4.6 Article

Improving 30m global land-cover map FROM-GLC with time series MODIS and auxiliary data sets: a segmentation-based approach

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING
Volume 34, Issue 16, Pages 5851-5867

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01431161.2013.798055

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National High Technology Grant from China [2009AA12200101]
  2. Open Fund of State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science [OFSLRSS201202]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

FROM-GLC (Fine Resolution Observation and Monitoring of Global Land Cover) is the first 30m resolution global land-cover map produced using Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) and Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) data. Due to the lack of temporal features as inputs in producing FROM-GLC, considerable confusion exists among land-cover types (e.g. agriculture lands, grasslands, shrublands, and bareland). The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS) provides high-temporal frequency information on surface cover. Other auxiliary bioclimatic, digital elevation model (DEM), and world maps on soil-water conditions are possible sources for improving the accuracy of FROM-GLC. In this article, a segmentation-based approach was applied to Landsat imagery to down-scale coarser-resolution MODIS data (250 m) and other 1 km resolution auxiliary data to the segment scale based on TM data. Two classifiers (support vector machine (SVM) and random forest (RF)) and two different strategies for use of training samples (global and regional samples based on a spatial temporal selection criterion) were performed. Results show that RF based on the global use of training samples achieves an overall classification accuracy of 67.08% when assessed by test samples collected independently. This is better than the 64.89% achieved by FROM-GLC based on the same set of test samples. Accuracies for vegetation cover types are most substantially improved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available