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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: M. I. Rodríguez-Valero, F. Alonso-Sarria
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