4.7 Article

Comparison of Hyperspectral Techniques for Urban Tree Diversity Classification

Journal

REMOTE SENSING
Volume 11, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs11111269

Keywords

very high spatial resolution; tree species; training methods; dimension reduction methods; classification methods

Funding

  1. French National Science foundation project HYEP [ANR 14-CE22-0016-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This research aims to assess the capabilities of Very High Spatial Resolution (VHSR) hyperspectral satellite data in order to discriminate urban tree diversity. Four dimension reduction methods and two classifiers are tested, using two learning methods and applied with four in situ sample datasets. An airborne HySpex image (408 bands/2 m) was acquired in July 2015 from which prototypal spaceborne hyperspectral images (named HYPXIM) at 4 m and 8 m and a multispectral Sentinel2 image at 10 m have been simulated for the purpose of this study. A comparison is made using these methods and datasets. The influence of dimension reduction methods is assessed on hyperspectral (HySpex and HYPXIM) and Sentinel2 datasets. The influence of conventional classifiers (Support Vector Machine -SVM- and Random Forest -RF-) and learning methods is evaluated on all image datasets (reduced and non-reduced hyperspectral and Sentinel2 datasets). Results show that HYPXIM 4 m and HySpex 2 m reduced by Minimum Noise Fraction (MNF) provide the greatest classification of 14 species using the SVM with an overall accuracy of 78.4% (+/- 1.5) and a kappa index of agreement of 0.7. More generally, the learning methods have a stronger influence than classifiers, or even than dimensional reduction methods, on urban tree diversity classification. Prototypal HYPXIM images appear to present a great compromise (192 spectral bands/4 m resolution) for urban vegetation applications compared to HySpex or Sentinel2 images.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available