4.6 Article

A Multiple Classifier System to improve mapping complex land covers: a case study of wetland classification using SAR data in Newfoundland, Canada

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING
卷 39, 期 21, 页码 7370-7383

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01431161.2018.1468117

关键词

-

资金

  1. Government of Canada through the Federal Department of Environment and Climate Change
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) [NSERC RGPIN-2015-05027]
  3. Ducks Unlimited Canada
  4. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation
  5. Nature Conservancy of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are currently various classification algorithms, each with its own advantages and limitations. It is expected that fusing different classifiers in a way that the advantages of each are selected can boost the accuracy in the classification of complex land covers, such as wetlands, compared to using a single classifier. Classification of wetlands using remote-sensing methods is a challenging task because of considerable similarities between wetland classes. This fact is more important when utilizing synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data, which contain speckle noise. Consequently, discriminating wetland classes using only SAR data is generally not as accurate as using some other satellite data, such as optical imagery. In this study, a new Multiple Classifier System (MCS), which combines five different algorithms, was proposed to improve the classification accuracy of similar land covers. This system was then applied to classify wetlands in a study area in Newfoundland, Canada, using multi-source and multi-temporal SAR data. The results demonstrated that the proposed MCS was more accurate for the classification of wetlands in terms of both overall and class accuracies compared to applying one specific algorithm. Therefore, it is expected that the proposed system improves the classification accuracy of other complex landscapes.

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

4.6
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