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

Abstract The expansion of urban development into wildland areas can have significant consequences, including an increase in the risk of structural damage from wildfire. Land-use and land-cover maps can assist decision-makers in targeting and prioritizing risk mitigation activities, and remote sensing techniques provide effective and efficient methods to create such maps. However, some image processing approaches may be more appropriate than others in distinguishing land-use and land-cover categories, particularly when classifying high spatial resolution imagery for urbanizing environments. Here we explore the accuracy of pixel-based and object-based classification methods used for mapping in the wildland–urban interface (WUI) with free, readily available, high spatial resolution urban imagery, which is available in many places to municipal and local fire management agencies. Results indicate that an object-based classification approach provides a higher accuracy than a pixel-based classification approach when distinguishing between the selected land-use and land-cover categories. For example, an object-based approach resulted in a 41.73% greater accuracy for the built area category, which is of particular importance to WUI wildfire mitigation.

[1]  S. Franklin,et al.  High Spatial Resolution Satellite Imagery, DEM Derivatives, and Image Segmentation for the Detection of Mass Wasting Processes , 2006 .

[2]  Thomas Blaschke,et al.  A comparison of three image-object methods for the multiscale analysis of landscape structure , 2003 .

[3]  J. Cihlar Land cover mapping of large areas from satellites: Status and research priorities , 2000 .

[4]  Wenjun Chen,et al.  A semi-automatic segmentation procedure for feature extraction in remotely sensed imagery , 2005, Comput. Geosci..

[5]  Jeffrey W. Hollister,et al.  Assessing the Accuracy of National Land Cover Dataset Area Estimates at Multiple Spatial Extents , 2004 .

[6]  Richard J. Murnane,et al.  Catastrophe Risk Models for Wildfires in the Wildland–Urban Interface: What Insurers Need , 2006 .

[7]  John R. Jensen,et al.  Introductory Digital Image Processing: A Remote Sensing Perspective , 1986 .

[8]  Manfred Ehlers,et al.  Automated analysis of ultra high resolution remote sensing data for biotope type mapping: new possibilities and challenges , 2003 .

[9]  M. Herold,et al.  Spatial Metrics and Image Texture for Mapping Urban Land Use , 2003 .

[10]  R. Kettig,et al.  Classification of Multispectral Image Data by Extraction and Classification of Homogeneous Objects , 1976, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience Electronics.

[11]  Chad Hendrix,et al.  A Comparison of Urban Mapping Methods Using High-Resolution Digital Imagery , 2003 .

[12]  Stephen J. Walsh,et al.  A multiscale analysis of LULC and NDVI variation in Nang Rong district, northeast Thailand , 2001 .

[13]  Patricia L. Andrews,et al.  Introduction To Wildland Fire , 1984 .

[14]  Russell G. Congalton,et al.  Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data : principles and practices , 1998 .

[15]  Q. Guo,et al.  A comparison of standard and hybrid classifier methods for mapping hardwood mortality in areas affected by sudden oak death , 2004 .

[16]  Risto Kalliola,et al.  To what extent are vegetation types visible in satellite imagery , 1991 .

[17]  Jon Atli Benediktsson,et al.  Classification and feature extraction for remote sensing images from urban areas based on morphological transformations , 2003, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[18]  Jack D. Cohen Preventing Disaster: Home Ignitability in the Wildland-Urban Interface , 2000, Journal of Forests.

[19]  Maggi Kelly,et al.  A spatial–temporal approach to monitoring forest disease spread using multi-temporal high spatial resolution imagery , 2006 .

[20]  M. Alberti,et al.  Urban Land-Cover Change Analysis in Central Puget Sound , 2004 .

[21]  Mankato Armstrong Hall MAPPING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA USING HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGERY : A COMPARISON OF OBJECT-BASED AND PER PIXEL CLASSIFICATION , 2006 .

[22]  Geoffrey J. Hay,et al.  Object-based Image Analysis : Strengths , Weaknesses , Opportunities and Threats ( Swot ) , 2006 .

[23]  S. Franklin,et al.  Detecting translational landslide scars using segmentation of Landsat ETM+ and DEM data in the northern Cascade Mountains, British Columbia , 2003 .

[24]  Giles M. Foody,et al.  Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment , 2002 .

[25]  Terry L. Sohl,et al.  Regional characterization of land cover using multiple sources of data , 1998 .

[26]  G. Hill,et al.  Vegetation mapping of a tropical freshwater swamp in the Northern Territory, Australia: A comparison of aerial photography, Landsat TM and SPOT satellite imagery , 2001 .

[27]  A. Rango,et al.  Object-oriented image analysis for mapping shrub encroachment from 1937 to 2003 in southern New Mexico , 2004 .

[28]  G. J. Hay,et al.  A multiscale framework for landscape analysis: Object-specific analysis and upscaling , 2001, Landscape Ecology.

[29]  S. Franklin,et al.  OBJECT-BASED ANALYSIS OF IKONOS-2 IMAGERY FOR EXTRACTION OF FOREST INVENTORY PARAMETERS , 2006 .

[30]  P. Gong,et al.  Object-based Detailed Vegetation Classification with Airborne High Spatial Resolution Remote Sensing Imagery , 2006 .

[31]  Limin Yang,et al.  COMPLETION OF THE 1990S NATIONAL LAND COVER DATA SET FOR THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES FROM LANDSAT THEMATIC MAPPER DATA AND ANCILLARY DATA SOURCES , 2001 .

[32]  T. Bauer,et al.  Per-parcel land use classification in urban areas applying a rule-based technique , 2001 .

[33]  David M. Rizzo,et al.  Sudden Oak Death , 2003 .

[34]  Susan I. Stewart,et al.  The wildland-urban interface in the United States based on 125 million building locations. , 2005, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[35]  Martin Herold,et al.  Spectral resolution requirements for mapping urban areas , 2003, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..