Classification of Landsat 8 images in the Segura Hydrographic Demarcation
This work presents a cartography of land uses in the Segura Hydrographic Demarcation obtained by classifying 2017 Landsat 8 images. The classification was carried out using two classifiers: Maximum Likelihood (ML) and Random Forest (RF). Training areas were obtained from historical high resolution i...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Universitat Politécnica de Valencia
2019-06-01
|
Series: | Revista de Teledetección |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://polipapers.upv.es/index.php/raet/article/view/11016 |
id |
doaj-28e717ffbddc4e0ba57875b5f9d5fccc |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-28e717ffbddc4e0ba57875b5f9d5fccc2020-11-25T01:39:10ZengUniversitat Politécnica de ValenciaRevista de Teledetección1133-09531988-87402019-06-0153334410.4995/raet.2019.110167528Classification of Landsat 8 images in the Segura Hydrographic DemarcationM. I. Rodríguez-Valero0F. Alonso-Sarria1Universidad de MurciaUniversidad de MurciaThis work presents a cartography of land uses in the Segura Hydrographic Demarcation obtained by classifying 2017 Landsat 8 images. The classification was carried out using two classifiers: Maximum Likelihood (ML) and Random Forest (RF). Training areas were obtained from historical high resolution imagery until 2016. Prior to classification, a cross validation analysis of the training areas was carried out to determine which of them may have undergone a change of use between 2016 and 2017. The results obtained with ML and RF, both with the original set of training areas and with the one obtained eliminating the problem, are compared to determine the best option. In the case of ML, the results improve after eliminating the changing training areas, from 77.7% to 81.4%; however, with RF this improvement is not so important, going from 84.1% to 85.1%. Therefore, it can be concluded that, with both methods, the classification is more exact when the modified training areas are used and, although the results obtained are quite acceptable for both ML and RF, the latter performs a more accurate classification.https://polipapers.upv.es/index.php/raet/article/view/11016Random ForestMáxima verosimilitudusos del sueloteledetecciónLandsat 8 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
M. I. Rodríguez-Valero F. Alonso-Sarria |
spellingShingle |
M. I. Rodríguez-Valero F. Alonso-Sarria Classification of Landsat 8 images in the Segura Hydrographic Demarcation Revista de Teledetección Random Forest Máxima verosimilitud usos del suelo teledetección Landsat 8 |
author_facet |
M. I. Rodríguez-Valero F. Alonso-Sarria |
author_sort |
M. I. Rodríguez-Valero |
title |
Classification of Landsat 8 images in the Segura Hydrographic Demarcation |
title_short |
Classification of Landsat 8 images in the Segura Hydrographic Demarcation |
title_full |
Classification of Landsat 8 images in the Segura Hydrographic Demarcation |
title_fullStr |
Classification of Landsat 8 images in the Segura Hydrographic Demarcation |
title_full_unstemmed |
Classification of Landsat 8 images in the Segura Hydrographic Demarcation |
title_sort |
classification of landsat 8 images in the segura hydrographic demarcation |
publisher |
Universitat Politécnica de Valencia |
series |
Revista de Teledetección |
issn |
1133-0953 1988-8740 |
publishDate |
2019-06-01 |
description |
This work presents a cartography of land uses in the Segura Hydrographic Demarcation obtained by classifying 2017 Landsat 8 images. The classification was carried out using two classifiers: Maximum Likelihood (ML) and Random Forest (RF). Training areas were obtained from historical high resolution imagery until 2016. Prior to classification, a cross validation analysis of the training areas was carried out to determine which of them may have undergone a change of use between 2016 and 2017. The results obtained with ML and RF, both with the original set of training areas and with the one obtained eliminating the problem, are compared to determine the best option. In the case of ML, the results improve after eliminating the changing training areas, from 77.7% to 81.4%; however, with RF this improvement is not so important, going from 84.1% to 85.1%. Therefore, it can be concluded that, with both methods, the classification is more exact when the modified training areas are used and, although the results obtained are quite acceptable for both ML and RF, the latter performs a more accurate classification. |
topic |
Random Forest Máxima verosimilitud usos del suelo teledetección Landsat 8 |
url |
https://polipapers.upv.es/index.php/raet/article/view/11016 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT mirodriguezvalero classificationoflandsat8imagesinthesegurahydrographicdemarcation AT falonsosarria classificationoflandsat8imagesinthesegurahydrographicdemarcation |
_version_ |
1725050103092215808 |