Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developing an Interpretation System for High-Resolution Remotely Sensed Images Based on Hybrid Decision-Making Process in a Multi-scale Manner

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

High spatial resolution (HSR) images are valuable data sources for urban applications. HSR images by high intra-class and low inter-class variabilities lead to a reduction in the statistical separability of the different land-cover classes in the spectral domain; therefore, conventional classification methods using merely spectral and textural information have proven to be inadequate for the HSR data. In this regard, interpretation systems by employing spatial and conceptual compatibility can be useful to closer a machining process to human analysis. In this research, a new framework has been introduced to classify remotely sensed imagery using a combination of ontological rules and geographic object-based image analysis. This paper to some degree attempts to untangle a few of the gaps in this field, especially by incorporating multi-scale analysis into the proposed framework, which is very advantageous in such an application. The present study used interactive segmentation and interpretation segmentation process with respect to the geometry of the image classes. In the proposed method, the segmentation process has been performed to avoid under-segmentation problems at several levels of the scale. The levels of scale are entered in the process of scoring and interpretation of the decision (not just applied at the level of results). This brings the process of labeling and interpretation closer to structural and natural reality. Additionally, a hybrid decision-making process (knowledge based and support vector machine) has been considered to achieve better results. The knowledge-based method is implemented to model the ontological relationships with the aim of labeling and controlling the decision-making process. To evaluate the efficiency of the method, the results of this research were assessed and compared with those of other methods in an urban area. The results showed that the proposed technique improved the overall accuracy and kappa coefficient by 9% and 11.5%, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Almendros-Jiménez, J. M., Domene, L., & Piedra-Fernández, J. A. (2013). A framework for ocean satellite image classification based on ontologies. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing,6, 1048–1063.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrés, S., Arvor, D., Mougenot, I., Libourel, T., & Durieux, L. (2017). Ontology-based classification of remote sensing images using spectral rules. Computers and Geosciences,102, 158–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andres, S., Arvor, D., & Pierkot, C. (2012). Towards an ontological approach for classifying remote sensing images. In 2012 8th international conference on signal image technology and internet based systems (SITIS) (pp. 825–832). New York: IEEE.

  • Arvor, D., Durieux, L., Andrés, S., & Laporte, M.-A. (2013). Advances in geographic object-based image analysis with ontologies: A review of main contributions and limitations from a remote sensing perspective. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing,82, 125–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelsson, P. (2000). DEM generation from laser scanner data using adaptive TIN models. International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing,33, 111–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ban, Y., Hu, H., & Rangel, I. M. (2010). Fusion of Quickbird MS and RADARSAT SAR data for urban land-cover mapping: Object-based and knowledge-based approach. International Journal of Remote Sensing,31, 1391–1410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belgiu, M., & Drǎguţ, L. (2014). Comparing supervised and unsupervised multiresolution segmentation approaches for extracting buildings from very high resolution imagery. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing,96, 67–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carletta, J. (1996). Assessing agreement on classification tasks: The kappa statistic. Computational Linguistics,22, 249–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandra, A., & Yao, X. (2006). Evolving hybrid ensembles of learning machines for better generalisation. Neurocomputing,69, 686–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chowdary, B., & Radhika, Y. (2018). A survey on applications of data mining techniques. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research,13, 5384–5392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, V., Giraudon, G., Houzelle, S., & Sandakly, F. (1993). Interpretation of remotely sensed images in a context of multisensor fusion using a multispecialist architecture. Geoscience and Remote Sensing, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,31, 779–791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conţiu, Ş., & Groza, A. (2016). Improving remote sensing crop classification by argumentation-based conflict resolution in ensemble learning. Expert Systems with Applications,64, 269–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corcoran, J., Knight, J., Pelletier, K., Rampi, L., & Wang, Y. (2015). The effects of point or polygon based training data on RandomForest classification accuracy of wetlands. Remote Sensing,7, 4002–4025.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, H., Foody, G. M., & Boyd, D. S. (2017). Using mixed objects in the training of object-based image classifications. Remote Sensing of Environment,190, 188–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Leeuw, J., Jia, H., Yang, L., Liu, X., Schmidt, K., & Skidmore, A. (2006). Comparing accuracy assessments to infer superiority of image classification methods. International Journal of Remote Sensing,27, 223–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drăguţ, L., Csillik, O., Eisank, C., & Tiede, D. (2014). Automated parameterisation for multi-scale image segmentation on multiple layers. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing,88, 119–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duro, D. C., Franklin, S. E., & Dubé, M. G. (2012). Multi-scale object-based image analysis and feature selection of multi-sensor earth observation imagery using random forests. International Journal of Remote Sensing,33, 4502–4526.

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Dahshan, E.-S. A., Hosny, T., & Salem, A.-B. M. (2010). Hybrid intelligent techniques for MRI brain images classification. Digital Signal Processing,20, 433–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forestier, G., Puissant, A., Wemmert, C., & Gançarski, P. (2012). Knowledge-based region labeling for remote sensing image interpretation. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems,36, 470–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giacinto, G., Roli, F., & Bruzzone, L. (2000). Combination of neural and statistical algorithms for supervised classification of remote-sensing images. Pattern Recognition Letters,21, 385–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gu, H., Li, H., Yan, L., Liu, Z., Blaschke, T., & Soergel, U. (2017). An object-based semantic classification method for high resolution remote sensing imagery using ontology. Remote Sensing,9, 329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, G. J., Castilla, G., Wulder, M. A., & Ruiz, J. R. (2005). An automated object-based approach for the multiscale image segmentation of forest scenes. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation,7, 339–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, M.-J., Shyue, S.-W., Lee, L.-H., & Kao, C.-C. (2008). A knowledge-based approach to urban feature classification using aerial imagery with lidar data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing,74, 1473–1485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khatami, R., Mountrakis, G., & Stehman, S. V. (2016). A meta-analysis of remote sensing research on supervised pixel-based land-cover image classification processes: General guidelines for practitioners and future research. Remote Sensing of Environment,177, 89–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khelifa, D., & Mimoun, M. (2012). Object-based image analysis and data mining for building ontology of informal urban settlements. In Image and signal processing for remote sensing XVIII. International society for optics and photonics (p. 85371I).

  • Kiani, A., Ebadi, H., Ahmadi, F. F., & Masoumi, S. (2014). Design and implementation of an expert interpreter system for intelligent acquisition of spatial data from aerial or remotely sensed images. Measurement,47, 676–685.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiani, A., Ebadi, H., & Farnood Ahmadi, F. (2019). Development of an object-based interpretive system based on weighted scoring method in a multi-scale manner. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information,8, 398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, D., Sliuzas, R., Kerle, N., & Stein, A. (2012). An ontology of slums for image-based classification. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems,36, 154–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kudrat, M., Sharma, K., Tiwari, A., Kumar, P., Prabhakaran, B., & Manchanda, M. (2000). Discrimination of newly planted and ratoon crops of sugar cane using multidate IRS-1C liss III data: A knowledge based approach. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing,28, 179–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, M., Ma, L., Blaschke, T., Cheng, L., & Tiede, D. (2016). A systematic comparison of different object-based classification techniques using high spatial resolution imagery in agricultural environments. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation,49, 87–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liedtke, C., Bückner, J., Grau, O., Growe, S., & Tönjes, R. (1997). AIDA: A system for the knowledge based interpretation of remote sensing data. Presented at the 3rd international airborne remote sensing conference and exhibition, 7–10 July 1997. Copenhagen: Citeseer.

  • Liu, W., Gopal, S., & Woodcock, C. E. (2004). Uncertainty and confidence in land cover classification using a hybrid classifier approach. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing,70, 963–971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X.-H., Skidmore, A., & Van Oosten, H. (2002). Integration of classification methods for improvement of land-cover map accuracy. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing,56, 257–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z., Qu, W., Li, H., & Xie, C. (2010). A hybrid collaborative filtering recommendation mechanism for P2P networks. Future Generation Computer Systems,26, 1409–1417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R., Rowlands, A., Brown, A., Keyworth, S., & Bunting, P. (2007). Rule-based classification of multi-temporal satellite imagery for habitat and agricultural land cover mapping. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing,62, 165–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, L., Li, M., Ma, X., Cheng, L., Du, P., & Liu, Y. (2017). A review of supervised object-based land-cover image classification. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing,130, 277–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus_Gerke, December 2014. Normalized DSM—Heights encoded in dm—See report for details.

  • Matsuyama, T. (1987). Knowledge-based aerial image understanding systems and expert systems for image processing. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,25, 305–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maulik, U., & Chakraborty, D. (2011). A self-trained ensemble with semisupervised SVM: An application to pixel classification of remote sensing imagery. Pattern Recognition,44, 615–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFeeters, S. K. (1996). The use of the Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI) in the delineation of open water features. International Journal of Remote Sensing,17, 1425–1432.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeown, D. M., Harvey, W. A., & McDermott, J. (1985). Rule-based interpretation of aerial imagery. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence,12, 570–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mountrakis, G., Im, J., & Ogole, C. (2011). Support vector machines in remote sensing: A review. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing,66, 247–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mushore, T. D., Mutanga, O., Odindi, J., & Dube, T. (2016). Assessing the potential of integrated Landsat 8 thermal bands, with the traditional reflective bands and derived vegetation indices in classifying urban landscapes. Geocarto International,32, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemann, H., Sagerer, G. F., Schroder, S., & Kummert, F. (1990). Ernest: A semantic network system for pattern understanding. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence,12, 883–905.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rottensteiner, F., Sohn, G., Gerke, M., & Wegner, J. D. (2013). ISPRS test project on urban classification and 3D building reconstruction. In Commission III-photogrammetric computer vision and image analysis, working group III/4-3D scene analysis (pp. 1–17).

  • Salah, M. (2017). A survey of modern classification techniques in remote sensing for improved image classification. Journal of Geomatics,11, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scikit-Learn. (2018). http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.neural_network.MLPClassifier.html.

  • van der Linden, S., Rabe, A., Held, M., Jakimow, B., Leitão, P. J., Okujeni, A., et al. (2015). The EnMAP-Box—A toolbox and application programming interface for EnMAP data processing. Remote Sensing,7, 11249–11266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vapnik, V. (2013). The nature of statistical learning theory. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wan, S., & Lei, T. C. (2009). A knowledge-based decision support system to analyze the debris-flow problems at Chen-Yu-Lan River, Taiwan. Knowledge-Based Systems,22, 580–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waske, B., & van der Linden, S. (2008). Classifying multilevel imagery from SAR and optical sensors by decision fusion. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,46, 1457–1466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woźniak, M., Graña, M., & Corchado, E. (2014). A survey of multiple classifier systems as hybrid systems. Information Fusion,16, 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhen, Z., Quackenbush, L. J., Stehman, S. V., & Zhang, L. (2013). Impact of training and validation sample selection on classification accuracy and accuracy assessment when using reference polygons in object-based classification. International Journal of Remote Sensing,34, 6914–6930.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Faculty of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, K.N.Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

    Abbas Kiani & Hamid Ebadi

  2. Department of Geomatics Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

    Farshid Farnood Ahmadi

Authors
  1. Abbas Kiani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Farshid Farnood Ahmadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hamid Ebadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farshid Farnood Ahmadi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kiani, A., Farnood Ahmadi, F. & Ebadi, H. Developing an Interpretation System for High-Resolution Remotely Sensed Images Based on Hybrid Decision-Making Process in a Multi-scale Manner. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 48, 197–214 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-019-01069-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-019-01069-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation