Land-use/land-cover classification with multispectral and hyperspectral EO-1 data

We compared the capability of the Earth Observing-1 (EO-1) Hyperion hyperspectral (HS) data with that of the EO-1 Advanced Land Imager (ALI) multispectral (MS) data for discriminating different land-use and land-cover classes in Fremont, California. We designed a classification scheme of two levels with level I including general classes and level II including more specific classes. Classification shows that the HS data does not produce better results than the MS data when we directly applied a Mahalanobis distance (MD) classifier. We tested a number of feature reduction and extraction algorithms for the HS image. These algorithms include principal component analysis (PCA), segmented PCA (SEGPCA), linear discriminant analysis (LDA), segmented LDA (SEGLDA), penalized discriminant analysis (PDA) and segmented PDA (SEGPDA). Feature reductions were all followed by an MD classifier for image classification. With SEGPDA, SEGLDA, PDA, and LDA, similar accuracies were achieved while a segmentation-based approach we proposed (SEGPDA or SEGLDA) greatly improved computation efficiency. They all outperformed SEGPCA and PCA by 4 to 5 percent (level II) and 1 to 3 percent (level I) in classification accuracy. For level II classification, overall accuracies obtained by using the features extracted from the HS image were 2 to 3 percent greater than those obtained with the MS image. For various vegetation class and impervious land use categories, the HS data consistently produced better results than the MS data. For level I classification, the HS image generated a thematic map that is � 0.01 greater in kappa coefficient comparing to the MS image. When we collapsed the level II classification map to a level I map, 5 percent (HS) to 7 percent (MS) improvements were achieved.

[1]  G. F. Hughes,et al.  On the mean accuracy of statistical pattern recognizers , 1968, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[2]  James R. Anderson,et al.  A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data , 1976 .

[3]  A F Goetz,et al.  Imaging Spectrometry for Earth Remote Sensing , 1985, Science.

[4]  P. Switzer,et al.  A transformation for ordering multispectral data in terms of image quality with implications for noise removal , 1988 .

[5]  P. Gong,et al.  The use of structural information for improving land-cover classification accuracies at the rural-urban fringe. , 1990 .

[6]  Peng Gong,et al.  An assessment of some factors influencing multispectral land-cover classification , 1990 .

[7]  J. B. Lee,et al.  Enhancement of high spectral resolution remote-sensing data by a noise-adjusted principal components transform , 1990 .

[8]  P. Gong,et al.  Frequency-based contextual classification and gray-level vector reduction for land-use identification , 1992 .

[9]  C. Deguchi,et al.  Estimations for Percentage of Impervious Area by the Use of Satellite Remote Sensing Imagery , 1994 .

[10]  Chein-I Chang,et al.  Hyperspectral image classification and dimensionality reduction: an orthogonal subspace projection approach , 1994, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[11]  M. Ridd Exploring a V-I-S (vegetation-impervious surface-soil) model for urban ecosystem analysis through remote sensing: comparative anatomy for cities , 1995 .

[12]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Penalized Discriminant Analysis , 1995 .

[13]  Ruiliang Pu,et al.  Conifer species recognition: An exploratory analysis of in situ hyperspectral data , 1997 .

[14]  John A. Richards,et al.  Segmented principal components transformation for efficient hyperspectral remote-sensing image display and classification , 1999, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[15]  Ruiliang Pu,et al.  Penalized discriminant analysis of in situ hyperspectral data for conifer species recognition , 1999, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[16]  David A. Landgrebe,et al.  Hyperspectral data analysis and supervised feature reduction via projection pursuit , 1999, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[17]  Qian Du,et al.  Interference and noise-adjusted principal components analysis , 1999, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[18]  Luis O. Jimenez,et al.  Classification of hyperdimensional data based on feature and decision fusion approaches using projection pursuit, majority voting, and neural networks , 1999, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[19]  C. Woodcock,et al.  Classification and Change Detection Using Landsat TM Data: When and How to Correct Atmospheric Effects? , 2001 .

[20]  Hermann Kaufmann,et al.  Automated differentiation of urban surfaces based on airborne hyperspectral imagery , 2001, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[21]  P. Gong,et al.  Conifer species recognition: Effects of data transformation , 2001 .

[22]  Peng Gong,et al.  Dimension Reduction of Hyperspectral Images for Classification Applications , 2002, Ann. GIS.

[23]  P. Gong,et al.  Analysis of in situ hyperspectral data for nutrient estimation of giant sequoia , 2002 .

[24]  Stephen G. Ungar,et al.  Overview of the Earth Observing One (EO-1) mission , 2003, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[25]  B. Xu,et al.  Comparison of gray-level reduction and different texture spectrum encoding methods for land-use classification using a panchromatic Ikonos image , 2003 .

[26]  M. Ashton,et al.  Hyperion, IKONOS, ALI, and ETM+ sensors in the study of African rainforests , 2004 .