4.7 Article

Quantitative evaluation of variations in rule-based classifications of land cover in urban neighbourhoods using WorldView-2 imagery

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2013.11.007

Keywords

Land Cover; Comparison; Image; Accuracy; Urban; Experiment; OBIA

Funding

  1. FP7 project MS.MONINA (Multi-scale Service for Monitoring NATURA 2000 Habitats of European Community Interest) [263479]
  2. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) through the Doctoral College GIScience [DK W 1237 N23]
  3. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under the project ABIA [P25449]
  4. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P25449] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The increasing availability of high resolution imagery has triggered the need for automated image analysis techniques, with reduced human intervention and reproducible analysis procedures. The knowledge gained in the past might be of use to achieving this goal, if systematically organized into libraries which would guide the image analysis procedure. In this study we aimed at evaluating the variability of digital classifications carried out by three experts who were all assigned the same interpretation task. Besides the three classifications performed by independent operators, we developed an additional rule-based classification that relied on the image classifications best practices found in the literature, and used it as a surrogate for libraries of object characteristics. The results showed statistically significant differences among all operators who classified the same reference imagery. The classifications carried out by the experts achieved satisfactory results when transferred to another area for extracting the same classes of interest, without modification of the developed rules. (C) 2013 International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Inc. (ISPRS) Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available