Quantitative land cover change analysis using fuzzy segmentation

International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 16-27

  Lizarazo, Ivan ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DISTRITAL FRANCISCO JOSÉ DE CALDAS   (Colombia)

Author keywords

Change analysis; Continuous land cover; Fuzzy image segmentation; Impervious surface mapping

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FUZZY MATHEMATICS; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE CLASSIFICATION; LAND COVER; LAND USE CHANGE; LANDSAT; MAPPING; MATRIX; MULTISPECTRAL IMAGE; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SATELLITE IMAGERY;

EID: 84864496395     PISSN: 15698432     EISSN: 1872826X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jag.2011.05.012     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Arnold, C., Gibbons, J., 1996. Impervious surface coverage: the emergence of a key environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association 62, 243-258.
2. Bauer, M., Loffelholz, B., Wilson, B., 2008. Estimating and mapping impervious surface area by regression analysis of landsat imagery. In: Weng, Q. (Ed.), Remote Sensing of Impervious Surfaces. Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 3-19.
3. Bragato, G., 2004. Fuzzy continuous classification and spatial interpolation in conventional soil survey for soil mapping of the lower piave plain. Geoderma 118, 1-16.
4. Brown, D.G., Goovaerts, P., Burnicki, A., Li, M.Y., 2002. Stochastic simulation of land-cover change using geostatistics and generalized additive models. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 68, 1051-1061.
5. Burrough, P., van Gaans, P., Hoostmans, R., 1997. Continuous classification in soil survey: spatial correlation, confusion and boundaries. Geoderma.
6. Cimmery, V., 2007-2010. SAGA User Guide, updated for SAGA version 2.0.5. Institute of Geography, University of Hamburg. Hamburg, Germany.
7. Clapham, W.B., 2005. Quantitative classification as a tool to show change in an urbanizing watershed. International Journal of Remote Sensing 26, 4923-4939.
8. Fisher, P., Arnot, C., 2007. Mapping Type 2 Change in Fuzzy Land Cover. In: Geographic Uncertainty in Environmental Security. Springer, pp. 167-186.
9. Fisher, P., Arnot, C., Wadsworth, R., Wellens, J., 2006. Detecting change in vague interpretations of landscapes. Ecological Informatics 1, 163-178.
10. Gislason, P.O., Benediktsson, J.A., Sveinsson, J.R., 2006. Random Forests for land cover classification. Pattern Recognition Letters 27, 294-300.
11. Goetz, S.J., Jantz, P., 2006. Satellite maps show Chesapeake Bay urban development. EOS Transactions American Geophysical Union 87, 149-156.
12. Gonzalez, R., 2008. Digital Image Processing, third edition. Prentice Hall.
13. Hall, E.H., 1979. Computer Image Processing and Recognition. Academic Press.
14. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., Friedman, J., 2009. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference and Prediction. Springer.
15. Hay, G.J., Blaschke, T., 2010. Special issue: geographic object-based image analysis (GEOBIA) - foreword. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 76, 121-122.
16. Herold, M., Gardner, M., Roberts, D., 2003. Spectral resolution requirements for mapping urban areas. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 41, 1907-1919.
17. Jantz, P., Goetz, S., Jantz, C., 2005. Urbanization and the loss of resource lands in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Environmental Management 36, 808-825.
18. Jensen, J., 2005. Introductory Image Processing: A Remote Sensing Perspective. Prentice Hall.
19. Johansen, K., Arroyo, L., Phinn, S., Witte, C., 2010. Comparison of geo-object based and pixel-based change detection of riparian environments using high spatial resolution multi-spectral imagery. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 76 (2), 123-136.
20. Kim, M., Madden, M., Xu, B., 2010. GEOBIA vegetation mapping in great smoky mountains national park with spectral and non-spectral ancillary information. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 76 (2), 137-149.
21. Lizarazo, I., 2010. Fuzzy image regions for estimation of impervious surface areas. Remote Sensing Letters 1, 19-27.
22. Lizarazo, I., Barros, J., 2010. Fuzzy image segmentation for urban land cover classification. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 76 (2), 151-162.
23. Mesev, V., 2003. Remotely Sensed Cities. Taylor & Francis.
24. Opsomer, J.D., Jay, B.F., Moisen, G.G., Kauermann, G., 2007. Model-assisted estimation of forest resources with generalized additive models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 100, 400-416.
25. Pal, M., Mather, P.M., 2003. An assessment of the effectiveness of decision tree methods for land cover classification. Remote Sensing of the Environment 86, 554-565.
26. R Development Core Team, 2010. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria, ISBN 3-900051r-r07-0.
27. Ross, T., 2004. Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications. Wiley.
28. Walton, J.T., 2008. Subpixel urban land cover estimation: comparing Cubist, Random Forests, and Support Vector Regression. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 74, 1213-1222.
29. Weng, Q., Lu, D., 2007. Subpixel analysis of urban landscapes. In: Weng, Q., Quattrochi, D.A. (Eds.), Urban Remote Sensing. CRC Press, pp. 109-135 (chapter 6)
30. Wood, S., 2006. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R. Chapman and Hall.
31. Yang, L., Huang, C., Homer, C., Wylie, B., Coan, M., 2003. An approach for mapping large-area impervious surfaces: synergistic use of Landsat 7 ETM+ and high spatial resolution imagery. Technical Report. USGS/EROS Data Center.