Journal of Geo-information Science >
Response of Spatial Scale for Land Cover Classification of Remote Sensing
Received date: 2017-08-03
Request revised date: 2017-10-10
Online published: 2018-03-02
Supported by
National Key R&D Program of China, No.2017YFD0600903
High-resolution Earth Observation System Project of China, No.03-Y20A04-9001-17/18, 30-Y20A29-9003-15/17
Copyright
Classification based on remote sensing data has been widely applied in land cover mapping and the dynamic change monitoring research, of which the consequence is always strongly affected by spatial resolution of the used images. However, the response of multi-resolution images to remote sensing classification is still highly uncertain. Satellite observation could supply more and more multi-resolution images covering the same area at the same time and it would provide abundant data and technical support for study of remote sensing classification. In this study, the Hetian basin of Changting County in Fujian Province, was selected as a case to examine the performance of three typical classifiers (Maximum Likelihood Classification, MLC; Support Vector Machine, SVM; Artificial Neural Network, ANN). They were applied to satellite observations of temporal quasi-synchronous and multi-spatial resolution from medium to high spatial resolution (1~50 m) and we investigated the links between spatial resolution and remote sensing classification. Then, we also analyzed the spatial scale difference of spectrum reflectance, recognition accuracy and area extraction of five major land types (including arable land, forest land, water area, bare land and construction land) of the data with seven spatial resolution levels of 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 30, and 50 m. They were supported with GF-1 PMS (pan and multi-spectra sensor), GF-2 PMS, GF-1 WFV (wide field view), Landsat-8 OLI (operational land imager) and GF-4 PMS data. 1845 recorded points observed in field survey were taken as training samples and validation samples. The results showed that along with the change of image spatial resolution from 1 to 50 m, (1) the mean spectra of bare land and construction land remained stable and no obvious changes occurred to water body, while the mean spectra of arable land and forest land decreased significantly when image resolution coarser than 4 m. The standard deviations of water body, bare land and construction land all increased constantly, while the standard deviations of arable land and forest land almost maintained stable. (2) The overall accuracy gradually decreased from 94.97±2.5% to 79.03±2.25% across the three classifiers, showing a gradually downward trend. Meanwhile, Kappa coefficient also gradually decreased from 0.93±0.03 to 0.72±0.03, which indicated that the accuracy of land cover classification was closely and sensitively related to the resolution of remote sensing images (P<0.05). (3) The calculation errors of the land types area would become larger as the image tend to be coarser, of which the area of arable land, bare land and construction land decreased significantly, the area of forest land increased, and the change of water body was not evident. The results above confirmed that when using multi-resolution images to generate land cover area or making area comparison refer to time serial data results, the errors from spatial database of various multi-scale could not be neglected, which would be more suitable to make the multi-scale transform for spatial effect correction. Our framework demonstrated the regular pattern of multiscale remote sensing classification and provided the prerequisite for scale conversion of classification products with different resolution in the future.
XU Kaijian , TIAN Qingjiu , YANG Yanjun , XU Nianxu . Response of Spatial Scale for Land Cover Classification of Remote Sensing[J]. Journal of Geo-information Science, 2018 , 20(2) : 246 -253 . DOI: 10.12082/dqxxkx.2018.170360
Fig. 1 Location of the study area图1 研究区地理位置 |
Tab. 1 The information of satellite images used in this study表1 研究选用遥感影像信息 |
传感器类型 | 波段名称 | 波长信息/μm | 空间分辨率/m | 成像日期 |
---|---|---|---|---|
GF-2 PMS1 | 蓝/绿 | 0.45~0.52/0.52~0.59 | 1/4 | 2015-08-27 2015-08-27 |
红/近红外 | 0.63~0.69/0.77~0.89 | 1/4 | ||
GF-1 PMS2 | 蓝/绿 | 0.45~0.52/0.52~0.59 | 2/8 | 2015-09-17 2015-09-17 |
红/近红外 | 0.63~0.69/0.77~0.89 | 2/8 | ||
GF-1 WFV4 | 蓝/绿 | 0.45~0.52/0.52~0.59 | 16 | 2015-08-03 2015-08-03 |
红/近红外 | 0.63~0.69/0.77~0.89 | 16 | ||
Landsat-8 OLI | 蓝/绿 | 0.45~0.52/0.53~0.60 | 30 | 2015-09-18 2015-09-18 |
红/近红外 | 0.63~0.68/0.85~0.89 | 30 | ||
GF-4 PMS | 蓝/绿 | 0.45~0.52/0.52~0.60 | 50 | 2016-08-01 2016-08-01 |
红/近红外 | 0.63~0.69/0.76~0.90 | 50 |
Tab. 2 Comparison of entropy and equivalent number of looks of images before and after fusion表2 影像融合前后的波段信息变化 |
传感器 | 波段名称 | 信息熵 | 对比度 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
融合前 | 融合后 | 融合前 | 融合后 | |||
GF-1 PMS | 蓝光 | 1.59 | 2.02 | 29.9 | 41.96 | |
绿光 | 1.62 | 2.02 | 27.07 | 43.43 | ||
红光 | 1.65 | 2.02 | 27.23 | 40.51 | ||
近红外 | 1.65 | 2.01 | 24.54 | 42.02 | ||
GF-2 PMS | 蓝光 | 1.71 | 2.1 | 35.25 | 49.08 | |
绿光 | 1.81 | 2.09 | 32.07 | 46.65 | ||
红光 | 1.73 | 2.09 | 35.05 | 45.56 | ||
近红外 | 1.89 | 2.08 | 27.15 | 44.16 |
Fig. 2 Statistics of multi-scale spectral characteristics of different land cover types图2 不同土地类型的多尺度光谱特征统计 |
Fig. 3 Overall accuracy and Kappa coefficients of classifications using different spatial resolutions图3 不同尺度下影像总分类精度与Kappa系数结果统计 |
Fig. 4 Change of area information of landscape extracted from different spatial resolutions图4 不同空间尺度下的土地覆被类型面积变化 |
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
[1] |
|
[2] |
[
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
[
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
[
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
[
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
[
|
[17] |
[
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
[
|
[20] |
[
|
[21] |
[
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
[27] |
|
[28] |
|
[29] |
[
|
[30] |
|
[31] |
[
|
[32] |
[
|
[33] |
|
[34] |
[
|
/
〈 | 〉 |