Journals / International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering / 2018 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1

The Impact of Feature Selection on Urban Land Cover Classification

Pages
59–64
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Also, the contribution of spectral features to the performance of classification is more than size/shape and texture features

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Many of the studies in the literature about land cover classification are focused on the feature extraction and classification rather than feature selection.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The feature selection method used for the comparison is a multivariate filter method namely correlation-based feature subset selection where a feature subset evaluator and a search method are integrated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Also, the contribution of spectral features to the performance of classification is more than size/shape and texture features
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Many of the studies in the literature about land cover classification are focused on the feature extraction and classification rather than feature selection. In this paper, the impact of feature selection on urban land cover classification is extensively analyzed. Three types of features namely spectral, texture, and size/shape features are used for this analysis. This analysis is carried out using three variations of a filter based feature selection method and three widely-known classification algorithms. The feature selection method used for the comparison is a multivariate filter method namely correlation-based feature subset selection where a feature subset evaluator and a search method are integrated. Best first search, genetic search, and greedy stepwise search are three different search methods used for this integration. The classification algorithms employed are Bayesian network, random forest, and support vector machine. The experimental results explicitly indicate that feature selection improves classification accuracy in all cases. Besides, according to the experimental results, random forest classifier is the most successful one among these three classifiers while both feature selection is applied and not applied. Largest improvement in the classification performance is obtained when greedy stepwise search based feature selection method and support vector machine classifier is applied together. Also, the contribution of spectral features to the performance of classification is more than size/shape and texture features

🔖

Cite This Article

DOGAN, T., UYSAL, A. K. (2018). The Impact of Feature Selection on Urban Land Cover Classification. International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1, 59–64. https://ajindex.com/articles/164803

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. X. Tong, H. Xie, and Q. Weng, "Urban land cover classification with airborne hyperspectral data: What features to use?," IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 3998-4009, 2014
  2. S. Kandrika and P. S. Roy, "Land use land cover classification of Orissa using multi-temporal IRS-P6 awifs data: A decision tree approach," International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 186-193, 2008
  3. L. Ma, M. Li, X. Ma, L. Cheng, P. Du, and Y. Liu, "A review of supervised object-based land-cover image classification," ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, vol. 130, pp. 277-293, 2017
  4. P. Zope, T. Eldho, and V. Jothiprakash, "Impacts of land use– land cover change and urbanization on flooding: a case study of Oshiwara River Basin in Mumbai, India," Catena, vol. 145, pp. 142-154, 2016
  5. W. Y. Yan, A. Shaker, and N. El-Ashmawy, "Urban land cover classification using airborne LiDAR data: A review," Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 158, pp. 295-310, 2015
  6. Q. Yu, P. Gong, N. Clinton, G. Biging, M. Kelly, and D. Schirokauer, "Object-based detailed vegetation classification with airborne high spatial resolution remote sensing imagery," Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, vol. 72, no. 7, pp. 799-811, 2006
  7. T. Blaschke, "Object based image analysis for remote sensing," ISPRS journal of photogrammetry and remote sensing, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 2-16, 2010
  8. R. C. Weih and N. D. Riggan, "Object-based classification vs. pixel-based classification: Comparative importance of multiresolution imagery," The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, vol. 38, no. 4, p. C7, 2010
  9. T. Blaschke, C. Burnett, and A. Pekkarinen, "Image segmentation methods for object-based analysis and classification," in Remote sensing image analysis: Including the spatial domain: Springer, 2004, pp. 211-236
  10. S. W. Myint, P. Gober, A. Brazel, S. Grossman-Clarke, and Q. Weng, "Per-pixel vs. object-based classification of urban land cover extraction using high spatial resolution imagery," Remote sensing of environment, vol. 115, no. 5, pp. 1145-1161, 2011
  11. N. Thomas, C. Hendrix, and R. G. Congalton, "A comparison of urban mapping methods using high-resolution digital imagery," Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 963-972, 2003
  12. D. C. Duro, S. E. Franklin, and M. G. Dub