Relative performance evaluation of similar supervised classification methods implemented in different geoinformation systems: impacts on the users’ interpretation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X40068Keywords:
Remote sensing, Image classification, Geoinformation systems, Performance analysis, Low cost.Abstract
In this paper we evaluated the performance of similar algorithms implemented in different geoinformation systems, in order to verify if there are differences among the results of the image classification processes, according to the platform used. We have selected two geoinformation systems commonly used for this purpose: SAGA GIS and ENVI. We have idealized a scenario where a user without formal education in Remote Sensing techniques carried the classification and interpreted the results. Therefore, we have evaluated the impacts of such analyses, which possibly would lead to mistakes. For this reason, we have given equivalent conditions for all algorithms and the systems selected, i.e., we have used the default parameters, for simulating an operator without formal education in Remote Sensing. In fact, the results showed that the same algorithm implemented in different software, generates different results, which impacts directly on the user’s interpretation. Therefore, it was confirmed that there must be attention while selecting a geoinformation system and an algorithm in order to perform an image classification. Otherwise, there will be inequivalent results among the software, which impacts on the user’s capacity of interpretation.
Downloads
References
AKAIKE, H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. 1974; 19 (6): 716–723.
AL-AHMADI, F. S., & HAMES, A. S. Comparison of four classification methods to extract land use and land cover from raw satellite images for some remote arid areas, kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Earth. 2009;20(1):167-191.
BARR, R. S., GOLDEN, B. L., KELLY, J., STEWARD, W., & RESENDE, M. Guidelines for designing and reporting on computational experiments with heuristic methods of the Proceedings of International conference on Metaheuristics for Optimization; 2001:1-17.
BERNARDI, H., DZEDZEJ, M., CARVALHO, L., & ACERBI JÚNIOR, F. W. 2007. Classificação digital do uso do solo comparando os métodos “pixel a pixel” e orientada ao objeto em imagem QuickBird of the Simpósio Brasileiro de Sensoriamento Remoto, 2007, Florianópolis, INPE:5595-5602.
CAMPOS, W. W., GASPAR, J., LAGE, M. O., KAWASHIMA, R. S., GIANNOTTI, M. A., & QUINTANILHA, J. A. Avaliação de classificadores de imagem de satélite a partir do uso de uma técnica de votação. Revista Brasileira de Cartografia. 2016;68 (8).
CANTY, M.J. Image analysis, classification and change detection in remote sensing with algorithms for ENVI/IDL: Taylor & Francis, CRC Press; 2006.
CENTENO, J. A. S. Sensoriamento remoto e processamento de imagens digitais. Curitiba: UFPR; 2003.
CRÓSTRA, A. Processamento digital de imagens de sensoriamento remoto. Campinas: Instituto de Geografia–UNICAMP; 1992.
DUARTE, D. C. O., ZANETTI, J., JUNIOR, J. G., & MEDEIROS, N. G. Comparison of supervised classification methods of Maximum Likelihood, Minimum Distance, Parallelepiped and Neural Network in images of Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) in Viçosa-MG. Revista Brasileira de Cartografia. 2018;70 (2).
ELWOOD, S.; GOODCHILD, M. F.; SUI, D. Z. Researching Volunteered Geographic Information: Spatial Data, Geographic Research, and New Social Practice of the Association of American Geographers; 2012; 102(3):571-590.
ERBEK, F. S., ÖZKAN, C., & TABERNER, M. Comparison of maximum likelihood classification method with supervised artificial neural network algorithms for land use activities. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 2004;25(9):1733-1748.
FONTE, C.C.; MINGHINI, M., PATRIARCA, J., ANTONIOU, V., SEE, L. & SKOPELITI, A. Generating Up-to-Date and Detailed Land Use and Land Cover Maps Using OpenStreetMap and GlobeLand30. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 2017; vol. 6.
GREENBERG, H. J. Computational testing: Why, how and how much. ORSA Journal on Computing, 1990;2(1):94-97.
GRIFFIN, A. L.; WHITE, T.; FISH, C. TOMIO, B.; HUANG, H.; SLUTER, C. R et,. al. Designing across map use contexts: A research agenda. International Journal of Cartography. 2017;3:1-25.
HARKEN, J., & SUGUMARAN, R. Classification of Iowa wetlands using an airborne hyperspectral image: a comparison of the spectral angle mapper classifier and an object-oriented approach. Canadian Journal of remote sensing. 2005;31(2):167-174.
HEIPKE, C. Crowdsourcing Geospatial Data. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. 2010;65(6):550-557.
KHATAMI, R., MONTRAKIS, G., STEHMAN, S. V. A meta-analysis of remote sensing research on supervised pixel-based land-cover image classification processes: General guidelines for practitioners and future research. Remote Sensing of Environment. 2016; vol. 177:89-100.
KRUSE, F. A., LEFKOFF, A. B., BOARDMAN, J. W., HEIDEBRECHT, K. B., SHAPIRO, A. T., BARLOON, P. J et., al. The spectral image processing system (SIPS)-interactive visualization and analysis of imaging spectrometer data. Remote sensing of environment. 1993;44 (2-3):145-163.
LAMPARELLI, R. A. C., ROCHA, J. V., & BORGHI, E. Geoprocessamento e agricultura de precisao: fundamentos e aplicacoes. 2001:vol. 2.
LILLESAND, T. M., KIEFER, R. W., & CHIPMAN, J. W. Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation. New York: JohnWiley and Sons; 2004.
PERUMAL, K., & BHASKARAN, R. Supervised classification performance of multispectral images. Journal of Computing. 2010;Volume 2:Issue 2.
PINHO, C. D., FEITOSA, F. D. F., & KUX, H. 2005. Classificação automática de cobertura do solo urbano em imagem IKONOS: Comparação entre a abordagem pixel-a-pixel e orientada a objetos of the Simpósio Brasileiro de Sensoriamento Remoto; 2005; Goiânia, GO. INPE; p. 4217-4224.
RICHARDS, J. A. Remote Sensing Digital Image Analysis: An Introduction. Australia: Springer; 2012.
SEE, L.; MOONEY, P.; FOODY, G.; BASTIN, L.; COMBER, A.; ESTIMA, J. et., al. Crowdsourcing, Citizen Science or Volunteered Geographic Information? The current state of Crowdsourced Geographic Information. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 2016;5(55):1-23.
SMITS, P. C., DELLEPIANE, S. G., & SCHOWENGERDT, R. A. Quality assessment of image classification algorithms for land-cover mapping: a review and a proposal for a cost-based approach. International journal of remote sensing. 1999;20 (8):1461-1486.
STEIN, A., VAN DER MEER, F. D., & GORTE, B. Spatial statistics for remote sensing: Springer Science & Business Media; 2006.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
