Advertisement

Land Use and Cover Mapping Using SVM and MLC Classifiers: A Case Study of Aurangabad City, Maharashtra, India

  • Abdulla A. OmeerEmail author
  • Ratnadeep R. Deshmukh
  • Rohit S. Gupta
  • Jaypalsing N. Kayte
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1037)

Abstract

The fast developing cities like Aurangabad need an effective analysis of Land Use Land Cover. In this paper we examine the use of MLC and SVM for mapping the LULC from satellite Imagery. This paper investigates the accuracy of Support Vector Machine SVM and Maximum Likelihood Classification MLC for multi-spectral images of Aurangabad city and Waluj area. The satellite images collected from IRS-1C LISS III and PlanetScope Imagery. Our objective is to produce LULC map for Aurangabad and Waluj and estimate the change that happened to each class of the land cover. The results show that the increase of buildings area was significant from the period of 2008 to 2018. The accuracy of MLC was 94.13% and 85.65% with kappa 0.92, 0.81 in 2008 and 2018 respectively, and for SVM the accuracy was 93% with kappa 0.91, 94.4% with kappa 0.92 in 2008 and 2018 respectively. It was noticed that both SVM and MLC can be used effectively on LULC data analysis.

Keywords

Remote sensing Land Use Land Cover Maximum Likelihood Classifier Support Vector Machine GIS 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would Like to thank the DST-FIST with sanction no. SR/FST/ETI-340/2013 to the Department of Computer Science and Information Technology, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University for supporting and funding this work. Also i would like to thank the university and department authorities for facilitating this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Giri, C.P.: Remote Sensing of Land Use and Land Cover: Principles and Applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jensen, J.R.: Remote Sensing of the Environment: An Earth Resource Perspective, 2nd edn. Pearson Education India, Koramangala (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahmad, A., Quegan, S.: Analysis of maximum likelihood classification on multispectral data. Appl. Math. Sci. 6(129), 6425–6436 (2012)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mather, P.M.: Computer Processing of Remotely-Sensed Images: An Introduction. Wiley, New York (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ben-Hur, A., Weston, J. : A user’s guide to support vector machines. In: Data Mining Techniques for the Life Sciences, pp. 223–239 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Otukei, J.R., Blaschke, T.: Land cover change assessment using decision trees, support vector machines and maximum likelihood classification algorithms. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 1(12), S27–S31 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Santosh, K.C., Wendling, L., Antani, S., Thoma, G.R.: Overlaid arrow detection for labeling regions of interest in biomedical images. IEEE Intell. Syst. 31(3), 66–75 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ding, H., Shi, J., Wang, Y., Wei, L.: An improved dark-object subtraction technique for atmospheric correction of Landsat 8. In: Proceeding of SPIE 9815, MIPPR 2015: Remote Sensing Image Processing, Geographic Information Systems, and Other Applications, 98150K, 14 December 2015Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jensen, J.R.: Introductory Digital Image Processing: A Remote Sensing Perspective. Pearson Education Incorporated, Glenview (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gupta, R.P.: Remote Sensing Geology, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55876-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Verma, R.K., Kumari, K.S., Tiwary, R.K.: Application of remote sensing and GIS technique for efficient urban planning in India. In: Geomatrix Conference Proceedings (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schlkopf, B., Smola, A.J.: Learning with Kernels: Support Vector Machines, Regularization, Optimization, and Beyond. MIT Press, Cambridge (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gao, J.: Digital Analysis of Remotely Sensed Imagery. McGraw-Hill Professional, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mather, P., Tso, B.: Classification Methods for Remotely Sensed Data. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saha, A.K., et al.: Land cover classification using IRS LISS III image and DEM in a rugged terrain: a case study in Himalayas. Geocarto Int. 20(2), 33–40 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vajda, S., Santosh, K.C.: A fast k-nearest neighbor classifier using unsupervised clustering. In: Santosh, K.C., Hangarge, M., Bevilacqua, V., Negi, A. (eds.) RTIP2R 2016. CCIS, vol. 709, pp. 185–193. Springer, Singapore (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4859-3_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Santosh, K.C., Wendling, L., Antani, S.K., Thoma, G.R.: Scalable arrow detection in biomedical images. In: ICPR 2014, pp. 3257–3262 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Santosh, K.C., Roy, P.P.: Arrow detection in biomedical images using sequential classifier. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 9(6), 993–1006 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdulla A. Omeer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ratnadeep R. Deshmukh
    • 1
  • Rohit S. Gupta
    • 1
  • Jaypalsing N. Kayte
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Information TechnologyDr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada UniversityAurangabadIndia

Personalised recommendations