Effects of Aggregation Methods on Image Classification

  • Peng Han
  • Zhilin Li
  • Jianya Gong


A major concern in scale- and resolution-related issues is to develop methods for determining the most appropriate scale and resolution of study and assessing their effects (Cao and Lam 1997). The choice of an appropriate scale, or spatial resolution, for a particular application depends on several factors. These include the desired information about the ground scene, the analysis methods to be used to extract the information, and the spatial structure of the scene itself (Woodcock and Strahler 1987). When an appropriate scale or resolution is determined, the next step is to get the corresponding images. Unfortunately, the resolutions of existing remote sensing satellite images are discrete and one may not be able to obtain an image with desired resolution (e.g. 7m). In this case, resampling techniques are often used to interpolate an image into desired resolution and aggregation is a particular resampling technique widely practiced for “up-scaling” image data from high resolution to low resolution (Bian and Butler 1999). It can be visualized that different aggregation methods may introduce different kinds of noise, create different kinds of mixed pixels and thus lead to different results. Therefore, inferring spatial data across scales is an important challenge faced by scientists (Wang et al. 2004).


Land Cover Remote Sensing Classification Accuracy Land Cover Type Near Neighbor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Atkinson, P. M. and Aplin, P. (2004). Spatial variation in land cover and choice of spatial resolution for remote sensing. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 25(18): 3687–3702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bian, L. and Butler, R. (1999). Comparing effects of aggregation methods on statistical and spatial properties of simulated spatial data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 65(1): 73–84.Google Scholar
  3. Cao, C. and Lam, N.S.N. (1997). Understanding the scale and resolution effects in remote sensing and GIS, In: Quattrochi, D.A., and GoodChild, M.F., (ed.) Scale in Remote sensing and GIS. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 57–72.Google Scholar
  4. Chen, D.M. (2001). Multi-resolution Image Analysis and Classification for Improving Urban Land Use/Cover Mapping Using High Resolution Imagery. PhD Thesis, University of California.Google Scholar
  5. Collins, J. B. and Woodcock, C.E. (1999). Geostatistical estimation of resolution-dependent variance in remotely sensed image. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 65: 41-51.Google Scholar
  6. Hay, G. J., Niemann, K. O., and Goodenough, D. G. (1997), Spatial thresholds, image objects, and up-scaling: a multi-scale evaluation. Remote Sensing of Environment, 62: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. He, H. S., Ventura, S. J., and Mladenoff, D. J. (2002). Effects of spatial aggregation approaches on classified satellite imagery. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 16(1): 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Marceau, D. J., Howarth, P.J., and Gratton, D.J. (1994). Remote sensing and the measurement of geographical entities in a forested environment. 1. The scale and the spatial aggregation problem. Remote Sensing of Environment, 49: 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Markham, B.L. and Townshend, J.R.G. (1981). Land cover classification accuracy as a function of sensor spatial resolution. Proceedings of the 15th International symposium of Remote Sensing of Environment, 1075-1090.Google Scholar
  10. Narayanan, R. M., Desetty, M. K. and Reichenbach, S. E. (2002). Effect of spatial resolution on information content characterization in remote sensing imagery based on classification accuracy. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 23(3): 537-553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Niemann, K. O., Goodenough, D. J. and Hay, G. J. (1997). Effect of scale on the information content in remote sensing imagery. IGARSS’97, Singarpore, 664-666.Google Scholar
  12. Wang, G., Gertner, G., and A. B. Anderson. (2004). Up-scaling methods based on variability-weighting and simulation for inferring spatial information across scales. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 25 (22): 4961-4979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Woodcock, C. E. and Strahler, A. H. (1987). The factor of scale in remote sensing. Remote Sensing of Environment, 21: 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peng Han
    • 1
  • Zhilin Li
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jianya Gong
    • 1
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Information Engineering in Surveying, Mapping, and Remote SensingWuhan UniversityWuhanChina, People’s Republic
  2. 2.Department of Land Surveying and Geo-InformaticsHong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations