ChapterPDF Available

UNIT 14 ACCURACY ASSESSMENT

Authors:
59
Image Classification
UNIT 14 ACCURACY ASSESSMENT
Structure
14.1 Introduction
Objectives
14.2 Concept of Accuracy Assessment
Definition
Need for Accuracy Assessment
Sources of Errors
14.3 Consideration of Sampling Size and Scheme
14.4 Calculation of Classification Accuracy
Error Matrix
Generation of Error Matrix
Interpretation of Error Matrix
Limitations
14.5 Kappa Analysis
Calculation Steps
Advantages
14.6 Summary
14.7 Unit End Questions
14.8 References
14.9 Further/Suggested Reading
14.10 Answers
14.1 INTRODUCTION
In the previous unit, you have learnt about different image classification
methods which help us to create thematic maps. We also discussed the
advantages and limitations of some of the commonly used classification
algorithms. Both supervised and unsupervised classification needs direct or
indirect information of the surface characteristics e.g., for unsupervised
classification the user must define the classes based on prior information of
surface and in case of supervised classification, it is based on training samples
from the surface. Quality and quantity of training samples, therefore, have
considerable implication on the accuracy of the classified images.
Once you have an interpreted map, the obvious step is that you would want to
know how much accurate those outputs are because inaccuracies in outputs
will have their bearing on the map’s utility and users would have greater
confidence in utilising data if its accuracy is high. Hence, assessment of
accuracy is a very important part of the interpretation as it not only tells you
about quality of maps generated or classified images but also provides you
with a benchmark to compare different interpretation and classification
methods.
In this unit, you will learn about accuracy assessment and related concepts and
methods. We will also discuss the role of sampling size for the purpose of
accuracy assessment.
60
Processing and
Classification of Remotely
Sensed Images
Objectives
After studying this unit, you should be able to:
define accuracy assessment;
discuss need for accuracy assessment;
generate a error matrix for interpreted outputs;
explain the role of sampling size in accuracy assessment; and
list measures for accuracy assessment.
14.2 CONCEPT OF ACCURACY ASSESSMENT
Accuracy assessment is the final step in the analysis of remote sensing data
which help us to verify how accurate our results are. It is carried out once the
interpretation/classification has been completed. Here, we are interested in
assessing accuracy of thematic maps or classified images which is known as
thematic or classification accuracy. The accuracy is concerned with the
correspondence between class label and ‘true’ class. A ‘true’ class is defined as
what is observed on the ground during field surveys. For example, a class
labeled as water on a classified image/map is actually water on the ground.
In order to perform accuracy assessment correctly, we need to compare two
sources of information which include:
interpreted map/classified image derived from the remote sensing data and
reference map, high resolution images or ground truth data.
Relationship between these two sets of information is commonly expressed in
two forms, namely -
error matrix that describes the comparison of these two sources of
information and
Kappa coefficient which consists a multivariate measure of agreement
between rows and columns of error matrix.
The error matrix and kappa coefficient have been discussed in detail in the
sections 14.4 and 14.5, respectively. However, let us first discuss what
accuracy assessment is along with its need and sources of errors.
14.2.1 Definition
Accuracy is referred to in many different contexts. In the context of image
interpretation, accuracy assessment determines the quality of information
derived from remotely sensed data. Assessment can be either qualitative or
quantitative. In qualitative assessment, you determine if a map ‘looks right’ by
comparing what you see in the map or image with what you see on the ground.
However, quantitative assessments attempt to identify and measure remote
sensing based map errors. In such assessments, you compare map data with
ground truth data, which is assumed to be 100% correct.
Accuracy of image classification is most often reported as a percentage correct
and is represented in terms of consumers accuracy and producers accuracy.
The consumers accuracy (CA) is computed using the number of correctly
classified pixels to the total number of pixels assigned to a particular category.
It takes errors of commission into account by telling the consumer that, for all
Accuracy defines
correctness and it
measures the degree of
agreement between a
standard that assumed to
be correct and a map
created from an image. A
visually interpreted map or
classified image is only
said to be highly accurate,
when it corresponds
closely with the assumed
standard.
61
Accuracy Assessment
areas identified as category X, a certain percentage are actually correct. The
producers accuracy (PA) informs the image analyst of the number of pixels
correctly classified in a particular category as a percentage of the total number
of pixels actually belonging to that category in the image. Producers accuracy
measures errors of omission.
14.2.2 Need for Accuracy Assessment
The need for assessing accuracy of a map generated from any remotely sensed
product has become a universal requirement and an integral part of any
classification project. The user community needs to know accuracy of the
classified image data being used. Moreover, different projects have different
accuracy requirement and only those classified images which are above a
certain level of accuracy can be used. Furthermore, accuracy becomes a
critical issue while working in a Geographical Information System (GIS)
framework where you use several layers of remotely sensed data. In such
cases, it would be very important to know the overall accuracy which is
dependent upon knowing the accuracy of each of data layers.
There are a number of reasons why assessment of accuracy is so important.
Some of them are given below:
accuracy assessment allows self-evaluation and to learn from mistakes in
the classification process
it provides quantitative comparison of various methods, algorithms and
analysts and
it also ensures greater reliability of the resulting maps/spatial information
to use in decision-making process.
The need for accuracy assessment is emphasised in literature as well as in
anecdotal evidence. For example, maps of wetlands from various states of
India (e.g., Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal) have
been made by several central, state and local agencies using techniques that
included satellite images, aerial photographs and field data. Simply comparing
the various wetland maps would yield little agreement about location, size and
extent of these. In the absence of a valid accuracy assessment you may never
know which of these maps to use.
A map using remotely sensed or other spatial data cannot be regarded as the
final product without taking necessary steps towards assessing accuracy or
validity of that map.
A number of methods exist to investigate accuracy/error in spatial data
including visual inspection, non-site-specific analysis, generating difference
images, error budget analysis and quantitative accuracy assessment.
14.2.3 Sources of Errors
Classification error occurs when a pixel (or feature) belonging to one category
is assigned to another category. Errors of omission occur when a feature is left
out of the category being evaluated. Errors of commission occur when a
feature is incorrectly included in the category being evaluated. For example,
errors of omission are the allotment of errors of barren land on the ground to
the agricultural land category on the map. This has caused the removal of an
area of real barren land on the ground from the map. In the same way, errors of
commission will be the assignment an area of agricultural land on the ground
The term consumers
accuracy is used when a
classified image is
examined from the users
point of view. Producers
accuracy is used when
same is viewed from
analyst’s perspective.
62
Processing and
Classification of Remotely
Sensed Images
to the barren land on the map. Hence, an error of omission in one category will
be counted as an error of commission in another category.
As you know that accuracy assessment is performed by comparing the map
produced by remote sensing analysis to a reference map based on a different
information source. One might ask why remote sensing analysis is needed if
the reference map for comparison already exists. One of the primary purposes
of accuracy assessment and error analysis in this case is to permit quantitative
comparisons of different interpretations. Classifications done from images
acquired at different times, classified by different procedures, or produced by
different individuals can be evaluated using a pixel-by-pixel and point-by-
point comparison. The results must be considered in the context of the
application to determine which is the most correct or most useful for a
particular purpose. In order to be compared, both the map to be evaluated, the
reference map must be accurately registered geometrically to each other. They
must have been classified using same scheme and at the same level of detail.
One simple method of comparison is to calculate the total area assigned to
each category in both maps and to compare the overall figures. This type of
assessment is called non-site-specific accuracy (Fig. 14.1a). On the other
hand, site-specific accuracy is based on a comparison of the two maps at
specific locations (i.e. individual pixels in two digital images) (Fig. 14.1b). In
this type of comparison, it is obvious that the degree to which pixels in one
image spatially align with pixels in the second image contributes to the
accuracy assessment result. It is important to note that errors in classification
should be distinguished from errors in registration or positioning of
boundaries. Another useful form of site-specific accuracy assessment is to
compare field or training data at a number of locations within the image,
similar to the way spatial accuracy assessment using ground check points is
performed for digital orthophotographs and terrain models.
Fig. 14.1: (a) Non-site-specific accuracy in which two images are compared based on
their total areas. Note that the area of image 1(i.e. A+B+C) is equal to the area
of image 2 (i.e. A+B+C) and (b) site-specific accuracy in which two images are
compared on a site-by-site (i.e. cell-by-cell or pixel by pixel) (source: modified
from Campbell, 1996)
In non-site-specific
accuracy, for example,
two images or maps can
be compared only on the
basis of total area in each
category as shown in Fig.
14.1a. In site-specific
accuracy two images are
compared on the basis of
pixel-by-pixel or cell-by-
cell as shown in Fig.
14.1b.
63
Accuracy Assessment
Check Your Progress I
1) List the prerequisites for accuracy assessment.
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
14.3 CONSIDERATION OF SAMPLING SIZE AND
SCHEME
Sample size is an important consideration while assessing the accuracy of
remotely sensed data. Collection of sample size needs time and money.
Therefore, it must be kept to a minimum. Yet it is critical to maintain a large
enough sample size so that analysis performed is statistically valid. In remote
sensing literature, many researchers have published equations and guidelines
for choosing the appropriate sample size. The majority of them have used an
equation based on the binomial distribution or the normal approximation to
the binomial probability distribution to compute the required sample size.
These techniques are statistically sound for computing the sample size needed
to compute the overall accuracy of a classification or the overall accuracy of a
single category. The equations are based on the proportion of correctly
classified samples (e.g., pixels, clusters or polygons), on some allowable error.
However, these techniques were not designed to choose a sample size for
creating an error matrix. In the case of an error matrix, it is not simply a matter
of correct or incorrect. Given an error matrix with n land cover categories, for
a given category there is 1 (one) correct answer and n–1 incorrect answers.
Sufficient samples must be acquired to be able to adequately represent this
confusion. Therefore, the use of these techniques for determining the sample
size for an error matrix is not inappropriate. Instead, the use of the
multinomial probability distribution is recommended.
Traditional thinking about sampling does not often apply because of the large
number of pixels in a remotely sensed image. For example, a 0.5% sample of
a single Landsat TM scene can be over 3,00,000 pixels. Most, if not all,
assessments should not be performed on a per-pixel basis because of problems
with exact single pixel location. Practical considerations more often dictate the
sample size selection. A balance between what is statistically sound and what
is practically attainable must be found. A generally accepted rule of thumb is
to use a minimum of 50 samples for each land class (LC) category in the error
matrix. This rule also tends to agree with the results of computing sample size
using the multinomial distribution. If the area is especially large or the
classification has a large number of LC categories (i.e. more than 12
categories), the minimum number of samples should be increased to 75 to 100
samples per category.
The number of samples for each category can also be weighted based on the
relative importance of that category within the objectives of the mapping or on
the inherent variability within each of the categories. Sometimes, it is better to
concentrate the sampling on the categories of interest and increase their
Spend
5 mins
Binomial distribution
treats errors for all classes
equally, and therefore, can
only estimate the accuracy
of the map as whole.
Error matrix is the
established form for
reporting site-specific
error. It is also known as
confusion matrix.
Multinomial distribution
investigates the errors
associated with individual
classes. It is based on the
confusion matrix.
64
Processing and
Classification of Remotely
Sensed Images
number of samples while reducing the number of samples taken in less
important categories. Also, it may be useful to take fewer samples in
categories that show little variability such as water or forest plantations and
increase sampling in the categories that are more variable such as uneven-aged
forests or riparian areas. In summary, the goal is to balance the statistical
recommendations to obtain an adequate sample from which to generate an
appropriate error matrix within the objectives, time, cost and practical
limitations of the mapping project.
Along with sample size, sampling scheme is an important part of any accuracy
assessment. Selection of the proper scheme is absolutely critical in generating
an error matrix that is representative of the entire classified image. Poor choice
in sampling scheme can result in significant biases being introduced into the
error matrix that may over or under estimate true accuracy. In addition, the use
of proper sampling scheme may be essential depending on the analysis
techniques to be applied to the error matrix. Many researchers have expressed
opinions about proper sampling scheme to use, including everything from
simple random sampling to stratified, systematic and unaligned sampling.
Despite all these opinions, very little work has actually been performed in this
area. One of the studies carried out on sampling simulations on three
geographically diverse areas such as forest, agriculture and rangeland
concluded that in all cases simple random sampling and stratified random
sampling provided satisfactory results. Despite the desirable statistical
properties of simple random sampling, this sampling scheme is not always
very practical to apply. Simple random sampling tends to under-sample small
but possibly very important areas unless the sample size is significantly
increased. For this reason, stratified random sampling is recommended where
a minimum number of samples are selected from each stratum (i.e. category).
Even stratified random sampling can be somewhat impractical because of
having to collect ground information for the accuracy assessment at random
locations on the ground.
There are two problems which arise while using random locations:
location can be very difficult to access and
they can only be selected after the classification has been performed.
The second condition limits accuracy assessment data of being collected late
in the project instead of in conjunction with the training data collection,
thereby increasing costs of the project. In addition, in some projects time
between project beginning and accuracy assessment may be so long as to
cause temporal problems in collecting reference data.
14.4 CALCULATION OF CLASSIFICATION
ACCURACY
You have learnt about the theoretical concept of accuracy assessment and
sample size and scheme consideration for it. Let us now discuss about the
methods to calculate accuracy. As we have discussed in the introductory
section, accuracy is often expressed in terms of consumers and producers
accuracies which is obtained from an error matrix. Now you will read about
the error matrix, its generation and interpretation.
65
Accuracy Assessment
14.4.1 Error Matrix
Once a classification exercise has been carried out, there is a need to determine the
degree of error in the end product which includes identified categories on the map.
Errors are the result of incorrect labeling of the pixels for a category. The most
commonly used method of representing the degree of accuracy of a classification is
to build a k×k array, where k represents the number of categories. For example, in
Table 14.1, the left hand side of the table is marked with the categories on the
standard (i.e. reference) map/data. The top side of same table is marked with the
same k categories but these categories represent end product of a created map to
be evaluated. The values in the matrix indicate the numbers of pixels. This
arrangement establishes a standard form which helps to find site-specific error in the
end product and is known as error matrix. Error matrix is useful for the
determination of overall errors for each category and misclassifications by category,
as a result it is also known as confusion matrix. The strength of a confusion matrix
is that it not only identifies the nature of the classification errors but also their
quantities.
Table 14.1: A hypothetical error matrix
Classification result (i.e. classified image to be evaluated)
Forest Bush Crop Urban Open Water Unclassified Row Accuracy
land total (producer’s
accuracy)
Forest 440 40 0 0 30 10 10 520 0.83
Bush 20 220 0 0 40 10 20 290 0.71
Crop 10 10 210 10 50 10 60 300 0.58
Urban 20 0 20 240 100 10 40 390 0.56
Open land 0 0 10 10 230 010250 0.88
Water 0 20 0 0 0 240 10 260 0.89
Column 490 290 240 260 450 280 240 1580
total
Reliability 0.90 0.76 0.88 0.92 0.51 0.86
(users
accuracy)
Error matrix is a set array (rows and columns) that can be used to evaluate the
degree of correctness of classified image. According to Campbell (1987), it is
a method of reporting site-specific error. It is derived from a comparison of
two types of maps such as a standard (reference) map and a classified map. It
has two-dimensional arrangement in which rows show the reference data and
column show the classified data.
14.4.2 Generation of Error Matrix
For generation of the error matrix you require two images namely, classified image
(i.e. image under evaluation) and a standard or reference map derived from field
survey. Sometimes, high resolution images are also used in the absence of a
reference map. By comparing these two data, you can determine exactly how each
site on standard/reference data is represented in the classified image. Before making
Ground truth (i.e. reference image)
An error matrix is a
square array of rows and
columns in which each
row and column repre-
sents one category/class in
the interpreted map. Error
matrix is also known as
confusion matrix, evalua-
tion matrix, or a contin-
gency table.
66
Processing and
Classification of Remotely
Sensed Images
a comparison, the classifier or analyst should make a network of appropriate (i.e.
neither very small nor very large) uniform cells that form the units of comparison for
site-specific accuracy assessment. Then two images are superimposed either by
manually or digitally depending on the availability of the images. Then superimposed
images are analysed on the basis of a cell-by-cell in case of manual comparison or
pixel-by-pixel in case of digital assessment and tabulated for each cell/pixel the
dominant category shown on the standard/reference data and category of the
corresponding cell/pixel on the classified image. The classifier also keeps a count of
the numbers of cells or pixels in each reference category as they are assigned to
categories on the created image (see Table 14.1). Finally, the summation of the
tabulation forms the basis for generation of the error matrix.
14.4.3 Interpretation of Error Matrix
Table 14.1 shows an example of an error/confusion matrix based on a classification
result. Now let us try to understand how a confusion matrix is composed and how
do you calculate accuracy based on the matrix.
You can read about the various components of the confusion matrix outlined below:
rows correspond to classes in the ground truth map (or test set)
columns correspond to classes in the classification result
diagonal elements in the matrix represent the number of correctly classified
pixels of each class, i.e. the number of ground truth pixels with a certain class
name that actually obtained the same class name during classification. In the
example above, 440 pixels of forest in the test set were correctly classified as
forest in the classified image
off-diagonal elements represent misclassified pixels or the classification errors,
i.e. the number of ground truth pixels that ended up in another class during
classification. In the example above, 40 pixels of forest in the test set were
classified as bush in the classified image
a) off-diagonal row elements represent ground truth pixels of a certain class
which were excluded from that class during classification. Such errors are
also known as errors of omission or exclusion. For example, 50 ground
truth pixels of crop were excluded from the crop class in the classification
and ended up in the open land class
b) off-diagonal column elements represent ground truth pixels of other
classes that were included in a certain classification class. Such errors
are also known as errors of commission or inclusion. For example,
100 ground truth pixels of urban were included in the open land class
by the classification and
numbers in the column unclassified represent the ground truth pixels that
were found not classified in the classified image.
Accuracy or Producers Accuracy
Producers accuracy is defined as the probability that any pixel in that
category has been correctly classified. It is the values in column accuracy
(producers accuracy) present the accuracies of the categories in the classified
image as shown in Table 14.1. It is calculated as given below:
67
Accuracy Assessment
Total number of correct pixels in a category
Accuracy (Producers Accuracy) = ———————————————————————
Total number of pixels of that category derived
from the reference data (i.e., row total)
The water category of Table 14.1, for example, has accuracy 0.89 meaning that
approximately 89% of the water ground truth pixels also appear as water
pixels in the classified image. This statistics is also known as errors of
commission.
The average accuracy is calculated as given below:
Sum of all accuracy figures in accuracy column
Average Accuracy = ——————————————————————
Total number of categories in the test set
The average accuracy of data given in Table 14.1
= (0.83+0.71+0.58+0.56+0.88+0.89) / 6
= 4.428 / 6 = 0.74
= 74.25%
This means average accuracy of the classification shown in Table 14.1 is
74.25% (or 0.74).
Reliability or Users Accuracy
Users accuracy is defined as the probability that a pixel classified on the
image actually represents that category on the ground. The figures in row
reliability (users accuracy) present the reliability of classes in the classified
image (Table 14.1). It is calculated as given below:
Total number of correct pixels in a category
Reliability (Users Accuracy) = ————————————————————————
Total number of pixels of that category derived
from the reference data (i.e., column total)
The water category of Table 14.1, for example, has reliability 0.86 meaning
that approximately 86% of the water pixels in the classified image actually
represent water on the ground. This statistics is also called errors of omission.
The average reliability is calculated as given below:
Sum of all reliability figures in reliability row
Average reliability = —————————————————————
Total number of categories in the test set
Average reliability of data given in Table 14.1
= (0.90+0.76+0.88+0.92+0.51+0.86) / 6
= 4.81 / 6 = 0.80
= 80.27%
It indicates average reliability of the classification shown in Table 14.1 as
80.27% (or 0.80).
From the accuracy and reliability values for different classes given in Table 14.1, it
can be concluded that the test set classes crop and urban were difficult to classify
Accuracy for water
category of Table 14.1 can
be calculated as given
below:
Total number of correct
pixels for water = 240.
Total number of pixel in
water row
= 0+20+0+0+0+240+10
= 270.
Hence, accuracy for water
= 240/270 = 0.89
Reliability for water
category of Table 14.1 can
be calculated as shown
below:
Total number of correct
pixels for water = 240.
Total number of pixel in
water column
= 10+10+10+10+0+240
= 280.
Hence, reliability for water
= 240/280 = 0.86.
68
Processing and
Classification of Remotely
Sensed Images
as many of such test set pixels were excluded from the crop and urban categories,
thus the areas of these classes in the classified image are probably underestimated.
On the other hand, class open land in the image is not very reliable as many test set
pixels of other categories were included in the open land category in the classified
image. Thus, the area of open land category in the classified image is probably
overestimated.
Overall Accuracy
We have discussed about the individual classes and their accuracies. It is also
desirable to calculate a measure of accuracy for the entire image across all
classes present in the classified image. The collective accuracy of map for all
the classes can be described using overall accuracy, which calculates the
proportion of pixels correctly classified.
The overall accuracy is calculated as given below:
Sum of the diagonal elements
(as shown in bold letters in Table 14.1)
Overall accuracy = —————————————————————
Total number of accuracy sites (pixels)
For the sample data presented in Table 14.1, the overall accuracy
= (440+220+210+240+230+240) / (490+290+240+260+450+280)
= 1580 / 2010 = 0.78
= 78%.
It indicates that overall accuracy of the classification shown in Table 14.1 is 78%.
14.4.4 Limitations
Use of confusion matrix for accuracy assessment has become a standard
practice in quality assessment of remote sensing products. However, it is not
free from limitations due to three crucial assumptions involved in the
classification accuracy assessment:
that the reference data are truly representative of the entire classification,
which is quite unlikely
the reference data and classified image are perfectly co-registered, which
is impossible and
there is no error in the reference data, which again is highly unlikely.
The actual accuracy of our classification is unknown because it is impossible
to perfectly assess the true class of every pixel. It is possible to produce a
misleading assessment of classification accuracy. Depending on how the
reference data are collected, our estimate of accuracy may be either
conservative or optimistic. If our estimate is less than the actual classification
accuracy, then we have made a conservative estimate. Some of the sources of
conservative estimates are:
errors in reference data
positional errors and
minimum mapping unit of reference grid.
69
Accuracy Assessment
positional errors and
minimum mapping unit of reference grid.
Similarly, if estimate of accuracy is more than the actual classification
accuracy, then we have made an optimistic estimate. Some of the sources of
optimistic data estimate are:
using training data for accuracy assessment
sampling of reference data not independent of training data sampling and
sampling from homogeneous groups of pixels.
Therefore, if error matrix is generated by using improper reference data
collection methods, then the assessment can be misleading. Sampling methods
used for reference data should be reported in detail so that potential users can
judge whether there may be significant biases in the classification accuracy
assessment.
Check Your Progress II
Study the error matrix shown in Table 14.2. Calculate accuracy and reliability
of the forest category.
Table 14.2: Error matrix
Classification result (i.e. image to be evaluated)
Forest Water Urban
Forest 77 8 0
Water 6 84 0
Urban 0 0 74
Accuracy of the forest class is ............................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
Reliability of the forest class is ...........................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
14.5 KAPPA ANALYSIS
You have been introduced above that a commonly cited measure of mapping
accuracy is the overall accuracy which is the number of correctly classified
pixels (sum of major diagonal cells in the error matrix) divided by total
number of pixels checked. Though, overall accuracy is a measure of accuracy
for the entire image across all classes, it ignores off-diagonal elements (i.e.
errors of omission and commission). Further, it is difficult to compare
different overall accuracy values if different number of accuracy sites were
used.
Two other accuracies such as producers and consumers accuracies are
traditionally calculated from error matrix. The producers accuracy is a
measure of how well a certain area is classified. The consumers or users
accuracy is a measurement of reliability of the classification or probability
Ground
truth
(i.e. reference
image)
Spend
5 mins
70
Processing and
Classification of Remotely
Sensed Images
that a pixel on a map actually represents the category on the ground. The class
producers and consumers errors are illustrated in our example in the above
section. All these “naïve” accuracy measures can produce results due to
classification of pixels by chance, therefore; do not provide avenues to
compare accuracy statistically. This paves way for use of other accuracy
assessment methods. In this section, we will discuss another commonly used
method known as Kappa analysis, in which off-diagonal elements are
incorporated as a product of the row and column marginal totals. It is a
discrete multivariate technique used to assess classification accuracy from an
error matrix. Kappa analysis generates a kappa coefficient or Khat statistics, the
values of which range between 0 and 1.
Kappa coefficient (Khat) is a measure of the agreement between two maps
taking into account all elements of error matrix. It is defined in terms of error
matrix as given below:
Khat = (Obs – exp)/(1 – Exp)
Where,
Obs = Observed correct, it represents accuracy reported in error matrix
(overall accuracy)
Exp = Expected correct, it represents correct classification
14.5.1 Calculation Steps
Kappa coefficient is calculated in the following steps:
Step 1: Construction of error (confusion) matrix (e.g., Table 14.3)
Table 14.3: Error matrix
Classification result (i.e. image to be evaluated)
Forest Water Urban Row Commission
Marginals error
Forest 28 14 15 57 51%
Water 115 5 21 29%
Urban 1120 22 9%
Column Marginals 30 30 40 100
Omission error 7% 50% 50%
Step 2: Calculation of observed correct
Grand total = Sum of rows and columns
= 28+1+1+14+15+1+15+5+20 = 100
Total correct = Sum of the diagonal = 28+15+20 = 63
Observed correct = Total correct / Grand total = 63 / 100 = 0.63
Overall accuracy = 63%.
Step 3: Calculation of expected correct
Ground truth (i.e.
reference image)
Omission error =
100 – producers accuracy
Commission error =
100 – users accuracy
71
Accuracy Assessment
Table 14.4: Error matrix showing the products of row and column
marginals based on Table 14.3
Classification result (i.e. image to be evaluated)
Forest Water Urban
Forest 30x57=1710 30x57=1710 40x57=2280
Water 30x21=630 30x21=630 40x21=840
Urban 30x22=660 30x22=660 40x22=880
Grand total = Sum of products of row and column marginals
= 1710+1710+2280+630+630+840+660+660+880
= 10000
Total correct = Sum of products of diagonal
= 1710+630+880
= 3220
Expected correct = Total correct / Grand total
= 3220/10000
= 0.32
Note: For the calculation of expected correct you need to prepare an error matrix
showing products of row and column marginals as shown in Table 14.4.
Step 4: Calculation of Khat
Now you have values of observed correct and expected correct.
Observed correct = 0.63
Expected correct = 0.32
As you know that
Khat = (Observed – Expected) / (1 – Expected)
This implies,
Khat = (0.63 – 0.32) / (1 – 0.32)
= 0.31/0.68
= 0.45.
Kappa coefficient of 0.45 implies that the classification process was avoiding
45% of the error that a completely random classification would generate
(Congalton, 1991).
14.5.2 Advantages
One of the advantages of using this method is that you can statistically
compare two classification products. For example, two classification maps can
be made using different algorithms and you can use the same reference data to
verify them. Two Khats can be derived like Khat1, Khat2. For each Khat, the
variance can also be calculated. Kappa coefficient, unlike the overall accuracy,
includes errors of omission and commission. Computation of the Kappa
Ground truth
(i.e. reference
image)
72
Processing and
Classification of Remotely
Sensed Images
kappa and average mutual information (AMI). AMI is based on use of
posteriori entropies for one map given that the class identity from the second map
allows evaluation of individual class performance. Unlike the percentage correct or
Kappa, that measures correctness, the AMI measures consistency between two
maps. It provides an alternate viewpoint because it is used to access similarity of
maps. For example, it can be used to compare the consistency between maps of
the same region that have entirely different themes.
Accuracy assessment is still relatively new and is an evolving area in remote sensing.
The effectiveness of different methods and measurement are still being explored and
debated.
14.6 SUMMARY
We have studied in this unit about the concepts of accuracy assessments. This can
be summarised in the following points:
Assessing accuracy for each category as well as for the whole image is
essential to compare the results of various classification techniques and
quality and reliability of the results obtained.
Accuracy in image classification is affected because of errors of inclusion
and errors of exclusion.
Sampling size is an important consideration for accuracy assessment and
sufficient number of samples should be taken for the same.
Error/confusion matrix can be used for accuracy and reliability
assessments.
Overall accuracy is a measure of accuracy for the whole image across all
categories.
Kappa coefficient is another method for accuracy assessment having a
number of advantages over other methods.
14.7 UNIT END QUESTIONS
1) How is accuracy defined?
2) What is a confusion matrix?
3.) Describe errors of omission and errors of commission.
14.8 REFERENCES
Campbell, J. B., (1987), Introduction to Remote Sensing. The Guilford
Press, New York.
Campbell, J. B., (1996), Introduction to Remote Sensing. Taylor and
Francis, London.
Congalton, R. G., (1991), A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications
of remotely sensed data, Remote Sensing of Environment, Vol 37, pp 35-
46.
14.9 FURTHER/SUGGESTED READING
Spend
30 mins
73
Accuracy Assessment
Campbell, J. B., (2006), Introduction to Remote Sensing. Taylor and
Francis, London
Jensen, J. R., (2004), Introduction to Digital Image Processing: A Remote
Sensing Perspective, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Janssen, L. L. F. and van der Wel, F. J. M., (1994), Accuracy assessment
of satellite derived land-cover data: a review, Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing, Vol 60, pp 419-426.
14.10 ANSWERS
Check Your Progress I
Standard (reference) image and classified image data are the basic
prerequisites for accuracy assessment.
Check Your Progress II
Accuracy of forest class is 0.9059, which is equal to 90.59%.
Reliability of forest class is 0.9277, which is equal to 92.77%.
Unit End Questions
1) Refer to subsection 14.2.1
2) Refer to subsection 14.4.1
3) Refer to subsections 14.2.3 and 14.4.3
74
Processing and
Classification of Remotely
Sensed Images GLOSSARY
Average accuracy: It is the sum of accuracy values in accuracy column which
is divided by the number of classes in the test set.
Average reliability: It is the sum of reliability values in reliability column di-
vided by the number of classes in the test set.
Atmospheric correction: It is the correction for the influence of atmosphere on
the image by relative or absolute means.
Band radio: It is a narrow section of wavelengths or frequencies in radio
broadcasting.
BRDF (Bi-directional Reflectance Distribution Function): A function
which describes the magnitude of upwelling radiance of the target in terms of
illumination angle and the angle of view of the sensor.
Bi-linear interpolation: Involves the estimation of value at a pixel position,
the nearest four neighbours around the pixel forming a rectangular plane are
selected. An inverse weighted average of the known values based on their
distances to the location of the pixel whose value is to be estimated is bi-linear
interpolation.
Confusion matrix: It contains information about actual and predicted classifi-
cations done by a classification system. Performance of such systems is
commonly evaluated using data in the matrix.
Contrast: Ratio between the energy emitted or reflected by an object and its
immediate surroundings.
Contrast enhancement: It is an image processing procedure that improves
the contrast ratio of images. The original narrow range of digital values is
expanded to utilise full range of available digital values.
Contrast ratio: The ratio of reflectances between the brightest and darkest
parts of an image.
Contrast stretching: It involves the expanding of a measured range of digital
numbers in an image to a larger range to improve contrast of the image and its
component parts.
Co-variance: An average product of the differences between the pixels values
in each band and the mean of each band. It measures the tendencies of pixel
values for the same pixel but in different bands, to vary with each other in
relation to the means of their respective bands.
Cubic convolution: A high-order resampling technique in which brightness
value of a pixel in a corrected image is interpolated from the brightness values
of 16 nearest pixels around the location of the corrected pixel.
Digital image processing: The computer manipulation of digital number
values of an image.
75
Accuracy Assessment
Digital number: It is the value assigned to a pixel in a digital image.
Distortions: Are the errors in the remotely sensed image in terms of the pixel
shape, position or the recorded value.
Enhancement: A process of enhancing certain features in the image making it
more interpretable to the human eye for a particular application.
Geocoding: It is a special case of rectification that includes geographical
registration or coding of pixels in an image. Geocoded data are images that
have been rectified to a particular map projection and pixel size. The use of
standard pixel sizes and coordinates permits convenient overlaying of images
from different sensors and maps in a GIS.
Geometric correction : It involves image processing procedure that corrects
spatial distortions in an image.
Gray scale: It is a sequence of gray tones ranging from black to white.
Histogram: It is a way of expressing frequency of occurrence of values in a
data set within a series of equal ranges or bins, height of each bin representing
frequency at which values in data set fall within the chosen range. A cumula-
tive histogram expresses frequency of all values falling within a bin and lower
in the range. A smooth curve derived mathematically from a histogram is
termed the probability density function.
Histogram equalisation: A process of re-distributing pixel values so that
there are approximately the same number of pixels with each value within a
range thereby creating a nearly flat histogram for output image.
Hue: It represents the dominant wavelength of a colour.
Image classification: The process of dividing all channels within a multichan-
nel digital remote sensing dataset into discrete surface cover categories or
information themes.
Image enhancement: The process of altering the appearance of an image so
that the interpreter can extract more information.
Image interpretation: It is a process in which a person extracts information
from an image.
Image interpretation key: The characteristic or combination of characteris-
tics that enable an interpreter to identify an object on an image.
Input-to-output mapping: Represents locations of the points in the slave are
transferred to the reference by calculating them based on the coefficients of
the polynomial transformation.
Intensity: The brightness ranging from black to white.
Mean: Statistical average which is calculated as the sum of a set of values
divided by the number of values in the set.
76
Processing and
Classification of Remotely
Sensed Images
Median: The central value in a set of data such that an equal number of values are
greater than and less than the median.
Mode: Represents most commonly occurring value in a set of data. For an image
histogram, peak of the curve represents mode.
NDVI (Normalised Difference Vegetation Index): It is a remote sensing way
of measuring whether vegetation is alive or dead based on information from
visible especially red and near-infrared bands.
Orthorectification: Process of pixel-by-pixel correction of an image for
topographic distortion. Every pixel in an orthorectified image appears to view
the Earth from directly above, i.e., the image is in an orthographic projection.
Output-to-input mapping: Represents positions in the reference map which
are related to its corresponding positions in the slave by calculating them
based on the coefficients of the polynomial transformation.
Overall accuracy: Total number of correctly classified pixels (diagonal
elements) divided by the total number of test pixels.
Pan-sharpening: It is a computer-enhancement algorithm for improving the
resolution of an image. It involves combining the high spatial resolution of a
panchromatic image with the colour information from (lower resolution)
multispectral data. The result is a colour image that has high resolution of the
panchromatic image.
Pixel: A picture element; smallest element of an image that has been electroni-
cally coded in an array.
Polynomial: It is a mathematical expression consisting of variables and
coefficients.
Producers accuracy: Fraction of correctly classified pixels with regard to all
pixels of that ground truth class.
Rectification: Process of alignment of an image to a map (map projection
system). In many cases, the image must also be oriented so that north direction
corresponds to the top of the image. It is also known as georeferencing.
Registration: Process of alignment of one image to another image of the same
area not necessarily involving a map coordinate system.
Resampling: It is an estimation of pixel values of a rectified image.
Standard deviation: A square root of the variance of a set of values which is
used as a measurement of the spread of the values.
Supervised classification: A classification procedure guided by the analyst.
Thematic mapper: An advanced multispectral scanning Earth resources
sensor designed to achieve higher image resolution, sharper spectral separa-
tion, improved geometric fidelity and greater radiometric accuracy and resolu-
tion more than the multispectral sensor. Thematic mapper data are sensed in
seven spectral bands simultaneously.
77
Accuracy Assessment
Trade-off: A result of changing one factor in a remote sensing system, there
are compensating changes elsewhere in the system; such a compensating
change is known as a trade-off.
Training area: A sample of the Earth’s surface with known properties; the
statistics of the imaged data within the area are used to determine decision
boundaries in classification.
Training site: An area of terrain with known properties or characteristics that
is used in supervised classification.
Unsupervised classification: The digital information extraction technique in
which the computer assigns pixels to categories with no instructions from the
operator.
Variance: The measure of central tendency.
78
Processing and
Classification of Remotely
Sensed Images ABBREVIATIONS
AMI : Average Mutual Information
ARVI : Atmospherically Resistant Vegetation Index
AVHRR : Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer
BRDF : Bi-directional Reflectance Distribution Function
CA : Consumers Accuracy
DN : Digital Number
EM : Electromagnetic
EMR : Electromagnetic Radiation
ETM+:Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus
EVI : Enhanced Vegetation Index
FWHM : Full Width at Half-Maximum
GCP : Ground Control Point
GIS : Geographical Information System
IHS : Intensity Hue Saturation
IRS : Indian Remote Sensing Satellite Series
ISODATA : Iterative Self-Organising Data Analysis Technique
ISRO : Indian Space Research Organisation
LC : Land Class
LISS : Linear Imaging Self-Scanning System
MODIS : Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
MSS : Multispectral Scanner
MXL : Maximum Likelihood
NASA : National Aeronautical and Space Administration
NDVI : Normalised Difference Vegetation Index
NIR : Near Infrared
PA : Producers Accuracy
PCA : Principal Component Analysis
RGB : Red Green Blue
RMSE : Root Mean Square Error
RMS : Root Mean Square
SDSS : Spatial Decision Support Systems
SPOT : Système Pour l’Observation de la Terre
TM : Thematic Mapper
UTM : Universal Transverse Mercator
VI : Vegetation Index
... Image classification is important to remote sensing, image analysis, and pattern recognition (Figure 2). The technique of categorizing pixels in an image is known as image classification (Anand, 2017;Urgesa et al., 2016). Supervised classification was used to group pixels of similar spectral domains into classes. ...
... and the common tool to assess accuracy is the error matrix (Congalton & Green, 2019;Qiu & Jensen, 2004). These accuracy assessment elements were computed by using the following formula (Anand, 2017;Zewude et al., 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
Land use/land cover (LULC) changes influence the ecological function, consequence on ecosystem services, which are tightly linked to human wellbeing. However, quantification of the LULC changes and identifying the underlying factors remain patchy particularly in developing nations, despite this information is crucial to propose a feasible restoration action. Therefore, this study investigates the land use/land cover changes and its drivers in central Rift Valley, Ethiopia. GIS and Remote sensors i.e. Landsat 5 (TM), and Landsat 8 (OLI/TIRs) imagery sensors acquired from USGS, and field observation were used. Using the supervised classification method and the support of ArcGIS 10.5 and ERDAS IMAGINE 2014, all images were classified into various land cover types. Focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and structured questionnaire surveys were used to investigate the drivers of LULC change. NDVI was used to detect the vegetation cover change. Woodland, grassland, and barren lands were the major LULC types identified in this study. After 28 years, the woodland cover increased from 20.6% to 40.2% whereas the barren land decreased from 43.4% to 22.6%. Grassland showed very slight increment, i.e. from 35.9% to 36.9%. This implies that area enclosure plays a significant role in the restoration of degraded lands. The highest NDVI values (0.6) were determined in the year 2022 at the end of the classification. Focus group discussants and key informants confirmed that human-induced factors were the major drivers of LULC changes in the study area. Our findings indicated that human interventions are the key determinants of land use/land cover dynamics, and as a result, enforcement of the law and public education campaigns to change human behavior in support of the area enclosure approach are essential to restoring degraded land for the benefit and wellbeing of humans and nature while also advancing the achievement of the global goals.
... The khat is a measure of the agreement between two maps, taking into account all elements of the error matrix. According to Anand (2017), the kappa coefficient, Eq. (2) for the error matrix is defined as where Obs = observed correct, it represents accuracy reported in error matrix (overall accuracy), nExp. = expected correct, it represents correct classification. ...
... LULCC from 2001 to 2009 and LULCC from 2009 to 2017 showed spatial and temporal declines in both surface runoff and water volume. However, evapotranspiration did not change significantly betweenLULCC 2001 and LULCC 2009-2017. The cumulative effect of adding urban and agricultural land at the expense of forests and grasslands reduces the infiltration capacity of soils. ...
Article
Full-text available
Land use and land cover change (LULCC) has a significant impact on hydrological processes. Studying the effects of LULCC on hydrological processes may lead to a better understanding of the phenomenon to be able to make better decisions. The purpose of this study was to assess the hydrological impact of LULCC of the Holota watershed in the Upper Awash sub-basin of Ethiopia. Agricultural land was found to account for the largest proportion of the study area in the three periods. Using this result, fluxes were analyzed using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) hydrological model to assess the hydrological response to LULCC. The SWAT model successfully simulated flows for both calibration and validation using the coefficient of determination (R2) and the Nash–Sutcliffe (NS) efficiency coefficient. Flow analysis showed that in the dry season both LULCC 2001–2009 and LULCC 2009–2017 decreased by 6.1% and 6.2% respectively, but increased by 1.85% and 1.78%, respectively, in the wet season. Runoff decreased by 6.4% between 2001 and 2009 and by 15.9% between 2009 and 2017. This results in reduced water yield by 3.1% between 2001 and 2009 and by 7.4% between 2009 and 2017. Potential evapotranspiration did not change significantly under either scenario. However, lateral flow increased by 23.6% between 2001 and 2009 and by 22.4% between 2009 and 2017. LULCC is not the only factor affecting watershed hydrology, but other factors, such as climate change, can also affect their combined impacts on rivers, but were not considered in this study.
... For the process of LULC change analysis to be credible, it is essential to perform an accuracy assessment of the classification to ascertain the quality of the information derived. As described by [41], accuracy assessments are usually done by comparing two sets of information: the classified image derived from remotely sensed data and reference data, e.g., ground truth/observed data, high-resolution data, and reference maps. Accuracy assessment was carried out based on [41] to quantitatively assess how effectively the pixels were sampled into the correct land cover classes. ...
... As described by [41], accuracy assessments are usually done by comparing two sets of information: the classified image derived from remotely sensed data and reference data, e.g., ground truth/observed data, high-resolution data, and reference maps. Accuracy assessment was carried out based on [41] to quantitatively assess how effectively the pixels were sampled into the correct land cover classes. Accuracy assessment points were created randomly resulting in two major fields; classified image, and ground truth/reference data. ...
Article
Full-text available
Land cover has been modified by anthropogenic activities for thousands of years, although the speed of change has increased in recent decades, particularly driven by socio-economic development. The development of transport infrastructure can accelerate land use land cover change, resulting in impacts on natural resources such as water, biodiversity, and food production. To understand the interaction between land cover and social–ecological drivers, changing land cover patterns and drivers of change must be identified and quantified. This study documents land cover dynamics along the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) corridor in Kenya and evaluates the underlying drivers of this change from 2000 to 2019. The study utilised GIS and remote sensing techniques to assess the land use and land cover changes along the SGR corridor, while correlational and regression analyses were used to evaluate various drivers of the changes. Results showed that built-up areas, bare lands, water bodies, croplands and forests increased by 144.39%, 74.73%, 74.42%, 9.32% and 4.85%, respectively, while wetlands, grasslands and shrub lands reduced by 98.54%, 67.00% and 33.86%, respectively. The underlying drivers responsible for these land use and land cover dynamics are population growth, urbanisation, economic growth and agro-ecological factors. Such land cover changes affect environmental sustainability, and we stress the need to adequately identify and address the cumulative social and environmental impacts of mega-infrastructure projects and their interacting investments. The findings of this study provide an evidence base for the evaluation of the social–ecological impacts of the SGR and the implementation of best practices that will lead to enhanced sustainability in the development corridors in Kenya and beyond.
... The agreement between user-assigned ratings and predefined producer ratings is measured by kappa. Anand (2017) states that every evaluation measure, such as producer accuracy, user accuracy, overall accuracy, and the Kappa coefficient, was meticulously calculated using the pertinent formulae specified for each measurement throughout the accuracy assessment. The formula is as shown in Equations 3, 4, 5, and 6: ...
Article
Full-text available
Musang King Durian (MKD) is in high demand due to its unique taste and aroma; hence, some opportunistic farmers grow it on a large scale. The issue arises when some MKD is planted on encroached land in remote places, making it impossible for local authorities to locate them. This study proposes to examine the changes in land use land cover (LULC) within the Benom Permanent Forest Reserved area that were reported to have land invasion activities caused by illegal MKD plantations between 2019 and 2022 using Sentinel imagery. The objectives were to investigate the location of illicit MKD farming at Mount Benom based on the interpretation of LULC changes and Normalized Different Vegetation Index (NDVI) analysis. ArcGIS and eCognition Developer software were used for data processing and analysis to identify water bodies, bare land, green areas, forests, and potential illegal MKD plantings (PIDP) areas. Between the years 2019 and 2022, it was found that there has been a significant rise in water bodies (36%), green areas (34%), and forests (19%). However, the potential illegal MKD plantation area fell by 59%, while bare land declined by 35%. These downsizing changes might occur due to illegal MKD destroyed operations executed in 2019 by the forestry department in Raub, Pahang. Keywords: illegal farming, image classification, land use land cover, supervised classification
... The collective accuracy of the map for all classes can be described with overall accuracy to properly classify the proportion of pixels (Anand, 2017). The standard accuracy for of an agreement is 85-90% as recommended by Anderson et al. (1976). ...
Book
Full-text available
... Stratified random sampling method has been employed to define 30-50 distributed training sets for each class for collection of land use information based on field observations. Another set of stratified random test samples (50 samples for each class) were collected for accuracy assessment through field surveys and visual analysis of Google Earth images (Anand 2017). Overall accuracy and the kappa statistics of the classified image was found to be 89.60% and 0.8455 respectively with reference to ground truth obtained. ...
Article
Paucity of information on Urban Canopy Parameters (UCPs) is considered as one of the major reason behind limited urban climate research and modelling in developing region of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. UCPs define those characteristics of urban built form which have direct or indirect influence on urban climate. Most of the studies in developed world have utilized 3-Dimension (3D) Geographic Information System (GIS) database either developed from ground survey or Remotely Sensed (RS) data such as Aerial Photographs, Airborne Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and high-resolution Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) data for retrieval of UCPs. However, non-existence of 3D GIS database and limited availability of above RS datasets in developing region necessitates to employ widely available low-cost alternative datasets for retrieval of UCPs. Hence, this study focuses on retrieval of UCPs by employing Very High Resolution Satellite (VHRS) optical stereo data, which has repeat availability, low cost and extensive coverage, in a highly dense and complex urban environment with a challenging composite climate like Delhi, India. A novel methodology for extraction of gridded UCPs from VHRS optical stereo data has been developed in this study to overcome the limitation of extraction of individual building footprint in dense and compact urban built-up. The validation of key UCPs such as building height (Mean error, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and Mean Absolute Error <1 m in all height groups), Building Surface Area (Accuracy 84.27%) and Sky View Factor (RMSE = 0.046 and correlation = 0.94) with ground measurements has displayed reasonable accuracies. Hence, the study demonstrates successfully the use of VHRS optical satellite stereo data for generation of gridded UCPs in a highly heterogeneous and dense urban built-up environment. The developed approach is globally replicable in any city of any country.
... Kappa coefficient depicts the decline in the percentage of the error, whose values from 0.81 to 0.99, 0.61to 0.80, 0.41 to 0.60, and 0.21 to 0.40 to be used as strong, considerable, sensible, and fair agreements respectively (Viera and Garrett 2005). kappa coefficient reveals the difference between actual agreement and the agreement expected by chance was calculated by Eq. (4) (Adam et al., 2013;Anand 2017) K ¼ Observed accuracy À Chance agreement 1 À Chance agreement *100 (4) Probability sampling technique was employed to collect sufficient numbers of reference points. Probability sampling takes in the use of a sufficient number of training samples, in which the minimum sample size be 20 to 100 per class (Chen and Stow 2002;Stehman and Czaplewski 1998). ...
Article
Full-text available
Understanding land use/cover (LULC) changes and their impacts on the catchment are imperative for proper land management. Hence, useful information concerning responses to LULC changes becomes important to minimize negative impacts on future land uses. The aim of the study was to evaluate the LULC changes and consequences of the change at Bilate catchment from 1986 to 2018. The LULC change evaluations were undertaken by using Landsat images of 1986, 2002 and 2018. Supervised image classification was employed to map the land cover classes. Informant interviews and group discussions with field observations were used to identify the consequences of the changes. Over the past periods, built-up areas, water bodies, cultivation, and barren lands have increased by 0.97, 0.13, 9.27, and 1.36%, respectively. However, the forest and grazing lands have decreased by 8.56 and 3.18% respectively. Exhaustive land cultivation without appropriate management and cultivation of sloppy lands have increased soil erosion and sediment yield to water bodies. A decline in crop yields, livestock products and numbers, and fish population in Lake Abaya are the major implications of LULC change in the catchment. Therefore, to ensure sustainable land use, responsible bodies commit and work closely with communities through participatory approaches.
Article
Full-text available
Forest fire is a frequent disaster which happened in Palangka Raya, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia each year. On 2019, various fire incidents were happened in the area, affected human’s health due to the fire smoke. Monitoring forest fire burn areas become important in order to observe affected areas and for mitigation purposes. Active remote sensing is suitable for forest fire identification, since it can penetrate through fog, clouds and smoke, hence the identification is better than passive remote sensing. Nowadays, with the availability of Sentinel-1 SAR free data with medium spatial resolution and high temporal resolution, monitoring large forest areas can be done easily. Burn areas can be extracted from Sentinel-1 with one of burn area index, namely Radar Burn Difference (RBD). In this study, burn areas identification was performed using RBD and threshold method. VV and VH polarization was used in identifying burn areas. Towards the best identification, some threshold values were tested. The results showed that threshold of µ-1σ for RBD VH had the highest overall accuracy about 88% in identifying burn areas, compared with reference data. It means the result is accurate enough in presenting burn areas. The results show a 15,935.197-hectare burned area from RBD VV and 15,679.835-hectare from RBD VH.
Article
Full-text available
Isiolo dam is planned to be constructed along the Ewaso Nyiro River to provide water to the planned Isiolo resort city, one of the Lamu Port and Southern Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) corridor projects. This paper evaluates the factors driving land cover transitions and their effects, as a consequence of the proposed infrastructure developments with a view to providing evidence-based information for formulating policies and approaches for sustainable land management and development. Landsat images were used to assess Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) change, while land degradation was evaluated based on the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification guidelines (2000–2020). Spatial overlays of land degradation, LULC change, population, and land tenure were performed to establish their interrelations. The results revealed that water, bareland, built-up, and forest increased by 2043%, 83%, 35%, and 17%, respectively, while shrubland and cropland decreased by 26% and 6%, respectively. Further, 61% of the watershed remained stable, 31% experienced degradation and 8% improved. The main drivers of LULC transitions, and land degradation are population pressure, land tenure, climate change and economic growth. With the development of the LAPSSET projects, it is projected that built-up areas, cropland, and bareland will increase mainly due to population increase, while the forest and shrubland will reduce mainly as a consequence of an increase in built-up areas and potentially poor land management. To achieve sustainable development with net zero loss of natural resources, proper planning for economic investments as well as inclusive land-use planning should be enhanced in drylands such as the Isiolo watershed and similar landscapes.
Article
In this article, a new feature detection approach based on integration of LiDAR data and visible images in the form of a semi-automatic method has been proposed. In this approach, a two-step method for feature detection was developed using object-based analysis in order to increase the level of automation and level of accuracy in the detection process. The first step is providing a method for integration of two data sources for detection process by maintaining independency between image data and LiDAR altimetric data. In this step, the feature detection process is started based on image data and for detecting areas that detection properly is not done, LiDAR altimetric data is used. In the second step, a new method for detection of vegetation is implemented. Of the characteristics of this method is that there is no need to use the infrared band in the image data and also there is no need for LiDAR intensity data. The implemented method in the recent step is based on the new indices developed for detection of vegetation using three visible bands (red, green, and blue). The results of applying the method on two sample data sets show that the proposed approach and developed indices have the lowest dependency on the type and region of imaging and about each input image data includes visible bands (red, green, and blue) along with LiDAR data (that both data have a high spatial resolution), feature detection process is done with acceptable accuracy. Only thresholds depend on image data and change about different images. The changes are very small. Therefore, using the mean of these thresholds, despite may not be optimal for all image data, but generally is useful and for different images is efficient. In the case of many accessible images from Iran, the thresholds determined optimally by the trial-and-error method, the changes were very small. About the image data of Toronto and Iran which great changes were expected in the thresholds, the optimal thresholds showed very small changes. The results of this research demonstrated that the proposed method can successfully detect urban features (include vegetation, road, and building) with different shapes. Evaluation process showed that the overall accuracy, kappa coefficient, producer’s accuracy, and user’s accuracy of the proposed method about vegetation are 97%, 92%, 96%, and 94%, respectively. Also, the producer’s accuracy, user’s accuracy, and kappa coefficient about the building class are 94%, 95%, and 91%, respectively. About the road class these parameters are 95%, 89%, and 91%.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.