Examining the Effect of Ancillary and Derived Geographical Data on Improvement of Per-Pixel Classification Accuracy of Different Landscapes

  • Uttam Kumar
  • Anindita Dasgupta
  • Chiranjit Mukhopadhyay
  • T. V. Ramachandra
Research Article
  • 115 Downloads

Abstract

Effective conservation and management of natural resources requires up-to-date information of the land cover (LC) types and their dynamics. Multi-resolution remote sensing (RS) data coupled with additional ancillary topographical layers (both remotely acquired or derived from ground measurements) with appropriate classification strategies would be more effective in capturing LC dynamics and changes associated with the natural resources. Ancillary information would make the decision boundaries between the LC classes more widely separable, enabling classification with higher accuracy compared to conventional methods of RS data classification. In this work, we ascertain the possibility of improvement in classification accuracy of RS data with the addition of ancillary and derived geographical layers such as vegetation indices, temperature, digital elevation model, aspect, slope and texture, implemented in three different terrains of varying topography—urbanised landscape (Greater Bangalore), forested landscape (Western Ghats) and rugged terrain (Western Himalaya). The study showed that use of additional spatial ancillary and derived information significantly improved the classification accuracy compared to the classification of only original spectral bands. The analysis revealed that in a highly urbanised area with less vegetation cover and contrasting features, inclusion of elevation and texture increased the overall accuracy of IKONOS data classification to 88.72% (3.5% improvement), and inclusion of temperature, NDVI, EVI, elevation, slope, aspect, Panchromatic band along with texture measures, significantly increased the overall accuracy of Landsat ETM+ data classification to 83.15% (7.6% improvement). In a forested landscape with moderate elevation, temperature was useful in improving the overall accuracy by 6.7 to 88.26%, and in a rugged terrain with temperate climate, temperature, EVI, elevation, slope, aspect and Panchromatic band significantly improved the classification accuracy to 89.97% (10.84% improvement) compared to the classification of only original spectral bands, suggesting selection of appropriate ancillary data depending on the terrain.

Keywords

Land cover Classification Accuracy Ancillary layers DEM Vegetation indices Texture 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We are grateful to (1) the NRDMS division, The Ministry of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India, (2) The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of India and (3) Indian Institute of Science for the financial and infrastructure support.

References

  1. Augera, F., Aguilar, F. J., & Aguilar, M. A. (2008). Using texture analysis to improve per-pixel classification of very high resolution images for mapping plastic greenhouses. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 63, 635–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breiman, L., & Cutler, A. (2010). Breiman and Cutler’s random forests for classification and regression. Version 4.5-36, Repository—CRAN. http://ugrad.stat.ubc.ca/R/library/randomForest/html/00Index.html.
  3. Chen, D., Stow, D. A., & Gong, P. (2004). Examining the effect of spatial resolution and texture window size on classification accuracy: An urban environment case. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 25, 2177–2192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collins, W. J., Bellouin, N., Doutriaux-Boucher, M., Gedney, N., Halloran, P., Hinton, T., Hughes, J., Jones, C. D., Joshi, M., Liddicoat, S., Martin, G., O'Connor, F., Rae, J., Senior, C., Sitch, S., Totterdell, I., Wiltshire, A., & Woodward, S. (2011). Development and evaluation of an Earth-system model—HadGEM2. Geoscientific Model Development Discussion, 4, 997–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dópido, I., Villa, A., Plaza, A., & Gamba, P. (2011). A quantitative and comparative assessment of unmixing-based feature extraction techniques for hyperspectral image classification. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing. doi: 10.1109/JSTARS.2011.2176721.Google Scholar
  6. Dorren, L. K. A., Maier, B., & Seijmonsbergen, A. C. (2003). Improved Landsat-based forest mapping in steep mountainous terrain using object-based classification. Forest Ecology and Management, 183(2003), 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fahsi, A., Tsegaye, T., Tadesse, W., & Coleman, T. (2000). Incorporation of digital elevation models with Landsat-TM data to improve land cover classification accuracy. Forest Ecology and Management, 128(2000), 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Germaine, K. A., & Hung, M.-C. (2011). Delineation of impervious surface from multispectral imagery and lidar incorporating knowlwdge based expert system rules. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 77(1), 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gong, P., Marceau, D. J., & Howarth, P. J. (1992). A comparison of spatial feature extraction algorithms for land-use classification with SPOT HRV data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 40, 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haack, B. N., Solomon, E. K., Bechdol, M. A., & Herold, N. D. (2002). Radar and optical data comparison/integration for urban delineation: A case study. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 68, 1289–1296.Google Scholar
  11. Haralick, R. (1979). Statistical and structural approaches to texture. Proceedings of the IEEE, 67(5), 786–804. doi: 10.1109/PROC.1979.11328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haralick, R. M., Shanmugam, K., & Dinstein, I. (1973). Textural features for image classification. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-3(6), 610–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hostert, P., Roder, A., & Hill, J. (2003). Coupling spectral unmixing and trend analysis for monitoring of long-term vegetation dynamics in Mediterranean rangelands. Remote Sensing of Environment, 87, 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huang, C., Song, K., Kim, S., Townshend, J. R. G., Davis, P., Masek, J. G., & Goward, S. N. (2008). Use of dark object concept and support vector machines to automate forest cover change analysis. Remote Sensing of Environment, 112(2008), 970–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hung, M., & Ridd, M. K. (2002). A subpixel classifier for urban land-cover mapping based on a maximum-likelihood approach and expert system rules. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 68, 1173–1180.Google Scholar
  16. Jensen, J. R., & Cowen, D. C. (1999). Remote sensing of urban/suburban infrastructure and socioeconomic attributes. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 65, 611–622.Google Scholar
  17. Lu, D., Batistella, M., & Moran, E. (2008a). Integration of Landsat TM and SPOT HRG images for vegetation change detection in the Brazilian Amazon. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 74(4), 421–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lu, D., Batistella, M., Moran, E., & de Miranda, E. E. (2008b). A comparative study of Landsat TM and SPOT HRG images for vegetation classification in the Brazilian Amazon. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 70(3), 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lu, D., Hetrick, S., & Moran, E. (2010). Land cover classification in a complex urban–rural landscape with Quickbird imagery. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 76(10), 1159–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lu, D., & Weng, Q. (2005). Urban classification using full spectral information of Landsat ETM+ imagery in Marion County, Indiana. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 71(11), 1275–1284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lu, D., & Weng, Q. (2007). A survey of image classification methods and techniques for improving classification performances. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 28(5), 823–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Masocha, M., & Skidmore, A. K. (2011). Integrating conventional classifiers with a GIS expert system to increase the accuracy of invasive species mapping. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 13, 487–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Na, X., Zhang, S., Li, Xiaofeng, Yu, H., & Liu, C. (2010). Improved land cover mapping using random forests combined with Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery and ancillary geographic data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 76(7), 833–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nemani, R., Votava, P., Michaelis, A., Metlon, M., & Milesi, C. (2011). Collaborative supercomputing for global change science. Eos, 92(13), 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pacheco, A., & McNairn, H. (2010). Evaluating multispectral remote sensing and spectral unmixing analysis for crop residue mapping. Remote Sensing of Environment, 114, 2219–2228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pu, R., Gong, P., Michishita, R., & Sasagawa, T. (2008). Spectral mixture analysis for mapping abundance of urban surface components from the Terra/ASTER data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 112, 939–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ramachandra, T. V., & Kumar, U. (2008). Wetlands of greater Bangalore, India: Automatic delineation through pattern classifiers. The Greendisk Environmental Journal, (International Electronic Journal), 1(26), 1–22.Google Scholar
  28. Ramachandra, T. V., & Kumar, U. (2009). Land surface temperature with land cover dynamics: Multi-resolution, spatio-temporal data analysis of Greater Bangalore. International Journal of Geoinformatics, 5(3), 43–53.Google Scholar
  29. Recio, J. A., Hermosilla, L. A., & Fernandez-Sarria, A. (2011). Historical land use as a feature for image classification. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 77(4), 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shaban, M. A., & Dikshit, O. (2001). Improvement of classification in urban areas by the use of textural features: The case study of Lucknow city, Uttar Pradesh. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 22, 565–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shaban, M. A., & Dikshit, O. (2002). Evaluation of the merging of SPOT multispectral and panchromatic data for classification of an urban environment. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 23, 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith, M. O., Johnson, P. E., & Adams, J. B. (1985). Quantitative determination of mineral types and abundances from reflectance spectra using principal component analysis. In Proceedings of the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 90, (pp. 797–904).Google Scholar
  33. Stuckens, J., Coppin, P. R., & Bauer, M. E. (2000). Integrating contextual information with per-pixel classification for improved land cover classification. Remote Sensing of Environment, 71, 282–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Turner, B. L., II, Meyer, W. B., & Skole, D. L. (1994). Global land-use/land-cover change: Towards and integrated study. Ambio, Integrating Earth System Science, 23(1), 91–95.Google Scholar
  35. Xian, G., Crane, M., & McMahon, C. (2008). Quantifying multi-temporal urban development characteristics in Las Vegas from Landsat and ASTER data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 74(4), 473–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Xiaodong, Na, Shuqing, Z., Huaiqing, Z., Xiaofeng, L., & Chunyue, L. (2009). Integrating TM and ancillary geographical data with classification trees for land cover classification of marsh area. Chinese Geographical Science, 19(2), 177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhu, J., Shi, J., Chu, H., Hu, J., Li, X., & Li, W. (2011). Remote sensing classification using fractal dimension over a subtropical hilly region. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 77(1), 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Society of Remote Sensing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Uttam Kumar
    • 1
    • 5
  • Anindita Dasgupta
    • 1
  • Chiranjit Mukhopadhyay
    • 2
  • T. V. Ramachandra
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Energy & Wetlands Research Group [CES TE15], Centre for Ecological SciencesIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Department of Management StudiesIndian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia
  3. 3.Centre for Sustainable Technologies (Astra)Indian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia
  4. 4.Centre for Infrastructure, Sustainable Transportation and Urban Planning (CiSTUP)Indian Institute of ScienceBangaloreIndia
  5. 5.NASA Ames Research CenterMountain ViewUSA

Personalised recommendations