Application of pixel-based and object-based approaches for LULC mapping in Jiroft region, S.E. Iran

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
A. Eslami 1
S. Anvari 2
N. Karimi 3
S. Mohamadi 4
1 Graduate University of Advanced Technology
2 Department of Ecology, Institute of Science and High Technology and Environmental Science, Graduate University of Advanced Technology, Kerman, Iran
3 Water Research Institute of Ministry of Energy
4 Graduate University of Advanced Technology, Kerman
Abstract
Aims Due to increase of demand for industrial and agricultural products, many tropical regions of Iran have experienced landscape changes. The present study aims to detect the land use/land cover (LULC) using some pixel/object-based approaches.



Method This research was conducted in Jiroft area using some pixel-based and object-based image analysing methods (PBIA and OBIA respectively). To this end, at the first phase, the LULC maps were extracted using PBIA for September, 2020. The PBIA are including as Mahalanobis distance (MD), maximum likelihood (ML), neural network (NN), support vector machine (SVM). At the second phase, the LULC was produced using OBIA approach, encompassing the multi-resolution method and decision tree (DT) technique, for segmentation and classification respectively. Using a hybrid methodology, the high-resolution images of Worldview-2 were segmented. The segmented objects were later combined with the 7-month time series of NDVI, to find the necessary thresholds for DT.



Findings Results of the LULC maps demonstrated that the kappa coefficient and overall accuracy for ISODATA, MD, ML, NN, and SVM methods were calculated to be (51%, 66%), (81%, 86%), (88%, 91%), (90%, 93%) and (88% and 92%), respectively. The outcomes of the second phase for mapping the LULC showed the OBIA achieved a high overall accuracy of about 96%.

Conclusion among the PBIA techniques and regarding both accuracy and execution time, the ML was the best. Although both PBIA and OBIA approaches are applicable in mapping LULC, the OBIA significantly outperformed the PBIA classifiers by higher overall accuracy and Kappa statistics
Keywords
Jiroft
Land cover/Land use
pixel/object-based classifiers

Subjects

1- Sohl T, Sleeter B. 15 Role of Remote Sensing for Land-Use and Land-Cover Change Modeling. Remote Sensing of Land Use and Land Cover. 2012:225. .
2- Akbari H, Rose LS, Taha H. Analyzing the land cover of an urban environment using high-resolution orthophotos. Landscape Urban Plan. 2003;63(1):1-4.
3- Yang L, Xian G, Klaver JM, Deal B. Urban land-cover change detection through sub-pixel imperviousness mapping using remotely sensed data. Photogramm. Eng. Rem. S. 2003; 69(9):1003-10.
4- Brooks CN, Schaub DL, Powell RB, French NH, Shuchman RA. Multi-temporal and multi-platform agricultural land cover classification in southeastern Michigan. Ann. Arbor. 2006;1001:48105.
5- Gilbertson JK, Kemp J, Van Niekerk A. Effect of pan-sharpening multi-temporal Landsat 8 imagery for crop type differentiation using different classification techniques. Comput. Electron. Agr. 2017;134:151-9.
6- Rahman MR, Saha SK. Multi-resolution segmentation for object-based classification and accuracy assessment of land use/land cover classification using remotely sensed data. J. Indian. Soc. Remote. 2008;36(2):189-201.
7- Karami A, Khoorani A, Noohegar A, Shamsi SRF, Moosavi V. Gully erosion mapping using object-based and pixel-based image classification methods. Environ. Eng. Geosci. 2015;21(2):101-10.
8- Rozenstein O, Karnieli A. Comparison of methods for land-use classification incorporating remote sensing and GIS inputs. Appl. Geogr. 2011;31(2):533-44.
9. Lu D, Weng Q. A survey of image classification methods and techniques for improving classification performance. Int. J. Remote .Sens . 2007;28(5), 823–870.
10. Petropoulos GP, Kalaitzidis C, Vadrevu KP. Support vector machines and object-based classification for obtaining land-use/cover cartography from Hyperion hyperspectral imagery. Comput. Geosci. 2012;41:99-107.
11. Oyekola MA, Adewuyi GK. Unsupervised classification in land cover types using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Invest. 2018;7(72):11-8.
12. Campbell JB, Wynne RH. Introduction to remote sensing. Guilford Press; 2011 Jun 15.
13. Duda RO, Hart PE, Stork DG. Pattern Classification and Scene Analysis Part 1: Pattern Classification; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2000.
14. Fukue K, Shimoda H, Matumae Y, Yamaguchi R, Sakata T. Evaluations of unsupervised methods for land‐cover/use classifications of landsat TM data. Geocarto. Int. 1988;3(2):37-44.
15. Weih RC, Riggan ND. Object-based classification vs. pixel-based classification: Comparative importance of multi-resolution imagery. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. 2010;38(4):C7.
16. Alganci U, Sertel E, Ozdogan M, Ormeci C. Parcel-level identification of crop types using different classification algorithms and multi-resolution imagery in Southeastern Turkey. Photogram. Eng. Remote. Sens. 2013; 79(11):1053-65.
17. Myburgh G, Van Niekerk A. Effect of feature dimensionality on object-based land cover classification: A comparison of three classifiers. S. Afr. J. Geol. 2013;2(1):13-27.
18. Zheng B, Myint SW, Thenkabail PS, Aggarwal RM. A support vector machine to identify irrigated crop types using time-series Landsat NDVI data. Int. J. Appl. Earth. Obs. 2015; 34:103-12.
19. Berhane TM, Lane CR, Wu Q, Anenkhonov OA, Chepinoga VV, Autrey BC. Comparing pixel-and object-based approaches in effectively classifying wetland-dominated landscapes. Remote Sens-Basel. 2018;10(1):46.
20. Coppin P, Lambin E, Jonckheere I, Muys B. Digital change detection methods in natural ecosystem monitoring: A review. Ser. Remote. Sens. 2002:3-6.
21. Ghassemian H. A review of remote sensing image fusion methods. Inform Fusion. 2016;32:75-89.
22. Ghodekar HR, Deshpande AS, Scholar PG. Pan-sharpening based on non-subsampled contourlet transform. NCVPRIPG 2013. 2016; 1:2831.
23. Ai J, Gao W, Gao, Z, Shi, R, Zhang, C, Liu, C. Integrating pan-sharpening and classifier ensemble techniques to map an invasive plant in an estuarine wetland using Landsat 8 imagery. J. Appl. Remote. Sens. 2016;10(2):026001.
24. Paola JD, Schowengerdt RA. A detailed comparison of backpropagation neural network and maximum-likelihood classifiers for urban land use classification. IEEE T. Geosci. Remote. 1995;33(4):981-96.
25. Abburu S, Golla SB. Satellite image classification methods and techniques: A review. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2015;1:119(8).
26. Akcay O, Avsar EO, Inalpulat M, Genc L, Cam A. Assessment of segmentation parameters for object-based land cover classification using color-infrared imagery. ISPRS. Int. Geo-Inf. 2018 Nov;7(11):424.
27. Benz, U.C.; Hofmann, P.; Willhauck, G.; Lingenfelder, I.; Heynen, M. Multi-resolution, object-oriented fuzzy analysis of remote sensing data for GIS-ready information. ISPRS J. Photogramm. 2004;58(3-4):239–258.
28. Rwanga SS, Ndambuki JM. Accuracy assessment of land use/land cover classification using remote sensing and GIS. Int. J. Geosci. 2017;8(04):611.
29. Sarkar A. Accuracy assessment and analysis of land use land cover change using geoinformatics technique in Raniganj coalfield area, India. International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources. 2018;11(1):25-34.
30. Behnia N, Zare M, Moosavi V, Khajeddin S.I. Evaluation of a Hierarchical Classification Method and Statistical Comparison with Pixel-Based and Object-Oriented Approaches. ECOPERSIA. 2020;8(4):209-219.
31. Hayatzadeh M, Fathzadeh A, Moosavi V. Improving the Accuracy of Land Use/Cover Maps using an Optimization Technique. ECOPERSIA. 2019; 7(4):183-193.
32. Parvizi Y, Heshmati M, Gheituri M. Intelligent approaches to analyze the importance of land use management in soil carbon stock in a semiarid ecosystem, west of Iran. ECOPERSIA. 2017;5(1):1699-709.