The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of pixel- and object-based classification in land cover change mapping
Abstract
Land use/land cover (LULC) change occurs when humans alter the landscape, and this leads to increasing loss, fragmentation and spatial simplification of habitat. Many fields of study require monitoring of LULC change at a variety of scales. LULC change assessment is dependent upon high-quality input data, most often from remote sensing-derived products such as thematic maps. This research compares pixel- and object-based classifications of Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) data for mapping and analysis of LULC change in the mixed land use region of eastern Ontario for the period 1995–2005. For single date thematic maps of 10 LULC classes, quantitative and visual analyses showed no significant accuracy difference between the two methods. The object-based method produced thematic maps with more uniform and meaningful LULC objects, but it suffered from absorption of small rare classes into larger objects and the incapability of spatial parameters (e.g. object shape) to contribute to class discrimination. Despite the similar map accuracies produced by the two methods, temporal change maps produced using post-classification comparison (PCC) and analysed using intensive visual analysis of errors of omission and commission revealed that the object-based maps depicted change more accurately than maximum likelihood classification (MLC)-derived change maps.
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
Global Consequences of Land Use
Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., Coe, M. T., Daily, G. C., Gibbs, H. K., et al. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1111772 · Cited by 13,272
Note on the Sampling Error of the Difference Between Correlated Proportions or Percentages
McNemar, Q. (1947) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02295996 · Cited by 4,754
Consequences of changing biodiversity
Chapin III, F. S., Zavaleta, E. S., Eviner, V. T., Naylor, R. L., Vitousek, P. M., Reynolds, H. L., Hooper, D. U., Lavorel, S., Sala, O. E., Hobbie, S. E., et al. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35012241 · Cited by 4,282
Cited by
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
- Dingle Robertson, L., & King, D. J.
- Venue
- International Journal of Remote Sensing
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-03-16
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1505-1529
- ISSN
- 0143-1161 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-5901
- OpenAlex
- W2152334070
- Cited by
- 232
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 33.07
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of pixel- and object-based classification in land cover change mapping. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01431160903571791
- The paper
- Dingle Robertson, L., & King, D. J. (2011). Comparison of pixel- and object-based classification in land cover change mapping. International Journal of Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160903571791
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.