4.5 Article

Detailed and automated classification of land use/land cover using machine learning algorithms in Google Earth Engine

期刊

GEOCARTO INTERNATIONAL
卷 37, 期 18, 页码 5415-5432

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10106049.2021.1917005

关键词

LULC; Landsat-5  TM; Google Earth Engine cloud platform

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development of China [2018YFC0507101]
  2. China Scholarship Council [201908150155]
  3. Special Foundation for Local Science and Technology Development by Central Government Guidance: Inner Mongolia Desertification Control Innovation Research Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel method for detailed and automated LULC classification based on RF and CART classifiers was proposed in this study to address issues of insufficient training samples and time-consuming processes. Results showed that the RF classifier had higher validation overall accuracy compared to CART, making it more suitable for automated LULC classification in Australia and the USA.
All the supervised classification methods need sufficient and efficient samples, which are commonly labeled by visual inspection. In this study, to resolve the issues of insufficient training samples and time-consuming, a novel method for detailed and automated LULC classification by LC_Type1 of MCD12Q1 IGBP schemes in the GEE cloud platform was proposed based on the RF and CART classifiers. The results present that the validation overall accuracy of the RF classifier is higher than the CART, 87.24% in Australia, and 85.18% in the USA, respectively. The automated classification results of the RF classifier are more concentrated than CART, which the RF classifier is more suitable for this automated method. Moreover, the proposed method can accomplish accurate, detailed, and automated LULC classification based on the GEE which is making satellite imagery computing an efficient, flexible, and fast process. The workflow provides a reliable method for detailed, automated, and remotely LULC classification.

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

4.5
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