Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Smart Logistic Classification Method for Remote Sensed Image Land Cover Data

  • Original Research
  • Published:
SN Computer Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A smart system integrates appliances of sensing, acquisition, classification and managing with regard to interpreting and analyzing a situation to generate decisions depending on the available data in a predictive way. Remotely sensed images are an essential tool for evaluating and analyzing land cover dynamics, particularly for forest-cover change. The remote data gathered for this operation from different sensors are of high spatial resolution and thus suffer from high interclass and low intraclass vulnerability issues which retards classification accuracy. To address this problem, in this research analysis, a smart logistic fusion-based supervised multi-class classification (SLFSMC) model is proposed to obtain a thematic map of different land cover types and thereby performing smart actions. In the pre-processing stage of the proposed work, a pair of closing and opening morphological operations is employed to produce the fused image to exploit the contextual information of adjacent pixels. Thereafter quality assessment of the fused image is estimated on four fusion metrics. In the second phase, this fused image is taken as input to the proposed classifiers. Afterward, a multi-class classification model is designed based on the supervised learning concept to generate maps for analyzing and exporting decisions based on any critical climatic situation. In our paper, for estimating the performance of proposed SLFSMC among few conventional classification techniques such as the Naïve Bayes classifier, decision tree, Support vector machine, and K-nearest neighbors, a statistical tool called as Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is involved. We have implemented proposed SLFSMC system on some of the regions of Victoria, a state of Australia, after the deforestation caused due to different reasons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Giri C, Long J. Land cover characterization and mapping of South America for the year 2010 using Landsat 30 m satellite data. Remote Sens. 2014;6(10):9494–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gómez C, White JC, Wulder MA. Optical remotely sensed time series data for land cover classification: a review. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 2016;116:55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kim C. Land use classification and land-use change analysis using satellite images in Lombok Island, Indonesia. Forest Sci Technol. 2016;12(4):183–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bosecker RR. Sampling methods in agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service, US Department of Agriculture; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Tsoeleng LT, Odindi J, Mhangara P. A comparison of two morphological techniques in the classification of urban land cover. Remote Sens. 2020;12(7):1089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hu T, Yang J, Li X, Gong P. mapping urban land use by using Landsat images and open 340 social data. Remote Sens. 2016;8(2):151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Carrizosa E, Morales DR. Supervised classification and mathematical optimization. Comput Oper Res. 2013;40(1):150–65.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Puletti N, Perria R, Storchi P. Unsupervised classification of very high remotely sensed images for grapevine rows detection. Eur J Remote Sens. 2014;47(1):45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Campagnolo ML, Cerdeira JO. Contextual classification of remotely sensed images with integer linear programming. In: Proceedings of Comp IMAGE-Computational Modelling of Objects Represented in Images: Fundamentals, Methods, and Applications, 2006, pp. 123–128.

  10. Gong P, Miller J, Freemantle J, Chen B. Spectral decomposition of Landsat thematic mapper data for urban land cover mapping. In: Proceedings of the 14th Canadian Symposium on Remote Sensing, 1991, pp. 458–461.

  11. Duro DC, Franklin SE, Dubé MG. A comparison of pixel-based and object-based image analysis with selected machine learning algorithms for the classification of agricultural landscapes using spot-5 hrg imagery. Remote Sens Environ. 2012;118:259–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lillesand T, Kiefer RW, Chipman J. Remote sensing and image interpretation. John Wiley & Sons; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chaji N, Ghassemian H. Texture-gradient-based contour detection. EURASIP J Adv Signal Process. 2006;2006:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chang C-C, Lin C-J. Libsvm: a library for support vector machines. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol (TIST). 2011;2(3):1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chanussot J, Benediktsson JA, Fauvel M. Classification of remote sensing images from urban areas using a fuzzy possibilistic model. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett. 2006;3(1):40–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Soille P, Pesaresi M. Advances in mathematical morphology applied to geoscience and remote sensing. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 2002;40(9):2042–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Haralick R. Statistical and structural approaches to texture. Digital Image Process Anal. 1985;2:304–22.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pelletier C, Valero S, Inglada J, Champion N, Marais Sicre C, Dedieu G. Effect of training class label noise on classification performances for land cover mapping with satellite image time series. Remote Sens. 2017;9(2):173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bégué A, Arvor D, Bellon B, Betbeder J, De Abelleyra D, Ferraz RPD, Lebourgeois V, Lelong C, Simões M, Verón SR. Remote sensing and cropping practices: a review. Remote Sens. 2018;10(1):99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jinju J, Santhi N, Ramar K, Bama BS. Spatial frequency discrete wavelet transform image fusion technique for remote sensing applications. Eng Sci Technol Int J. 2019;22(3):715–26.

    Google Scholar 

  21. MohanRajan SN, Loganathan A, Manoharan P. Survey on land use/land cover (LU/LC) change analysis in remote sensing and GIS environment: techniques and challenges. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2020;27:29900–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wulder MA, Coops NC, Roy DP, White JC, Hermosilla T. Land cover 2.0. Int J Remote Sens. 2018;39(12):4254–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sahu M and Dash R. A fusion-based land cover classification model using remote sensed images. Intell Decis Technol. 2022;16(3):1–13.

  24. Myint SW, Gober P, Brazel A, Grossman-Clarke S, Weng Q. Per-pixel vs. object-based classification of urban land cover extraction using high spatial resolution imagery. Remote Sens Environ. 2011;115(5):1145–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tso BC, Mather PM. Classification of multisource remote sensing imagery using a genetic algorithm and Markov random fields. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 1999;37(3):1255–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Stuckens J, Coppin P, Bauer M. Integrating contextual information with per-pixel classification for improved land cover classification. Remote Sens Environ. 2000;71(3):282–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Atkinson PM, Naser DK. A geostatistically weighted KNN classifier for remotely sensed imagery. Geogr Anal. 2010;42(2):204–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Moser G, Serpico SB, Benediktsson JA. Land-cover mapping by Markov modeling of spatial–contextual information in very-high-resolution remote sensing images. Proc IEEE. 2012;101(3):631–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jensen JR. Remote sensing of the environment: an earth resource perspective 2/e. Pearson Education India; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Carleer A, Wolff E. Urban land cover multi-level region-based classification of VHR data by selecting relevant features. Int J Remote Sens. 2006;27(6):1035–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Haralick RM, Sternberg SR, Zhuang X. Image analysis using mathematical morphology. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 1987;PAMI-9(4):532–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fauvel M, Benediktsson JA, Chanussot J, Sveinsson JR. Spectral and spatial classification of hyperspectral data using SVM and morphological profiles. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 2008;46(11):3804–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Thanh Noi P, Kappas M. Comparison of random forest, k-nearest neighbor, and support vector machine classifiers for land cover classification using sentinel-2 imagery. Sensors. 2018;18(1):18.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Azzari G, Lobell D. Landsat-based classification in the cloud: an opportunity for a paradigm shift in land cover monitoring. Remote Sens Environ. 2017;202:64–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lu D, Weng Q. A survey of image classification methods and techniques for improving classification performance. Int J Remote Sens. 2007;28(5):823–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Prasad AM, Iverson LR, Liaw A. Newer classification and regression tree techniques: bagging and random forests for ecological prediction. Ecosystems. 2006;9(2):181–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Heydari SS, Mountrakis G. Effect of classifier selection, reference sample size, reference class distribution and scene heterogeneity in per-pixel classification accuracy using 26 Landsat sites. Remote Sens Environ. 2018;204:648–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sitthi A, Nagai M, Dailey M, Ninsawat S. exploring land use and land cover of geotagged social-sensing images using naive Bayes classifier. Sustainability. 2016;8(9):921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ballestero E, Romero C. Multiple criteria decisions making and its applications to economic problems. Springer Science & Business Media; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Othman MR, Wozny G, Repke J. Selection of sustainable chemical process design using anp: a biodiesel case study. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 2011.

  41. Saaty, T. L. What is the analytic hierarchy process? In Mathematical models for decision support. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1988, 109–121.

  42. Ferreira L, Borenstein D, Santi E. Hybrid fuzzy madm ranking procedure for better alternative discrimination. Eng Appl Artif Intell. 2016;50:71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Behzadian M, Otaghsara SK, Yazdani M, Ignatius J. A state-of-the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst Appl. 2012;39(17):13051–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Bradshaw CJ. little left to lose: deforestation and forest degradation in Australia since European colonization. J Plant Ecol. 2012;5(1):109–20 (435).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hu T, van Dijk AI, Renzullo LJ, Xu Z, He J, Tian S, Zhou J, Li H. on agricultural drought monitoring in Australia using Himawari-8 geostationary thermal infrared observations. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf. 2020;91: 102153.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ghosh S, Biswas D, Biswas S, Sarkar DC, Sarkar PP. Soil classification from large imagery databases using a neuro-fuzzy classifier. Can J Electr Comput Eng. 2016;39(4):333–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Bey A, Sánchez-Paus Díaz A, Maniatis D, Marchi G, Mollicone D, Ricci S, Bastin J-F, Moore R, Federici S, Rezende M, et al. Collect earth: land use and land cover assessment through augmented visual interpretation. Remote Sens. 2016;8(10):807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Wulder MA, Loveland TR, Roy DP, Crawford CJ, Masek JG, Woodcock CE, Allen RG, Anderson MC, Belward AS, Cohen WB, et al. Current status of Landsat program, science, and applications. Remote Sens Environ. 2019;225:127–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Hermosilla T, Wulder MA, White JC, Coops NC, Hobart GW, Campbell LB. Mass data processing of time series Landsat imagery: pixels to data products for forest monitoring. Int J Digital Earth. 2016;9(11):1035–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Phiri D, Morgenroth J. Developments in Landsat land cover classification methods: a review. Remote Sens. 2017;9(9):967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ma L, Li M, Ma X, Cheng L, Du P, Liu Y. A review of supervised object-based land-cover image classification. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens. 2017;130:277–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Nishii R, Tanaka S. Accuracy and inaccuracy assessments in land-cover classification. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens. 1999;37(1):491–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Chen P. Effects of normalization on the entropy-based TOPSIS method. Expert Syst Appl. 2019;136:33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. de Lima Silva DF, Ferreira L, de Almeida-Filho AT. A new preference disaggregation TOPSIS approach applied to sort corporate bonds based on financial statements and expert’s assessment. Expert Syst Appl. 2020;152: 113369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Application, Institute of Technical Education and Research (ITER), Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan (Deemed to be) University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

    Madhusmita Sahu & Rasmita Dash

  2. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, SRM University-AP, Visakhapatnam, India

    Sambit Kumar Mishra

  3. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Khalifa University, 127788, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

    Deepak Puthal

Authors
  1. Madhusmita Sahu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rasmita Dash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sambit Kumar Mishra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Deepak Puthal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sambit Kumar Mishra.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sahu, M., Dash, R., Mishra, S.K. et al. A Smart Logistic Classification Method for Remote Sensed Image Land Cover Data. SN COMPUT. SCI. 3, 477 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-022-01378-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-022-01378-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation