SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry / 2021 / Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 1

The potential of Gokturk 2 satellite images for mapping burnt forest areas

Murat KURUCA
Dilek Kocuk MATCİ
Ugur AVDAN
Pages
91–101
Publication Date
2021-02-10
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)

According to the results of the accuracy analysis, SVM classification gives similar kappa statistics and overall accuracy for Göktürk-2 and Landsat-8 images, while the performance of Worldview-2 shows greater general accuracy.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Using remotely sensed data to identify burnt forest areas produces fast, economical, and highly accurate results.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Accordingly, in this study we investigate the capabilities of Göktürk-2, Turkey’s national satellite, for mapping burnt forest areas.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results of the accuracy analysis, SVM classification gives similar kappa statistics and overall accuracy for Göktürk-2 and Landsat-8 images, while the performance of Worldview-2 shows greater general accuracy.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Göktürk-2 · mapping burnt forest area · object-based image analysis

Abstract

Using remotely sensed data to identify burnt forest areas produces fast, economical, and highly accurate results. Accordingly, in this study we investigate the capabilities of Göktürk-2, Turkey’s national satellite, for mapping burnt forest areas. We compare our results with those obtained from Landsat-8 and Worldview-2 satellite images, which are frequently used for mapping burnt areas. The capabilities of the satellites are compared, in terms of detecting burnt forest areas, using support vector machine (SVM) and rotation forest (RF) classification, which are advanced methods. According to the results of the accuracy analysis, SVM classification gives similar kappa statistics and overall accuracy for Göktürk-2 and Landsat-8 images, while the performance of Worldview-2 shows greater general accuracy. Although there is no significant difference between the two classification methods forLandsat-8 images, SVM gives better results than RF for both Göktürk-2 and Worldview-2. The results of our study show that Göktürk-2 images are an effective source for mapping burnt forest areas.

🔖

Cite This Article

KURUCA, M., MATCİ, D. K., AVDAN, U. (2021). The potential of Gokturk 2 satellite images for mapping burnt forest areas. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 1, 91–101. https://ajindex.com/articles/179589

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (2)

  1. Akar O, 2019,
  2. GEOMATIK, V4, P68, DOI [10.29128/geomatik.476668, DOI 10.29128/GEOMATIK.476668] Anthony G, 2007, ARXIV07093967. ARONOFF S, 1982, PHOTOGRAMM ENG REM S, V48, P1299 Ashburn P, 1979, JOHNSON SPACE CTR P, V1 Atak V. O., 2015, HARITA DERGISI, V81, P18 Barbosa PM, 1999, GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEM CY, V13, P933, DOI 10.1029/1999GB900042 Bayburt S, 2009, UYDU GORUNTULERININ. Bazi Y, 2006, IEEE T GEOSCI REMOTE, V44, P3374, DOI 10.1109/TGRS.2006.880628 Blackburn GA, 1998, INT J REMOTE SENS, V19, P657, DOI 10.1080/014311698215919 Bruzzone L, 2006, IEEE T GEOSCI REMOTE, V44, P3363, DOI 10.1109/TGRS.2006.877950 Cochran W.G., 1967, STAT METHODS. Colkesen I, 2015, HARITA DERGISI, V154, P9 CORTES C, 1995, MACH LEARN, V20, P273, DOI 10.1023/A:1022627411411 Epting J, 2005, REMOTE SENS ENVIRON, V96, P328, DOI 10.1016/j.rse.2005.03.002 FITZPATRICKLINS K, 1981, PHOTOGRAMM ENG REM S, V47, P343 Foody GM, 2006, REMOTE SENS ENVIRON, V104, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.rse.2006.03.004 Foody GM, 2004, IEEE T GEOSCI REMOTE, V42, P1335, DOI 10.1109/TGRS.2004.827257 Gangkofner UG, 2008, PHOTOGRAMM ENG REM S, V74, P1107, DOI 10.14358/PERS.74.9.1107 Gao Y, 2006, INT J REMOTE SENS, V27, P4039, DOI 10.1080/01431160600702632 Ghosh A, 2014, INT J APPL EARTH OBS, V26, P298, DOI 10.1016/j.jag.2013.08.011 Gitelson AA, 2002, REMOTE SENS ENVIRON, V80, P76, DOI 10.1016/S0034-4257(01)00289-9 Gunn S. R., 1998, ISIS TECH REP, V14, P5 Gurcan I, 2016, 2016 24TH SIGNAL PROCESSING AND COMMUNICATION APPLICATION CONFERENCE (SIU), P2097, DOI 10.1109/SIU.2016.7496185 Hsu C., 2003, PRACTICAL GUIDE SUPP. Huang C, 2002, INT J REMOTE SENS, V23, P725, DOI 10.1080/01431160110040323 HUETE A R, 1988, Remote Sensing of Environment, V25, P295 Jimenez-Munoz JC, 2009, SENSORS-BASEL, V9, P768, DOI 10.3390/s90200768 Joachims T., 1998, P 10 EUR C MACH LEAR, P137, DOI [10.1007/BFb0026683, DOI 10.1007/BFB0026683] Kavzolu T, 2010, HARITA DERGISI, V144, P73 Kramer H. J., 2002, OBSERVATION EARTH IT Ling F, 2015, IEEE GEOSCI REMOTE S, V12, P1963, DOI 10.1109/LGRS.2015.2441135 Liu KH, 2008, COMPUT BIOL MED, V38, P601, DOI 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2008.02.007 Loboda T, 2007, REMOTE SENS ENVIRON, V109, P429, DOI 10.1016/j.rse.2007.01.017 Long TF, 2019, REMOTE SENS-BASEL, V11, DOI 10.3390/rs11050489 Lucas I, 1994, PHOTOGRAMM ENG REMOT, V60, P426 Malinverni ES, 2011, INT J GEOGR INF SCI, V25, P1025, DOI 10.1080/13658816.2011.566569 Melgani F, 2004, IEEE T GEOSCI REMOTE, V42, P1778, DOI 10.1109/TGRS.2004.831865 Meng Ran, 2017, Remote Sensing