2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrs.2018.03.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparative study of ALOS-2 PALSAR and landsat-8 imagery for land cover classification using maximum likelihood classifier

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
23
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
1
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Unsupervised classification only depends on the distribution of pixel gray value in spectral feature space, which makes it difficult to achieve accurate matching between pixel clusters and ground classes. Because of its simple calculation and strong stability, maximum likelihood method is still widely used in supervised classification algorithm [42]. The maximum likelihood method is an image classification method that combines the distances of samples to the centers of known classes and spectral distribution features.…”
Section: Plos Onementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unsupervised classification only depends on the distribution of pixel gray value in spectral feature space, which makes it difficult to achieve accurate matching between pixel clusters and ground classes. Because of its simple calculation and strong stability, maximum likelihood method is still widely used in supervised classification algorithm [42]. The maximum likelihood method is an image classification method that combines the distances of samples to the centers of known classes and spectral distribution features.…”
Section: Plos Onementioning
confidence: 99%
“…These data were generated from four sources: (1) field-collected land cover survey locations, (2) reference locations derived from field photos, (3) reference locations derived from very high-resolution Bing aerial and Google Earth imagery, and (4) expert knowledge and direct interpretation of reference locations of clear imagery features (for example, water). The use of higher resolution imagery accessible via public portals such as Google Earth for identification of reference data points is an established technique [38]. For each land cover class, the reference data points were allocated on an alternating basis as training or independent validation locations, which created two equal-sized datasets providing 352 locations for both the training and validation datasets (704 in total) distributed across all land cover classes (built up 7.1%, bare 14.2%, water 10.8%, dry grassland 14.2%, alpine grassland 14.2%, steppe 14.2%, bushes 11.1%, and agriculture 14.2%).…”
Section: Land Cover Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Optical and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) remote sensing datasets characterise target features in different ways, but deliver complementary information that, if used in combination, generally leads to an increase in land cover mapping accuracy [37]. Multispectral optical remote sensing imagery delivers rich spectral information about the scattered energy (visible and infrared) from the target surface, which enables the discrimination of different land cover classes on the basis of spectral variations in the specific features in question [38]. In contrast, SAR characterises the physical structure of target features, with the differing spatial structure of these features scattering the SAR signal at differing levels of intensity and amplitude.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…27 In the latter, pixels are grouped based on the reflectance properties of pixels, and the created groups are called "clusters;" the former is performed by selecting representative samples for each class in the image, and the objective classification is based on spectral signatures defined by the user. 28 The most commonly used supervised classifications include the support vector machine, 29 maximum likelihood, 30 decision tree, 31 random forest, 32 and neural network classification 33 techniques, and the most common unsupervised classification methods include the K-means clustering 34 and ISODATA classification 35 approaches. In addition to the band intensity, these methods can use more information, such as textural and multiband data.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%