Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 616

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 84 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Land Cover Classification using Google Earth Engine and Random Forest Classifier—The Role of Image Composition

Open access
Phan, Thanh Noi, Kuch, Verena, Lehnert, Lukas W.·2020·Remote Sensing

Abstract

Land cover information plays a vital role in many aspects of life, from scientific and economic to political. Accurate information about land cover affects the accuracy of all subsequent applications, therefore accurate and timely land cover information is in high demand. In land cover classification studies over the past decade, higher accuracies were produced when using time series satellite images than when using single date images. Recently, the availability of the Google Earth Engine (GEE), a cloud-based computing platform, has gained the attention of remote sensing based applications where temporal aggregation methods derived from time series images are widely applied (i.e., the use the metrics such as mean or median), instead of time series images. In GEE, many studies simply select as many images as possible to fill gaps without concerning how different year/season images might affect the classification accuracy. This study aims to analyze the effect of different composition methods, as well as different input images, on the classification results. We use Landsat 8 surface reflectance (L8sr) data with eight different combination strategies to produce and evaluate land cover maps for a study area in Mongolia. We implemented the experiment on the GEE platform with a widely applied algorithm, the Random Forest (RF) classifier. Our results show that all the eight datasets produced moderately to highly accurate land cover maps, with overall accuracy over 84.31%. Among the eight datasets, two time series datasets of summer scenes (images from 1 June to 30 September) produced the highest accuracy (89.80% and 89.70%), followed by the median composite of the same input images (88.74%). The difference between these three classifications was not significant based on the McNemar test (p > 0.05). However, significant difference (p < 0.05) was observed for all other pairs involving one of these three datasets. The results indicate that temporal aggregation (e.g., median) is a promising method, which not only significantly reduces data volume (resulting in an easier and faster analysis) but also produces an equally high accuracy as time series data. The spatial consistency among the classification results was relatively low compared to the general high accuracy, showing that the selection of the dataset used in any classification on GEE is an important and crucial step, because the input images for the composition play an essential role in land cover classification, particularly with snowy, cloudy and expansive areas like Mongolia.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/rs12152411

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 84 references

Metadata

Authors
Phan, T. N., Kuch, V., & Lehnert, L. W.
Venue
Remote Sensing
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-07-27
Volume
12
Issue
15
Pages
2411
ISSN
2072-4292 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3045585619
Cited by
616
References
84
FWCI
33.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Land Cover Classification using Google Earth Engine and Random Forest Classifier—The Role of Image Composition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/rs12152411
The paper
Phan, T. N., Kuch, V., & Lehnert, L. W. (2020). Land Cover Classification using Google Earth Engine and Random Forest Classifier—The Role of Image Composition. Remote Sensing. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12152411

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.