Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative analysis of different pixel and object-based classification algorithms using multi-source high spatial resolution satellite data for LULC mapping

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Earth Science Informatics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The preparation of accurate LULC is of great importance as it is used in various studies ranging from change detection to geospatial modelling. Literature offers studies comparing different classification algorithms/approaches to prepare LULC maps. However, still there is a lack of studies that can provide a comprehensive analysis on widely used classification algorithms. Hence, in the present study, nine different pixel- and object-based classification algorithms have been used to compare their relative effectiveness in generating remotely sensed LULC maps. The algorithms include maximum likelihood, neural network, support vector machine (linear, polynomial, RBF (radial basis function), sigmoid kernels), random forest (RF) and Naive Bayes for pixel-based classification and maximum likelihood algorithm for object-based classification (OBC) approach. Additionally, the study has analysed the impact of different types of satellite datasets (i.e., high resolution image and resolution merged images of same resolution) on relative effectiveness of the algorithms in classifying the satellite imageries accurately. High resolution (5 m) satellite image LISS 4 MX70, resolution merged satellite images (5 m) LISS 3 merged with LISS 4 mono and LISS 3 merged with IRS-1D are employed for classification. 27 LULC maps (9 classification algorithms * 3 images) are evaluated for comparing classification algorithms. The accuracy assessment of the images is carried out using confusion matrix and Mc Nemar’s test. It has been observed that (1) the performance of all classification algorithms differs from each other and (2) resolution merged data impacts classification accuracy differently when compared to other satellite image of same spatial resolution. RF and OBC are identified as potential classifiers with majority of datasets. The results suggest that due to heterogeneity in urban land-use, it is difficult to achieve higher overall accuracy in classifying a large urban area using 5 m resolution satellite dataset. Moreover, visual examination of LULC should be considered for choosing better classification approach as pixel-based approach produces salt-pepper effect in LULC, whereas OBC produces visually smoothened LULC and identifies even smaller objects in urban landscape. The comparative evaluation of different image types reveal that RF performs better with all images, however, the performance of OBC was found to be improved with original high-resolution data.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

There are no linked research data sets for this submission. The data that has been used is confidential.

Code availability

ERDAS® IMAGINE 2016, ArcGIS 10.5 and R version 3.3.2 softwares are used in this manuscript.

References

  • Agrafiotis P, Georgopoulos A (2015) Comparative assessment of very high resolution satellite and aerial orthoimagery. Int Arch Photogram Remote Sens Spatial Inf Sci 40(3):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Agresti A (2002) Categorical data analysis. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JR, Hardy EE, Roach JT, Witmer RE (1976) A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964:28.

  • Baatz M, Benz U, Dehghani S, Heynen M, Höltje A, Hofmann P, Lingenfelder I, Mimler M, Sohlbach M, Weber M, Willhauck G (2004) eCognition Professional 4.0 User Guide. Definiens Imaging GmbH. Definiens, Munich

  • Benz UC, Hofmann P, Willhauck G, Lingenfelder I, Heynen M (2004) Multiresolution, object-oriented fuzzy analysis of remote sensing data for GIS-ready information. ISPRS J Photogram Remote Sens 58(3–4):239–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Z, Zhao Z, Gong P, Zeng B (2006) A new process for the segmentation of high resolution remote sensing imagery. Int J Remote Sens 27:4991–5001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi M, Feng R, Bruzzone L (2008) Classification of hyperspectral remote-sensing data with primal SVM for small-sized training dataset problem. Adv Space Res 41(11):1793–1799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20(1):37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleve C, Kelly M, Kearns FR, Moritz M (2008) Classification of the wildland–urban interface: a comparison of pixel-and object-based classifications using high-resolution aerial photography. Comput Environ Urb Syst 32(4):317–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahiya S, Garg PK, Jat MK (2013) A comparative study of various pixel-based image fusion techniques as applied to an urban environment. Int J Image Data Fusion 4(3):197–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Leeuw J, Jia H, Yang L, Liu X, Schmidt K, Skidmore AK (2006) Comparing accuracy assessments to infer superiority of image classification methods. Int J Remote Sens 27:223–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietterich TG (1998) Approximate statistical tests for comparing supervised classification learning algorithms. Neural Comput 10:1895–1923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dingle Robertson L, King DJ (2011) Comparison of pixel- and object-based classification in land cover change mapping. Int J Remote Sens 32(6):1505–1529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domingos P, Pazzani M (1997) On the optimality of the simple Bayesian classifier under zero-one loss. Mac Learn 29:103–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durieux L, Lagabrielle E, Nelson A (2008) A method for monitoring building construction in urban sprawl areas using object-based analysis of Spot 5 images and existing GIS data. ISPRS J Photogram Remote Sens 63(4):399–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duro DC, Franklin SE, Dubé MG (2012) 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 118:259–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESRI AD (2016) Release 10.5. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., Redlands, CA

  • Foody GM (2004) Thematic map comparison: evaluating the statistical significance of differences in classification accuracy. Photogram Eng Remote Sens 70:627–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foody GM, Mathur A (2004) Toward intelligent training of supervised image classifications: directing training data acquisition for SVM classification. Remote Sens Environ 93(1):107–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao Y, Kerle N, Mas JF (2009) Object-based image analysis for coal fire-related land cover mapping in coal mining areas. Geocarto Int 24(1):25–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao Y, Marpu P, Niemeyer I, Runfola DM, Giner NM, Hamill T, Pontius RG Jr (2011) Object-based classification with features extracted by a semi-automatic feature extraction algorithm–SEaTH. Geocarto Int 26(3):211–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh A, Joshi PK (2013) Assessment of pan-sharpened very high-resolution WorldView-2 images. Int J Remote Sens 34(23):8336–8359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gudiyangada Nachappa T, Kienberger S, Meena SR, Hölbling D, Blaschke T (2020) Comparison and validation of per-pixel and object-based approaches for landslide susceptibility mapping. Geomat Nat Hazard Risk 11(1):572–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay GJ, Marceau DJ, Dube P, Bouchard A (2001) A multiscale framework for landscape analysis: object-specific analysis and upscaling. Lands Ecol 16(6):471–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes MM, Miller SN, Murphy MA (2014) High-resolution landcover classification using Random Forest. Remote Sens Lett 5(2):112–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herold M, Liu X, Clarke KC (2003) Spatial metrics and image texture for mapping urban land use. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 69(9):991–1001

  • Hexagon Geospatial (2016) ERDAS IMAGINE 2016. Intergraph Geospatial, Huntsville

  • Hu X, Weng Q (2011) Impervious surface area extraction from IKONOS imagery using an object-based fuzzy method. Geocarto Int 26(1):3–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jadhav SD, Channe HP (2016) Comparative study of K-NN, naive bayes and decision tree classification techniques. Int J Sci Res 5(1):1842–1845

    Google Scholar 

  • Jozdani SE, Johnson BA, Chen D (2019) Comparing deep neural networks, ensemble classifiers, and support vector machine algorithms for object-based urban land use/land cover classification. Remote Sens 11(14):1713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karatzoglou A, Smola A, Hornik K, Zeileis A (2004) kernlab-an S4 package for kernel methods in R. J Stat Softw 11(9):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavzoglu T (2017) Object-oriented random forest for high resolution land cover mapping using Quickbird-2 imagery. In: Handbook of neural computation, Academic Press, pp 607-619

  • Kelly M, Shaari D, Guo Q, Liu D (2004) A comparison of standard and hybrid classifier methods for mapping hardwood mortality in areas affected by sudden oak death. Photogram Eng Remote Sens 70(11):1229–1239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotsiantis SB, Zaharakis I, Pintelas P (2007) Supervised machine learning: A review of classification techniques. Emerg Artif Intell Appl Comput Eng 160(1):3–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Liaw A, Wiener M (2002) Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2(3):18–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Long JA, Lawrence RL, Greenwood MC, Marshall L, Miller PR (2013) Object oriented crop classification using multitemporal ETM+ SLC-off imagery and random forest. Gisci Remote Sens 50(4):418–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majka M (2018) naivebayes: High Performance Implementation of the Naive Bayes Algorithm. R package version 0.9.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=naivebayes. Accessed April 2018

  • Manandhar R, Odeh IO, Ancev T (2009) Improving the accuracy of land use and land cover classification of Landsat data using post-classification enhancement. Remote Sens 1(3):330–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mountrakis G, Im J, Ogole C (2011) Support vector machines in remote sensing: A review. ISPRS J Photogram Remote Sens 66(3):247–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myint SW, Gober P, Brazel A, Grossman-Clarke S, Weng Q (2011) Per-pixel vs. object-based classification of urban land cover extraction using high spatial resolution imagery. Remote Sens Environ 115(5):1145–1161.

  • Myint SW, Mesev V, Lam NSN (2006) Texture analysis and classification through a modified lacunarity analysis based on differential box counting method. Geograph Anal 38:371–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemmour H, Chibani Y (2006) Multiple support vector machines for land cover change detection: an application for mapping urban extensions. ISPRS J Photogram Remote Sens 61(2):125–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otukei JR, Blaschke T (2010) Land cover change assessment using decision trees, support vector machines and maximum likelihood classification algorithms. Int J Appl Earth Observ Geoinform 12:S27–S31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouyang ZT, Zhang MQ, Xie X, Shen Q, Guo HQ, Zhao B (2011) A comparison of pixel-based and object-oriented approaches to VHR imagery for mapping saltmarsh plants. Ecol Inform 6(2):136–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padwick C, Deskevich M, Pacifici F, Smallwood S (2010) WorldView-2 pan-sharpening. In: Proceedings of the ASPRS 2010 annual conference, San Diego, CA, USA, vol 2630

  • Petropoulos GP, Kalaitzidis C, Vadrevu KP (2012) Support vector machines and object-based classification for obtaining land-use/cover cartography from hyperion hyperspectral imagery. Comp Geosci 41:99–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puissant A, Rougier S, Stumpf A (2014) Object-oriented mapping of urban trees using Random Forest classifiers. Int J Appl Earth Obser Geoinform 26:235–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qu LA, Chen Z, Li M, Zhi J, Wang H (2021) Accuracy improvements to pixel-based and object-based LULC classification with auxiliary datasets from Google Earth engine. Remote Sens 13(3):453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed September 2017

  • Ren J (2012) ANN vs. SVM: Which one performs better in classification of MCCs in mammogram imaging. Knowledge-Based Syst 26:144–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robles Granda PD (2011) A new image classification algorithm based on additive groves. Unpublished MSc Thesis. Carbondale (IL): Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

  • Rodriguez-Galiano VF, Ghimire B, Rogan J, Chica-Olmo M, Rigol-Sanchez JP (2012) An assessment of the effectiveness of a random forest classifier for landcover classification. ISPRS J Photogram Remote Sens 67:93–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozenstein O, Karnieli A (2011) Comparison of methods for land-use classification incorporating remote sensing and GIS inputs. Appl Geograp 31(2):533–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shao Y, Lunetta RS (2012) Comparison of support vector machine, neural network, and CART algorithms for the land-cover classification using limited training data points. ISPRS J Photogram Remote Sens 70:78–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava PK, Han D, Rico-Ramirez MA, Bray M, Islam T (2012) Selection of classification techniques for land use/land cover change investigation. Adv Space Res 50(9):1250–1265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su Y, Huang PS, Lin CF, Tu TM (2004) Target-cluster fusion approach for classifying high resolution IKONOS imagery. IEEE Proc Vis Image Sig Process 151:241–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tassi A, Gigante D, Modica G, Di Martino L, Vizzari M (2021) Pixel-vs object-based Landsat 8 data classification in google earth engine using random forest: the case study of Maiella National Park. Remote Sens 13(12):2299.

  • Tehrany MS, Pradhan B, Jebuv MN (2014) A comparative assessment between object and pixel-based classification approaches for land use/land cover mapping using SPOT 5 imagery. Geocarto Int 29(4):351–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tien Bui D, Pradhan B, Lofman O, Revhaug I (2012) Landslide susceptibility assessment in Vietnam using support vector machines, decision tree, and Naïve Bayes models. Math Probl Eng 2012:26. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/974638

  • Tu JV (1996) Advantages and disadvantages of using artificial neural networks versus logistic regression for predicting medical outcomes. J Clin Epidem 49(11):1225–1231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New York. ISBN 0-387-95457-0

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walter V (2004) Object-based classification of remote sensing data for change detection. ISPRS J Photogram Remote Sens 58:225–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Z, Ziou D, Armenakis C, Li D, Li Q (2005) A comparative analysis of image fusion methods. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 43(6):1391–1402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiteside TG, Boggs GS, Maier SW (2011) Comparing object-based and pixel based classifications for mapping savannas. Int J Appl Earth Observ Geoinform 13(6):884–893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiesmann D, Quinn D (2011) Rasclass: supervised raster image classification. R package version 0.2.1. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rasclass/index.html. Accessed January 2018

  • Yan G, Mas JF, Maathuis BHP, Xiangmin Z, Van Dijk PM (2006) Comparison of pixel-based and object-oriented image classification approaches—a case study in a coal fire area, Wuda, Inner Mongolia, China. Int J Remote Sens 27(18):4039–4055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zar JH (2009) Biostatistical analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang A (2014) Collaboration in the Australian and Chinese mobile telecommunication markets. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University for funding this work under grant number (RGP2/194/42). The authors are thankful to National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for providing freely available Landsat data, used in this manuscript. The authors are thankful to Geoinformatics laboratory, TERI School of Advanced Studies for providing access to software.

Funding

This research received partial grant from United Nations University-Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability. The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University for funding this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Energy and Environment, TERI School of Advanced Studies, 10 Institutional Area, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, 110 070, India

    Akanksha Balha & Chander Kumar Singh

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia

    Javed Mallick

  3. Environment and Waste Management Division, The Energy and Resource Institute (TERI), New Delhi, India

    Suneel Pandey

  4. Indira Gandhi National Open University, Regional Centre, Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India

    Sandeep Gupta

Authors
  1. Akanksha Balha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Javed Mallick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Suneel Pandey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sandeep Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chander Kumar Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The author AB and CKS prepared the concept of manuscript. Analysis was conducted by AB, JM and supervised by CKS. Draft writing was done by AB, SP, JM and edited by SP, SG, and CKS.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chander Kumar Singh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflict of interest associated with this manuscript.

Ethical statement

All ethical practices have been followed in relation to the development, writing, and publication of the article.

Additional information

Communicated by H. Babaie.

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Balha, A., Mallick, J., Pandey, S. et al. A comparative analysis of different pixel and object-based classification algorithms using multi-source high spatial resolution satellite data for LULC mapping. Earth Sci Inform 14, 2231–2247 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-021-00685-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-021-00685-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation