2015
DOI: 10.3390/rs70809655
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Evaluation of Different Training Sample Allocation Schemes for Discrete and Continuous Land Cover Classification Using Decision Tree-Based Algorithms

Abstract: Land cover mapping for large regions often employs satellite images of medium to coarse spatial resolution, which complicates mapping of discrete classes. Class memberships, which estimate the proportion of each class for every pixel, have been suggested as an alternative. This paper compares different strategies of training data allocation for discrete and continuous land cover mapping using classification and regression tree algorithms. In addition to measures of discrete and continuous map accuracy the corr… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

10
77
0
5

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 148 publications
(92 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
10
77
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Consequently, "irrigated rice" was classified with a high f1-score of 0.82, allowing for classification of this key crop in terms of food security, with a high level of confidence. All of these results should, however, be interpreted with in mind the fact that the training set represented only 0.038% of the total number of objects in the study area (more the 6 million), whereas studies like [48] recommend a training set of 0.25% of the whole study area, meaning more than 15,000 training samples in our case. Such maps could be validated according to the method provided by [49] for area-based and location-based validation of the classified images using OBIA, in order to spatially identify where there is error or uncertainty.…”
Section: Relevance Of the Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consequently, "irrigated rice" was classified with a high f1-score of 0.82, allowing for classification of this key crop in terms of food security, with a high level of confidence. All of these results should, however, be interpreted with in mind the fact that the training set represented only 0.038% of the total number of objects in the study area (more the 6 million), whereas studies like [48] recommend a training set of 0.25% of the whole study area, meaning more than 15,000 training samples in our case. Such maps could be validated according to the method provided by [49] for area-based and location-based validation of the classified images using OBIA, in order to spatially identify where there is error or uncertainty.…”
Section: Relevance Of the Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sample selection was class balanced, as recommended by Belgiu and Drăguţ [17], through matching the object number to the least represented class, which was the weed class in most of the scenarios, e.g., in the C2-26 field, 23% of the data corresponded to bare soil objects, 28% to crop, 28% to shadow and 22% to weeds Thus, weed abundance in each field determined the percentage of objects selected for every class, as well as the full data set composition (second block in Table 2). The full data represented more than 0.25% of the total field area in all scenarios, as the minimum value recommended for training the RF algorithm [46]. For example, the full training data reached 4.2% in S1-16 at 30 m flight altitude, and the 6.8% in S2-16 for images taken at 60 m. * selected training objects: percentage of objects selected for every class in the total training set data for the image.…”
Section: Automatic Rf Training Set Selection and Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At first glance, the large number of over 185,000 digitized training polygons might seem to be overdrawn, but it was required for obtaining representative samples for imagery from different acquisition times and years and was necessary because NFI data were only used as an independent data set for validation. Due to the sensitivity of RF classification to the sampling design and imbalanced training samples [51,52], the training samples for the tree type map had to be balanced and representative of the two classes, i.e., area-proportional, and large enough to accommodate the large number of data dimensions. In fact, reducing the number of samples to a certain degree would only slightly lower the model accuracies [7] but would have a greater (negative) impact on the prediction of the tree types.…”
Section: General Aspects Of the Tree Type Mapping Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%