Detecting an Optimal Scale Parameter in Object-Oriented Classification

Avoiding spatial autocorrelation is the key to many research questions especially for field design, remote sensing data selection, and maximum spatial variation caption. Spatial variation across land cover types as well as the gradients inherent in ecotones can be captured in reflectance which is a spatially continuous variable. The spatial variation between reflectance values of any two pixels will depend on the lag distance beyond which pixels are no longer spatially autocorrelated. This paper demonstrates the utility of semivariogram for determining the lag distance in which pixels will be spatially autocorrelated. According to sampling theorem, objects should be sampled at half their width such that spatial resolution should be half of the semivariogram lag distance. As object-oriented classification is now the most broadly accepted classification method, scale parameter determination is the foremost important decision for determining the size of image objects. The scale parameter was adjusted during image segmentation to test how the size of image objects changed. The optimal scale parameter was chosen when the average distance between neighbouring image object centroids was near to the lag distance of the semivariogram. Results showed that the size of image objects reached a scaling threshold as the scale parameter was increased. When the scale parameter was adjusted to create image objects that exceeded this threshold, the segmentation was not able to accurately represent the spatial variation observed on the ground.

[1]  Jonas Ardö,et al.  Land use studies in drylands: an evaluation of object‐oriented classification of very high resolution panchromatic imagery , 2008 .

[2]  R. Platt,et al.  An Evaluation of an Object-Oriented Paradigm for Land Use/Land Cover Classification , 2008 .

[3]  Qian ZhenHua Identifying the Characteristic Scale of Scene Variation in Fine Spatial Resolution Imagery With Wavelet Transform-based Sub-image Statistics , 2007 .

[4]  Aaas News,et al.  Book Reviews , 1893, Buffalo Medical and Surgical Journal.

[5]  S. Franklin,et al.  Remote sensing for large-area habitat mapping , 2005 .

[6]  B. A. Maurer,et al.  Multivariate correlations between imagery and field measurements across scales: comparing pixel aggregation and image segmentation , 2010, Landscape Ecology.

[7]  David Labat,et al.  Recent advances in wavelet analyses: Part 1. A review of concepts , 2005 .

[8]  Eric D. Kolaczyk,et al.  On the choice of spatial and categorical scale in remote sensing land cover classification , 2005 .

[9]  Martin Volk,et al.  The comparison index: A tool for assessing the accuracy of image segmentation , 2007, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinformation.

[10]  J. C. McGrew,et al.  An Introduction to Statistical Problem Solving in Geography , 1993 .

[11]  Yuhong He,et al.  Detecting grassland spatial variation by a wavelet approach , 2007 .

[12]  R. Blong,et al.  Identifying the characteristic scale of scene variation in fine spatial resolution imagery with wavelet transform-based sub-image statistics , 2003 .

[13]  Chunhua Zhang,et al.  Measuring biological heterogeneity in the northern mixed prairie: a remote sensing approach , 2007 .

[14]  Determining the spatial scale for analysing mobile measurements of air pollution , 2008 .

[15]  D. Sims,et al.  Optimum pixel size for hyperspectral studies of ecosystem function in southern California chaparral and grassland , 2003 .

[16]  C. Torrence,et al.  A Practical Guide to Wavelet Analysis. , 1998 .

[17]  Jianguo Wu,et al.  Use and misuse of landscape indices , 2004, Landscape Ecology.