2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2007.10.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Classification of the wildland–urban interface: A comparison of pixel- and object-based classifications using high-resolution aerial photography

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
115
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 252 publications
(128 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
2
115
1
Order By: Relevance
“…tree crowns, forest stands), what is confirmed in a number of previously published works (Blaschke 2010). Using the OBIA method, there were achieved better results of forest and landscape classification, in an average of several tens of percent (Cleve et al 2008;Myint et al 2011;Rittl et al 2013). Worse results related to the accuracy of pixel-based classification were achieved due to the fact that inside the identified tree crowns may occur pixels representing the shadow, errors or noise, i.e.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 64%
“…tree crowns, forest stands), what is confirmed in a number of previously published works (Blaschke 2010). Using the OBIA method, there were achieved better results of forest and landscape classification, in an average of several tens of percent (Cleve et al 2008;Myint et al 2011;Rittl et al 2013). Worse results related to the accuracy of pixel-based classification were achieved due to the fact that inside the identified tree crowns may occur pixels representing the shadow, errors or noise, i.e.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 64%
“…Object-based classification of land use and land cover often results in higher accuracies, when compared to pixel-based classifications [41][42][43][44]. Some studies also used hierarchical classification approaches, mainly to integrate different data types into a comprehensive mapping framework [45][46][47][48].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A 7, 4 and 2 band combination was adopted by the study. The images were filtered with 3 x 3 majority filter prior to classification to replace each pixel value with a new value (McDonnell, 1981;Cleve et al, 2008).The images were subjected to supervised classification procedure with maximum likelihood algorithm. A supervised maximum likelihood methodology was adopted because each land use/cover class had a Gaussian distribution (Dewan & Yamaguchi, 2009).…”
Section: Estimating Land Use Changementioning
confidence: 99%