Integrated Method for Classifying Medium Resolution Satellite Remotely Sensed Imagery into Land Use Map

Year 2023, Volume: 10 Issue: 2, 135 - 144, 15.06.2023

Abdulazeez Onotu Aliyu , Ebenezer Ayobami Akomolafe , Adamu Bala , Terwase Youngu , Hassan Musa , Swafiyudeen Bawa

https://doi.org/10.30897/ijegeo.1150436

Cited By: 1

Abstract

There are several remotely sensed images of varied resolutions available. As a result, several classification techniques exist, which are roughly classified as pixel-based and object-based classification methods. Based on the foregoing, this study provided an integrated method of deriving land use from a coarse satellite image. Location coordinates of the land uses were acquired with a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) instrument as primary data. The study classified the image quantitatively (pixel-based) into built-up, water, riparian, cultivated, and uncultivated land cover classes with no mixed pixels, and then qualitatively into educational, commercial, health, residential, and security land use classes that were conflicting due to spectral similarity. The total accuracy and kappa coefficient of the pixel-based land cover classification were 92.5% and 94% respectively. The results showed that residential land use occupied an area of 5500.01ha, followed by educational (2800.69ha); security (411.27ha); health (133.88ha); and commercial (109.01ha) respectively. The integrated method produces a crisp-appearance like the object-based image classification method. It eliminates the "salt and pepper" appearance that a traditional pixel-based classification would have. The output can be a vector or raster model depending on the purpose for which it is created.

Keywords

Land use, Land cover, pixel-based classification, integrated method, spectral similarity

Thanks

We want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit our article to this renowned journal. We wish you an itch-free review. Best regards.

References

• Aggarwal N., Srivastava M. and Dutta M., (2016), Comparative analysis of pixel-based and object-based classification of high-resolution remote sensing images - A review. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309302827_Comparative_Anal.... Downloaded on: 6 July, 2020.
• Aliyu A.O., (2015), Mapping, modelling and analysis of desertification in Sokoto state, Nigeria. [Masters Dissertation – Departments of Geomatics, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria Nigeria], print.
• Anderson J., (2008), A comparison of four change detection techniques for two urban areas in the United States. [Master Thesis, West Virginia University]. Retrieved from: maxwellsci.com/print/rjees/v5-567-576.pdf. Downloaded on: 16 September, 2020.
• Anon (2013), Accuracy assessment of an image in ArcMap [Video]. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaZGAUS_Nlo. Downloaded on: 4 December, 2020.
• Chigbu N., Igbokwe J. I., Bello I., Idhoko K., Apeh M., (2015), Comparative study of pixel-based and object-based image analysis in land cover and land use mapping of aba main township for environmental sustainability. FIG Working Week, Sofia Bulgaria. Retrieved from: https://www.fig.net/.../fig.../fig2015/ppt/.../TS02E_chigbu_igbokwe_et_al_7622_ppt.... Downloaded on: 14 June 2020.
• Coordination of Information on the Environment, (CORINE) (2012), CORINE land cover nomenclature conversion to land cover classification system. Retrieved from: http://www.CORINE-landcover.com/nomenclature/conversiontolandcover. Downloaded on: 16 January, 2020.
• Dean A. M. and Smith G. M., (2003), An evaluation of per-parcel land covers mapping using maximum likelihood class probabilities. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 24: 2905–2920.
• Dehvari A. and Heck R. J., (2009), Comparison of object-based and pixel-based infrared airborne image classification methods using DEM thematic layer. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, 2 (4). 86-96.
• Enderle D, and Weih Jr. R. C., (2005), Integrating Supervised and Unsupervised Classification Methods to Develop a more Accurate Land Cover Classification. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 59: 65-73.
• Global Administrative Areas (GADM), (2018), Nigeria administrative map. Retrieved from: https://gadm.org/data.html. Downloaded on: 23 March, 2021.
• Gholoobi M., Tayyebi A., Taleyi M. and Tayyebi A. H., (2010), Comparing pixel-based and object-based approaches in land use classification in mountainous areas. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Science, 38 (8). 789-791.
• Jensen R., (2005), Introductory digital image processing: a remote sensing perspective. 3rd Edition. Practice Hall. P 526.
• Lambin E. F., Geist H. J. and Ellis E., (2007), Causes of land-use and land-cover change. in encyclopedia of Earth. Retrieved from: https://www.scirp.org › reference › ReferencesPapers. Downloaded on: 8 February, 2022.
• Landis J. and Koch G., (1977), The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics. 33: 159 – 174.
• National Population Commission (NPC), (1991), National population commission: Nigerian population census reports. Retrieved from: http://www.population.gov.ng. Downloaded on: 23 July, 2021.
• National Population Commission (NPC), (2006), National population commission: Nigerian population census reports. Retrieved from: http://www.population.gov.ng. Downloaded on: 23 July, 2021.
• Ololade O., Annegarn H. J., Limpitlaw D. and Kneen M. A. (2008), Abstract of Land-Use/Cover Mapping and Change Detection in the Rustenburg Mining Region using Landsat Images, IGARSS.
• Ongsomwang S., (2007), Fundamental of remote sensing and digital image processing. School of Remote Sensing, Institute of Science, Suranaree University of Technology.
• Qin R., Huang X., Gruen A., and Schmitt G., (2015), Object-based 3-d building change detection on multitemporal stereo images. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 8 (5), pp. 2125-2137.
• United States Geological Survey (USGS), (2020), Landsat level 1 standard data products. [Image file] Retrieved from: LC08_L1TP_189052_20200310_20200822_02_T1. Downloaded on: 12 July, 2020.
• Weih Jr. R. C. and Riggan N. D., (2010), Object-based classification vs. pixel-based classification: comparative importance of multi-resolution imagery. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Science, 38 (4).
• Xiaoxia S., Jixian Z. and Zhengjun L., (2018), A comparison of object-oriented and pixel-based classification approachs using Quickbird imagery. Retrieved from: citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.184.3501. Downloaded on: 14 June 2020.