Image-based atmospheric correction of Landsat data for

bands 1 through 4 based on relative scatter

Atmospheric correction accounts for factors that affect the amount of irradiance and radiance at a
particular time in order that comparisons can be made over time under different solar azimuth and haze
conditions. Ultimately, this process converts absolute radiance values to unitless planetary reflectance
which is the surface ratio of upwelling radiance to downwelling irradiance. An assumption is made that the
sky is a uniform Lambertian (diffuse) scatterer and the surface is a flat, uniform Lambertian reflector
(Moran et al., 1992). With the assumptions in mind and ignoring such relatively complex factors as
atmospheric refraction, turbulence, and polarization, a single equation that describes the interaction of solar
irradiance with the atmosphere and retrieves surface reflectance is as follows (after Moran et al., 1992):
ρgλ = ( pi [ Lsλ – Lpλ]) do² / ( Tv [ Eoλ · cosθs · Tz + Edλ ] ) [1]
where
ρgλ = spectral reflectance at the surface; Lsλ =spectral radiance at satellite sensor
(W·mֿ²·sterֿ¹·µmֿ¹); Lpλ = path radiance (scatter), upwelled atmospherically scattered
solar spectral irradiance (W·mֿ²·sterֿ¹·µmֿ¹); do = earth-sun distance in AUs (ESA,
2007); Tv = atmospheric spectral transmittance along the path from surface being viewed
to sensor; Eoλ = solar spectral irradiance on a surface perpendicular to the sun’s ray
outside of the atmosphere (W·mֿ²·µmֿ¹); cosθs = cosine of solar zenith angle; Tz =
atmospheric transmittance along a path from the sun to the ground surface; Edλ =
downwelling spectral irradiance at the surface due to scattered solar flux
(W·mֿ²·sterֿ¹·µmֿ¹).
The COST model (Chavez, 1996) computed reflectance that closely approximated values derived
from a model that required in situ atmospheric measurements. The COST model applies relative scatter
(Lpλ) across bands (Chavez, 1988) based on atmospheric condition and can be written as Equation 1 but
with Edλ omitted. Details of the COST model can be found in Chavez (1988 and 1996), Moran et al.
(1992), and Wu et al. (2005), including an estimation of how much reflectance Edλ should account for and
possible explanations why reflectance models are accurate with the omission of Edλ. Additionally, Moran
et al. (1992) and Chavez (1996) conclude that in reality very few targets on Earth are absolutely black, so
theoretically one percent reflectance of a dark object is more realistic than zero percent. To account for
this, one-percent of total possible reflectance (Equation 2) is deducted from the pixel value that represent
scatter (selection of this value will be described later):
1% reflectance=(0.01 x Eoλ x cosθs²)/(do² x pi)(W·mֿ²·sterֿ¹·µmֿ¹) (ARSC, 2002) [2]
Chavez (1996) tested his model in an arid environment. Wu at al. (2005) tested the Chavez’
COST model with Quickbird data for corn and potato fields in the more humid environment of Minnesota
and found while the model produced accurate results in the visible bands, NIR values were about 20
percent lower than ground measurements due to the absorption effect of total atmospheric precipitable
water on Tz and Tv. Wu et al. (2005) accounted for the effects by first producing a look-up table to
estimate total precipitable water from temperature and relative humidity, and then a contour map to
estimate Tv and Tz from total precipitable water and solar zenith angle. The result was significantly
improved accuracy that was suitable for agricultural applications (Wu et al,.2005). Details of the
absorption effects of precipitable water on radiation can be found in Eldridge (1967) and Guzzi and Rizzi
(1984). Research should be accomplished to determine the effect precipitable water has on Landsat NIR
data due to the different viewing angle (nadir) and pixel size than Quickbird data.
Chavez (1988) based scatter relationships on environmental conditions at the time and listed five
distinct types of environments as very clear, clear, moderate, hazy, and very hazy. He suggested that a
continuous model could be produced through a power line relationship, instead of defining scatter
proportions based on atmospheric conditions with distinct breaks. The power line would continuously
predict the scatter in one band based on the input of the scatter in another band, so the scatter would be
relative. Chavez listed band 1 DN scatter ranges for different atmospheric conditions and the corresponding
values in other bands (Table 1). From the data Chavez supplied, a center range can be defined and the
center point in that range can be used as the interpolation point for the moderate and clear conditions.
Chavez listed the DN scatter range of the band 1 very clear atmosphere as ≤55 and gave values of 30, 35,
40, 45, 50, and 55. For this study, the low band 1 DN scatter value used in the very clear atmosphere range
was 35, and the middle range to determine the center point was 35-50. A range of 30-55 would result in
nearly the same center radiance and virtually the same power line equation. The DN center point of the
band 3 scatter ranges for the atmospheric conditions of very clear, clear, and moderate were converted to
radiance and used as the basis to develop a power line (the moderate scattering amount was greater than the
scatter in any band 3 scene used in this research). Corresponding band 4 values were calculated based on
band 4 to band 3 ratios from data in Chavez (1988).

TABLE 1.
DN SCATTER RANGES FOR MODERATE, CLEAR, AND VERY CLEAR ATMOSPHERIC
CONDITIONS
B3
Condition Band 1 B1 RCP B3 RCP CP B3 CR Ratio B4 RS
Very Clear ≤ 55 35 - 50 8.4 - 11.4 9.90 6.81 0.3998 2.72
Clear 56 - 75 60 - 70 23.3 - 26.9 25.10 19.05 0.6324 12.05
Moderate 76 - 95 80 - 90 41.0 - 45.9 43.45 33.84 0.7954 26.92
DN ranges from Chavez (1988); B1 RCP=band 1 range used to determine center point to interpolate power
line; B3 RCP=corresponding band 3 range; B3 CP=DN center point in range; B3 CR=band 3 center point
radiance used for interpolation for power line; Ratio=ratio of band 4 to band 3 scatter for the particular
atmospheric condition (from Chavez, 1988). B4 RS= band 4 relative scatter.

Band 3 and relative band 4 scatter (B3 CR and B4 RS in Table 1) were used to plot the power line
in Equation 3 (the actual plotting values used had more significant digits).
Equation to determine relative scatter for band 4 (based on band 3 scatter)
y = 0.17566506516169x1.43086075074431 [3]
R² = 0.99993
Equations were also produced my the same method (from data in Chavez [1988]) to calculate
relative scatter for bands 2 and 1 based on the scatter from band 3 and are listed as Equations 4 and 5 (the
method to determine the band 3 scatter that the other bands’ relative scatter is based on will be mentioned
in the next paragraph).
Equation to determine relative scatter for band 2 (based on band 3 scatter)
y = 3.47830688848018x0.69127362593832 [4]
R² = 0.99984
Equation to determine relative scatter for band 1 (based on band 3 scatter)
y = 10.35914451773370x0.42089972569617 [5]
R² = 0.99847
Chavez (1988) used the histogram method to determine the scatter amount in Arizona. In this
research it was found that the abrupt histogram breaks that Chavez showed did not normally exist in the
Ohio data. In this research the lowest value from the band 3 histogram with at least 1,000 pixels from an
entire Landsat scene (Teillet and Fedosejevs, 1995) was used to determine the starting scatter value in band
3. This value had 1 percent deducted (using Equation 2) and was input in Equations 3, 4, and 5 to
determine relative scatter. The atmospheric correction model used in this research can be written as:
ρgλ = (pi [Lsλ– Lpλ1%b3]) do² / (Tv·Eoλ·cosθs²) [6]
where
ρgλ = spectral reflectance at surface; Lsλ = radiance (W·mֿ²·sterֿ¹·µmֿ¹); Lpλ1%b3=path
radiance (W·mֿ²·sterֿ¹·µmֿ¹) calculated from Equations 3, 4, and 5; do=earth-sun distance
in AUs calculated from the following equation from (ESA, 2007): (1-0.016729
cos[0.9856(DOY-4)]), DOY = day of year from 1- 365-366; Tv=viewing angle
transmittance (1.0 for Landsat); Eoλ = solar spectral irradiance on a surface perpendicular
to the sun’s ray outside of the atmosphere (W·mֿ²·µmֿ¹); cosθs = cosine of solar zenith
angle.
 CITATION INFORMATION

Most components of the atmospheric correction method have been published and are well-
documented – the citations in the text should be used. However, I have not found Equations 3, 4, or 5
published, although it was suggested by Chavez (1988) that a power line could be used to determine
relative scatter in another band based on input in a particular band. The citation specifically for Equation 3
is as follows:

Hollinger, D. 2008. Spatial correlation between Landsat 5 TM-derived vegetation spectral indices
and corn yield in northwest Ohio, 2007. Papers of the Applied Geography Conferences 31: pp.
85-94 (with Erratum slip).

Equations 4 or 5 were not published in the previously listed citation; I am not aware of Equations
4 or 5 being listed anywhere except in this text.

REFERENCES

Arizona Remote Sensing Center (ARSC). 2002. Landsat 5 atmospheric and radiometric correction.
Arizona Remote Sensing Center, University of Arizona. Equation derived COST_TM5-input.xls
file. http://arsc.arid.arizona.edu/resources/image_processing/ landsat/ls5-atmo.html
Chavez, P.S., Jr. 1996. Image-based atmospheric corrections – revisited and improved. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing 62(9):1025-1036.
Chavez, P.S., Jr. 1988. An improved dark-object subtraction technique for atmospheric scattering
correction of multispectral data. Remote Sensing of Environment 24:459-479.
Eldridge, R.G. 1967. Water vapor absorption of visible and near infrared radiation. Applied Optics
6(4):709-714.
European Space Agency (ESA). 2007. Earth Observation Quality Control: Landsat frequently asked
questions. http://earth.esa.int/pub/ESA_DOC/landsat_FAQ/
Guzzi, R., and R. Rizzi. 1984. Water vapor absorption in the visible and near infrared: results of field
measurements. Applied Optics 23(11):1853-1861.
Moran, M.S., R.D. Jackson, P.N. Slater, and P.M. Teillet. 1992. Evaluation of simplified procedures for
retrieval of land surface reflectance factors from satellite sensor output. Remote Sensing of
Environment 41:169-184.
Song, C., C.E. Woodcock, K.C. Seto, M.P. Lenney, and S.A. Macomber. 2001. Classification and change
detection using Landsat TM data: when and how to correct atmospheric effects? Remote Sensing
of Environment (75):230-244. http://www.unc.edu/ ~csong/Song01-RSE.pdf
Teillet, P. M., and G. Fedosejevs. 1995. On the dark target approach to atmospheric correction of remotely
sensed data. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing (21):373–387. Cited in Song et al. 2001.
Wu, J., D. Wang, D., M.E. Bauer. 2005. Image-based atmospheric correction of Quickbird imagery of
Minnesota cropland. Remote Sensing of Environment 99:315-325.
http://rsl.gis.umn.edu/Documents/QuickBird_image-based_atmos_correction.pdf