4.7 Article

Mapping impervious surface distribution in China using multi-source remotely sensed data

期刊

GISCIENCE & REMOTE SENSING
卷 57, 期 4, 页码 543-552

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15481603.2020.1744240

关键词

Impervious surface area; integration of multi-source data; VIIRS DNB; MODIS NDVI; landsat; China

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41590842]
  2. Key Laboratory of Surveying and Mapping Science and Geospatial Information Technology of Ministry of Natural Resources [201918]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Impervious surface area (ISA) data are required for such studies as urban environmental modeling, hydrological modeling, and socioeconomic analysis, but updating these datasets in a large area remains a challenge due to the complex urban landscapes consisting of different materials and colors with various spatial patterns. This research explores the integration of multi-source remotely sensed data for mapping China's ISA distribution at 30-m spatial resolution. The integration of Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite Day/Night Band (VIIRS DNB) and Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) data were used to extract initial ISA with spatial resolution of 250 m using a thresholding approach. The Landsat-derived NDVI and Modified Normalized Difference Water Index (MNDWI) were used to remove vegetation and water areas from the mixed pixels that existed in the initial ISA data. The spectral signatures of these ISA data were further extracted from Landsat multispectral images and used to refine the ISA data using expert knowledge. The results indicate that the integration of multi-source data can successfully map ISA distribution with 30-m spatial resolution in China with producer's and user's accuracies of 83.1 and 91.9%, respectively. These ISA data are valuable for better management of urban landscapes and for use as an input in other studies such as socioeconomic and environmental modeling.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据