scholarly journals Analysis of Land Use and Land Cover Using Machine Learning Algorithms on Google Earth Engine for Munneru River Basin, India

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (24) ◽  
pp. 13758
Author(s):  
Kotapati Narayana Loukika ◽  
Venkata Reddy Keesara ◽  
Venkataramana Sridhar
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Land Cover ◽  
Learning Algorithms ◽  
Google Earth ◽  
Machine Learning Algorithms ◽  
Landsat 8 ◽  
Lulc Change ◽  
Google Earth Engine ◽  
Sentinel 2

The growing human population accelerates alterations in land use and land cover (LULC) over time, putting tremendous strain on natural resources. Monitoring and assessing LULC change over large areas is critical in a variety of fields, including natural resource management and climate change research. LULC change has emerged as a critical concern for policymakers and environmentalists. As the need for the reliable estimation of LULC maps from remote sensing data grows, it is critical to comprehend how different machine learning classifiers perform. The primary goal of the present study was to classify LULC on the Google Earth Engine platform using three different machine learning algorithms—namely, support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), and classification and regression trees (CART)—and to compare their performance using accuracy assessments. The LULC of the study area was classified via supervised classification. For improved classification accuracy, NDVI (normalized difference vegetation index) and NDWI (normalized difference water index) indices were also derived and included. For the years 2016, 2018, and 2020, multitemporal Sentinel-2 and Landsat-8 data with spatial resolutions of 10 m and 30 m were used for the LULC classification. ‘Water bodies’, ‘forest’, ‘barren land’, ‘vegetation’, and ‘built-up’ were the major land use classes. The average overall accuracy of SVM, RF, and CART classifiers for Landsat-8 images was 90.88%, 94.85%, and 82.88%, respectively, and 93.8%, 95.8%, and 86.4% for Sentinel-2 images. These results indicate that RF classifiers outperform both SVM and CART classifiers in terms of accuracy.

scholarly journals Object-Oriented LULC Classification in Google Earth Engine Combining SNIC, GLCM, and Machine Learning Algorithms

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (22) ◽  
pp. 3776
Author(s):  
Andrea Tassi ◽  
Marco Vizzari
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Central Italy ◽  
Object Oriented ◽  
Google Earth ◽  
Machine Learning Algorithms ◽  
Support Vector ◽  
Landsat 8 ◽  
Good Reliability ◽  
Google Earth Engine ◽  
Occurrence Matrix

Google Earth Engine (GEE) is a versatile cloud platform in which pixel-based (PB) and object-oriented (OO) Land Use–Land Cover (LULC) classification approaches can be implemented, thanks to the availability of the many state-of-art functions comprising various Machine Learning (ML) algorithms. OO approaches, including both object segmentation and object textural analysis, are still not common in the GEE environment, probably due to the difficulties existing in concatenating the proper functions, and in tuning the various parameters to overcome the GEE computational limits. In this context, this work is aimed at developing and testing an OO classification approach combining the Simple Non-Iterative Clustering (SNIC) algorithm to identify spatial clusters, the Gray-Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM) to calculate cluster textural indices, and two ML algorithms (Random Forest (RF) or Support Vector Machine (SVM)) to perform the final classification. A Principal Components Analysis (PCA) is applied to the main seven GLCM indices to synthesize in one band the textural information used for the OO classification. The proposed approach is implemented in a user-friendly, freely available GEE code useful to perform the OO classification, tuning various parameters (e.g., choose the input bands, select the classification algorithm, test various segmentation scales) and compare it with a PB approach. The accuracy of OO and PB classifications can be assessed both visually and through two confusion matrices that can be used to calculate the relevant statistics (producer’s, user’s, overall accuracy (OA)). The proposed methodology was broadly tested in a 154 km2 study area, located in the Lake Trasimeno area (central Italy), using Landsat 8 (L8), Sentinel 2 (S2), and PlanetScope (PS) data. The area was selected considering its complex LULC mosaic mainly composed of artificial surfaces, annual and permanent crops, small lakes, and wooded areas. In the study area, the various tests produced interesting results on the different datasets (OA: PB RF (L8 = 72.7%, S2 = 82%, PS = 74.2), PB SVM (L8 = 79.1%, S2 = 80.2%, PS = 74.8%), OO RF (L8 = 64%, S2 = 89.3%, PS = 77.9), OO SVM (L8 = 70.4, S2 = 86.9%, PS = 73.9)). The broad code application demonstrated very good reliability of the whole process, even though the OO classification process resulted, sometimes, too demanding on higher resolution data, considering the available computational GEE resources.

Oil palm mapping over Peninsular Malaysia using Google Earth Engine and machine learning algorithms

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 100287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nur Shafira Nisa Shaharum ◽  
Helmi Zulhaidi Mohd Shafri ◽  
Wan Azlina Wan Ab Karim Ghani ◽  
Sheila Samsatli ◽  
Mohammed Mustafa Abdulrahman Al-Habshi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Oil Palm ◽  
Learning Algorithms ◽  
Peninsular Malaysia ◽  
Google Earth ◽  
Machine Learning Algorithms ◽  
Google Earth Engine

scholarly journals Land-Use Land-Cover Classification by Machine Learning Classifiers for Satellite Observations—A Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. 1135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Swapan Talukdar ◽  
Pankaj Singha ◽  
Susanta Mahato ◽  
Shahfahad ◽  
Swades Pal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Land Use ◽  
Land Cover ◽  
Learning Algorithms ◽  
Kappa Coefficient ◽  
Machine Learning Algorithms ◽  
The Other ◽  
Land Use Land Cover ◽  
Accuracy Level ◽  
Parametric Classifier

Rapid and uncontrolled population growth along with economic and industrial development, especially in developing countries during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, have increased the rate of land-use/land-cover (LULC) change many times. Since quantitative assessment of changes in LULC is one of the most efficient means to understand and manage the land transformation, there is a need to examine the accuracy of different algorithms for LULC mapping in order to identify the best classifier for further applications of earth observations. In this article, six machine-learning algorithms, namely random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), artificial neural network (ANN), fuzzy adaptive resonance theory-supervised predictive mapping (Fuzzy ARTMAP), spectral angle mapper (SAM) and Mahalanobis distance (MD) were examined. Accuracy assessment was performed by using Kappa coefficient, receiver operational curve (RoC), index-based validation and root mean square error (RMSE). Results of Kappa coefficient show that all the classifiers have a similar accuracy level with minor variation, but the RF algorithm has the highest accuracy of 0.89 and the MD algorithm (parametric classifier) has the least accuracy of 0.82. In addition, the index-based LULC and visual cross-validation show that the RF algorithm (correlations between RF and normalised differentiation water index, normalised differentiation vegetation index and normalised differentiation built-up index are 0.96, 0.99 and 1, respectively, at 0.05 level of significance) has the highest accuracy level in comparison to the other classifiers adopted. Findings from the literature also proved that ANN and RF algorithms are the best LULC classifiers, although a non-parametric classifier like SAM (Kappa coefficient 0.84; area under curve (AUC) 0.85) has a better and consistent accuracy level than the other machine-learning algorithms. Finally, this review concludes that the RF algorithm is the best machine-learning LULC classifier, among the six examined algorithms although it is necessary to further test the RF algorithm in different morphoclimatic conditions in the future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document