Comparison of contrasting optical and LiDAR fire severity remote sensing methods in a heterogeneous forested landscape in south-eastern Australia

Spectral indices derived from satellite optical remote sensing data have typically been used for fire severity estimation, although other remote sensing systems such as Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) are increasingly applied. Despite a multitude of remotely sensed fire severity estimation methods, comparisons of method performance are few. Insights into the merits and limitations of remotely sensed fire severity methods help develop appropriate spatial tools for the management of fire-affected areas. We evaluated the performance of seven passive (optical) and active (LiDAR) remotely sensed fire severity estimation methods in classifying and explaining variation in a field-estimated modified Composite Burn Index (MCBI) for a recent large wildfire in south-eastern Australia. Our evaluation included three commonly applied indices; the differenced Normalized Burn Ratio (dNBR), Relative dNBR (RdNBR) and Relative Burn Ratio (RBR). We compared these NBR indices against two recently proposed fire severity estimation methods that have not previously been evaluated with CBI field data–the Vegetation Structure Perpendicular Index (VSPI) spectral index and the LiDAR point cloud-derived Profile Area Change (PAC), along with experimental relativized forms of these indices (RVSPI and RPAC, respectively). The RVSPI (κ = 0.47) demonstrated similar overall classification accuracy (N classes = 4) to the PAC (κ = 0.48), however both indices had lower classification accuracy than the dNBR (κ = 0.59), RdNBR (κ = 0.59) and RBR (κ = 0.61). The VSPI and PAC were unable to accurately represent non-structural changes caused by lower severity fire. Application of these optical and LiDAR indices should consider their discussed limitations in relation to the objectives of their application.