PROJECT

Thematic Mapping in Lund Municipality

Image classification
Lund University Remote Sensing

Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2
1.1

Aim .................................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Study area.............................................................................................................................. 2

2. Methods....................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Image classification .............................................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 Pre-field work ............................................................................................................... 3
2.1.2 Field work ..................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.3 Post-field work .............................................................................................................. 3
2.1.4 Clouds & Shadows ......................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Accuracy assessment ............................................................................................................ 4
3. Results ......................................................................................................................................... 5
4. Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 7
5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 8
References ....................................................................................................................................... 9

1. Introduction
This project started with the geometrical correction and image enhancement of remote sensing
data with the aim to prepare the satellite imagery necessary for the last section of this project,
namely the image classification. Based on four bands satellite imagery from SPOT 5, seven land
covers were produced for Lund Municipality by applying the Fisher classification method. Fisher
method is based on a linear combination of discrimination of variable, where the different classes
are maximized and their variations are minimized within those classes. The general formula is
expressed as follows:

= + (, , )
=1

Where
= score for class i
m are the bands
= constant for class i
Wj,i= weight of j class
Xi= observed value
(Klecka, 1980)
For each pixel and each class there is a computed score value.
At the end, the accuracy calculation was calculated according to the training sites and evaluation
points acquired during the field work over the Lund municipality and then these were compared
with the predicted land covers produced using a supervised classification.
1.1 Aim
This project aims at developing a land cover map of Lund municipality with the use of Fisher
classification.
1.2 Study area
The SPOT 5 scene covers the area of southern Sweden encompassing the Lund County. It has been
taken at 10am on June, 03 2011. The study area is Lund municipality which is located in western
Scania at Coordinates: 380000, 414000 (E-W) and 6153000, 6185000 (S-N). The spectral
resolution is 4 bands: green (500-590nm), red (610-680nm), NIR (780-890nm), SWIR (15801750nm). The radiometric precision is 8 bits and maximum spatial resolution is 10m (nadir). The
area consists of a mixture of built-up areas, agricultural lands, forests, water and bare lands.

2. Methods
2.1 Image classification
2.1.1 Pre-field work

Pre-fieldwork image classification (pre-classification) was primarily performed to identify the

different land-cover classes present in the study area. It suited well for facilitating stratified random
sampling and creating a roadmap for the fieldwork. It was also useful as a base for comparing the
post-field work classification (post-classification).
Pre-classification was performed with Fisher hard classifier method, same as for the postclassification. Five (where possible) training areas were created for each land use class with
intention to spread evenly across the study area and to be most representative. A number of sources
and techniques were used to differentiate the land-cover classes: in addition to the Spot 5 imagery
data, that was aggregated in regular false color composite (rFCC), red (R)-near infrared (NIR)
composite or used individually, Google maps satellite layer was found informative, for instance to
distinguish coniferous forest stands from deciduous.
Water training areas were digitized as darkest areas with respectable shape using NIR base layer.
Bare soils were differentiated in rFCC as bright turquoise patches. The brightness of these patches
was varied which, among other reasons, probably is a result of different soil moisture.
Homogeneity and spectral response signature (SRS) of urban training sites was selected with an
aim to classify urban land-cover separately from Bare Soil class, and not to mix those in developed
areas, but to allow roads and squares inside towns to be classified as bare soils as well. It is worth
mentioning that the study area contains at least three significant quarries or stone-pits, which have
the same color as bare soils in rFCC, but of very high brightness. These were classified as Other
class. Vegetation classes were distinguished using rFCC and NDVI layer. Various herbaceous
patches, which cover most of the territory, have a strong pink, or light red tint. Whereas deciduous
forests have more ruff texture and darker red color in a rFCC. Coniferous forest stands look very
dark red to maroon. Herbaceous patches also have substantially lower NDVI values than forests.
Since Spot 5 imagery doesnt have a blue band, Google maps satellite view was used as
supplementary true-color source to differentiate vegetation.
2.1.2 Field work

The ground control points for the training and evaluation data were taken according to the stratified
sampling methodology by dividing the land cover into categories and selecting a sample within
the desired land cover. Each land cover was defined according to the pre-classification map and a
land cover map from the Swedish mapping, cadastral and land registration authority institute of
Lantmteriet. At every sample point the coordinates and dominating land cover was recorded. The
data acquisition was performed by 4 separate groups where a difference in sampling methodology
is probable. In total 154 points were recorded and divided into 77 training points and 77 evaluation
points.
2.1.3 Post-field work

After field work all training and evaluation records were pooled into an Excel file subdivided into
three columns representing latitude, longitude and land cover type. Afterwards, these observations
were transformed from WGS84 to SWEREF 99TM.

The gathered 154 sample points were divided in half into 77 training- and 77 evaluation-points,
where the training points were used for a final classification. The goal of this classification is to
have a more automatic approach where the training areas are defined without an interpretation of
the background False Color Composite (FCC). Further the training sample points were converted
into 90x90 meter training polygons to match the predefined sample area. These training areas laid
the foundation for the supervised Fisher-classification.
2.1.4 Clouds & Shadows

As described earlier in the second module of the mapping of Lund municipality project, the clouds
and cloud-shadows were removed with the help of an unsupervised classification. By identifying
the spectral identity of clouds and their corresponding shadows it was possible to eliminate the
cloud-prone areas from the final image. However, it was quite hard to make the classification
distinguish between water and cloud-shadow. Therefore it was necessary to perform a second
unsupervised classification of the cut-out clouds, cloud-shadows and water bodies.
Also worth mentioning is the use of only green, red and NIR bands for the identification, through
unsupervised classification, of clouds. This is due to the similarities between cloud and bare soil
reflectances in the Short-Wave Infrared (SWIR) wavelengths.
2.2 Accuracy assessment
After the development of maps it was necessary to evaluate whether the products were a good
representation of reality or not. This was achieved through the use of confusion matrices where
the field measured ground truth (earlier mentioned 77 evaluation points) was point wise compared
with the classified map. Here, the total accuracy then could be calculated by dividing the number
of correctly classified points with the total number of points. Also, the user and producer accuracy
was calculated to analyze the classification precision within specific classes. With the same
information it was further possible to calculate the kappa ()-value (Equation 1) which takes the
chance agreement into account.

(1)

where A is the sum of correctly

classified points, B is the sum of the
product of the classes and N is the total
number of elements in the confusion
matrix (Lillesand, 2008).

a)

3. Results
The result of the post-classification
showed a homogenous distribution of
land cover corresponding to a
hypothetical location of land use
classes. At first glance, the classified
objects seem to be well located with its
natural hydrological distribution across
the county and the agglomeration of the
city of Lund in the north-west part of
the region.
The overall accuracy and the kappavalue for the two classifications (Figure
1) and the martckedata produced by
Lantmteriet can be seen in table 1. All
three accuracy estimations were
calculated using the earlier mentioned
evaluation points from the field work.
The land cover distribution can be seen
in figure 2 a, b and c from the different
maps produced and utilized in this
project. In table 1 the proportions can
be seen expressed in square-kilometers
where it is evident that the herbaceous
class is the dominant land cover.

b)

Table 1 Statistics of the accuracy assessment for the

three maps.

Pre-class. Post-class.Marktcke
Overall acc.
66.7%
68%
81%
Kappa-value
0.57
0.61
0.75
Figure 1 Land cover classification with (a) pre-classification defined
training areas and (b) post-classification defined training areas

a)

b)

c)

Figure 2 Land cover distribution of Lund municipality with the a) pre-classification Fisher classification, b) post-classification Fisher
classification and
c) marktckesdata produced by Lantmteriet.

In figure 3 it is possible to study the spectral signatures

for the four bands with either the user-defined training
areas (Figure 3a) or the fieldwork-defined training areas
(Figure 3b). In post-classification the Bare Soil SRS is
better distinguished from the Other class. Also between
classifications, SRS is different for the DeciduousHerbaceous relationship. In pre-classification Urban,
Bare Soil, Coniferous, Deciduous and Other classes are
indistinguishable in NIR. In contrary the postclassification Herbaceous class gets mixed with Bare
Soil and Deciduous classes in NIR while the rest of the
classes are quite different in this band.

a)

Pre-classification

b)

Table 2 Land cover per class of the pre- and postclassification Fisher maps and the Marktcke data
produced by Lantmteriet.

Area Km2
Pre-class. Post-class. Marktcke
Water
13.2
15.1
12.8
Urban
30.2
28.2
32.3
Bare Soil
6.5
64.9
3.5
Herbecious
227.8
163.3
293.4
Coniferous
18.3
55.6
44.5
Deciduous
111.0
105.1
47.0
Other
31.6
6.5
9.0
Total
438.6
438.7
442.6
Class

Post-classification

Figure 3 Signature comparison between the four utilized bands for the a) pre-classification and b) post-classification
training areas.

4. Discussion
Two approaches to training sites development showed very similar final classification results. Both
have sources of inaccuracy, from the field sampling strategy imperfections, or biased experts
image analysis. The difference in overall accuracy (OA) between pre- and post-classification is
negligible, although the latter has a slight edge (1.3%), and the kappa values are comparable. A
leap in accuracy becomes obvious when comparing classifications to Marktckesdata, which has
13% higher OA and 0.14 higher kappa.
It is worth mentioning that the accuracy stated on the Marktckesdata map is only 75%, 6% lower
than that calculated using measured ground truth points. Therefore, supposedly, the evaluation
dataset is biased or flawed, leading to increased or biased accuracy estimates. Classification and
evaluation points were collected simultaneously and by 4 group pairs, each having different
sampling approach. It is also likely that groups focused primarily on collecting classification points
rather than evaluation ones. The random or stratified random approach is essential for the latter,
and lack of it is most probably the reason of the evaluation being inaccurate.
Pie charts of land-cover distribution (fig. 2) show a different perspective, especially when
comparing to the Marktckesdata. Both of the classifications underestimate the proportion of
Herbaceous class. Pre-classification is much closer to the municipal land-cover map in this respect,
underestimating it by 14%, which is most likely due to largely overestimated forested areas 8%
more.
With post-classification in addition to overestimated forests, comes the Bare Soil class 15%
versus 1% on the Marktckesdata, and there are several reasons for that. First and probably main
reason is the temporal difference between the field sampling and the satellite image, resulting in
some patches of bare soil being actually croplands that havent started vegetating yet. In addition
to that, in post-classification a significant portion of urban areas ended up in Bare Soil class, and
vice versa, because sampling points were taken on the roads and in parking lots, rather than
representing buildings, and the spectral response of roads is close to bare soils. For this specific
reason, in pre-classification, urban training sites were digitized on top of large warehouses and
dense built-up areas, which have a unique yellow tint in RFCC. It yielded much less confusion
between the two classes in pre-classification, and allowed a reasonable amount of bare soil class
in the city areas, representing road network, and more importantly less patches of actual bare soil,
classified as Urban (fig. 1).
According to the Marktckesdata forest types are equally distributed, while both of the
classifications give a significant edge to deciduous forests. The supposed reason is that unlike
coniferous, deciduous forests have similar SRS to Herbaceous class, especially in postclassification (fig. 3) and may interfere under certain tree/plant type, soil type and moisture
conditions.
Both of the classifications have their strengths and weaknesses, and it is arguable, which one is
better. Post-classification has slightly higher accuracy estimations and represents coniferous
forests class better. While pre-classification better represents the distribution of classes, especially
Herbaceous, Urban and Bare Soil. Further development of the project may focus on accuracy and
class distribution improvement through training sites correction and thorough SRS analysis.
Bare soil is a class of questionable usability in a final land-cover map, being quite vague firstly,
incorporating road network, recent clear-cuts, and, most importantly, croplands that havent started
sprouting at the time of image capture and/or fieldwork. Road network can be distinguished as a
class using standard deviation filter with further refinement by mode filter of appropriate kernel
7

size. Masking out roads from Bare Soil class will leave mainly not-yet-sprouting croplands in it,
as the quarries and stone-pits are easily classified as others in the pre-classification.
The classes used in this project are the most suitable for the classification of land cover of Lund
municipality. Subclasses to the existing classes could be applied like Spruce and Pine to the
Coniferous class. However, as seen in the SRS in figure 3 the distinguishability between existing
classes is already poor and would probably degrade the accuracy with additional classes. Why it
is complex to add classes is probably due to the precision of the training data. The accuracy of the
spectral properties of the SPOT-images are sufficient for a more detailed classification.
Why the Herbaceous class is the most dominant land cover in Lund municipality is probably due
to the geomorphology of the region. The western part of Scania is known for its fertile soils which
explain the high amount of agriculture, which is what the Herbaceous class represents. Also, why
the deciduous vegetation is more represented than the coniferous is probably due to climate where
the deciduous vegetation has an advantage.

5. Conclusions
The two developed maps have their strengths and weaknesses in accurately representing the land
cover of Lund municipality. Pre-classification better estimates the land cover distribution while
post-classification is more accurate spatially, according to the overall accuracy. Post-classification
provides mixed outcomes in Urban and Bare Soil classes, resulting in built-up areas being
represented as Bare Soil and vice versa. On the other hand pre-classification, while correctly
representing Urban, Bare Soil and Herbaceous classes, is largely underestimating coniferous forest
which is not the case for post-classification.

References
Klecka, W. R., 1980. Discriminant analysis. Series: Quantitative applications in the social sciences
Lantmteriet, 2010. Produktbeskrivning: GSD-Marktckedata, Gvle: Lantmteriet.
Lillesand, T.M. and Kiefer, R.W., 2008. Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation, Sixth Ed., John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.: Toronto.