estimation of Mean Tree Height using Airborne LIDAR Data. Spatial Information Research 20: 27-38. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.12672/ksis.2012.20.3.027
  11. Hwang SI, Park SH. 2011. A Comparative Study on Estimation Methodologies of Carbon Sequestration Amount by Vegetation for Environmental Impact Assessment on Development Projects. Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment 20: 477-487. [Korean Literature] https://doi.org/10.14249/EIA.2011.20.4.477
  12. Itakura K, Hosoi F. 2018. Automatic individual tree detection and canopy segmentation from three-dimensional point cloud images obtained from ground-based lidar. Journal of Agricultural Meteorology 74: 109-113. https://doi.org/10.2480/agrmet.D-18-00012
  13. Kentsch S, Lopez Caceres ML, Serrano D, Roure F, Diez Y. 2020. Computer vision and deep learning techniques for the analysis of drone-acquired forest images, a transfer learning study. Remote Sensing 12: 1287. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12081287
  14. KEI. 2019. Reviewing Feasibility of Applying of Drones and BIM in Environment Impact Assessment. Korea Environment Institute.
  15. Lei XD, Tang MP, Lu YC, Hong LX, Tian DL. 2009. Forest inventory in China: status and challenges. International Forestry Review 11: 52-63. https://doi.org/10.1505/ifor.11.1.52
  16. Li W, Guo Q, Jakubowski MK, Kelly M. 2012. A new method for segmenting individual trees from the lidar point cloud. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 78: 75-84. https://doi.org/10.14358/PERS.78.1.75
  17. McRoberts RE, Tomppo EO, Czaplewski RL. 2015. Sampling designs for national forest assessments. Knowledge Reference for National Forest Assessments; FAO: Rome, Italy, 23-40.
  18. Morales G, Kemper G, Sevillano G, Arteaga D, Ortega I, Telles J. 2018. Automatic segmentation of Mauritia flexuosa in unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) imagery using deep learning. Forests 9: 736. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9120736
  19. Mohan M, Silva CA, Klauberg C, Jat P, Catts G, Cardil A, Hudak AT, Dia M. 2017. Individual tree detection from unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) derived canopy height model in an open canopy mixed conifer forest. Forests 8: 340. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8090340
  20. Ni W, Liu J, Zhang Z, Sun G, Yang A. 2015. Evaluation of UAV-based forest inventory system compared with LiDAR data. In 2015 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), pp. 3874-3877.
  21. Paul TSH, Kimberley MO, Beets PN. 2019. Thinking outside the square: Evidence that plot shape and layout in forest inventories can bias estimates of stand metrics. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10: 381-388. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.13113
  22. Pitkanen J, Maltamo M, Hyyppa J, Yu X. 2004. Adaptive methods for individual tree detection on airborne laser based canopy height model. International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 36: 187-191.
  23. Plowright A, Roussel JR. 2020. ForestTools: Analyzing Remotely Sensed Forest Data. R package version 0.2.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ForestTools.
  24. Popescu SC, Wynne RH. 2004. Seeing the Trees in the Forest. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 70: 589-604. https://doi.org/10.14358/PERS.70.5.589
  25. Powers D. 2008. Evaluation: From Precision, Recall and F-Factor to ROC, Informedness, Markedness & Correlation. Mach. Learn. Technol. 2.
  26. Quiroz RAA, Guidotti FP, Bedoya AE. 2019. A method for automatic identification of crop lines in drone images from a mango tree plantation using segmentation over YCrCb color space and Hough transform. In 2019 XXII Symposium on Image, Signal Processing and Artificial Vision (STSIVA), pp. 1-5.
  27. R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
  28. Safonova A, Tabik S, Alcaraz-Segura D, Rubtsov A, Maglinets Y, Herrera F. 2019. Detection of fir trees (Abies sibirica) damaged by the bark beetle in unmanned aerial vehicle images with deep learning. Remote Sensing 11: 643. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11060643
  29. Scott CT, Bechtold WA, Reams GA, Smith WD, Westfall JA, Hansen MH, Moisen GG. 2005. Sample-based estimators used by the forest inventory and analysis national information management system. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-80. Asheville, NC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, pp. 53-77.
  30. Selim S, Sonmez NK, Coslu M, Onur I. 2019. Semi-automatic tree detection from images of unmanned aerial vehicle using objectbased image analysis method. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing 47: 193-200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-018-0900-1
  31. Toffanin P. 2019. OpenDroneMap: The Missing Guide (1st ed.)
  32. Tomppo E, Malimbwi R, Katila M, Makisara K, Henttonen HM, Chamuya N, Zahabu E, Otieno J. 2014. A sampling design for a large area forest inventory: case Tanzania. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 44: 931-948. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2013-0490
  33. Wallace L, Lucieer A, Watson CS. 2014. Evaluating tree detection and segmentation routines on very high resolution UAV LiDAR data. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 52: 7619-7628. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2014.2315649
  34. Wang Y, Weinacker H, Koch B. 2008. A lidar point cloud based procedure for vertical canopy structure analysis and 3D single tree modelling in forest. Sensors 8: 3938-3951. https://doi.org/10.3390/s8063938
  35. Wu X, Shen X, Cao L, Wang G, Cao F. 2019. Assessment of individual tree detection and canopy cover estimation using unmanned aerial vehicle based light detection and ranging (UAV-LiDAR) data in planted forests. Remote Sensing 11: 908. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11080908
  36. Yachen Y. 2016. MLmetrics: Machine Learning Evaluation Metrics. R package version 1.1.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MLmetrics.
  37. Yan WY, Shaker A, El-Ashmawy N. 2015. Urban land cover classification using airborne LiDAR data: A review. Remote Sensing of Environment 158: 295-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.11.001