Spectral and spatial-based classification for broad-scale land cover mapping based on logistic regression

Sensors

Volumn 8, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 8067-8085

  Mallinis, Georgios ^a   Koutsias, Nikos ^b  

^a DEMOCRITUS UNIVERSITY OF THRACE   (Greece)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOANNINA   (Greece)

Author keywords

Autocovariate; Land cover mapping; Logistic regression; Texture

Indexed keywords

AUTOCOVARIATE; BINOMIAL LOGISTIC REGRESSIONS; CLASSIFICATION APPROACH; LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION; LAND COVER MAPPING; LOGISTIC REGRESSIONS; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ALGORITHM; SATELLITE IMAGE CLASSIFICATION;

ALGORITHMS; IMAGE CLASSIFICATION; SATELLITE IMAGERY; TEXTURES;

REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EID: 58149194812     PISSN: 14248220     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/s8128067     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Aplin, P. Remote sensing: Land cover. Prog. Phys. Geog. 2004, 28, 283-293.
2. Foody, G.M.; Mathur, A. A relative evaluation of multiclass image classification by support vector machines. IEEE T Geosci. Remote 2004, 42, 1335-1343.
3. th Ed.; Macmillan Publishing Company: New York, USA, 1992; pp. 51-57.
4. Kanellopoulos, I.; Varfis, A.; Wilkinson, G.G.; Megier, J. Land-cover discrimination in SPOT HRV imagery using an artificial neural network-a 20-class experiment. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1992, 13, 917-924.
5. Liu, X.; Skidmore, A.K.; Oosten, H.V. Integration of classification methods for improvement of land-cover map accuracy. ISPRS J. Photogramm. 2002, 56, 257-268.
6. Liu, W.; Gopal, S.; Woodcock, C.E. Uncertainty and confidence in land cover classification using a hybrid classifier approach. Photogramm. Eng. 2004, 70, 963-971.
7. Lu, D.; Weng, Q. A survey of image classification methods and techniques for improving classification performance. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2007, 28, 823-870.
8. Chen, D. A standardized probability comparison approach for evaluating and combining pixelbased classification procedures. Photogramm. Eng. 2008, 74, 601-609.
9. Duda, R.O.; Hart, P.E.; Stork, D.G. Pattern Classification; John Wiley & Sons: New York, USA, 2001; pp. 182-187.
10. Carpenter, G.A.; Gopal, S.; Macomber, S.; Martens, S; Woodcock, C.E. A neural network method for mixture estimation for vegetation mapping. Remote Sens. Environ. 1999, 70, 138-152.
11. Koutsias, N.; Karteris, M. Burned area mapping using logistic regression modeling of a single post-fire Landsat-5 Thematic Mapper image. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1998, 21, 673-687.
12. Mallinis, G.; Koutsias, N.; Makras, A.; Karteris, M. Forest parameters estimation in a European Mediterranean landscape using remotely sensed data. Forest Sci. 2004, 50, 450-460.
13. Pal, M.; Mather, P.M. An assessment of the effectiveness of decision tree methods for land cover classification. Remote Sens. Environ. 2003, 82, 554-565.
14. Mallinis, G.; Koutsias, N.; Tsakiri, M.; Karteris, M. Object-based classification using Quickbird imagery for delineating forest vegetation polygons in a Mediterranean test site. ISPRS J. Photogramm. 2008, 63, 237-250.
15. Hubert-Moy, L.; Cotonnec, A.; Le Du, L.; Chardin, A.; Pirez, P. A comparison of parametric classification procedures of remotely sensed data applied on different landscape units. Remote Sens. Environ. 2001, 75, 174-187.
16. Chen, D.; Stow, D.A.; Gong, P. Examining the effect of spatial resolution and texture window size on classification accuracy, an urban environment case. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2004, 25, 2177-2192.
17. Hay, G.J.; Niemann, K.O.; McLean, G.F. An object-specific image-texture analysis of H-resolution forest imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 1996, 55, 108-122.
18. Cushnie, J.L. The interactive effect of spatial resolution and degree of internal variability within land-cover types on classification accuracies. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1987, 8, 15-29.
19. Gong, P.B.; Xu, B. Contextual classification methods for land cover and land use mapping. In Remote Sensing Image Analysis including the Spatial Domain, de Jong, S.M., van der Meer, F.D., Eds., Kluwer Press: Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2004; pp. 137-152.
20. Gong, P.; Howarth, P.J. Performance analyses of probabilistic relaxation methods for land-cover classification. Remote Sens. Environ. 1989, 30, 33-42.
21. Kontoes, C.C.; Rokos, D. The integration of spatial context information in an experimental knowledge-based system and the supervised relaxation algorithm-Two successful approaches to improving SPOT-XS classification. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1999, 17, 3093-3106.
22. Solberg, A.H.; Taxt T.; Jain, A.K. A Markov random field model for classification of multisource satellite imagery. IEEE T. Geosci. Remote 1996, 34, 100-113.
23. Tso, B.C.K.; Mather, P.M. Classification of multisource remote sensing imagery using a Genetic Algorithm and Markov Random Fields. IEEE T. Geosci. Remote 1999, 37, 1255-1260.
24. Magnussen, S.; Boudewyn, P.; Wulder, M. Contextual classification of Landsat TM images to forest inventory cover types. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2004, 25, 3093-3104.
25. th Ed.; J. Wiley and Sons: New York, USA, 2004; p. 551.
26. Koutsias, N. An autologistic regression model for increasing the accuracy of burned surface mapping using Landsat Thematic Mapper data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2003, 24, 2199-2204.
27. Atkinson, P.M. Autologistic regression for flood zonation using SAR imagery. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Remote Sensing Society, Adding Value to Remotely Sensed Data; Remote Sensing Society, Nottingham, UK, September 2000.
28. Foody, G.M.; Campbell, N.A.; Trodd, N.M.; Wood, T.F. Derivation and applications of probabilistic measures of class membership from the maximum likelihood classification. Photogramm. Eng. 1992, 58, 1335-1341.
29. nd Ed., Springer-Verlag: New York, USA, 1993; pp. 46-47.
30. Chuvieco, E.; Congalton, R.G. Using cluster analysis to improve the selection of training statistics in classifying remotely sensed data. Photogramm. Eng. 1988, 54, 1275-1281.
31. Milligan, G.W. An examination of the effects of six types of error perturbations on fifteen clustering algorithms. Psychometrika 1981, 45, 325-342.
32. th Ed., Prentice-Hall Inc.: New Jersey, USA, 1998; pp. 469-502.
33. Wilson, M.D.; Atkinson, P.M. The use of remotely sensed land cover to derive floodplain friction coefficients for flood inundation modelling. Hydrol. Proc. 2007, 21, 3576-3586.
34. Atkinson, P.M.; Lewis, P. Geostatistical classification for remote sensing, an introduction. Comput. Geosci. 2000, 26, 361-371.
35. Foody, G.M.; Sargent, I.M.J.; Atkinson, P.M.; Williams, J. Thematic labelling from hyperspectral remotely sensed imagery, trade-offs in image properties. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2004, 25, 2337-2363.
36. Pedroni, L. Improved classification of Landsat Thematic Mapper data using modified prior probabilities in large and complex landscapes. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2003, 24, 91-113.
37. Augustin, N.H.; Mugglestone, M.A.; Buckland, S.T. An autologistic model for the spatial distribution of wildlife. J. Appl. Ecol. 1996, 33, 339-347.
38. Osborne, P.E.; Alonso, J.C.; Bryant, R.G. Modelling landscape-scale habitat use using GIS and remote sensing, a case study with great bustards. J. Appl. Ecol. 2001, 38, 458-471.
39. Cohen, J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1960, 20, 37-40.
40. Steele, B.M. Maximum posterior probability estimators of map accuracy. Remote Sens. Environ. 2005, 99, 254-270.
41. Turner, M.G.; Ruscher, C.L. Changes in landscape patterns in Georgia, USA. Landscape Ecol. 1988, 1, 241-251.
42. Saura, S.; Martínez-Millán, J. Sensitivity of landscape pattern metrics to map spatial extent. Photogramm. Eng. 2001, 67, 1027-1036.
43. Hudson, W.D. Evaluation of several classification schemes for mapping cover types in Michigan. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1987, 8, 1785-1796.