GOFC-GOLD Efforts in Harmonization and Validation

of Land Cover Datasets

Chris Schmullius & Martin Herold ESA GOFC-GOLD Landcover Implementation Project Office

IGOL, 13-15 Sept. 2004

GOFC GOLD introduction

Multifaceted international strategy to bring the Earth’s land cover under continuous operational observation

Vision to share data, information and knowledge, leading to informed action and decision support

Network of participants implementing coordinated research for global monitoring of terrestrial resources, global assessments and the study of global change

Establishing international standards and protocols especially with respect to issues like validation

GOFC GOLD’s role A Panel of the Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) A long term process of building an improved match between

Observations, Data Products and User Needs

Space agenciesData “producer”Science community

Data “users”FAO/UNEP etc.

GOFC GOLD

Implementation priorities2nd GOFC GOLD land cover implementation team w/s,

Jena, March 2004: Harmonization of global and regional land cover

products Validation of global earth observation products Adequacy and advocacy of earth observation in

serving international conventions Towards operational global observations of land Support of new IGOL-theme Strengthen international cooperations (e.g. regional

networks)

Why harmonization? Land mapping uses different standards

national maps, application specific, spectral classes Compatibility and comparability

Within and between countries Within and between applications and disciplines From local to global scales

Required for successful Improvement of mapping products Validation of global datasets Foster application: land change dynamics

Harmonization strategy Originally strong push for single lc/lu legend Too much standardization reduces application

relevance of lc/lu maps Standardizing terminology rather than categories W/S: FAO/UNEP 1994, GOFC GOLD 2004

(Jena/Rome) Implementation strategy :

Two working groups: cover and use Find common language (LCCS) Need for case studies Impact on operational lc/lu data collection

LCCS Status and Use LCCS-2: Software completed and ready for

download September 2004 Manual available September 2004,

translations in French, Spanish and Arabic scheduled in the year 2005

GOFC GOLD endorses LCCS Feedback to improve LCCS Translation of legends (start @ Rome w/s)

IGBP legend translationRome workshoptranslations:• IGBP DIS• MODIS LC • MODIS Cont.Flds.• CORINE• GLC2000-> already in LCCS

MODIS LC

LCCS Software Workshop discussions

Forest areas in global land cover maps

Forest definitions:IGBP legend : percent tree cover >60% / tree height >2m GLC2000 legend : percent tree cover >15% / tree height >3m

Differences for urban areas

Sources of urban land:IGBP DIS – Digital chart of the worldMODIS – MODIS(2000) + DMSP (1994/95)GLC2000 – DMSP (1994/95)

ShanghaiSao Paolo

tree cover threshold0% 100%

Forest cover from continuous field products

Credit: M. Hansen/University of Maryland

0% 100%

VCF can support harmonization of land cover data

tree cover threshold

Credit: M. Hansen/University of Maryland

GLOBCOVERPartnership: ESA - JRCPrograms: GOFC/GOLD - IGBPUsers: FAO, UNEP, UN Conventions (CCD, CB)

Objectives: Global Land Cover Map in 2005 by usingENVISAT MERIS data at 300m (15 bands)

Schedule: Definition phase Spring 2004 Invitation To Tender July 2004

KO December 2004First Monthly Mosaic September 2005GLOBCOVER V1 September 2006GLOBCOVER V2 September 2007Validation September 2008

Implementation: One European consortium industry/companies

GLC2000 versus GLOBCOVER

GLC-2000 map at 1km res. LC map from MERIS at 300m res.

Validation of land cover datasets GOFC GOLD fosters international effort to validate

all existing global land cover products Consistent with “Best Practices” identified by CEOS

Land Cover Validation Working Group Create „living“ dataset for future land cover products

(e.g. GLOBCOVER) Use of GOFC GOLD regional networks Harmonization experiences are essential LCCS provides the framework to translate the

individual in situ interpretations Frustration with lack of funding for validation