Wetlands Ecology and Management 10: 381–402, 2002.

381
 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Satellite remote sensing of wetlands

1,2,
Stacy L. Ozesmi * and Marvin E. Bauer 1
1 2
Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA; Current
address: Environmental Engineering Department, Environmental Science Branch, Erciyes University School
of Engineering, Kayseri 38039, Turkey; * Author for correspondence (e-mail: stacy@ erciyes.edu.tr; phone:
90 (0.352) 437 4937 ext. 32800; fax: 90 (0.352) 437 4404)

Received 17 January 2001; accepted in revised form 5 June 2002

Key words: Classification techniques, Comparison of methods, Remote sensing, Satellite imagery, Wetland
classification, Wetland identification, Wetlands inventory, Wetlands

Abstract

To conserve and manage wetland resources, it is important to inventory and monitor wetlands and their adjacent
uplands. Satellite remote sensing has several advantages for monitoring wetland resources, especially for large
geographic areas. This review summarizes the literature on satellite remote sensing of wetlands, including what
classification techniques were most successful in identifying wetlands and separating them from other land cover
types. All types of wetlands have been studied with satellite remote sensing. Landsat MSS, Landsat TM, and
SPOT are the major satellite systems that have been used to study wetlands; other systems are NOAA AVHRR,
IRS-1B LISS-II and radar systems, including JERS-1, ERS-1 and RADARSAT. Early work with satellite imagery
used visual interpretation for classification. The most commonly used computer classification method to map
wetlands is unsupervised classification or clustering. Maximum likelihood is the most common supervised
classification method. Wetland classification is difficult because of spectral confusion with other landcover classes
and among different types of wetlands. However, multi-temporal data usually improves the classification of
wetlands, as does ancillary data such as soil data, elevation or topography data. Classified satellite imagery and
maps derived from aerial photography have been compared with the conclusion that they offer different but
complimentary information. Change detection studies have taken advantage of the repeat coverage and archival
data available with satellite remote sensing. Detailed wetland maps can be updated using satellite imagery. Given
the spatial resolution of satellite remote sensing systems, fuzzy classification, subpixel classification, spectral
mixture analysis, and mixtures estimation may provide more detailed information on wetlands. A layered, hybrid
or rule-based approach may give better results than more traditional methods. The combination of radar and
optical data provide the most promise for improving wetland classification.

Introduction grazing, and recreation. Wetlands provide habitat for

Extensive loss of wetlands has occurred in many
countries throughout the world (Mitsch and Gosselink
1993). As the value of wetlands to society has become
recognized, it is now important to conserve these
valuable resources. Wetlands are valued for their
ability to store floodwaters, protect shorelines, im-
prove water quality, and recharge groundwater aquif-
ers (Daily 1997). In many countries, local economies
depend on wetlands for fisheries, reed harvesting,
fish and wildlife, supporting a rich biodiversity, in-
cluding many threatened and endangered species.
Wetlands are also valued for their recreational oppor-
tunities and aesthetics (Barbier et al. 1994). To pre-
vent further loss of wetlands, and conserve existing
wetland ecosystems for biodiversity and ecosystem
services and goods, it is important to inventory and
monitor wetlands and their adjacent uplands.
For inventorying and monitoring wetlands, satellite
remote sensing has many advantages. Satellite data
382

has repeat coverage so that wetlands can be monitored

seasonally or yearly. Satellite remote sensing can also
provide information on surrounding land uses and
their changes over time. Current information on the
uplands surrounding wetlands is important because
land use practices in uplands cause loss of wetland
functions, goods, services and values. Satellite data
are in digital format and relatively easy to integrate
into a geographic information system (GIS). Using
satellite remotely sensed data for land cover classifi-
cation is less costly and less time-consuming than
aerial photography for large geographic areas. Satel-
lite remote sensing can be especially appropriate for
wetland inventories and monitoring in developing
countries, where funds are limited and where little
information is available on wetland areas, surround-
ing land uses, and wetland losses over time.
However, satellite imagery also has limitations
compared to aerial photography. Because of the spa-
tial resolution of most satellite imagery (20 – 30 m), it
is difficult to identify small or long, narrow wetlands. Figure 1. Example of the variability in spectral signatures of
different wetland types plotted for the near infrared and red bands.
Also fewer types of wetlands can be identified com- Note how Phragmites marsh, Juncus marsh, and wet meadow have
pared to aerial photography. It is difficult to separate overlapping signatures. Open water, however, is spectrally very
different wetland types from one another because of separable from the others.
the overlap in their spectral signatures (Gluck et al.
1996). Spectral signatures are measurements of the
spectral response of different features in the bands of
the remote sensor. Figure 1 shows the spectral signa-
tures of different types of wetland vegetation. Wet-
lands can also be confused with upland landcover
classes because of overlapping spectral signatures.
Figure 2 shows an example of the spectral signatures
of wetlands and other landcover classes. The overlap
in spectral signatures between wetlands and other
classes such as agricultural crops and upland forests
limit accuracy in mapping with satellite imagery. In
particular, it is hard to detect wetland types with drier
water regimes, such as forested wetlands, scrub-
shrub, and emergent wetlands, because they are easily
confused with upland vegetation (FGDC 1992). In
order to separate wetlands from uplands, it is usually
advantageous to use satellite images from dates when
the wetlands are at their highest water levels. How-
ever, many wetlands are only flooded at certain times
during the year. Given a satellite’s fixed orbit and
return interval, it is difficult to capture the optimum
water conditions for wetland detection. In addition,
lack of cloud free data often prevents the use of
Figure 2. Example of the variability in spectral signatures of
optimal dates for wetland mapping. different classes plotted for the red and near infrared bands. Note
Because of these disadvantages, the National Wet- that water is spectrally distinct but there is overlap between wetland
land Inventory (NWI) project, began in 1975 by the and agricultural and forest classes.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service for conserv-
ing and managing wetlands, chose high altitude aerial
photography over satellite imagery (Tiner 1990).
Rutchey and Vilchek (1999) also concluded that
photo interpretation was preferred for mapping vege-
tation in the Florida Everglades, even though they
were able to classify SPOT satellite data into 12
wetland classes with 80.9% accuracy (Rutchey and
Vilcheck 1994). Satellite image classification was
limited by four factors. The first factor was fluctuating
water levels, which change the spectral reflectance of
the vegetation. Second, fires left visible scars that
could be observed on both satellite imagery and aerial
photography for up to two years after a fire occurred.
These burned areas were often misclassified as open
water / slough community on satellite imagery. Third,
periphyton formed large floating masses around wet-
land vegetation in late summer, causing confusion in
the satellite image classification. Fourth, Typha spp.
had variations in growth pattern, which complicate
satellite imagery classification.
Thus aerial photography is generally preferred for
detailed mapping of wetlands, especially if many
different vegetation types must be mapped. However,
satellite imagery has advantages over aerial photo-
graphy for continued monitoring of wetland re-
sources. Satellite data are especially appropriate for
large geographic areas. In addition, using satellite
remote sensing data together with more detailed maps
or aerial photography can give greater information
than either source alone. Together they can be used to
monitor changes in water levels in wetlands and land
cover change on adjacent uplands. Satellite data can
be used to determine where frequent changes are
occurring and where more detailed maps should be
updated frequently.
Previous reviews on remote sensing of wetlands
include Lulla (1983), who reviewed the use of Land-
sat MSS satellite imagery for surveying wetlands,
coastal ecosystems, and aquatic environments. Hard-
isky et al. (1986) reviewed different remote sensing
platforms, including aerial photography, SPOT, Land-
sat MSS, Landsat TM and AVHRR, for mapping
coastal wetlands and estimating biomass. The FGDC
(1992) summarized the experience of several agen-
cies on the use of satellite imagery for mapping and
monitoring wetlands. Lee and Lunetta (1996) re-
viewed methods to inventory or detect changes in
wetlands, including airborne and satellite sensors and
their ability to detect wetlands and monitor changes,
and the costs associated with creating a wetlands
383
inventory and maintaining a database. MacDonald
(1999) discussed the current and potential uses of
aerial photography and satellite imagery in wetland
rehabilitation projects including monitoring change
following rehabilitation projects, understanding
causes of wetland degradation, prioritizing potential
rehabilitation sites, weed management, permit com-
pliance, and site design. Klemas (2001) discussed
current and future satellite remote sensing systems for
monitoring environmental indicators in coastal areas.
This review summarizes the literature on satellite
remote sensing of wetlands, with an emphasis on the
different classification techniques that have been used
to identify wetlands. As described above, wetland
classification with satellite imagery is difficult. How-
ever, this paper will give the reader insight into the
best classification techniques to use. This review
examines recent improvements that have been made
in wetland classification using satellite imagery. Wet-
land managers and conservationists will find this
review a helpful resource for understanding how
satellite remote sensing has been used to study wet-
lands in the past and what classification techniques
hold the most promise for the future.
Organization of this review is as follows. Almost
every type of wetland has been studied using satellite
remote sensing and these wetlands are listed. The
satellite sensors, Landsat, SPOT, AVHRR, Indian
Remote Sensing Satellite (IRS) and radar systems,
that have been used to study wetlands and their
advantages and disadvantages are described. Studies
of the spectral reflectance of various wetland vegeta-
tion types are included because most computer classi-
fication methods are dependent on different spectral
responses of wetland vegetation types for classifica-
tion. Classification techniques, with selected exam-
ples from the literature, are investigated to determine
in general which were most successful in identifying
wetlands and separating them from other land cover
types. The accuracy for wetland classification is gen-
erally included to give an idea of the method’s suc-
cess, however the reader should exercise caution with
these figures. There is not a standard accuracy assess-
ment procedure, and different studies use different
procedures, thus comparing among studies is difficult.
However, generally it was found that multi-temporal
imagery and ancillary information such as soils, ele-
vation, or NWI data, improved wetland classification.
Change detection studies of wetlands using satellite
imagery are also reviewed because continued moni-
toring of wetland resources is important to ensure that
384
wetland functions are maintained. Finally the classifi-
cation techniques with the most promise for identify-
ing and classifying wetlands in the future are summa-
rized. These included techniques that can provide
detail on wetland vegetation types at the subpixel
level, a rule-based change detection method for de-
termining changes to wetlands, and the combination
of radar and optical data for wetland mapping.
Different types of wetlands studied using
satellite remote sensing
Satellite remote sensing has been used to study all
types of wetlands. Generally the easiest wetland
classes to detect are permanently flooded or intermit-
tently exposed open water ponds (palustrine uncon-
solidated bottoms) (FGDC 1992). The order of identi-
fication difficulty from easiest to hardest is water,
marshes (wettest to driest), deciduous forested wet-
lands, evergreen forested wetlands, and scrub-shrub
wetlands, respectively. Multi-temporal imagery often
aids in classification of wetlands and their separation
from other landcover classes. The dates of imagery,
which are most helpful, depend on the types of
wetland studied and the surrounding landcover classes
as described below.
Satellite remote sensing has been used to map large
wetland ecosystems, including the marshes and
swamps of Harike wetland ecosystem in Punjab,
India, (Chopra et al. 2001) and Sango Bay on Lake
Victoria in Uganda, which includes papyrus swamps,
tall grass swamps, riverine and swamp forests (Fuller
et al. 1998). Satellite remote sensing was used to
study energy fluxes of the internationally important,
Esteros del Ibera in Argentina, one of South
America’s largest wetlands which consists of a
mosaic of marshes, swamps and lagoons (Louiselle et
al. 2001). The Great Dismal Swamp (Carter et al.
1977; Gammon et al. 1979), the Okefenokee Swamp
(Lo and Watson 1998), and the Florida Everglades in
the United States have been studied using satellite
remote sensing (Doren et al. 1999; Hines et al. 1993;
Rutchey and Vilcheck 1994; Rutchey and Vilchek
1999; Welch et al. 1999, 1995).
Coastal tidal marshes are the type of wetlands that
have been most frequently studied using satellite
remote sensing (i.e. Hardisky et al. (1986), Hinson et
al. (1994), Jensen et al. (1993a), Lee and Park (1992),
Nayak and Sahai (1985), Ramsey and Laine (1997)).
Ramsey and Laine (1997) took advantage of multi-
temporal data to improve classification. The combina-
tion of two dates of imagery allowed separation of
emergent and floating vegetation (winter and spring)
and flooded emergent vegetation and open water (fall
and winter).
Mangrove and other coastal wetlands were studied
in West Bengal India by Kushwaha et al. (2000) and
by Butera (1983) in the southern US. Given appro-
priate tidal conditions, mangroves were relatively
easy to classify because they had a unique spectral
reflectance (Butera 1983). The optimum time for
detecting mangroves was considered to be late sum-
mer to early fall, when the vegetation was mature and
cloud cover was less frequent than in the winter.
Bogs and fens, or northern peatlands, have also
been mapped with satellite remote sensing (Franklin
et al. (1994), Gluck et al. (1996) (fens); Palylyk et al.
(1987), Pietroniro et al. (1996), Wickware and
Howarth (1981)). Landsat MSS data from September
and May for a peatland inventory in Alberta allowed a
separation of deciduous and coniferous cover types
(Palylyk et al. 1987).
Inland freshwater marshes have been another fre-
quently studied wetland type (i.e. Ernst and Hoffer
(1979), Ernst-Dottavio et al. (1981), Forgette and
Shuey (1997), Lunetta and Barlogh (1999)). In the
southeastern US, spring imagery was optimal for
wetland discrimination (Jensen et al. 1984). SPOT
multi-spectral images from early spring leaf off con-
ditions (May), for locating wet soils and standing
water, and summer leaf on conditions (June), for
identifying different vegetation types, were used to
map wetland areas in a small watershed in northern
Michigan (Forgette and Shuey 1997). Lunetta and
Barlogh (1999) also found that leaf off (April) and
leaf on (June) image dates improved classification of
wetlands in Maryland and Delaware. Wet meadows
were studied by Kindscher et al. (1998).
Other inland wetlands studied with satellite remote
sensing include the Prairie Pothole region of the US
and Canada (Best and Moore 1979; Gilmer et al.
1980; Work and Gilmer 1976) and the Nebraska
Sandhills (Goodin 1995). In Prairie Pothole region,
late April or very early May images in normal precipi-
tation years were best for delineating wetlands. How-
ever at these times it was difficult to identify the
wetland’s water regime. Later in the year it might
have been easier to identify the water regime but it
was harder to detect the wetlands. Mid-May to June
data was helpful for separation of wetland types (Best
and Moore 1979; Gilmer et al. 1980; Work and
 385

Gilmer 1976). A winter scene with snow on the
ground was helpful to identify stands of emergent
vegetation (Best and Moore 1979).
Studied areas included forested wetlands, or
swamps (Ernst and Hoffer 1979; Ernst-Dottavio et al.
1981; Llewellyn et al. 1996; Sader et al. 1995) includ-
ing those in the Brazilian Amazon (Mertes et al.
1995). Southern US deepwater swamps, which are
dominated by cypress, Taxodium, and gum-tupelo,
Nyssa, were studied (Butera 1983; Huguenin et al.
1997; Ramsey et al. 1998). October and January
Landsat MSS images were used to map Savannah
River wetlands, which included cypress dominant and
tupelo gum dominant forested wetlands, tidal marshes
and freshwater marshes (Butera 1983). The multi-
temporal images were good for discriminating be-
tween agricultural and marsh classes while the winter
image was useful for discriminating between ever-
green and deciduous forest species. Riparian areas in
arid regions have also been mapped with satellite
remote sensing (Hewitt 1990; Lee and Marsh 1995).
In open water areas, submerged aquatic vegetation
was mapped with remotely sensed satellite imagery
(Ackleson and Klemas 1987; Luczkovich et al. 1993;
Macleod and Congalton 1998; Zainal et al. 1993). The
ability of satellite imagery to identify submerged
aquatic vegetation was influenced by wind conditions,
depth of water and turbidity. Best results were ob-
tained at low tide with no wind and no turbidity.
Satellite sensors used in wetland identification
and classification
Landsat MSS, Landsat TM, SPOT, AVHRR, and
Indian Remote Sensing Satellite (IRS-1B) Linear
Imaging Self-scanning Sensor (LISS-II) are satellite
remote sensing systems that have been used to study
wetlands. These sensors detect and measure electro-
magnetic radiation in the optical portion of the spec-
trum. Table 1 compares the characteristics of these
sensors. Radar systems, which transmit and receive
radiation in the microwave portion of the electro-
magnetic spectrum, have also been used to study
wetlands. Table 2 lists the characteristics of radar
sensors.
Landsat MSS
NASA launched the first Landsat, originally known as
Earth Resources Technology Satellite (ERTS), in
1972. Landsat-1, -2, and -3 had a Multi-spectral
Scanner (MSS) with four bands (Table 1). Many
researchers used Landsat MSS to study wetlands (i.e.
Ackleson and Klemas (1987), Ackleson et al. (1985),
Butera (1983), Gomarasca et al. (1992), Haack
(1996), Haack and Messina (1997), Harper and Ross
(1982), Hutton and Dincer (1979), Jensen et al.
(1986), Lee and Marsh (1995), Nayak and Sahai
(1985), Palylyk et al. (1987), Wickware and Howarth
(1981)). Most research has concluded that Landsat
MSS data are useful for spectral discrimination of
large vegetated wetlands (Jensen et al. 1984). How-
ever, since the launch of Landsat TM and other
satellites with improved capabilities, the use of Land-
sat MSS for mapping wetlands has been mostly
limited to historical or change detection studies where
earlier dates of imagery are needed and for studies of
large wetlands where cost-effective imagery is
needed.

Table 1. Comparison of spectral, temporal and spatial resolution of Landsat MSS, Landsat TM, SPOT, AVHRR, and IRS-1B LISS-II imagery.
Resolution Landsat MSS Landsat 4, 5 TM SPOT-1,2,3,4 AVHRR IRS-1B LISS-II
Spectral (mm)
Band 1 0.45–0.52 0.51–0.73 PAN 0.58–0.68 0.45–0.52
0.50–0.59 HRV
Band 2 0.52–0.60 0.61–0.68 HRV 0.72–1.10 0.52–0.59
Band 3 0.63–0.69 0.79–0.89 HRV 3.55–3.93 0.62–0.68
Band 4 0.5–0.6 0.76–0.90 10.3–11.3 0.77–0.86
Band 5 0.6–0.7 1.55–1.75 1.58–1.75 SPOT-4 only 11.5–12.5
Band 6 0.7–0.8 10.4–12.5
Band 7 0.8–1.1 2.08–2.35
Radiometric (bits) 64 256 256 1024 128
Temporal 18 days 16 days 26 days 12 hours 22 days
Spatial 80 m 30 m, 120 m for band 6 20 m HRV, MIR 10 m PAN 1.1 km at nadir 36.25 m
First Launched 1972 1982 1986 1979 1991
386
Landsat TM
The Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) sensor, first
launched on Landsat 4 in 1982, improved spectral,
radiometric, temporal and spatial resolution over
Landsat MSS. These improvements made Landsat
TM more useful for identifying wetlands as well as
other land cover types. Many studies used Landsat
TM imagery for wetland mapping (i.e. Ackleson and
Klemas (1987), Franklin et al. (1994), Gluck et al.
(1996), Hewitt (1990), Jensen et al. (1993a, 1986),
Mertes et al. (1995), Pietroniro et al. (1996), Pope et
al. (1994), Ramsey and Laine (1997), Wilkinson and
Shepherd (1995), Zainal et al. (1993))
The most important Landsat TM band for wetland
identification is band 5 because of its ability to
discriminate vegetation and soil moisture levels.
Landsat TM bands 3, 4, and 5 are usually the best
combination of bands for wetland detection. Band 1
should be added if water quality is of interest (FGDC
1992). The middle infrared Landsat TM bands pro-
vide for much of the separability between wetland
types (Jensen et al. 1993a).
Although the spatial resolution of Landsat TM
imagery is 30 m, in practice it takes a ‘‘window’’ of
nine pixels or approximately 0.9 ha to consistently
identify an object. However, if the object is not
square, or if adjacent land covers have similar spectral
reflectances, more pixels are needed and some sci-
entists believe that as many as 25 pixels are needed to
be confident of certain classification units (FGDC
1992).
In 1999, the Landsat 7 ETM1 (enhanced thematic
mapper) was launched. This satellite has a panch-
romatic band with 15 m resolution as well as in-
creased spatial resolution for band 6 (thermal in-
frared) from 120 m to 60 m. In addition cost of the
imagery has been substantially reduced.
SPOT
Systeme Pour l’Observation de la Terre (SPOT) was
launched by the French government in 1986. SPOT-2
was launched in 1990 and SPOT-3 was launched in
1993. SPOT was the first earth resource satellite to
have pointable optics which increases the oppor-
tunities for imaging an area. SPOT also has stereo-
scopic imaging capability. SPOT high resolution vis-
ible (HRV) has green, red and near infrared spectral
bands with 20 m spatial resolution. SPOT panch-
romatic (Pan) has 10 m spatial resolution. SPOT-4,
which was launched in 1998, also has a middle
infrared band in addition to the other bands. Many
wetland studies used SPOT data (i.e. Cairns et al.
(1997), Forgette and Shuey (1997), Houhoulis and
Michener (2000), Jensen et al. (1993c), Lee and Park
(1992), McCarthy et al. (1993), Narumalani et al.
(1997), Rutchey and Vilcheck (1994), Rutchey and
Vilchek (1999)). Although not used for wetland
identification per se, SPOT panchromatic images
provided a coordinate reference layer for registering
aerial photographs in a GIS for South Florida’s Na-
tional Parks and Preserves in the US (Welch et al.
1995).
AVHRR
The spatial resolution of NOAA Advanced Very High
Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) makes it unsuitable
for most wetland studies. However, some researchers
have used AVHRR to study forested wetlands. Ram-
sey et al. (1997, 1998) used NOAA AVHRR images
to examine hurricane impact and recovery of forested
wetlands in Louisiana. Llewellyn et al. (1996) created
a decision-support system for prioritizing restoration
sites on the Mississippi River alluvial plain. For the
entire Mississippi River alluvial plain, wetland forest
was estimated using AVHRR satellite images (1.1
km 2 resolution). AVHRR estimates were remarkably
accurate for estimating total percentages of gross
land-cover types (within 5% of ground truth for the
three state area and within 1% for Louisiana). To
estimate the proportion of small forest patches that
were misclassified because of the course resolution of
AVHRR data, a Landsat TM scene of the Tensas basin
classified as forest and non-forest was resampled to 1
km resolution. The TM scene comparable to the
AVHRR resolution differed from the original TM
scene by only 2.4%.
IRS-1 B LISS-II
India began development of an indigenous Indian
Remote Sensing Satellite (IRS) program in the early
1980’s to obtain information on agriculture water
resources, forestry and ecology, geology, water sheds,
marine fisheries and coastal management. The IRS-
1B Linear Imaging Self-scanning Sensor (LISS-II)
was launched in 1991. The four bands of the LISS-II
are similar to Landsat TM bands 1, 2, 3 and 4. IRS-1B
LISS-II data were used to study wetlands by

Kindscher et al. (1998), Kushwaha et al. (2000),
Chopra et al. (2001).
Radar
Satellite radar data is available from ERS-1, launched
by the European Space Agency in 1991, JERS-1,
launched by the National Space Development Agency
of Japan in 1992, and RADARSAT, launched by the
Canadian Space Agency in 1995 (Table 2). Hess et al.
(1990), Kasischke and Bourgeau-Chavez (1997),
Townsend and Walsh (1998), Kushwaha et al. (2000)
have used satellite radar remote sensing systems to
study wetlands. Radar has advantages for remote
sensing for two reasons: 1) radar systems can collect
data at any time of day and under almost any weather
conditions; 2) radar reflections (backscatter) provide
different information than optical sensors.
Flooded forests with a variety of different struc-
tures in locations from the tropics to boreal regions
were detected using radar imagery (Hess et al. 1990).
Flooded forests showed up as bright tones on radar
imagery because of the strong corner reflections be-
tween specular water surfaces and tree trunks. L-band
data generally provided good distinction between
flooded and non-flooded forest and between forest and
marsh vegetation, although sometimes marsh vegeta-
tion had high returns that could be confused with
flooded forest.
Kasischke and Bourgeau-Chavez (1997) used
ERS-1 synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data for moni-
toring the presence or absence of water in wetlands in
Big Cypress National Preserve, Fakahatchee Strand
Preserve, and Collier Seminole State Park in south-
western Florida, US. The results showed that various
vegetation communities could be distinguished based
on canopy structure, soil moisture, and presence or
absence of flooding. Generally the presence of water
under a plant canopy increased the radar backscatter
for wetlands with woody vegetation and decreased
backscatter for wetlands with herbaceous vegetation.
The ability of Landsat TM and SAR data to detect
Table 2. Characteristics of satellite synthetic aperture radar (SAR) systems.
ERS-1
Look angle, deg 23
Wavelength, cm 3.75–7.5 C band
Polarization VV
Temporal Resolution 18 days
Spatial Resolution 30 m
First Launched 1991
387
flooding in a forested wetland was studied by Tow-
nsend and Walsh (1998). The study area was the
lower Roanoke River floodplain, North Carolina, in
an eastern bottomland forest. Landsat TM images
were limited by their inability to detect standing water
under canopies during leaf out conditions. SAR im-
ages used were from the JERS-1 and ERS-1. The
wavelength and depression angle of a radar transmis-
sion determined the depth the signal would penetrate
below the surface. Longer wavelengths generally had
greater penetration in forest canopies, especially when
the wavelengths were much longer than leaf size.
ERS-1 uses the shorter C-band sensors and JERS-1
uses the longer L-band sensors. The difference be-
tween flooded and non-flooded areas was clearly
distinguished on JERS-1 images. ERS-1 imagery was
also useful for detecting the difference between
flooded and non-flooded areas, although the differ-
ences were not as pronounced as on the JERS-1
imagery.
Kushwaha et al. (2000) evaluated ERS-1 SAR and
IRS-1B LISS-II data for discrimination of mangrove
wetlands in the coastal region of West Bengal, India,
an area with persistent cloud cover especially during
the monsoon season. The main objectives were to
evaluate filtering algorithms and image enhancement
techniques for wetland detection. The detection of
terrain features in SAR imagery is limited by the
presence of speckles. There are different techniques to
reduce speckles in SAR imagery but the most com-
mon is the use of a median filter. This study evaluated
various filters for the best combination of speckle
reduction and terrain detail and the median filter with
a 5 pixel by 5 pixel window gave the best results.
Because SAR data is achromatic and is limited in its
ability to detect terrain features, typically false color
composite images are generated by either using multi-
temporal SAR data or by fusing SAR data with multi-
spectral optical sensor data. These false color com-
posites were generated and intensity, hue and satura-
tion (IHS) transformations of the data were done and
the resulting images were compared visually. The IHS
JERS-1 RADARSAT
35 20–59
23 L band 5.6 C band
HH HH
16 days 26 days
18 m 10–100 m
1992 1995
388
transformation allows for an image to be made which
has enhanced spatial and spectral details because each
IHS component can be varied separately without
affecting the others. A false color composite of the
pre-monsoon, monsoon, and post-monsoon multi-
temporal SAR data improved wetland discrimination
compared to any single SAR image date. The false
color composite of SAR and IRS-1B LISS-II data,
with the IRS near infrared band (band 4) replaced by
SAR data, provided the best wetland discrimination.
Kushwaha et al. (2000) caution that these results are
study area dependent but note that speckle reduction
of radar data and image enhancement were necessary
for effective wetland discrimination.
Spectral reflectance of wetland vegetation
Most computer classification techniques, including
maximum likelihood, minimum distance to means,
unsupervised clustering, and parallelpiped methods,
are dependent on different spectral responses of wet-
land vegetation types for classification. Spectral re-
flectance studies have been useful for determining
which wetland vegetation types are spectrally separ-
able and which bands and dates are best for wetland
discrimination. For example, Ernst and Hoffer (1979)
measured the spectral reflectances of different wet-
land types in northeastern Indiana. Hardwood swamp,
shrub swamp, and shallow marsh had nearly identical
values. Therefore it was difficult to classify these
wetland types based solely on spectral characteristics.
Conifers could not be distinguished from deep mar-
shes with a mix of vegetation and water. Open water
was spectrally very distinct.
Most spectral reflectance studies have been done in
tidal marshes and have shown that biomass could be
estimated from reflectance values (Bartlett and
Klemas 1980, 1981; Budd and Milton 1982; Gross et
al. 1988, 1987, 1993; Hardisky et al. 1983; Reimold et
al. 1973). Spectral reflectances of wetland species
have also been studied in the prairie pothole region of
the Dakotas (Best et al. 1981), in a central California
lake (Penuelas et al. 1993), and in a California subal-
pine marsh (Spanglet et al. 1998). Anderson and
Perry (1996) measured differences in leaf spectral
reflectance of red maple, Acer rubrum, on semi-
permanently and temporarily flooded sites by the
Rappahannock River in Virginia.
Remote sensing classification techniques used for
wetland identification
Visual interpretation
Early work with satellite imagery used visual interpre-
tation to identify wetlands (Best and Moore 1979;
Hutton and Dincer 1979; Nayak and Sahai 1985).
More recently, Chopra et al. (2001) studied water
turbidity, seasonal water fluctuations, and vegetation
status of Harike wetland in Punjab, India by visual
analysis of false color composite images of IRS LISS-
II bands 2,3, and 4. In addition, Johnston and Barson
(1993), in their study of Australian wetlands, empha-
size how useful visual analysis of hard-copy images
can be for an overview and reconnaissance mapping
of wetlands, especially for those not trained in remote
sensing. Although visual interpretation of satellite
images is useful for identifying wetlands, most recent
work has emphasized computerized classification
methods, because of the reduction in analyst time.
Unsupervised classification or clustering
Classification methods can be broken into three main
categories: unsupervised, supervised, and hybrid ap-
proaches which combine unsupervised and supervised
methods. Unsupervised classification, or clustering,
groups together pixels with similar spectral values.
Based on ancillary information, the analyst then gives
the clusters information class labels. The advantages
of this method are that the time-consuming training
phase is eliminated and the classes are distinct units.
Disadvantages are that the clusters may not corre-
spond to desired information classes. Supervised clas-
sification uses training data, areas of pixels with
known class type to train the computer to recognize
the various classes. Advantages include the ability to
specify desired information classes. Thus supervised
approaches are often preferred over unsupervised
because the land cover classes of interest are chosen a
priori. Disadvantages are that desired classes may not
correspond to spectrally unique or homogeneous
classes and that training data acquisition is time-con-
suming and expensive. More information on unsuper-
vised, supervised, and hybrid classification techniques
can be found in remote sensing texts such as Jensen
(1996), Schowengerdt (1997).
Various computer classification methods have been
used to identify and classify wetland habitat types and

distinguish them from other land cover types. Review
of satellite remote sensing of wetlands literature re-
vealed that the most commonly used method is un-
supervised classification or clustering (Butera 1983;
Gluck et al. 1996; Goodin 1995; Hinson et al. 1994;
Huguenin et al. 1997; Kempka et al. 1992; Kindscher
et al. 1998; Lee and Marsh 1995; Macleod and
Congalton 1998; Palylyk et al. 1987; Park et al. 1993,
1991; Pope et al. 1994; Ramsey et al. 1998; Ramsey
and Laine 1997).
Unsupervised classification is most successful
when a large number of clusters are used. For exam-
ple, Ducks Unlimited typically used more than 230
clusters per Landsat TM scene for identifying wet-
lands in California’s Central Valley (Kempka et al.
1992). In another example, Macleod and Congalton
(1998) used an unsupervised ISODATA classification
of Landsat TM data as one component of a change
detection study on eelgrass meadows, Zostera marina
L., in Great Bay, New Hampshire. The unsupervised
ISODATA classification was done initially with 100
clusters but there was still some confusion among the
three classes; 255 clusters were used with much better
results.
‘‘Cluster busting’’, or progressive separation of
mixed clusters until no further spectral separation is
possible, is another technique to improve separation
between classes (Jensen et al. 1987). The clusters that
are not easily labeled are separated from the rest of the
image and then the clustering algorithm is applied
again to obtain additional clusters. In an unsupervised
classification on Landsat TM images of South
Carolina Jensen et al. (1993a) performed this ‘‘cluster
busting’’ technique three times.
The following example of an unsupervised classifi-
cation also illustrates that many clusters are necessary
for successful mapping. An unsupervised classifica-
tion of August IRS-1B LISS-II satellite data and
average wetland values were used to identify areas of
potential wet meadows in Grand Teton National Park,
US (Kindscher et al. 1998). There are two types of
wet meadows in this area. The wettest are hydric
willow flats along rivers and lakes dominated by Salix
spp. and Carex spp., which typically have standing
water throughout the growing season. The other type
are wet meadows along foothill slopes near lakes and
rivers and in depressions dominated by Carex spp.,
which only have periodic flooding although the soil is
saturated during a substantial part of the growing
season. The ISODATA clustering algorithm was used
389
to create fifty initial clusters that were combined into
non-forested vegetation classes using aerial photo-
graphs and knowledge of the study area. Six meadow
types along a xeric to hydric gradient were identified.
Vegetation in these six meadow types was surveyed
and average wetland values were calculated based on
the percent cover of each plant species and on its
wetland prevalence index (Reed 1988), which is a
number from 1 to 5 depending on whether the plant
species occurs in wetlands. Field survey of the vegeta-
tion resulted in a 70% accuracy rate of finding wet-
land vegetation at predicted locations. Kindscher et al.
(1998) concluded that this technique could be used to
identify areas of potential wetlands.
Principal component analysis
Another approach for unsupervised classification is to
use multi-temporal imagery and principal component
analysis (PCA) to reduce the number of bands, and
then apply clustering to the first few principal com-
ponents. The approach described below also used
ancillary data on wetlands to isolate wetlands from
other land uses and then classified the isolated wet-
lands into different habitat types.
Gluck et al. (1996) evaluated photo interpretation
of color infrared aerial photography at three scales
and digital classification of Landsat TM data for
mapping wetlands in northwestern Ontario. Wetlands
in northwestern Ontario include marshes, open and
treed fens, and forested wetlands. The green, red, near
and middle IR bands of spring (April) and summer
(August) TM imagery were used. Some bands that
were confusing because of ice were removed. A PCA
was done on the remaining bands and the first three
principal components were used in an ISODATA
unsupervised classification with 250 clusters. The first
principal component (PC1) highlighted vegetation
differences, PC2 highlighted wetness differences, and
PC3 distinguished wetlands from uplands. The band
intercept and slopes of the spectral profiles of each of
these 250 clusters were plotted. According to the
slopes of the spectral profiles the most similar clusters
were combined reducing the number of classes to 40.
Using ground reference data and the spectral profile
plots each of these 40 classes were then put into one
of eleven different wetland information classes. In the
initial classification using Landsat TM data alone
there was confusion between gramminoid wetland
classes and recent cutovers and burns. Therefore
390
forest inventory polygons were used to separate the
wetlands from uplands. The forest inventory polygons
did not have detailed information about the type of
wetland so the Landsat TM data was used to provide
the wetland type. The overall accuracy level at the
pixel level was 72% when comparing classified wet-
land types to the ground reference map. By combining
physiognomically similar wetland classes, for exam-
ple by combining deep marsh and shallow marsh into
marsh, the overall accuracy increased to 81%. The
advantage of using an unsupervised classification
approach is that the spatial resolution of the image is
preserved. If a supervised approach had been used,
wetland classes might have been omitted or aggre-
gated because the analyst might not have been able to
connect finer scale ground reference data to the satel-
lite image data.
Unsupervised classification techniques have been
very popular for wetland classification because of
their suitability for natural areas, which generally
have spectral variability and gradual transitions be-
tween vegetation types. Unsupervised clustering is
most successful when a large number of clusters are
used or when ‘‘cluster busting’’ is performed. How-
ever, labeling a large number of clusters with the
correct landcover class and procedures such as ‘‘clus-
ter busting’’ increase analyst time. Multi-temporal
imagery improves the results obtained. When multi-
temporal imagery is used, PCA is often done to
reduce the number of bands of data. If reliable ancil-
lary data is available, wetlands should be separated
from other land cover types before clustering to
improve classification results.
Supervised classification
There are many different supervised classification
techniques. For example, Luczkovich et al. (1993)
used multivariate analysis of variance and covariance
to distinguish between sites of predominantly seagrass
meadows, Thalassia testudinum or coral and unvege-
tated sand bottom on the north coast of the Dominican
Republic. Harper and Ross (1982) used discriminant
function analysis with Landsat MSS imagery to study
part of the Peace-Athabasca Delta in northeastern
Alberta, one of the largest freshwater deltas in the
world. Discriminant function analysis and September
Landsat TM imagery were used to detect Kalmia
angustifolia L., an ericaceous shrub, on disturbed
sites in Newfoundland (Franklin et al. 1994).
The most common supervised classification meth-
ods are minimum distance to means, parallelpiped,
also known as box decision rule or level slice pro-
cedure, and maximum likelihood classification. These
techniques are described in remote sensing texts such
as Jensen (1996) or Schowengerdt (1997). Minimum
distance to means classifiers compute the centroid of
the training data classes and assign unknown pixels to
the class with the nearest centroid. Minimum distance
to means has been used map wetlands (Forgette and
Shuey 1997; Hodgson et al. 1987; Huguenin et al.
1997).
Parallelpiped, also known as box decision rule or
level slice procedure, uses the range of spectral values
in the training data to define a region in data space.
Pixels that fall into the defined data space are classi-
fied into that class. The parallelpiped classification
method was used with Landsat TM images in the
Florida Everglades (Hines et al. 1993).
Maximum likelihood classification uses the means
and variances of the training data to estimate the
probability that a pixel is a member of a class. The
pixel is then placed in the class with the highest
probability of membership. Maximum likelihood gen-
erally gives better results than the minimum distance
to means or parallel piped classifiers because the
covariance of the data is taken into account. Because
of its performance, maximum likelihood is the most
commonly used supervised classification technique
for mapping wetlands (Butera 1983; Ernst and Hoffer
1979; Ernst-Dottavio et al. 1981; Forgette and Shuey
1997; Hewitt 1990; Huguenin et al. 1997; Lee and
Park 1992; Lo and Watson 1998; Macleod and Con-
galton 1998; Palylyk et al. 1987; Yi et al. 1994; Zainal
et al. 1993).
The following example of a supervised maximum
likelihood classification illustrates how satellite imag-
ery can be used to map riparian areas. This technique
is useful in arid regions where the riparian zone stands
out from drier terrestrial areas. March Landsat data
were used in a supervised maximum likelihood classi-
fication to map riparian habitats along the Yakima
River in the shrub-steppe ecosystem of east central
Washington (Hewitt 1990). Landsat TM bands 2,4,
and 7 were selected. TM7 was chosen to distinguish
water and locate the riparian zone. TM2 was chosen
because it is uncorrelated with TM7 and would pro-
vide additional information for the classification.
TM4 (near infrared) was chosen because the peak
reflectance of green vegetation occurs in this band.
Training data were obtained from field transects.
Transects were located on the imagery to obtain

spectral signatures related to vegetation communities.
Sixteen distinct training classes were identified and
the study area was classified using the maximum
likelihood algorithm. Because most of the classes
were cropland and only the riparian areas were of
interest, the original 16 classes were aggregated into
three classes of water, riparian, and other. Accuracy
assessment data were randomly selected and com-
pared to aerial photographs. The final map had an
accuracy of 81%. Hewitt (1990) concluded that ac-
curacy could be improved by using multi-temporal
imagery, one image from winter or spring when water
levels are high and one from summer, when vegeta-
tion is in full leaf. In addition, a buffer could be
employed to mask out pixels greater than n distance
from the water class. This example shows the impor-
tance of imagery date. It also shows how simple
procedures, such as a buffer around the water class,
can be used to improve the classification of wetland
maps.
Hybrid classifications
Hybrid classifications involve a combination of super-
vised and unsupervised classification techniques. One
hybrid approach is to input descriptive statistics from
a clustering algorithm into a maximum likelihood
classifier. In this approach, unsupervised classification
or clustering is done on only a portion of the study
area. After the clusters are assigned information
classes, cluster statistics are generated and input into a
maximum likelihood classifier so that the entire study
area can be classified. This method was used by
Gammon et al. (1979) in the Great Dismal Swamp of
the United States, Pietroniro et al. (1995), Pope et al.
(1994) in Canadian arctic and subarctic wetlands,
Gomarasca et al. (1992) in the Niger River interior
delta in Mali, and Lee and Marsh (1995) in Arizona.
Hinson et al. (1994) used a hybrid classification
approach with Landsat TM images from December to
classify Texas coastal wetlands.
Hodgson et al. (1987) used a hybrid classification
technique known as ‘‘guided clustering.’’ A late
spring (May) Landsat TM image was used to identify
wood stork habitat (shallow water or marsh) in north
central Georgia. Spring imagery was chosen because
for the southeastern US spring imagery provides
important wetland discrimination (Jensen et al. 1984,
1986). First they did a Kauth-Thomas (tasseled cap)
transformation (Kauth and Thomas 1976) on the six
TM bands, excluding the thermal infrared band. This
391
transformation reduced the six TM bands to three
spectral features, which correspond to brightness,
greenness, and wetness. Then they used a three-step
‘‘guided clustering’’ procedure to classify the bright-
ness, greenness, and wetness image: 1) identified
multi-spectral clusters of wood stork foraging habitat,
2) determined signatures of other land cover classes,
3) merged the two sets of signatures together to
classify the entire study area. They used 32 clusters in
a minimum distance classification of 12 subscenes of
the image. In the classification of these subscenes it
was apparent that marshes were sometimes confused
with forests. Therefore new signatures were created
for confused classes resulting in a final set of 37
clusters. Then the entire study area was classified
using a minimum distance to means classifier. The
accuracy was assessed with low altitude oblique aerial
photography and the recorded locations of 39 known
wood stork foraging sites. The overall classification
accuracy was 74% for wood stork foraging sites.
Errors of omission were caused by the low spatial
resolution of TM imagery, which did not allow for
identification of smaller wood stork foraging sites.
This study highlights that classification is often an
iterative procedure. For example, when marsh was
confused with forest, new signatures were created to
reduce the confusion. This study also highlights the
benefits of a hybrid approach for first clustering
portions of a scene where more detailed information is
known from maps or aerial photography, resolving
confusion between classes, and then classifying the
whole scene.
Hybrid classification methods combine the
strengths of both supervised and unsupervised ap-
proaches. They can be valuable for wetland studies
because of the complex variability in spectral re-
sponses of wetland vegetation types.
Regression analysis with aerial photography
In the prairie pothole region of North Dakota, Gilmer
et al. (1980) used aerial photography together with
Landsat MSS data to estimate wetland numbers.
Studies indicate that between 73 and 88% of wetland
basins in the glaciated prairie pothole region are less
than 0.4 ha, which is the spatial resolution of Landsat
MSS data. Therefore a method was needed for es-
timating wetlands smaller than the sensor’s resolu-
tion. First wetlands were counted using Landsat data
and then the Landsat results were adjusted based on
samples derived from high resolution aircraft data.
392
Ponds as small as 5 meters across were delineated
with 1:20000 aerial photography. Aircraft wetland
counts for areas sampled by the aircraft and paired
Landsat counts were used to make a linear regression
analysis. The linear regression was then used to
estimate wetland numbers over the whole region
covered by Landsat. The value of the Landsat data
was that it gave a representation of the highly variable
characteristics of the entire region, even though many
small ponds were not detected. The aircraft data were
useful for detection of small wetlands. The double
sample plots could provide additional information
such as wetland types and land-use practices on
surrounding uplands that would make the regional
assessment of waterfowl habitat more useful. This
technique would be advantageous when an estimate of
wetland areas is desired (but mapping these wetlands
is not required) over a large geographic area, but time
and money limitations preclude the use of aerial
photography for the entire region.
Vegetation indices
Often vegetation indices can be useful for highlight-
ing wetlands. The vegetation indices can be used in
visual interpretation of wetland boundaries and ex-
tents or used in a classification algorithm to map
wetlands and other landcover types. For example, the
normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and
principal components often enhance spectral sepa-
ration of coastal wetland features (Budd and Milton
1982; Gross et al. 1987). The NDVI and the first two
principal components of a September 3-band SPOT
multi-spectral image were used in a maximum likeli-
hood classification of northeastern Florida (Lee and
Park 1992). This study area contained a variety of dry
land and wetland vegetation including salt and fresh-
water marshes and hardwood and cypress swamps.
Overall classification accuracy was 87.8% for 10
classes.
The spectral indice TM4 / TM2 has been found
useful for separating water from land (Raabe and
Stumpf 1996), although it generally combines water,
wetlands and urban (Dobson, personal communica-
tion). Dobson (personal communication) found that
TM5 / TM2 and (TM5*TM7) /(TM51TM7) separate
urban areas from water and wetlands; TM5 / TM2 is
especially good for discriminating marshes. These
indices have been used with success in coastal areas.
NDVI is also useful for separating water from dry
land.
Several vegetation indices and principal compo-
nents were calculated with October SPOT multi-spec-
tral image data in a study of one of Africa’s largest
wetlands, the Okavango Delta in Botswana (McCar-
thy et al. 1993). This large wetland consists of perma-
nent and seasonal swamps and most of the area is
inaccessible, thus satellite remote sensing is very
useful for reconnaissance investigations. The vegeta-
tion indices included NIR / red, a transformed vegeta-
tion index (TVI) h100 3 sqrt [(NIR2red) /(NIR1
red)]j, and a leaf area index (41.325 3 green / red 2
42.45 3 green / NIR). TVI provided the most detail.
TVI was related to biomass, but not necessarily the
species composition of the vegetation. Since plant
growth is sensitive to hydrology, the TVI image
indirectly provided hydrological information. Con-
ventional aerial photographs have superior resolution
to SPOT imagery but the TVI calculated from SPOT
imagery provides information on vegetation and hy-
drological conditions, which aerial photography does
not. Thus SPOT images and aerial photography were
complimentary. The SPOT image provided informa-
tion about areas that could not be reached by ground
survey. Data obtained during late winter or early
spring would be optimal for studying wetland vegeta-
tion patterns in the Okavango Delta because the
contrast between dry and wetland environments is
very pronounced.
Johnston and Barson (1993) evaluated Landsat TM
data for inventorying and classifying Australian wet-
lands. They concluded that for reconnaissance map-
ping simple density slicing of bands that are related to
physical parameters such as vegetation indices
(biomass / productivity), middle infrared (soil mois-
ture), and visible blue (water depth / turbidity) may be
as effective as more complicated statistical classifica-
tions. Wetlands in their study areas included herb-
dominated shallow freshwater marshes and meadows,
deeper marshes and open water, both fresh and saline,
and red-gum marshes (Eucalyptus camaldulensis
Dehnh.). Multi-temporal imagery (winter / spring and
summer) provided information on seasonal variability
in water regimes and vegetation. They used a simple
density slicing (threshold) of Landsat TM band 5 to
provide information on the extent and location of
wetlands. All pixels below a threshold value of TM5
were mapped as wet. The threshold value was set
empirically and depends on the types of wetlands and
conditions at the time the imagery is collected, which
makes the choice of image date very important. Using
density slicing of TM5 they were able to identify 95%

of permanent open water or marshes, but only 50% of
freshwater meadows. They had little success mapping
vegetation types and concluded that classification of
satellite imagery is more related to vegetation density,
vigor and moisture status than to species distribution.
Satellite remote sensing data should be seen as com-
plimentary to conventional mapping techniques; the
data can provide an overview of a large region and
update information on water regime and vegetation
productivity.
Mixed pixels
Fuzzy classification, mixtures estimation, spectral
mixture analysis and subpixel classification are all
ways of dealing with the problem of mixed pixels,
that is, when there is more than one vegetation type
within the satellite sensor’s instantaneous field of
view. Since satellite sensors such as SPOT and Land-
sat TM have spatial resolutions of 20 m and 30 m
respectively, often there is more than one vegetation
type within one pixel. This is especially true for small
Figure 3. Depending on the spatial resolution of the satellite sensor
and the spatial characteristics of the different classes, mixed pixels
may be very common. The different classes will also intermix at the
boundaries, or have fuzzy transitions, again resulting in mixed
pixels. Notice how small or narrow patches of different classes,
compared to the spatial resolution of the satellite sensor, will result
in mixed pixels.
393
or narrow patches of vegetation and at the boundaries
between different vegetation types (Figure 3). Al-
though the boundaries in this figure are drawn as lines
as in most maps, in reality the boundaries are typically
zones with one vegetation type grading into another.
These fuzzy transition zones increase the number of
mixed pixels. In unsupervised classification, mixed
pixels are typically dealt with by using mixed labels,
i.e. forested wetland / emergent macrophytes, because
there is no method for extracting information about
the proportion of each species using traditional per-
pixel classifiers. In supervised classification, mixed
pixels usually result in misclassification because the
mixed pixels are different spectrally from pure pixels
of the individual vegetation types. With fuzzy classifi-
cation, mixtures estimation, spectral mixture analysis
and subpixel classification information is obtained
about the fraction of different classes within a mixed
pixel. Fuzzy classification is discussed in detail in
Jensen (1996) and the other techniques are described
below.
Mixtures estimation
Work and Gilmer (1976) evaluated Landsat-1 MSS
data as an alternative to aerial photography to de-
termine the amount of surface water in the prairie
pothole region of east-central North Dakota. They
studied seasonal (May to July) and annual differences
(July 72 to July 73) in the amount of water surface.
They used a simple level-thresholding of MSS-7 (near
infrared) data to distinguish water from non-water
surfaces. Water was distinguished by accepting pixels
with low radiance values as water and rejecting all
pixels above a certain threshold as non-water. The
decision boundary for separating water from non-
water terrain features was located using histograms.
Because of mixed pixels at the edge of water, surface
areas of water features were underestimated. Small
ponds and those of irregular shape (a high ratio of
perimeter length to area) had more errors in their
classification. Generally a pond had to be 0.4 ha (1
acre) in size to be recognized, but then it had to be
wholly within one pixel and not spread over several
pixels. Practically it was problematic whether ponds
0.4–1.6 ha (1 to 4 acres) were recognized. Above 1.6
ha ponds were almost always recognized although
their size was underestimated. To be able to identify
smaller ponds, they also calculated the fraction of a
pixel composed of open water using a technique
called ‘‘proportion estimation’’ or ‘‘mixtures estima-
394
tion’’ which determines the proportion of each class in
a pixel or if it is an unknown class. With this tech-
nique there are two constraints: 1) at least n-1 spectral
bands are needed to estimate mixtures of n classes; 2)
the signatures for the classes in the mixture must not
be similar and no one signature must approach the
weighted average of the other signatures. In this
study, bands 5 and 7 were used for the proportion
estimation to distinguish three different cover types:
water, bare soils, and green vegetation. The propor-
tion of water in a pixel was calculated and cutoffs .
86% were mapped as totally water and , 30% as not
water. Proportion estimation significantly improved
pond shape recognition. Ponds larger than 0.5 ha (1.3
acres) were consistently recognized and many ponds
as small as 0.13 ha (0.33 acre) were identified. Thus
this technique can estimate the proportion of different
cover types in one pixel, but by applying threshold
cutoffs pixels can be mapped as one cover type.
Spectral mixture analysis
Spectral mixture analysis was used to determine the
vegetation cover on the Amazon River floodplain and
the relative concentration of suspended sediments in
surface waters of the inundated floodplain (Mertes et
al. 1995). Bands 1–5 and 7 of three Landsat TM
images, acquired when water levels were high and the
floodplain was inundated, were used. Spectral mixture
analysis, also known as linear mixing model, enables
the extraction of information regarding the surface
materials present in a pixel. Spectral mixture analysis
calculates the least-squares best fit for each pixel
along mixing lines bounded by spectra for endmem-
bers and in this way accounts for each pixel’s vari-
ation in the mixture composition. An endmember
ideally represents a pure component of the mixtures
present in the pixels. Three endmembers were chosen
for each image: vegetation, shade, sediment-water.
Spectral mixture analysis produced a fraction image
for each endmember, which showed the fraction from
0 to 1.0 that was contributed by that endmember. The
fraction images could be viewed individually or com-
bined. Generally the spectral mixture analysis method
can detect subpixel occurrences of vegetation, shade,
and sediment but it is not appropriate for detecting
subpixel occurrences of specific species of vegetation.
Therefore Mertes et al. (1995) passed the fraction
images through a parallelpiped classifier with thres-
holds for 5 different vegetation, 5 different sediment-
water and 5 different shade groups for a total of 14
different classes on the final image. The different
vegetation groups included flooded forests and mac-
rophytes. This analysis provided more information
about the spatial heterogeneity of the Amazon River
floodplain than would have been impossible with a
traditional per-pixel classifier. In addition it was rela-
tively easy to choose pixels for the three endmembers
to create fraction images.
Subpixel classification
Huguenin et al. (1997) used subpixel processing to
classify bald cypress and tupelo gum wetlands in
Georgia and South Carolina. Subpixel processing is
defined as the search for specific materials of interest
from within a pixel’s mixed multi-spectral image
digital number spectrum. This method has advantages
over spectral mixture analysis (linear mixing model)
and fuzzy set classification (Jensen 1996), which also
gives subpixel information, because the overall com-
position of each pixel is not constrained to be some
combination of the defined image classes or end
members. The steps in subpixel processing include
signature derivation for a material of interest and
classification of each pixel identifying the fraction of
material of interest present. Therefore for each materi-
al of interest a separate classification must be done.
The fraction image pixel values vary from 0.0 to 1.0.
In this case two classifications were done, one for bald
cypress and one for tupelo gum. A May (after spring
leaf-out) Landsat TM image was acquired for the
classification. Large scale (1:7000) color IR aerial
photography was used to identify stands of cypress
and tupelo in 4 study areas, sometimes even indi-
vidual trees, for the training (2 sites) and test data (2
sites). NAPP photography was used for outside the
study areas. Field work was used to identify areas of
homogeneous stands and mixed stands. Traditional
classification methods (ISODATA clustering, maxi-
mum likelihood, minimum distance to means) were
done by an independent research team using the same
TM image, CIR aerial photography and field data. The
other researchers also used the same training areas
and classified the same training and test areas. The
minimum distance to means was the best traditional
classifier. The subpixel processing method classified
tupelo with 91% accuracy and cypress with 89%
accuracy while the minimum distance to means clas-
sifier was 85% accurate for tupelo and 71% accurate
for cypress. The subpixel processing method had high
accuracy for both pure stands and mixed stands.

Fuzzy classification, mixtures estimation, spectral
mixing analysis, and subpixel classification are all
ways to handle the problem of mixed pixels. Depend-
ing on the spatial resolution of the satellite sensor and
the size of wetland vegetation patches, mixed pixels
can be quite common. If more detailed information on
the composition of mixed pixels is desired, these
techniques may be very useful. If information on a
specific vegetation species is desired, then the subpix-
el classification method is preferred. Of course even
with a subpixel classifier, similar to traditional per
pixel classifiers, a plant species must be spectrally
separable from other species in the study area to be
correctly identified.
Ancillary data
Researchers have usually found that using ancillary
data in addition to multi-spectral satellite data im-
proves classification results. Ancillary data that have
been used to assist in identification of wetlands in-
cluded: soils data (Bolstad and Lillesand 1992; Ernst
and Hoffer 1979; Sader et al. 1995; Yi et al. 1994),
topographic or elevation data (Bolstad and Lillesand
1992; Hinson et al. 1994; Park et al. 1991; Sader et al.
1995), NWI maps (Sader et al. 1995), and forest
inventory maps (Gluck et al. 1996). The use of forest
inventory maps (Gluck et al. 1996) was previously
described in detail in the section on Principal Com-
ponents Analysis. Ancillary data have been incorpo-
rated in layered classifications (Ernst and Hoffer
1979). Often the ancillary data are added as data
layers in a GIS (Yi et al. 1994). Rule-based models
have also incorporated ancillary data (Bolstad and
Lillesand 1992; Sader et al. 1995).
Wetlands in northeastern Indiana were classified
using a layered classification procedure that included
soils data and spectral data (Ernst and Hoffer 1979).
The layered classifier first stratified the image into
upland and bottomland sites based on soils data. The
layered classifier allowed hardwood swamps to be
distinguished from upland hardwoods with 66% ac-
curacy. There was still some confusion where areas of
bottomland soil were too narrow to be identified in the
soil data layer. The layered classifier improved the
separation of wetlands from non-wetlands (84.3% vs.
71.7%).
Rule-based classifiers
A rule-based GIS model was developed to identify
395
forested wetlands in Maine (Sader et al. 1995). Ancil-
lary data included hydric soil data, NWI maps, a
DEM, and hydrography. The rule-based model was
compared to conventional classifiers: an unsupervised
classification, a tasseled-cap transformation, and a
hybrid classification, which combined unsupervised
cluster statistics with supervised forest training statis-
tics in a maximum likelihood classifier. July Landsat
TM imagery was used. TM wavebands are highly
correlated; therefore bands 3,4,5 were chosen to re-
duce data volume yet retain most of the information of
the seven bands. These bands were chosen because
previous research found them to be optimal for classi-
fication of wetlands. The rule-based model consisted
of four hierarchical layers. Each layer used the GIS
data and weights were assigned depending on whether
the criteria were met or not. Each pixel was assigned a
value depending on whether or not it was forested,
according to the unsupervised classification. Weights
were assigned according to whether it was a palustrine
forested wetland in the NWI layer, then whether the
soil was hydric, then whether slope was , 5% and
finally whether it was in a three pixel buffer around
hydrographic features. NWI, hydric soils and slope
were the most important variables in the model. The
rule-based GIS classification did not have a signifi-
cantly higher accuracy than the hybrid classification.
Both methods had overall accuracies in the 80%
range. Results might be improved if the hybrid classi-
fication was used in the GIS model instead of the
unsupervised classification.
Bolstad and Lillesand (1992) used topographic
position, soil texture and Landsat TM data in a rule-
based expert system to classify different land cover
types in northern Wisconsin. Topographic position
data were derived from USGS 7.5 minute quad maps
and grouped into four categories: wetland, upland,
water and road. Soil texture data came from the
USDA Soil Conservation Service soil survey. In 5 of
6 of the different trials of the rule-based method,
which varied by study site, year of image, and
operator, the rule-based method had better accuracy.
On average the classification accuracy of the rule-
based method was 83% compared to 69% for maxi-
mum likelihood. However the rule-based expert sys-
tem also took much more time to develop. Therefore
wetland scientists would need to decide on a project
basis how much time and analyst expertise was avail-
able and the accuracy level needed.
Lunetta and Barlogh (1999) used a simple rule-
based GIS model to classify wetland and upland
396
vegetation types in Maryland and Delaware. They
used two dates of Landsat TM imagery, June 11 1988
(leaf- on) and April 20 1986 (leaf-off), chosen to be
after a precipitation event during a normal precipi-
tation year. Gray-level thresholding techniques of
Landsat TM band 5 in the April image were used to
determine the extent and distribution of non-hydric
and hydric soils. Density slices of TM band 5 were
observed until one was found which separated wet-
lands from uplands. An initial classification map was
created using the June imagery. For the initial classifi-
cation, the image was clustered to identify signatures
of unique spectral classes. Then the cluster statistics
were input into a maximum likelihood classifier.
Stereo pairs of color infrared aerial photos, topog-
raphic maps and soil maps were utilized to assign land
cover classes to the clusters. Classes were wetland
(forest, shrub, emergent, agriculture) and upland (for-
est, shrub, herbaceous, agriculture). Finally using GIS
analysis, areas with hydric soils were reclassified to
wetland categories, those with non-hydric soils to
upland categories. Classification accuracy using the
two dates of imagery was much higher (88% com-
pared to 69%) than from the single image date. This
example once again demonstrated how density slicing
of TM5 can be used to separate wetlands from up-
lands. It also showed how a simple GIS procedure can
be used after classification to improve accuracy.
Fuller et al. (1998) also used simple GIS pro-
cedures after classification to improve wetland classi-
fication. They mapped wetlands in Sango Bay on
Lake Victoria in Uganda with Landsat TM data. Field
data were used to locate areas for training with the
supervised classification. However after classification
some errors were easily identified where cover types
were mapped out of their normal context. Thus they
created a mask for cultivated and built up classes and
filtered out the misclassified wetland classes for an
overall classification accuracy of 86%.
Ancillary data can be very useful for improving
wetland classification. However, to improve the clas-
sification, the ancillary data itself used must be accur-
ate and must be registered accurately to the satellite
images. With recent technology advances, digital
ancillary data such as DEMs and soil maps are often
easy to acquire. Layered classifiers and rule-based
classifiers that incorporate this ancillary data typically
have higher classification accuracy than conventional
statistical techniques such as maximum likelihood.
These techniques vary in how much analyst expertise
and time they will take over conventional techniques.
Project managers must look at the tradeoffs of time
and expertise versus improved accuracy given their
wetland mapping goals and the resources they have
available.
Comparing satellite imagery classification to NWI
Generally small wetlands and long narrow wetlands
that are shown on the NWI are not detectable with
satellite imagery (Park et al. 1993; Forgette and Shuey
1997). Other differences between NWI maps and
wetland maps created from satellite remotely sensed
imagery are described in the examples below. Similar
differences may also be found between any detailed
wetland map derived from aerial photography or
fieldwork and maps derived from satellite imagery.
Ducks Unlimited was interested in wintering
habitat for ducks in California’s Central Valley, espe-
cially rice fields that were not on NWI maps (Kempka
et al. 1992). To identify the wetlands they performed
unsupervised classifications with typically more than
230 separate spectral classes per Landsat TM scene.
NWI maps of the Central Valley were out-of-date
because they were created from photos taken in the
1970’s. When they compared NWI maps to the classi-
fied Landsat TM image, there were differences caused
by different sensor resolutions, different image acqui-
sition dates, different classification procedures, and
different seasons with different areas inundated. They
concluded that Landsat TM and NWI provide com-
plimentary data.
Matrix-overlay analysis methods were used to com-
pare the amount of agreement between the USFWS
NWI map and the classified map of Texas coastal
wetlands (Hinson et al. 1994). NWI classes were
cross-referenced to the NOAA C-CAP classification
scheme. Open water in the Gulf of Mexico was
omitted from the comparison because it would have
made the agreement artificially high. Overall agree-
ment was 76.3%. Differences in the NWI map and
classified image map were caused by: 1) inconsisten-
cies in C-CAP and NWI classification schemes; 2)
interpretation of boundaries between upland and wet-
land (NWI was more conservative while on the classi-
fied image transitional pixels were usually classified
as wetland); 3) narrow classes with a high proportion
of edge to area showed less agreement than large
blocky classes; and 4) errors in each map were
compounded by the overlay process.

Change detection
With data available from Landsat MSS since 1972,
AVHRR since 1979, Landsat TM since 1982, SPOT
since 1986 and IRS since 1991, repeat coverage
satellite remote sensing is often used to evaluate
change over time in wetland ecosystems. General
information on change detection techniques can be
found in Singh (1989), in (Coppin and Bauer 1994)
and in remote sensing texts such as Jensen (1996).
References such as these should be consulted to
determine which change detection procedure is most
appropriate for the desired project and also for im-
portant factors affecting change detection studies.
One important factor in change detection studies is to
use dates of imagery such that the wetlands are in the
same phenological state from year to year. Other
important factors include using imagery from the
same sensor taken at the same time of day and careful
geometric registration of the images. Many change
detection studies of wetlands have been done. In a
study of the Matagorda Bay estuarine system on the
Texas Coast, Weismiller et al. (1977) evaluated four
different change detection techniques. Jensen et al.
(1993b) used Landsat TM imagery for detecting water
level changes in a coastal region near Charleston
South Carolina. SPOT panchromatic data and image
algebra change detection techniques were used to map
seasonal changes in waterlilies and cattails in a fresh-
water reservoir located on the Savannah River Site in
South Carolina (Jensen et al. 1993c). Changes in
vegetation types and water boundaries due to flooding
were analyzed in the Peace-Athabasca Delta, a 4000
km 2 wetland complex, in northeastern Alberta,
Canada, using Landsat MSS imagery (Wickware and
Howarth 1981). Haack (1996), Haack and Messina
(1997) used Landsat MSS images from 1973, 1979,
and 1989 to examine the growth of the Omo Delta at
the northern end of Lake Turkana in Ethiopia and
Kenya, Africa. Change in habitat types as determined
from a Principal Components Analysis of Landsat TM
imagery was used to monitor seagrass on the east
coast of Bahrain (Zainal et al. 1993). More detailed
examples of change detection studies are given below.
Munyati (2000) monitored change in a floodplain
wetland system in southern Zambia with Landsat
MSS and TM images. The goal of the project was to
determine changes in the wetland caused by drought
and less water reaching the wetland because of dams
and irrigation use. The floodplain zone consists of
397
oxbow lakes, lagoons and pans with hydrophytic reed
and grass vegetation. In a change detection study,
ideally all the images would be from the same sensor
to avoid differences caused by different sensors.
However because of budget limitations of this project,
it was not possible to use all Landsat TM images,
which would have been preferred because of the
middle infrared band. Therefore Landsat MSS images
were also used. Dry season (September) images were
chosen because this is when the wetland vegetation is
most easily distinguished from the surrounding up-
land vegetation. Differences caused by changes in
vegetation phenology were limited by using near
anniversary date images. A hard copy of the most
recent satellite image was taken into the field to aid in
gathering ground reference data. Using a GPS, 87
sites were located in large areas of the same cover
type. Steps in the change detection procedure were: 1)
atmospheric correction of latest (reference) image, 2)
geometric registration of all images and normalization
of the other images with the corrected reference
image, 3) image classification, and 4) change de-
tection. A hybrid classification approach was used.
Field sites were clustered and labels assigned to the
clusters. Areas with very similar spectral signatures
were again clustered and assigned labels resulting in
fifteen final classes. Using these fifteen classes, the
rest of the image was classified with a supervised
maximum likelihood classification, resulting in a
classification accuracy of 73%. The other three im-
ages were classified in this way also. The assumption
was made that the 15 classes on the reference image
also existed on the earlier images and that there were
no classes on the earlier images that did not exist on
the latest image. To improve the accuracy of the
change detection, the 15 detailed classes were reduced
to 6 broad classes. This was done because in change
detection studies that compare classified images, it is
important to have a high classification accuracy in
each of the images so that real changes are found
instead of misclassification errors.
A major wetland change detection effort has been
undertaken by NOAA, which started the Coastal
Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) to detect and
monitor changes in coastal upland, wetland and sub-
mersed vegetation landcovers (Dobson et al. 1995).
C-CAP monitors coastal regions of the United States
every one to five years depending on the anticipated
rate of change and the availability of suitable remote
sensing and field data. Data from C-CAP will be used
398
to improve understanding of coastal landcovers and
their relationship to the health of marine resources and
to provide information to habitat managers on the
success or failure of habitat management policies and
programs. Satellite imagery is used to monitor coastal
wetlands and adjacent uplands and a combination of
aerial photography and satellite imagery is used to
monitor submersed vegetation. Landsat TM data was
preferred over SPOT imagery for the change analysis
because it is less expensive and covers a larger area.
TM imagery also has better spectral resolution and
spectral bands (bands 5 and 7) that are more suitable
for wetland delineation. In addition TM data have
been routinely collected for a longer time in US
coastal areas. To evaluate NOAA’s C-CAP change
detection protocol, Jensen et al. (1993a) used multi-
temporal Landsat TM data to study changes in two
study areas in coastal South Carolina. They looked at
four post-classification change detection procedures,
including the use of a ‘‘change / no change’’ mask. By
using the spectral information of the unclassified
images to differentiate between areas of change and
no change, the ‘‘change / no change’’ mask can mini-
mize errors in change detection caused by errors in
either dates of classification.
Houhoulis and Michener (2000) developed a rule-
based model to detect wetland change and update
NWI data in the Georgia coastal plain. This area has
forested and herbaceous wetlands interspersed in
agricultural fields, which leads to difficulties in image
classification with the confusion between wetlands
and forests and agricultural areas. First they did an
unsupervised classification of October date SPOT
multispectral imagery with twenty classes. The twen-
ty classes were aggregated into six broad categories:
1) water, 2) wet soil, 3) forest, 4) scrub / shrub, 5)
cultivated, and 6) bare soil. Pixel vector modulus was
calculated, (sqrt(b 21 1 b 22 1 b 23 / N)), which represents
the Euclidean distance of each pixel from the origin in
multidimensional space. NWI data was used as a
zonal layer and the mean modulus and majority
landcover class in each NWI polygon was calculated.
Statistics were generated by NWI system and majority
landcover to provide a basis for generation of wetland
change rules. Wetlands typically had pixel vector
modulus values of less than 40, regardless of NWI
system. Thresholds for wetland change detection were
developed by adding one standard deviation to the
mean of the modulus histograms plotted by NWI
system and majority landcover class. One exception
to the rule was for very large wetland polygons. The
zonal statistics were not representative over very areas
and so polygons larger than 100 ha were visually
assessed for changes. The accuracy for all changed
wetlands was 90 percent for the rule-based system,
with accuracy for the five dominant NWI systems
(PFO, PEM, PUB, PSS, PAB) ranging from 87 to 94
percent. Rule-based methods are initially labor-inten-
sive. However, once the key rule (in this study, the
standard deviation threshold of mean modulus value)
is found, they can be applied quickly. Houhoulis and
Michener (2000) note pixel vector modulus may be
useful for other change detection studies because it is
easy to calculate, captures spectral variation, and
reduces data volume and processing time. It may be
possible to use a similar method to detect changes on
other aerial photography or fieldwork based maps.
Conclusions
For more effective use of satellite remote sensing,
wetland managers should be aware of the limitations
and advantages of satellite data and should chose from
their available wetland mapping options accordingly.
Satellite remote sensing is especially appropriate for
initial reconnaissance mapping and continued moni-
toring of wetlands over large geographic areas. Al-
though satellite remote sensing cannot provide the
detailed information available from aerial photo-
graphy or field studies, it can provide complimentary
information to these conventional mapping tech-
niques, such as updated information on water regime
and vegetation productivity. It can also identify areas
where changes are occurring and where more detailed
information must be gathered. One promising tech-
nique for updating wetland maps is a rule-based
wetland change detection method (Houhoulis and
Michener 2000).
Techniques for improving the classification of wet-
lands with satellite remote sensing data include the
use of multi-temporal imagery and ancillary data.
Multi-temporal imagery allows for the highest accura-
cy in wetland identification and discrimination from
other land cover types. The ideal dates will differ
depending on the type and location of wetlands being
studied. Ancillary data, if available, should be used to
aid classification. If possible wetlands should be
separated from other land cover types prior to their
classification. This separation is often done with
ancillary data or a density slice of Landsat TM band 5.
Layered or rule-based methods generally provide

better results than conventional statistical classifica-
tion methods, often because of their use of ancillary
data. If detailed information at a finer spatial res-
olution than the satellite sensor is required, then a
subpixel classification method should be used.
The combination of radar data together with optical
data for wetland identification and mapping has not
yet been exploited to its fullest extent. Radar is useful
for studying wetlands because of its ability to dis-
tinguish between flooded and non-flooded areas, even
in forests. In addition, radar data can be collected in
almost all weather conditions, a characteristic that is
especially important in areas with frequent cloud
cover. In conclusion, classification of wetlands with
satellite imagery is difficult but useful. Satisfactory
results will require specialized techniques as de-
scribed in this paper on a case by case basis.
References
Ackleson S.G. and Klemas V. 1987. Remote sensing of submerged
aquatic vegetation in Lower Chesapeake Bay: a comparison of
Landsat MSS to TM imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment
22: 235–248.
Ackleson S.G., Klemas V., McKim H.L. and Merry C.J. 1985. A
comparison of SPOT simulator data with Landsat MSS imagery
for delineating water masses in Delaware Bay, Broadkill River,
and adjacent wetlands. Photogrammetric Engineering and Re-
mote Sensing 51: 1123–1129.
Anderson J.E. and Perry J.E. 1996. Characterization of wetland
plant stress using leaf spectral reflectance: implications for
wetland remote sensing. Wetlands 16: 477–487.
Barbier E.B., Burgess J.C. and Folke C. 1994. Paradise Lost? The
Ecological Economics of Biodiversity. Earthscan, London, 267
pp.
Bartlett D. and Klemas V. 1980. Quantitative assessment of tidal
wetlands using remote sensing. Environmental Management 4:
337–345.
Bartlett D.S. and Klemas V. 1981. In situ spectral reflectance studies
of tidal wetland grasses. Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote Sensing 47: 1695–1703.
Best R.G. and Moore D.G. 1979. Landsat interpretation of prairie
lakes and wetlands of eastern South Dakota. In: Deutsch M.,
Wiesnet D.R. and Rango A. (eds), Fifth Annual William T.
Pecora Memorial Symposium on Remote Sensing 1979. Ameri-
can Water Resources Association, Souix Falls, South Dakota,
USA, pp. 499–506.
Best R.G., Wehde M.E. and Linder R.L. 1981. Spectral reflectance
of hydrophytes. Remote Sensing of Environment 11: 27–35.
Bolstad P.V. and Lillesand T.M. 1992. Rule-based classification
models: flexible integration of satellite imagery and thematic
spatial data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing
58: 965–971.
Budd J.T.C. and Milton E.J. 1982. Remote sensing of salt marsh
vegetation in the first four proposed thematic mapper bands.
International Journal of Remote Sensing 44: 303–314.
399
Butera M.K. 1983. Remote sensing of wetlands. IEEE Transactions
on Geoscience and Remote Sensing GE-21: 383–392.
Cairns S.H., Dickson K.L. and Atkinson S.F. 1997. An examination
of measuring selected water quality trophic indicators with SPOT
satellite HRV data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
Sensing 63: 263–265.
Carter V., Garrett M.K., Shima L. and Gammon P. 1977. The Great
Dismal Swamp: management of a hydrologic resource with the
aid of remote sensing. Water Resources Bulletin 13: 1–12.
Chopra R., Verma V.K., and Sharma P.K. 2001. Mapping, moni-
toring and conservation of Harike wetland ecosystem, Punjab,
India, through remote sensing. International Journal of Remote
Sensing 22: 89–98.
Coppin P.R. and Bauer M.E. 1994. Processing of multitemporal
Landsat TM imagery to optimize extraction of forest cover
change features. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing 32: 918–927.
Daily G.C. (ed.) 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on
Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, 329 pp.
Dobson J.E., Bright E.A., Ferguson R.L., Field D.W., Wood L.L.,
Haddad K.D. et al. et al. 1995. NOAA Coastal Change Analysis
Program (C-CAP). NOAA technical report NMFS 123. US
Department of Commerce, Seattle, Washington, USA, 92 pp.
Doren R.F., Rutchey K. and Welch R. 1999. The Everglades: a
perspective on the requirements and applications for vegetation
map and database products. Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote Sensing 62: 155–161.
Ernst C.L. and Hoffer R.M. 1979. Digital processing of remotely
sensed data for mapping wetland communities. LARS Technical
Report 122079. Laboratory for Applications of Remote Sensing,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, 119 pp.
Ernst-Dottavio C.L., Hoffer R.M. and Mroczynski R.P. 1981.
Spectral characteristics of wetland habitats. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing 47: 223–227.
FGDC 1992. Application of satellite data for mapping and moni-
toring wetlands. Technical Report 1, Wetlands Subcommittee.
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), Washington, DC,
USA, 32 pp.
Forgette T.A. and Shuey J.A. 1997. A comparison of wetland
mapping using SPOT satellite imagery and national wetland
inventory data for a watershed in northern Michigan. In: Trettin
C.C. (ed.), Northern Forested Wetlands; Ecology and Manage-
ment. CRC Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, pp.
61–70.
Franklin S.E., Gillespie R.T., Titus B.D. and Pike D.B. 1994. Aerial
and satellite sensor detection of Kalmia angustifolia at forest
regeneration sites in central Newfoundland. International Journal
of Remote Sensing 15: 2553–2557.
Fuller R.M., Groom G.B., Mugisha S., Ipulet P., Pomeroy D.,
Katende A. et al. 1998. The integration of field survey and
remote sensing for biodiversity assessment: a case study in the
tropical forests and wetlands of Sango Bay, Uganda. Biological
Conservation 86: 379–391.
Gammon P.T., Rohde W.G. and Carter V. 1979. Accuracy evalua-
tion of Landsat digital classification of vegetation in the Great
Dismal Swamp. In: Deutsch M., Wiesnet D.R. and Rango A.
(eds), Fifth Annual William T. Pecora Memorial Symposium on
Remote Sensing 1979. American Water Resources Association,
Souix Falls, South Dakota, pp. 463–473.
Gilmer D.S., Work E.A. Jr, Colwell J.E. and Rebel D.L. 1980.
Enumeration of prairie wetlands with Landsat and aircraft data.
400
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 46: 631–
634.
Gluck M., Rempel R. and Uhlig P.W.C. 1996. An evaluation of
remote sensing for regional wetland mapping applications. For-
est Research Report No. 137. Ontario Forest Research Institute,
Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, Canada, 33 pp.
Gomarasca M.A., Lozano-Garcia D.F., Fernandez R.N. and Johan-
nsen C.J. 1992. Analysis of seasonal variation in the Niger river
interior delta using satellite data. Geocarto International 7: 61–
73.
Goodin D.G. 1995. Mapping the surface radiation budget and net
radiation in a Sand Hills wetland using a combined modeling /
remote sensing method and Landsat thematic mapper imagery.
Geocarto International 10: 19–29.
Gross M.F., Hardisky M.A. and Klemas V. 1988. Effects of solar
angle on reflectance from wetland vegetation. Remote Sensing of
Environment 26: 195–212.
Gross M.F., Hardisky M.A., Klemas V. and Wolf P.L. 1987.
Quantification of biomass of the marsh grass Spartina alternifl-
ora Louisel using Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery. Photo-
grammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 53: 1577–1583.
Gross M.F., Hardisky M.A., Wolf P.L. and Klemas V. 1993. Rela-
tionships among Typha biomass, pore water methane, and re-
flectance in a Delaware (USA) brackish marsh. Journal of
Coastal Research 9: 339–355.
Haack B. 1996. Monitoring wetland changes with remote sensing:
an east African example. Environmental Management 20: 411–
419.
Haack B. and Messina J. 1997. Monitoring the Omo River delta in
East Africa using remote sensing. Earth Observation Magazine
6: 18–22.
Hardisky M.A., Gross M.F. and Klemas V. 1986. Remote sensing of
coastal wetlands. BioScience 36: 453–460.
Hardisky M.A., Smart R.M. and Klemas V. 1983. Seasonal spectral
characteristics and aboveground biomass of the tidal marsh plant,
Spartina alterniflora. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
Sensing 49: 85–92.
Harper J. and Ross G.A. 1982. Digital analysis of Landsat data in
the Athabasca Delta. In: Foreman J. (ed.), International Society
for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing IV 1982. American
Society of Photogrammetry and American Congress on Survey-
ing and Mapping, Crystal City, Virginia, USA, pp. 319–327.
Hess L.L., Melack J.M. and Simonett D.S. 1990. Radar detection of
flooding beneath the forest canopy: a review. International
Journal of Remote Sensing 11: 1313–1325.
Hewitt M.J. III 1990. Synoptic inventory of riparian ecosystems:
the utility of Landsat Thematic Mapper data. Forest Ecology and
Management 33 / 34: 605–620.
Hines M.E., Pelletier R.E. and Crill P.M. 1993. Emission of sulfur
gases from marine and freshwater wetlands of the Florida
Everglades: rates and extrapolation using remote sensing. Jour-
nal of Geophysical Research 98: 8991–8999.
Hinson J.M., German C.D. and Pulich W. Jr 1994. Accuracy
assessment and validation of classified satellite imagery of Texas
coastal wetlands. Marine Technology Society Journal 28: 4–9.
Hodgson M.E., Jensen J.R., Mackey H.E. Jr and Coulter M.C.
1987. Remote sensing of wetland habitat: a wood stork example.
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 53: 1075–
1080.
Houhoulis P.F. and Michener W.K. 2000. Detecting wetland
change: a rule-based approach using NWI and SPOT-XS data.
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 66: 205–
211.
Huguenin R.L., Karaska M.A., Blaricom D.V. and Jensen J.R. 1997.
Subpixel classification of bald cypress and tupelo gum trees in
Thematic Mapper imagery. Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote Sensing 63: 717–725.
Hutton S.M. and Dincer T. 1979. Using Landsat imagery to study
the Okavango Swamp, Botswana. In: Deutsch M., Wiesnet D.R.
and Rango A. (eds), Fifth Annual William T. Pecora Memorial
Symposium on Remote Sensing 1979. American Water Re-
sources Association, Souix Falls, South Dakota, pp. 512–519.
Jensen J.R. 1996. Introductory Digital Image Processing: A Remote
Sensing Perspective. 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ, USA, 318 pp.
Jensen J.R., Christensen E.J. and Sharitz R. 1984. Nontidal wetland
mapping in South Carolina using airborne multi-spectral scanner
data. Remote Sensing of Environment 16: 1–12.
Jensen J.R., Cowen D., Althausen J., Narumalani S. and Weath-
erbee O. 1993a. An evaluation of the Coast Watch change
detection protocol in South Carolina. Photogrammetric En-
gineering and Remote Sensing 59: 1039–1046.
Jensen J.R., Cowen D.J., Althausen J.D., Narumalani S. and Weath-
erbee O. 1993b. The detection and prediction of sea level
changes on coastal wetlands using satellite imagery and a geog-
raphic information system. Geocarto International 4: 87–98.
Jensen J.R., Narumalani S., Weatherbee O. and Mackey H.E. Jr
1993c. Measurement of seasonal and yearly cattail and waterlily
changes using multidate SPOT panchromatic data. Photogram-
metric Engineering and Remote Sensing 59: 519–525.
Jensen J.R., Hodgson M., Christensen E., Mackey H.E., Tinney L.
and Sharitz R. 1986. Remote sensing of inland wetlands: a
multi-spectral approach. Photogrammetric Engineering and Re-
mote Sensing 52: 87–100.
Jensen J.R., Ramsey E.W., Mackey H.E. Jr, Christensen E.J. and
Sharitz R.R. 1987. Inland wetland change detection using aircraft
MSS data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing
53: 521–529.
Johnston R.M. and Barson M.M. 1993. Remote sensing of Aus-
tralian wetlands: an evaluation of Landsat TM data for inventory
and classification. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater
Resources 44: 235–252.
Kasischke E.S. and Bourgeau-Chavez L.L. 1997. Monitoring south
Florida wetlands using ERS-1 SAR imagery. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing 63: 281–291.
Kauth R.J. and Thomas G.S. 1976. The tasseled cap-a graphic
description of the spectral-temporal development of agricultural
crops as seen by Landsat, Symposium on Machine Processing of
Remotely Sensed Data 1976. Laboratory for Applications of
Remote Sensing, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA, pp 41–51.
Kempka R.G., Kollasch R.P. and Koeln G.T. 1992. Using GIS to
preserve the Pacific flyway’s wetland resource. GIS World 5:
46–52.
Kindscher K., Fraser A., Jakubauskas M.E. and Debinski D.M.
1998. Identifying wetland meadows in Grand Teton National
Park using remote sensing and average wetland values. Wetlands
Ecology and Management 5: 265–273.
Klemas V. 2001. Remote sensing of landscape-level coastal en-
vironmental indicators. Environmental Management 27: 47–57.
Kushwaha S.P.S., Dwivedi R.S. and Rao B.R.M. 2000. Evaluation
of various digital image processing techniques for detection of
coastal wetlands using ERS-1 SAR data. International Journal of
Remote Sensing 21: 565–579.

Lee C.T. and Marsh S.E. 1995. The use of archival Landsat MSS
and ancillary data in a GIS environment to map historical change
in an urban riparian habitat. Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote Sensing 61: 999–1008.
Lee J.K. and Park R.A. 1992. Application of geoprocessing and
simulation modeling to estimate impacts of sea level rise on the
northeast coast of Florida. Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote Sensing 58: 1579–1586.
Lee K.H. and Lunetta R.S. 1996. Wetland Detection Methods. In:
Lyon J.G. and McCarthy J. (eds), Wetland and Environmental
Applications of GIS. Lewis Publishers, New York, pp. 249–284.
Llewellyn D.W., Shaffer G.P., Craig N.J., Creasman L., Pashley D.,
Swan M. et al. 1996. A decision-support system for prioritizing
restoration sites on the Mississippi River alluvial plain. Con-
servation Biology 10: 1446–1455.
Lo C.P. and Watson L.J. 1998. The influence of geographic sam-
pling methods on vegetation map accuracy evaluation in a
swampy environment. Photogrammetric Engineering and Re-
mote Sensing 64: 1189–1200.
Louiselle S., Bracchini L., Bonechi C. and Rossi C. 2001. Model-
ling energy fluxes in remote wetland ecosystems with the help of
remote sensing. Ecological Modelling 145: 243–261.
Luczkovich J., Wagner T.W., Michalek J.L. and Stoffle R.W. 1993.
Discrimination of coral reefs, seagrass meadows, and sandy
bottom types from space: a Dominican Republic case study.
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 59: 385–
389.
Lulla K. 1983. The Landsat satellites and selected aspects of
physical geography. Progress in Physical Geography 7: 1–45.
Lunetta R.S. and Barlogh M.E. 1999. Application of multi-tempo-
ral Landsat 5 TM imagery for wetland identification. Photo-
grammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 65: 1303–1310.
MacDonald T.A. 1999. Wetland rehabilitation and remote sensing.
In: Streever W. (ed.), An International Perspective on Wetland
Rehabilitation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 251–
264.
Macleod R.D. and Congalton R.G. 1998. A quantitative comparison
of change-detection algorithms for monitoring eelgrass from
remotely sensed data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
Sensing 64: 207–216.
McCarthy T.S., Franey N.J., Ellery W.N. and Ellery K. 1993. The
use of SPOT imagery in the study of environmental processes of
the Okavango Delta, Botswana. South African Journal of Sci-
ences 89: 432–436.
Mertes L.A.K., Daniel D.L., Melack J.M., Nelson B., Martinelli
L.A. and Forsberg B.R. 1995. Spatial patterns of hydrology,
geomorphology, and vegetation on the floodplain of the Amazon
River in Brazil from a remote sensing perspective. Geomorphol-
ogy 13: 215–232.
Mitsch W.J. and Gosselink J.G. 1993. Wetlands. 2nd edn. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 722 pp.
Munyati C. 2000. Wetland change detection on the Kafue Flats,
Zambia, by classification of a multitemporal remote sensing
image dataset. International Journal of Remote Sensing 21:
1787–1806.
Narumalani S., Jensen J.R., Burkhalter S., Althausen J.D. and
Mackey H.E. Jr 1997. Aquatic macrophyte modeling using GIS
and logistic multiple regression. Photogrammetric Engineering
and Remote Sensing 63: 41–49.
Nayak S.R. and Sahai B. 1985. Coastal morphology: a case study of
the Gulf of Khambhat (Cambay). International Journal of Re-
mote Sensing 6: 559–567.
401
Palylyk C.L., Crown P.H. and Turchenek L.W. 1987. Landsat MSS
data for peatland inventory in Alberta, Symposium ’87 Wet-
lands / Peatlands 1987. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, pp 365–371.
Park R.A., Lee J.K. and Canning D.J. 1993. Potential effects of
sea-level rise on Puget Sound wetlands. Geocarto International 4:
99–110.
Park R.A., Lee J.K., Mausel P.W. and Howe R.C. 1991. Use of
remote sensing for modeling the impacts of sea level rise. World
Resources Review 3: 184–205.
Penuelas J., Gamon J.A., Griffin K.L. and Field C.B. 1993. Asses-
sing community type, plant biomass, pigment composition, and
photosynthetic efficiency of aquatic vegetation from spectral
reflectance. Remote Sensing of Environment 46: 110–118.
Pietroniro A., Prowse T., Hamlin L., Kouwen N. and Soulis R.
1996. Application of a grouped response unit hydrological model
to a northern wetland region. Hydrological Processes 10: 1245–
1261.
Pietroniro A., Prowse T.D. and Lalonde V. 1995. Classifying terrain
in a muskeg-wetland regime for application to GRU-type distrib-
uted hydrologic models. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing
22: 45–52.
Pope K.O., Rejmankova E., Savage H.M., Arredondo-Jimenez J.I.,
Rodriguez M.H. and Roberts D.R. 1994. Remote sensing of
tropical wetlands for malaria control in Chiapas, Mexico.
Ecological Applications 4: 81–90.
Raabe E.A. and Stumpf R.R. 1996. Image processing methods:
procedures in selection, registration, normalization, and enhance-
ment of satellite imagery in coastal wetlands. Open File Report
97–287. United States Geologic Survey.
Ramsey E.W. III, Chappell D.K. and Baldwin D.G. 1997. AVHRR
imagery used to identify hurricane damage in a forested wetland
of Louisiana. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing
63: 293–297.
Ramsey E.W. III, Chappell D.K., Jacobs D., Sapkota S.K. and
Baldwin D.G. 1998. Resource management of forested wetlands:
hurricane impact and recovery mapping by combining Landsat
TM and NOAA AVHRR data. Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote Sensing 64: 733–738.
Ramsey E.W. and Laine S.C. 1997. Comparison of Landsat
Thematic Mapper and high resolution photography to identify
change in complex coastal wetlands. Journal of Coastal Research
13: 281–292.
Reed P.B. Jr 1988. National List of Plants that Occur in Wetlands:
National Summary. US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological
Report 88(24).
Reimold R.J., Gallagher J.L. and Thompson D.E. 1973. Remote
sensing of tidal marsh. Photogrammetric Engineering and Re-
mote Sensing 477–488.
Rutchey K. and Vilcheck L. 1994. Development of an Everglades
vegetation map using a SPOT image and the Global Positioning
System. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 60:
767–775.
Rutchey K. and Vilchek L. 1999. Air photointerpretation and
satellite imagery analysis techniques for mapping cattail cover-
age in a northern Everglades impoundment. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing 65: 185–191.
Sader S.A., Ahl D. and Liou W.-S. 1995. Accuracy of Landsat TM
and GIS rule-based methods for forest wetland classification in
Maine. Remote Sensing of Environment 53: 133–144.
Schowengerdt R.A. 1997. Remote Sensing. 2nd edn. Academic
Press, 522 pp.
402
Singh A. 1989. Digital change detection techniques using remotely
sensed data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 10: 989–
1003.
Spanglet H.J., Ustin S.L. and Rejmankova E. 1998. Spectral
reflectance characteristics of California subalpine marsh plant
communities. Wetlands 18: 307–319.
Tiner R.W. 1990. Use of high-altitude aerial photography for
inventorying forested wetlands in the United States. Forest
Ecology and Management 33: 593–604.
Townsend P.A. and Walsh S.J. 1998. Modeling floodplain inunda-
tion using an integrated GIS with radar and optical remote
sensing. Geomorphology 21: 295–312.
Weismiller R.A., Kristof S.J., Scholz D.K., Anuta P.E. and Momin
S.A. 1977. Change detection in coastal zone environments.
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 43: 1533–
1539.
Welch R., Madden M. and Doren R.F. 1999. Mapping the Ever-
glades. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 65:
163–170.
Welch R., Remillard M. and Doran R.F. 1995. GIS database
development for South Florida’s National Parks and Preserves.
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 61: 1371–
1381.
Wickware G.M. and Howarth P.J. 1981. Change detection in the
Peace-Athabasca Delta using digital Landsat data. Remote Sens-
ing of Environment 11: 9–25.
Wilkinson G. and Shepherd I. 1995. Testing the water: monitoring
and modelling wetlands using integrated GIS and RS techniques.
GIS Europe 4: 38–40.
Work E.A. Jr and Gilmer D.S. 1976. Utilization of satellite data for
inventorying prairie ponds and lakes. Photogrammetric En-
gineering and Remote Sensing 42: 685–694.
Yi G.-C., Risley D., Koneff M. and Davis C. 1994. Development of
Ohio’s GIS-based wetland inventory. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 49: 23–28.
Zainal A.J.M., Dalby D.H. and Robinson I.S. 1993. Monitoring
marine ecological changes on the East Coast of Bahrain with
Landsat TM. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing
59: 415–421.