A Hierarchical Approach to Landform Classification of Satellite Images Using a Fusion Strategy

  • Aakanksha Gagrani
  • Lalit Gupta
  • B. Ravindran
  • Sukhendu Das
  • Pinaki Roychowdhury
  • V. K. Panchal
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4338)

Abstract

There is increasing need for effective delineation of meaningfully different landforms due to the decreasing availability of experienced landform interpreters. Any procedure for automating the process of landform segmentation from satellite images offer the promise of improved consistency and reliality. We propose a hierarchical method for landform classification for classifying a wide variety of landforms. At stage 1 an image is classified as one of the three broad categories of terrain types in terms of its geomorphology, and these are: desertic/rann of kutch, coastal or fluvial. At stage 2, all different landforms within either desertic/rann of kutch , coastal or fluvial areas are identified using suitable processing. At the final stage, all outputs are fused together to obtain a final segmented output. The proposed technique is evaluated on large number of optical band satellite images that belong to aforementioned terrain types.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pennock, D.J., Zebarth, B.J., Dejong, W.: Landform classification and soil distribution in hummocky terrain, saskatchewan, canada. In: Proceedings of British Machine Vision Conference, Norwich, UK, pp. 297–315 (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gorsevski, P.V., Gessler, P.E., Jankowski, P.: Integrating a fuzzy k-means classification and a bayesian approach for spatial prediction of landslide hazard. Journal of Geographical Systems 5, 223–251 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burrough, P.A., van Ganns, P.F.M., MacMillan, R.A.: High-resolution landform classification using fuzzy k-means. Fuzzy sets and systems 113, 37–52 (2000)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vapnik, V.N.: An overview of statistical learning theory. IEEE Trans. on Neural Networks 10, 988–999 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ying Chen, Q., Yang, Q.: Segmentation of images using support vector machines. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on machine learning and cybernetics, Shanghai, pp. 3304–3306 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim, K.I., Jung, K., Park, S.H., Kim, H.J.: Support vector machines for texture classification. IEEE Tran. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 24, 1542–1550 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alt, F.L.: Digital pattern recognition by moments. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 9, 240–258 (1962)MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haralick, Robert, M., Shapiro, G.L.: Computer and Robot Vision. Addison-wesley, Reading (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aakanksha Gagrani
    • 1
  • Lalit Gupta
    • 1
  • B. Ravindran
    • 1
  • Sukhendu Das
    • 1
  • Pinaki Roychowdhury
    • 2
  • V. K. Panchal
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringIIT Madras 
  2. 2.Defence Terrain Research LabortoryDRDOIndia

Personalised recommendations