The IRMA Community
Newsletters
Research IRM
Click a keyword to search titles using our InfoSci-OnDemand powered search:
|
A Comparative Study of Four Different Satellite Image Classification Techniques for Geospatial Management
|
|
Author(s): Devanjan Bhattacharya (Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India & University of Pardubice, Czech Republic)and Santo Banerjee (Institute for Mathematical Research, University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia & International Science Association, Turkey)
Copyright: 2013
Pages: 13
Source title:
Chaos and Complexity Theory for Management: Nonlinear Dynamics
Source Author(s)/Editor(s): Santo Banerjee (Politecnico di Torino, Italy)
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-2509-9.ch014
Purchase
|
Abstract
Satellite imagery interpretation has become the technology of choice for a host of developmental, scientific, and administrative management work. The huge repository of geospatial data and information that are available as satellite imageries datasets from platforms such as Google Earth need to be classified and understood for natural resources management, urban planning, and sustainable development. The classification and analysis procedures involve algorithms like maximum likelihood classifier, isodata, fuzzy-logic classifier, and artificial neural network based classifier. Amongst these classifiers the optimum has to be selected for classifications which involve multiple features and classes. Herein lies the motivation for the present research, which can facilitate the selection of one amongst the many algorithms available to a decision maker/manager. The aforementioned techniques are applied for classification, and the respective accuracies in the classes of forestry, rock, water, built-up area, and dry river bed have been tabulated and verified from ground truth. The comparison is based on time and space complexity of the algorithms considering also the accuracy. It is found that traditional methods like MLC and Isodata offer good time and space consumption performance over the recent more adaptable algorithms as fuzzy and ANN. But the latter group excels in accuracy of assessment. The study suggests points and cases for ranking the techniques as best, 2nd best, and so on, where each technique could be optimally utilised for a given geospatial dataset based on its contents.
Related Content
|
Yuvika Singh, Esha Bansal, Nisha Chanana.
© 2024.
26 pages.
|
|
Nitish Kumar Minz, Anshika Prakash, Meenal Arora, Rishi Chaudhary, Saurav Dixit.
© 2024.
14 pages.
|
|
Manoj Govindaraj, Chandramowleeswaran Gnanasekaran, R. Kandavel, Parvez Khan, Sinh Duc Hoang.
© 2024.
20 pages.
|
|
Ravishankar Krishnan, Elantheraiyan Perumal, Manoj Govindaraj, Logasakthi Kandasamy.
© 2024.
22 pages.
|
|
Sanjay Taneja, Rishi Prakash Shukla, Amandeep Singh.
© 2024.
11 pages.
|
|
Mune Moğol Sever.
© 2024.
23 pages.
|
|
Sujay Vikram Singh, Terrance Ancheary, Anish Mondal, Shashank Rajauria.
© 2024.
17 pages.
|
|
|