4.7 Article

Accuracy Improvements to Pixel-Based and Object-Based LULC Classification with Auxiliary Datasets from Google Earth Engine

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs13030453

关键词

land use; land cover; auxiliary datasets; random forest; Google Earth Engine; Yangtze river delta

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFB0504205]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41671386]
  3. Natural Science Research Project of Higher Education in Anhui Provence [KJ2020A0089]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The monitoring and assessment of land use/land cover (LULC) changes over large areas are crucial for various research areas such as natural resource protection, sustainable development, and climate change. Utilizing Google Earth Engine (GEE) and various auxiliary datasets, this study comprehensively analyzes the impact of different auxiliary features on improving the accuracy of pixel- and object-based LULC classification models with medium resolution. The results show that regardless of the types of auxiliary features, the overall accuracy of the classification can be improved, with object-based classification achieving higher accuracy compared to pixel-based classification.
The monitoring and assessment of land use/land cover (LULC) change over large areas are significantly important in numerous research areas, such as natural resource protection, sustainable development, and climate change. However, accurately extracting LULC only using the spectral features of satellite images is difficult owing to landscape heterogeneities over large areas. To improve the accuracy of LULC classification, numerous studies have introduced other auxiliary features to the classification model. The Google Earth Engine (GEE) not only provides powerful computing capabilities, but also provides a large amount of remote sensing data and various auxiliary datasets. However, the different effects of various auxiliary datasets in the GEE on the improvement of the LULC classification accuracy need to be elucidated along with methods that can optimize combinations of auxiliary datasets for pixel- and object-based classification. Herein, we comprehensively analyze the performance of different auxiliary features in improving the accuracy of pixel- and object-based LULC classification models with medium resolution. We select the Yangtze River Delta in China as the study area and Landsat-8 OLI data as the main dataset. Six types of features, including spectral features, remote sensing multi-indices, topographic features, soil features, distance to the water source, and phenological features, are derived from auxiliary open-source datasets in GEE. We then examine the effect of auxiliary datasets on the improvement of the accuracy of seven pixels-based and seven object-based random forest classification models. The results show that regardless of the types of auxiliary features, the overall accuracy of the classification can be improved. The results further show that the object-based classification achieves higher overall accuracy compared to that obtained by the pixel-based classification. The best overall accuracy from the pixel-based (object-based) classification model is 94.20% (96.01%). The topographic features play the most important role in improving the overall accuracy of classification in the pixel- and object-based models comprising all features. Although a higher accuracy is achieved when the object-based method is used with only spectral data, small objects on the ground cannot be monitored. However, combined with many types of auxiliary features, the object-based method can identify small objects while also achieving greater accuracy. Thus, when applying object-based classification models to mid-resolution remote sensing images, different types of auxiliary features are required. Our research results improve the accuracy of LULC classification in the Yangtze River Delta and further provide a benchmark for other regions with large landscape heterogeneity.

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