scholarly journals A Land Cover Classification Method for Antarctica Using Support Vector Machine and Decision Tree

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 2920-2928
Author(s):  
Ping Wang ◽  
Hui Fu ◽  
Zhaokun Zhai ◽  
Jing Wei ◽  
Zhiling Zhao
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (21) ◽  
pp. 2548
Author(s):  
Dong Luo ◽  
Douglas G. Goodin ◽  
Marcellus M. Caldas

Disasters are an unpredictable way to change land use and land cover. Improving the accuracy of mapping a disaster area at different time is an essential step to analyze the relationship between human activity and environment. The goals of this study were to test the performance of different processing procedures and examine the effect of adding normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) as an additional classification feature for mapping land cover changes due to a disaster. Using Landsat ETM+ and OLI images of the Bento Rodrigues mine tailing disaster area, we created two datasets, one with six bands, and the other one with six bands plus the NDVI. We used support vector machine (SVM) and decision tree (DT) algorithms to build classifier models and validated models performance using 10-fold cross-validation, resulting in accuracies higher than 90%. The processed results indicated that the accuracy could reach or exceed 80%, and the support vector machine had a better performance than the decision tree. We also calculated each land cover type’s sensitivity (true positive rate) and found that Agriculture, Forest and Mine sites had higher values but Bareland and Water had lower values. Then, we visualized land cover maps in 2000 and 2017 and found out the Mine sites areas have been expanded about twice of the size, but Forest decreased 12.43%. Our findings showed that it is feasible to create a training data pool and use machine learning algorithms to classify a different year’s Landsat products and NDVI can improve the vegetation covered land classification. Furthermore, this approach can provide a venue to analyze land pattern change in a disaster area over time.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darius Phiri ◽  
Matamyo Simwanda ◽  
Vincent Nyirenda ◽  
Yuji Murayama ◽  
Manjula Ranagalage

Decision tree (DT) algorithms are important non-parametric tools used for land cover classification. While different DTs have been applied to Landsat land cover classification, their individual classification accuracies and performance have not been compared, especially on their effectiveness to produce accurate thresholds for developing rulesets for object-based land cover classification. Here, the focus was on comparing the performance of five DT algorithms: Tree, C5.0, Rpart, Ipred, and Party. These DT algorithms were used to classify ten land cover classes using Landsat 8 images on the Copperbelt Province of Zambia. Classification was done using object-based image analysis (OBIA) through the development of rulesets with thresholds defined by the DTs. The performance of the DT algorithms was assessed based on: (1) DT accuracy through cross-validation; (2) land cover classification accuracy of thematic maps; and (3) other structure properties such as the sizes of the tree diagrams and variable selection abilities. The results indicate that only the rulesets developed from DT algorithms with simple structures and a minimum number of variables produced high land cover classification accuracies (overall accuracy > 88%). Thus, algorithms such as Tree and Rpart produced higher classification results as compared to C5.0 and Party DT algorithms, which involve many variables in classification. This high accuracy has been attributed to the ability to minimize overfitting and the capacity to handle noise in the data during training by the Tree and Rpart DTs. The study produced new insights on the formal selection of DT algorithms for OBIA ruleset development. Therefore, the Tree and Rpart algorithms could be used for developing rulesets because they produce high land cover classification accuracies and have simple structures. As an avenue of future studies, the performance of DT algorithms can be compared with contemporary machine-learning classifiers (e.g., Random Forest and Support Vector Machine).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document