The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Approaches for the production and evaluation of fuzzy land cover classifications from remotely-sensed data
Open accessAbstract
Remote sensing is an attractive source of data for land cover mapping applications. Mapping is generally achieved through the application of a conventional statistical classification, which allocates each image pixel to a land cover class. Such approaches are inappropriate for mixed pixels, which contain two or more land cover classes, and a fuzzy classification approach is required. When pixels may have multiple and partial class membership measures of the strength of class membership may be output and, if strongly related to the land cover composition, mapped to represent such fuzzy land cover. This type of representation can be derived by softening the output of a conventional ‘hard’ classification or using a fuzzy classification. The accuracy of the representation provided by a fuzzy classification is, however, difficult to evaluate. Conventional measures of classification accuracy cannot be used as they are appropriate only for ‘hard’ classifications. The accuracy of a classification may, however, be indicated by the way in which the strength of class membership is partitioned between the classes and how closely this represents the partitioning of class membership on the ground. In this paper two measures of the closeness of the land cover representation derived from a classification to that on the ground were used to evaluate a set of fuzzy classifications. The latter were based on measures of the strength of class membership output from classifications by a discriminant analysis, artificial neural network and fuzzy c-means classifiers. The results show the importance of recognising and accommodating for the fuzziness of the land cover on the ground. The accuracy assessment methods used were applicable to pure and mixed pixels and enabled the identification of the most accurate land cover representation derived. The results showed that the fuzzy representations were more accurate than the ‘hard’ classifications. Moreover, the outputs derived from the artificial neural network and the fuzzy c-means algorithm in particular were strongly related to the land cover on the ground and provided the most accurate land cover representations. The ability to appropriately represent fuzzy land cover and evaluate the accuracy of the representation should facilitate the use of remote sensing as a source of land cover data.
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
Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit
Cohen, J. (1968) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0026256 · Cited by 8,736
Cited by
A Review of Nonlinear Hyperspectral Unmixing Methods
Heylen, R., Parente, M., & Gader, P. (2014) · IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/jstars.2014.2320576 · Cited by 591
Metadata
- Authors
- FOODY, G. M.
- Venue
- International Journal of Remote Sensing
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1996-05
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1317-1340
- ISSN
- 0143-1161 (ISSN-L)
- 1366-5901
- OpenAlex
- W2081346329
- Cited by
- 491
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 40.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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.