The DOI matches its Crossref record; 94 of the 94 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using the 500 m MODIS land cover product to derive a consistent continental scale 30 m Landsat land cover classification
Open accessAbstract
Classification is a fundamental process in remote sensing used to relate pixel values to land cover classes present on the surface. Over large areas land cover classification is challenging particularly due to the cost and difficulty of collecting representative training data that enable classifiers to be consistent and locally reliable. A novel methodology to classify large volume Landsat data using high quality training data derived from the 500 m MODIS land cover product is demonstrated and used to generate a 30 m land cover classification for all of North America between 20°N and 50°N. Publically available 30 m global monthly Web-enabled Landsat Data (GWELD) products generated from every available Landsat 7 ETM + and Landsat 5 TM image for a three year period, that are defined aligned to the MODIS land products and are consistently pre-processed data (cloud-screened, saturation flagged, atmospherically corrected and normalized to nadir BRDF adjusted reflectance), were classified. The MODIS 500 m land cover product was filtered judiciously, using only good quality pixels that did not change land cover class in 2009, 2010 or 2011, followed by automated selection of spatially corresponding 30 m GWELD temporal metric values, to define a large training data set sampled across North America. The training data were sampled so that the class proportions were the same as the North America MODIS land cover product class proportions and corresponded to 1% of the 500 m and < 0.005% of the 30 m pixels. Thirty nine GWELD temporal metrics for every 30 m North America pixel location were classified using (a) a single random forest, and (b) a locally adaptive method with a random forest classifier derived and applied locally and the classification results spatially mosaicked together. The land cover classification results appeared geographically plausible and at synoptic scale were similar to the MODIS land cover product. Detailed visual inspection revealed that the locally adaptive random forest classifications and associated classification confidences were generally more coherent than the single random forest classification results. The level of agreement between the 30 m classifications and the MODIS land cover product derived training data was assessed by bootstrapping the random forest implementation. The locally adaptive random forest classification had higher overall agreement (95.44%, 0.9443 kappa) than the single random forest classification (93.13%, 0.9195 kappa). The paper concludes with a discussion of future research including the potential for automated global land cover classification.
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
Cites
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Classification and Regression by randomForest
Liaw, A. I., & Wiener, M. C. (2007) · Cited by 18,594
Random forest in remote sensing: A review of applications and future directions
Belgiu, M., & Drăguţ, L. (2016) · ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2016.01.011 · Cited by 7,142
Sentinel-2: ESA's Optical High-Resolution Mission for GMES Operational Services
Drusch, M., Del Bello, U., Carlier, S., Colin, O., Fernandez, V., Gascon, F., Hoersch, B., Isola, C., Laberinti, P., Martimort, P., et al. (2012) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2011.11.026 · Cited by 4,815
Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment
Foody, G. M. (2002) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/s0034-4257(01)00295-4 · Cited by 4,580
MODIS Collection 5 global land cover: Algorithm refinements and characterization of new datasets
Friedl, M. A., Sulla-Menashe, D., Tan, B., Schneider, A., Ramankutty, N., Sibley, A., & Huang, X. (2010) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2009.08.016 · Cited by 3,473
Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change
Olofsson, P., Foody, G. M., Herold, M., Stehman, S. V., Woodcock, C. E., & Wulder, M. A. (2014) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2014.02.015 · Cited by 3,078
Landsat-8: Science and product vision for terrestrial global change research
Roy, D. P., Wulder, M. A., Loveland, T. R., C.E., W., Allen, R. G., Anderson, M. C., Helder, D., Irons, J. R., Johnson, D. M., Kennedy, R., et al. (2014) · Remote Sensing of Environment · doi:10.1016/j.rse.2014.02.001 · Cited by 2,659
Self-citation(2015) · Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing · doi:10.1016/s0099-1112(15)30100-2 · Cited by 2,584
Development of a global land cover characteristics database and IGBP DISCover from 1 km AVHRR data
Loveland, T. R., Reed, B. C., Brown, J. F., Ohlen, D. O., Zhu, Z., Yang, L., & Merchant, J. W. (2000) · International Journal of Remote Sensing · doi:10.1080/014311600210191 · Cited by 2,580
Cited by
Zhang, X., Zhao, T., Xu, H., Liu, W., Wang, J., Chen, X., & Liu, L. (2024) · Earth System Science Data · doi:10.5194/essd-16-1353-2024 · Cited by 482
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, H. K., & Roy, D. P.
- Venue
- Remote Sensing of Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-08
- Volume
- 197
- Pages
- 15-34
- ISSN
- 0034-4257 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2619820913
- Cited by
- 346
- References
- 94
- FWCI
- 15.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Using the 500 m MODIS land cover product to derive a consistent continental scale 30 m Landsat land cover classification. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.rse.2017.05.024
- The paper
- Zhang, H. K., & Roy, D. P. (2017). Using the 500 m MODIS land cover product to derive a consistent continental scale 30 m Landsat land cover classification. Remote Sensing of Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.05.024
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.