The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Per-pixel vs. object-based classification of urban land cover extraction using high spatial resolution imagery
Abstract
In using traditional digital classification algorithms, a researcher typically encounters serious issues in identifying urban land cover classes employing high resolution data. A normal approach is to use spectral information alone and ignore spatial information and a group of pixels that need to be considered together as an object. We used QuickBird image data over a central region in the city of Phoenix, Arizona to examine if an object-based classifier can accurately identify urban classes. To demonstrate if spectral information alone is practical in urban classification, we used spectra of the selected classes from randomly selected points to examine if they can be effectively discriminated. The overall accuracy based on spectral information alone reached only about 63.33%. We employed five different classification procedures with the object-based paradigm that separates spatially and spectrally similar pixels at different scales. The classifiers to assign land covers to segmented objects used in the study include membership functions and the nearest neighbor classifier. The object-based classifier achieved a high overall accuracy (90.40%), whereas the most commonly used decision rule, namely maximum likelihood classifier, produced a lower overall accuracy (67.60%). This study demonstrates that the object-based classifier is a significantly better approach than the classical per-pixel classifiers. Further, this study reviews application of different parameters for segmentation and classification, combined use of composite and original bands, selection of different scale levels, and choice of classifiers. Strengths and weaknesses of the object-based prototype are presented and we provide suggestions to avoid or minimize uncertainties and limitations associated with the approach.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
AID: A benchmark data set for performance evaluation of aerial scene classification
Xia, G.-S., Hu, J., Hu, F., Shi, B., Bai, X., Zhong, Y., Zhang, L., & Lu, X. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2017.2685945 · Cited by 2,372
Deep learning in environmental remote sensing: Achievements and challenges
Yuan, Q., Shen, H., Li, T., Li, Z., Li, S., Jiang, Y., Xu, H., Tan, W., Yang, Q., Wang, J., et al. (2020) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2020.111716 · Cited by 1,697
Land-cover classification with high-resolution remote sensing images using transferable deep models
Tong, X.-Y., Xia, G.-S., Lu, Q., Shen, H., Li, S., You, S., & Zhang, L. (2020) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2019.111322 · Cited by 978
Neupane, B., Horanont, T., & Aryal, J. (2021) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs13040808 · Cited by 247
Rangeland Systems: Processes, Management and Challenges
(2017) · Springer Series on Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46709-2 · Cited by 197
Metadata
- Authors
- Myint, S. W., Gober, P., Brazel, A., Grossman-Clarke, S., & Weng, Q.
- Venue
- Remote Sensing of Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-05-15
- Volume
- 115
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1145-1161
- ISSN
- 0034-4257 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2119879130
- Cited by
- 1,238
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 143.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.