| Literature DB >> 27879879 |
Rosa Maria Cavalli1, Lorenzo Fusilli1, Simone Pascucci2, Stefano Pignatti3, Federico Santini1.
Abstract
This study aims at comparing the capability of different sensors to detect land cover materials within an historical urban center. The main objective is to evaluate the added value of hyperspectral sensors in mapping a complex urban context. In this study we used: (a) the ALI and Hyperion satellite data, (b) the LANDSAT ETM+ satellite data, (c) MIVIS airborne data and (d) the high spatial resolution IKONOS imagery as reference. The Venice city center shows a complex urban land cover and therefore was chosen for testing the spectral and spatial characteristics of different sensors in mapping the urban tissue. For this purpose, an object-oriented approach and different common classification methods were used. Moreover, spectra of the main anthropogenic surfaces (i.e. roofing and paving materials) were collected during the field campaigns conducted on the study area. They were exploited for applying band-depth and sub-pixel analyses to subsets of Hyperion and MIVIS hyperspectral imagery. The results show that satellite data with a 30m spatial resolution (ALI, LANDSAT ETM+ and HYPERION) are able to identify only the main urban land cover materials.Entities:
Keywords: band-depth analysis; linear spectral unmixing.; object-oriented classification; satellite hyperspectral remote sensing; urban environmental monitoring
Year: 2008 PMID: 27879879 PMCID: PMC3675545 DOI: 10.3390/s8053299
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Location of the study area.
Characteristics of the sensors used for this study.
| 10-30 | 10 | 0.4-2.4 | Push-broom | L1R | |
| 30 | 220 | 0.4-2.5 | Push-broom | L1R | |
| 30 | 8 | 0.4-12.5 | Push-broom | L1R | |
| 1 | 4 | 0.4-0.7 | Push-broom | ||
| 8 (at 4000m) | 102 | 0.4-12.7 | Whisk-broom | CNR-LARA | |
| 20 | 0.4-0.83 | ||||
| 8 | 1.15-1.55 | ||||
| 64 | 2-2.5 | ||||
| 10 | 8.2-12.7 | ||||
Figure 2.(a) ASD field spectra of limestone, asphalt and trachyte paving materials. (b) Spectra of new and weathered lateritic tiles and leads tiles (roofing materials). All spectra are plotted with the relative σ standard deviation.
Figure 3.Flow diagram indicating the steps followed in the methods.
Figure 4.Object-oriented approach results of MIVIS data (8m/pixel).
Percentages of covering materials as derived from the object-oriented segmentation procedure applied to MIVIS data.
| Conifers | Broadleaves | Grass | Lateritic STiles | Lead Tiles | Limestone | Asphalt pavements | Trachyte pavements | Other materials | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIVIS | 13.9 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 53.9 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 7.7 | 10.4 | 6.6 |
| IKONOS ground truth | 17.8 | 52.4 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 5.4 | 12.3 | 9.2 | ||
Retrieved ISODATA percentages of the covering materials.
| Vegetation % | Roofing Tiles % | Paving materials % | Other materials % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALI | 22.5 | 71.7 | 3 | 2.8 |
| ETM+ | 22.3 | 71.12 | 4.22 | 2.36 |
| Hyperion | 18.72 | 60.3 | 15.16 | 5.82 |
| MIVIS | 20.31 | 51.23 | 26.27 | 2.19 |
| IKONOS Ground truth | 17.8 | 52.4 | 20.6 | 9.2 |
Figure 5.SAM classification results.
Percentages of covering materials as derived from the SAM classification procedure.
| Conifers | Broadleaves | Grass | Lateritic Tiles | Lead Tiles | Limestone | Asphalt pavements | Trachyte pavements | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10.3 | 11.3 | 3.2 | 54.2 | 2.2 | 16.7 | 2.1 | |||
| 7.8 | 2.8 | 7.9 | 51.0 | 8.0 | 11.1 | 114 | |||
| 7.7 | 17.6 | 3.5 | 48.2 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 7.1 | 7.9 | 5.8 | |
| 12.3 | 4.9 | 4.0 | 49.7 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 7.1 | 8.5 | 10.2 | |
| 17.8 | 52.4 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 5.4 | 12.3 | 9.2 | |||
Values of d, BDL, f and MDA calculated for the measured spectrum of the limestone and the asphalt paving materials and the new lateritic tile roofing material by using their peculiar spectral absorption features.
| MIVIS | Hyperion | MIVIS | Hyperion | MIVIS | Hyperion | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10,47 | 5,17 | 3,64 | 3,63 | 17,98 | 8,17 | |
| 21,99 | 10,85 | > 100 | > 100 | > 100 | > 100 | |
| 14 | 98 | > pixel | > pixel | > pixel | > pixel | |
Figure 6.Images (a) and (c) show respectively Hyperion (zoom 12x) and MIVIS (zoom 5x) false color composite (Red=1520nm, Green=820nm, Blue=680nm) images of the cemetery island north to Venice. Images (b) and (d) show respectively Hyperion and MIVIS limestone band-depth analysis (at 2.34 μm) results.
Figure 7.MIVIS and Hyperion fractional abundance images of the cemetery island north of Venice. IKONOS image is shown as reference. Color scale bar expresses the percentages of occurrence of the four endmembers used in the LSU analysis.
Correlation coefficients between the fractional abundances images of MIVIS (upper table) and Hyperion (lower table) with respect to the IKONOS ground truth.
| Correlation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Coefficient | Limestone | Grass | Cypress | Tiles | |
|
| |||||
| Ground Truth | Limestone | 0.39 | 0.02 | 0.05 | |
| Grass | 0.42 | 0.22 | 0.16 | ||
| Cypress | 0.18 | 0.30 | 0.11 | ||
| Tiles | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.09 | ||
|
| |||||
| Correlation | |||||
|
| |||||
| Coefficient | Limestone | Grass | Cypress | Tiles | |
|
| |||||
| Ground Truth | Limestone | 0.32 | 0.16 | 0.22 | |
| Grass | 0.40 | 0.55 | 0.09 | ||
| Cypress | 0.30 | 0.53 | 0.10 | ||
| Tiles | 0.07 | 0.12 | 0.00 | ||