Geology Mapping and Lineament Visualization using Image Enhancement Techniques:

Comparison of Landsat 8 (OLI) and Landsat 7 (ETM+)

M. W. Mwaniki a*
a
Department of Geomatics Engineering and Geospatial Information Sciences, Jomo Kenyatta
University of Agriculture and Technology, P.O. Box 62000-00200 Nairobi, Kenya.

*Corresponding author email address: mmwaniki@jkuat.ac.ke

ABSTRACT
The application of remote sensing to geology, mineral exploration and mapping is increasing with
the increased availability of hyperspectral and multispectral datasets, and image enhancement
methods which aid interpretation and visualization. Although remote sensing is limited to surface
information, as compared to the requirements of geological strata mapping, it provides useful data
to study underlying rocks formation and geomorphology. Previous studies mainly used Landsat and
ASTER datasets for geological mapping in arid regions and less information for highland regions.
This study presents image enhancement methods suitable for geological mapping and visualization
using Landsat multispectral data sets in an area containing both highland and semi-arid conditions,
and prone to rainfall induced landslides. Image enhancement methods using Landsat 7 (ETM+,
2000) and Landsat 8 (OLI, 2014) were compared to determine the bands suitable for geological
mapping in the study area. The image enhancement methods used were: Principal Component
Analyses (PCA); PCA factor loading; Independent Component Analyses (ICA); False Colour
Composites (FCC) with band ratios and Principal Components (PCs); knowledge based
classification with FCC; application of non-directional filter on panchromatic bands followed by
thresholding; IHS (Intensity, Hue, Saturation) transformation of geology enhancing bands, followed
by use of Saturation band in an FCC of PC and IC components, to visualize both lineaments and
geology. Band ratioing combinations had more geology contrast than PC combinations, and
consequently, more rock types were discriminated in the band ratio combinations. In addition,
Landsat 8 performed better than Landsat 7 in differentiating more rock types, a factor that was
attributed to Landsat 8 narrower bands compared to Landsat 7. On the other hand, Landsat 7 pan-
band 8 performed slightly better compared to Landsat 8 pan-band 8 in lineament extraction,
although band ratios 5/1 and 6/3 were used to supplement missing lineaments in vegetated areas
owing to their enhanced textures.

KEY WORDS: Image Enhancement methods, Factor loading with PCA, Band ratioing, False
Colour Combinations (FCC), Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Independent Component
Analysis (ICA), Knowledge based classification, Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+),
Operational Land Imager (OLI)

1. INTRODUCTION

The improvement of Landsat series sensors, specifically from ETM+ to OLI, with two additional
spectral bands and narrower band width, is an advantage for applications requiring finer, narrow
bands; more so the development of spectral indices for applications such as; agriculture, land-cover
mapping, fresh and coastal waters mapping, snow and ice, soil and geology (Roy et al., 2014).
Geology is a key factor that contributes to landslide prevalence; hence the need to map the
structural pattern, faults and river channels in a highly rugged volcanic mountainous terrain which
can be facilitated by Landsat data sets. This multispectral data and advances in Digital Image
Processing (DIP), further facilitate geophysical and environmental studies, providing timely data for
managing disasters and monitoring resources (Govender et al., 2007). Landsat multispectral data
has the advantage of acquiring data from several spectral regions (visible, near infrared and short
wave infrared regions), thus enabling investigations of the physical properties of the earth’s surface,
such as geology, soil and minerals. Consequently, the utility of DIP in image feature enhancement
and extraction, leading to successful categorization, visualization and interpretation cannot be
underestimated in geological applications (Argialas et al., 2003).

DIP image enhancement suited for geological applications range from: transformed data feature
space (PCA, ICA), band ratioing and spectral index, colour composites (with real bands or
enhanced components), decorrelation stretch, edge enhancements and filtering, image fusion, and
data reduction (e.g. Tasseled cap, PCA, ICA). These methods have been proven to facilitate the
differentiation and characterization of various elements of structural geology, mineralization and
soil application studies (e.g. Chen and Campagna, 2009; Gupta, 2013; Prost, 2001). The use of
transformed data space methods help to decorrelate band information, while separating data along
new component lines, which can further be enhanced by visualizing the new components in the
FCC. The resulting new components can serve as optimized input data for classification in geology
mapping. For example, Ott et al. (2006) implemented such a classification to implement
favourability mapping for the exploration of copper minerals.

On the other hand, implemention of successful band ratios or spectral indices suiting geological
applications require understanding of the multispectral regions of a satellite and the usage of bands.
Landsat (TM, ETM+) bands are known for particular applications: band 7 (geology band), band 5
(soil and rock discrimination) and band 3 (discrimination of soil from vegetation) (Boettinger et al.,

2
2008; Campbell, 2002, 2009; Chen and Campagna, 2009). Band ratios and spectral signatures
developed from hyperspectral data allow individual rock types to be studied spectrally, boosting
geological and mineral investigation. Band ratios are also known to eliminate shadowing and
topographic effects, and therefore suit complex terrain (Campbell, 2002). The need to normalize
band ratios, to ease scaling, has paved way for spectral indices while still maximizing the sensitivity
of the target features. Examples of band ratios that have been used in geological applications using
Landsat are: 3/1 – iron oxide (Gad and Kusky, 2006), 5/1 – magnetite content (Sabins, 1999), 5/7 –
hydroxyl bearing rock (Sultan et al., 1987), 7/4 – clay minerals (Laake, 2011), 5/4*3/4 –
metavolcanics (Rajendran et al., 2007), and 5/4 – ferrous minerals (Carranza and Hale, 2002). Other
band ratios possible with ASTER data and hyperspectral data are discussed in detail by van der
Meer et al. (2012) and Ninomiya et al. (2005).

The use of RGB colour composites as an image enhancement technique provide a powerful means
to visually interpret a multispectral image and can be real (utilizing individual bands) or false (FCC,
using band ratios or PCs) (Novak and Soulakellis, 2000). Examples of published Landsat band ratio
combinations are; Kaufmann ratio (7/4, 4/3, 5/7), Chica–Olma ratio (5/7, 5/4, 3/1) (Mia and
Fujimitsu, 2012) and Sabin’s ratio (5/7, 3/1, 3/5) (Sabins, 1997). Abdeen et al. (2001) investigated
ASTER band ratio combinations suitable for geological mapping in arid regions and concluded that
the ratio combinations (4/7, 4/1, 2/3*4/3) and (4/7, 4/3, 2/1) were equivalent to Landsat Sultan (5/7,
5/1, 5/4*3/4) and Abrams (5/7, 3/1, 4/5) combinations, respectively. Similarly, using band
combinations, ASTER combination (7,3,1) was found to be equivalent of Landsat (7,4,2), the
ARAMCO combination, by Abdeen et al. (2001) and was used to outline lithological units as well
as structural and morphological features. Laake (2011) using Landsat multi-band RGB (7,4,2),
distinguished among basement rocks, mesozoic clastic sedimentary rocks and coastal carbonates,
while the difference between bands 4 and 2 highlighted the difference in lithology between pure
limestone and more sand cover.

FCC, using PC combinations, have been explored for geological mapping. For example, Abdeen
and Abdelghaffar (2008) used PCs (1,2,3) in an FCC to discriminate among sepentinites, basic
metavolcanics, cal-alkaline granites and amphibolites rock units. On the other hand, Wahid and
Ahmed (2006), using PCs (3,2,1), identified the most prominent geomorphologic units and various
landform features, such as; fluvial terraces, fossili-ferous reefs, alluvial fans, desert wadis, salt pans
and sabkhas, spits and sand bars, and submerged reefs. In general, the number of bands in a sensor
determines the possible combinations in an FCC. For instance, ASTER sensor, with 6 bands in the

3
SWIR and 5 bands in the thermal region, has many possible combinations and performs better in
lithological discrimination compared to Landsat imagery (van der Meer et al., 2012).

The success of a geological classification rely on the separability of training data into various target
classes, an application where minerology, weathering characteristics and geochemical signatures are
useful in determining the nature of rock units (Kruse, 1998). Thus, the quality of data is greatly
enhanced by image fusion, improving the spatial resolution leading to detailed rock (e.g. Pal et al.,
2007), and mineral discrimination (e.g. Pour and Hashim, 2013). Specifically, image fusion
between optical and microwave data can reveal subsurface geological features (e.g. Rahman et al.,
2010). Still, it can provide structural, texture and surface morphology data (Harris et al., 2001). On
the other hand, increased spectral resolution offered by hyperspectral data or ASTER multispectral
data is more appealing for mineral exploration or mapping (e.g. Cudahy et al., 2001; King et al.,
2012; Ninomiya et al., 2005).

The growing demand of data integration, to suit such applications, have led to the need of hybrid
classifiers, integration of GIS and remote sensing data, and advances in image classification. Such
classification algorithms that have successfully been used in geological mapping include: Artificial
Neural Networks (ANN) (e.g. Rigol-Sanchez et al., 2003; Ultsch et al., 1995); evidential reasoning
(e.g. Gong, 1996); Fuzzy contextual (Binaghi et al., 1997), object oriented image analysis (e.g.
Mavrantza and Argialas, 2006) and knowledge-based classification (e.g. Mwaniki et al., 2015). The
ability to incoporate ancillary data into a classification system using expert rules has greatly reduced
spectral confusion among target classes in a complex biophysical environment. For example, Zhu et
al. (2014) implemented expert knowledge base approach to extract landslide predisposing factors
from domain experts, while Gong (1996) integrated multiple data sources in geological mapping
using evidential reasoning and artificial neural networks. Knowledge based systems are considered
to be a model based systems utilizing simple geometric properties of spatial features and geographic
properties of spatial features and geographic context rules (Cortez et al., 1997). Thus, they require
that each class is uniquely defined using geographic variables that represent spectral characteristics,
topography, shape or environmental unit.

Other DIP image enhancement methods which have been applied with success in geological
mapping are the use of DEMs to aid lineament extraction (e.g. Chaabouni et al., 2012; Favretto et
al., 2013; Papadaki et al., 2011), Minimum Noise fraction, decorrelation stretch, shaded relief and
epipolar stereo and Tasseled cap (Perez et al., 2006). Lineament mapping is an important part of
structural geology and it reveals the architecture of the underlying rock basement (Ramli et al.,

4
2010). Lineament extraction involves both manual visualization and automatic lineament extraction
through softwares such us; PCI GeoAnalyst, Geomatica, Canny algorithm (e.g. Marghany and
Hashim, 2010) and Matlab (e.g. Rahnama and Gloaguen, 2014) or algorithms such as; fuzzy B-
spline (Marghany, 2012), Hough transform (Karnieli et al., 1996). The application of filters
(directional, laplacian, sobel, prewitt kernels) on particular bands or RGB combinations have been
explored by various authors (e.g. Abdullah et al., 2013; Argialas et al., 2003; Kavak, 2005; Suzen
and Toprak, 1998). Hung et al. (2005) compared Landsat ETM+ and ASTER in the quality of the
extracted lineaments and concluded that the higher the spatial resolution, the higher the quality of
the lineament map. Thus, image fusion with Landsat band 8 or the use of Landsat band 8 improves
the number of lineament extracted. For example, Qari et al. (2008) extracted the structural
information from Landsat ETM+ band 8 using PCI GeoAnalyst software by applying edge
detection and directional filtering followed by overlaying with ASTER band ratios 6/8, 4/8, and
11/14 in RGB to create a geological map. Kocal et al. (2004) extracted lineaments using Line
module of PCI Geomatica from band 8 but defined the direction of the lineaments manually. The
presence of vegetation cover, rapid urbanization, extensive weathering and recent non-consolidated
deposits may hinder detection of lineaments, thus the need for ground truthing or earlier satellite
images (Ramli et al., 2010).

The aim of this research was to compare the ability of Landsats ETM+ and OLI in mapping geology
and to visualize lineaments using remote sensing techniques. The uniqueness of the study is that
while previous researches, such as: Ali et al. (2012); Gad and Kusky (2006); Kenea (1997); Novak
and Soulakellis (2000); and Sultan et al. (1987), have used Landsat to map geology in arid regions,
this study considered both semi arid and highland conditions to investigate image enhancement
methods suitable for geology mapping and visualisation, while comparing the performance of
Landsat 7 (ETM+) and 8 (OLI). Image enhancement techniques using FCCs of PCs, band ratios
were therefore explored for use in knowledge-based classification with each sensor data (Landsat
OLI and ETM+).

2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Regional Settings
The regional settings where the methodology was tested covers the central highlands, parts of the
Rift Valley and Eastern regions of Kenya, and ranges from longitude 35°34´00"E to 38°15´00"E,
and latitudes 0°53´00"N to 2°10´00"S (Figure 1). Within the study area are three important water
towers forming the Kenya highlands, and the terrain varies from highly rugged mountainous terrain,
with deep incised river valleys and narrow ridges, to gently sloping savannah plains and plateau.
5
The altitude ranges from 450m to 5199m above mean sea level. Soil formation is mainly attributed
to the deep weathering of rocks where, Ngecu et al. (2004) noted three main soil types; nitosols,
andosols and cambisol. Landslides triggered by rapid soil saturation are common during the wet
seasons (March - May, and October - December), and thus factors affecting landslides have gained
increasing attention (e.g. Maina-Gichaba et al., 2013; Mwaniki et al., 2011; Ngecu and Mathu,
1999; Ogallo et al., 2006). Therefore, by mapping surface geology, this research provided data for
further landslide susceptibility mapping.

Figure 1: Geology map of the Study area

2.2 Data description and image enhancements

Landsat 8, (OLI, year 2014) and Landsat 7, (ETM+, year 2000), scenes p168r060, p168r061 and
p169r060 free of cloud cover for the year 2000 were downloaded from the USGS web site and pre-
processed to reduce the effects of haze before mosaicing and subsetting. The image processing and
6
 subsequent image enhancements are summarized by the methodology flow chart (Figure 2). First,
standard PCA was performed on each of the images and the resulting covariance-variance matrix
examined through factor loading as in Tables 1 and 2 for Landsat ETM+ and OLI, respectively.
Factor Loading was to investigate the Principal Components (PCs) which contained the most
information from geology band 7, and soil information from the red and SWIR bands 5 (in Landsat
7) and band 6 (in Landsat 8). This was the first step towards identifying components which
enhanced lithology or lineaments that could be visualized in an FCC.
From Tables 1 and 2, PC1 contained high geology and soil information, but positively correlated
with other band information. Consequently, Independent Component Analysis (ICA) which
performs better than PCA at separating class data was applied to obtain components with enhanced
lineament and lithology information.

Pan-Band 8
Landsat 7 {pre-processed bands 1-5, and 7} OR
Landsat 8 {pre-processed bands 1-7}

PCA and Factor loading Analysis Band ratioing and geology contrast criteria Band ratio
ICA
5/1, 6/3

FCC (bands 573)

Selection of PCs containing the Advanced RGB clustering
FCC (bands 674) most geologic information of FCC {3/2, 5/1, 7/4}/
FCC {4/2, 7/3, 6/5, }
Application of
non-directional
IHS (FCC 573) RGB clustering of PCs (2,3,5) filters
IHS (FCC 674) RGB clustering of PCs (2,4,5)

Thresholding
Lineament visualization: Density slicing
FCC {IC1, PC5, Saturation band IHS 573}
FCC {IC2, PC4, Saturation band IHS 674} Extract lineaments
Knowledge based classification

Band ratio geology classification Overlay

PC soil classification map

Structural geology
Figure 2: Summary of the methodology flow chart using Landsat 7/ Landsat 8 map

7
 Table 1: PC Factor loading covariance-variance matrix, Landsat 7, Year 2000
PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC7
Eigvec. 1 0.35043 0.14994 0.34351 -0.06653 0.41753 -0.74697
Eigvec 2 0.31187 0.17774 0.41251 -0.09581 0.50378 0.66182
Eigvec 3 0.40637 -0.13773 0.54636 0.35197 -0.62644 0.03275
Eigvec 4 0.28295 0.82872 -0.23965 -0.24133 -0.34225 0.01907
Eigvec 5 0.58467 -0.13639 -0.57760 0.51478 0.19711 0.04562
Eigvec 7 0.43920 -0.47073 -0.14922 -0.73436 -0.15315 0.02273
Var. contr. in % 96.64 1.91 1.18 0.17 0.08 0.02

Table 2: PC Factor loading covariance-variance matrix, Landsat 8, Year 2014

PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 PC7
Eigvec. 1 0.24099 -0.05290 -0.55771 0.40784 -0.26256 0.46573 0.41942
Eigvec 2 0.21217 0.00164 -0.47775 0.20939 -0.08576 -0.19418 -0.79864
Eigvec 3 0.21104 0.03187 -0.37807 -0.09955 0.14961 -0.77211 0.42786
Eigvec 4 0.23250 0.22847 -0.33049 -0.62980 0.48878 0.38262 -0.05071
Eigvec 5 0.58467 -0.75238 0.21025 -0.20441 -0.06988 0.02520 -0.02421
Eigvec 6 0.56277 0.37244 0.37243 0.47883 0.42009 0.00958 0.00558
Eigvec7 0.37386 0.48909 0.16014 -0.33498 -0.69358 -0.04594 0.00235
Var. contr. in % 91.596 6.840 1.209 0.208 0.122 0.020 0.005

2.2.1 Image enhancement and knowledge based classification with Landsat 7

Following factor loading and band information in Table 1, PC2 was disqualified on the basis of
high reflectance from vegetation in band 4, while PC3 and PC7 had a similar correlation between
bands 5 and 7, complicating the differentiation of geology and soil information. PC1, PC4, and PC5
were therefore layer stack (as in Figure 2 (a)) and used for geology mapping with the help of IC1
(first independent component) to assist differentiate water features from rocks (Figure 2b).
Knowledge based classification was applied using the following four components PC1, PC4, PC5
and IC1 where the classification boundary rules were defined (as in Table 3), according to colour
information (from Figure 2a). Enquiry of the PC values in each channel was done at possible
classes to establish class boundaries, which were consequently entered into the knowledge base
engineer and saved. The Landsat subset images were then input, and the classification ran
specifying the knowledge base engineer files. The boundaries were adjusted each time after a trial
classification, until all the cells were classified. The result of the classification was 17 rock types
and 3 water types discrimination.

8
(a) (b)

Figure 2: FCC with (a) PC1, PC4, and PC5 (b) IC1, PC4, and PC5 Year 2000

9
 Table 3: Knowledge based classification rules with PC1, PC4, PC5, IC1 components, for Landsat 7
Class PC1 (0 – 559.738) PC4 (-96.16 – 44.33) PC5(-57.567 – -57.97) IC1(-9.72- 18.34)
Igneous rocks 160 – 55 <0 >5 <3
90 – 55 < -13 < -13
150 – 90 10 – 0 >5 <3
< 55 < -12 > -5 < 2.5
Basic rocks 160 – 90 <5 5–0 <1
90 – 55 5 – -2 30 – 4
Basalt 320 – 240 5–0 5–0
240 – 200 5–0 5 – -15
Acidic Igneous 200 – 150 10 – 0 20 – 0
240 – 200 >5 >8 <1.65
90 – 55 <-10 >0 <2.5
< 55 <0 >5 <1.65
Granitoid gneiss >320 <9 >8 <5
320 – 260 5 – -5 >5 <5
260 – 200 5–0 20 – 0 <5
260 – 240 10 – 5 >8 <5
Intermediate igneous 320 – 240 >5 <8 <1.4
240 – 160 >5 <8 <1.4
Intermediate (A.T.P) 260 – 200 0 – -14 >0
200 – 160 <0 20 – 0
Ultra-basic Igneous 240 –200 <0 <0
200 – 160 5–0 5 – -15
160 – 90 <5 5–0 >1
160 – 90 5–0 0 – -5 <5
Pyroclastic unconsolid. 200 – 55 0 – -13 0 - -13
240 – 200 5–0 <-15
Acidic metamorphic >320 <-10 <0 < 1.4
320 - 240 < -5 <0 < 1.4
Basic metamorphic >320 <0 >0 <5
320 - 260 <0 >0
260 - 200 <-14 >0
Eulian unconsolidated 320 – 240 >5 8 – -10 5 – 1.4
240 – 160 >5 <8 5 – 1.4
>320 <-10 <0 5 – 1.4
320 - 240 < -5 <0 5 – 1.4
>320 5–0 8-0
Fluvial >320 5 – -10 <0 < 1.4
320 – 240 0 – -5 < -5
Classic sediments >320 5 – -10 <0 5 – 1.4
320 - 240 5-0 <0 <5
320 - 240 0 – -5 0 – -5
Organic unconsolid. >320 >5 <8 <5
320 – 240 >5 <-10 5 – 1.4
Organic 200 – 90 <-13 <0
200 – 90 0 – -13 <-13
Limestone/Carbonates > 320 >9 >8
320 – 260 >8 >5 <5
>320 10 – 5
Clear water < 55 <8 30 – 5 4 – 1.65
Turbid water 250 – 120 < 30 >4
120 – 55 < 20 30 – -5 >3
< 55 <8 >0 >4
Salty water > 120 >0 >0 > 10
>240 >10
320 - 240 >5 10 - 5

The above classification was varied using band ratios derived from Landsat bands 7, according to
the geology rule by Drury (1993), where higher bands are divided by lower bands. In addition to
this rule, it was observed from the use of the FCC with Landsat bands containing most geology and
soil information (combination 5,7,3), and their use as numerators only plus use of vegetation
10
enhancing bands as denominators (avoiding band repetition), that lithology components were more
enhanced by the resulting increased contrast. Thus, the combination 3/2, 5/1, 7/4 (Figure 3a) was
found to emphasize and discriminate lithology features best, although the geology classification was
implemented with additional band ratios, 5/4 (Figure 3b) and 7/3 (Figure 3c) to aid water mineral
discrimination. Classification rules for use in knowledge based classification were set as in the
Table 4, with input band ratios 3/2, 5/1, 7/4, 7/3, and 5/4, which were also compared with less band
ratios 3/2, 5/1, 7/3 (Figure 3d).

(a) (b)

Figure 3: FCC combinations with (a) 3/2, 5/1, 7/4 (b) 3/2, 5/1, 7/4*5/4

(c) 11 (d)

Figure 3: FCC combinations with (c) 3/2, 5/1, 7/4*7/3 (d) 3/2, 5/1, 7/3
 Table 4: Knowledge based classification rules with band ratios 3/2, 5/1, 7/4, 5/4 and 7/3
Class 3/2 (0 – 1.915) 5/1(0 – 3.08) 7/4(0 – 49.87) 5/4(0 – 8.18) 7/3(0 – 4.92)
Igneous rock 1.15 – 0.75 1.35 – 0.7 2 – 0.9
< 0.95 <1 <1 > 0.475
1.275 – 1.15 1.35 – 0.7 1.8 – 1.475
1.05 – 0.95 1.45 - 1.2 1.85 – 1.6
1.1 – 0.8 1.35 – 1.275 1.675 – 1.1
1.15 – 0.85 0.7 – 0.2 1.675 – 0.9 > 0.55
Basic Igneous <1 1.35 – 1 < 0.9
< 0.9 1.35 – 1.275 1.1 – 0.9
<0.6 2 – 1.35 <0.7
Basalt 1.275 – 0.9 1.35 – 1.175 1.475 – 0.4
1.4 – 1.3 1.775 -1.6 1.45 – 1.05
1.3 – 1.1 1.5 – 1.35 1.1 -0.5
Acidic igneous 1.275 - 1 1.6 – 1.35 2 – 1.1
Granites 1.35 – 0.5 > 1.85 >2
1.35 – 0.5 >2.3 >1.55
<1.35 <1.275 >1.675 >1.4
<0.85 <1.275 1.675 – 1 >0.475
Intermediate igneous 1.25 – 1.1 1.775 – 1.6 2.1 – 1.45
1.4 – 1.25 1.775 – 1.65 1.875 – 1.45
Intermediate (A.T.P) 1.3 – 0.8 1.6 – 1.275 >1.675
1.4 – 1.1 1.85 – 1.6 >1.875
1.45 – 1.3 1.6 – 1.2 3 – 1.675
Ultra-basic igneous 1.15 -0.7 1.2 – 0.65 1.25 -0.4
1.275 – 1.15 1.3 – 0.5 1.475 – 0.4
1.15 – 0.7 1 – 0.65 0.4 – 0.2
Pyroclastic unconsolidated 1.1 -0.6 2.3 - 1.35 <1.1
1.3 – 1.1 2.3 – 1.6 1.1 – 0.5
1.35 – 0.6 >2.3 1.55 – 1.1
Acidic metamorphic 1.3 – 0.6 2.2 – 1.6 1.45 – 1.1
1 – 0.8 1.6 – 1.35 1.45 – 1.1
1.35 – 1.1 1.775 – 1.45 1.1 – 0.6
Basic metamorphic 1.35 – 1.025 2.3 – 1.775 2.3 – 1.35
1.4 – 1.35 2.3 – 1.775 1.8 – 1.35
1.5 – 1.3 2.3 – 1.7 1.55 -0.9
Eulian unconsolidated 1.4 - 1.275 1.5 – 0.5 2.1 – 0.5
1.6 -1.4 1.5 – 0.65 2 – 0.5
1.6 – 1.35 1.7 – 1.5 1.55 – 0.8
>1.6 1.6 – 0.9 1.05 – 0.8
1.35 – 1.275 1.6 – 1.35 2 – 1.1
Fluvial >1.4 2.3 – 1.6 >1.55
1.4 -1.35 2.3 – 1.75 2.5 – 1.8
Classic sediments 1.4 – 1.25 1.65 -1.45 2.1 – 0.975
1.6 – 1.35 1.65 – 1.5 2.1 – 1.05
1.6 - 1.4 1.775 – 1.6 1.55 – 1.0
Organic unconsolidated 1.25- 0.6 1.85 – 1.275 >2.3
1.35 – 1.0 1.85 – 1.575 2.5 – 2
1.1 – 0.8 1.85 -1.6 2 – 1.4
1.0 – 0.9 1.6 – 1.35 1.675 – 1.45
Clear water < 0.1 <0.75 <0.1
Turbid water 1.4 – 0.75 <0.1 <0.1
1.5 – 1.0 0.65 – 0.1 1.4 – 0.1
< 0.75 0.65 – 0.1 1.4 – 0.1
Salty water 1 – 0.75 0.9 – 0.1 1.4 – 0.1
>1.4 <0.65 <0.7
Clayey water <0.1 1.0 – 0.1

2.2.2 Image enhancement with Landsat 8

12
From the PC Factor loading with Landsat 8 data (Table 2), PCs 1 and 2 had high amount of
information from band 5, which coincides to the Landsat 7, NIR band where vegetation reflectance
is high. On the other hand, PCs 6 and 7 had the least information from bands 6 and 7, while PC3
had positively correlated information from bands 5, 6 and 7. Therefore, PC combination 2, 4, 5
(Figure 4a) was used to guide the geology classification, with more discrimination with PC3 (for
vegetated areas, as in Figure 4b) and IC1 (for water features, Figure 4c). The classification achieved
16 rock type discrimination and 3 water types (Table 5).

(a) (b)

Figure 4: FCC with:

(a) PCs 2, 4, 5
(b) PCs 3, 4, 5
(c) IC1, PC4, PC5

13

(c)
 Table 5: Knowledge based classification rules with PC2, PC3, PC4, PC5, and IC1 components for Landsat 8

PC2(-12812.5 – PC4(-6944.82 – PC5(-15372.2 – PC3(-19653.9 – IC1(-5.32 – 27.08)

13838.7) 1908.32) 6182.22) 6957.98)
Igneous rock 0 – -3000 >0 150 – -1000 0 – -4000 < 2.3
< -3000 > 600 <0 -1500 – -4000 < 2.3
Basic Igneous -1000 – -3000 > 250 0 - -500 0 - -1500
< -3000 600 – -300 0 – -500 0 – -2000
Basalt > 1400 500 – 0 > 200 > -700
> 500 <0 750 – 0 >0
Acidic Igneous 1000 – -500 700 – 0 150 – -1000 < 2.3
< -3000 <0 > 200 < 1.4
Granite > 1500 > 500 500 - -2000
Intermediate Igneous 1500 - 1000 >0 150 - -1000
1000 – -500 > 700 150 – -1000 < 2.3
1500 – -3000 >0 150 - 750 < 2.3
Intermediate (A.T.P) 3000 - 500 0 - -1500 > 200 <1
500 – -1000 750 - -750 > 200 < 2.3
<0 >0 < -1000 < 1.4
Ultra-basic igneous -1000 - -4000 <0 1000 - 0 < 2.3
Pyroclastic rocks <-3000 500 – -600 750 - -600 2500 – 0
0 – -3000 <0 < 150 >0 < 2.3
Acidic metamorphic > 1500 500 - 200 200 - -1000
Basic metamorphic > 500 200 - -500 <0 < -1000
Eulian unconsolid. <0 >0 < -500 5 – 1.4
<0 <0 < -1500 >2
Fluvial > 1500 < -500 <0 >0

Classic sediments > -4000 0 – -1800 <0 500 – -1500

< -4000 < -500 >0 5-2
Organic unconsolid. 500 – -1000 500 - -500 <0 0 – -1500

Organic < -4000 -500 – -1800 <0 2000 - -1500

< -4000 < -500 >0 <2
Clear water > 500 < -2500 3.9 – 2
Turbid water 1300 – -500 < -4000 10 – 2.5
Salty water < -500 > 1300 < -4000 >3

Geology discrimination was further enhanced using FCC band ratios combinations and geology rule
by Drury (1993), so that geology information bands (6,7,4) are divided by lower bands (avoiding
repetition in the denominator). Therefore, band ratios 4/2, 7/3 and 6/5 combination (Figure 5a) had
the most contrast compared to other possible combinations. In contrast to Landsat 7, use of
multiplicative band ratios did not yield significant difference; for example Figure 5b, combination
4/2, 7/3*7/4, 6/5. Since it was not possible to enhance water features without losing lithology
contrast, the band ratio classification with Landsat 8 was achieved using band ratios 4/2, 7/3, 6/5
and IC1 (for water types discrimination). In total 17 rock types were discriminated and 4 water
types with the assistance of IC1 (Table 6).

14
(a) (b)
Figure 5: FCC Band ratio combination with Landsat 8: (a) 4/2, 7/3, 6/5 (b) 4/2, 7/3*7/4, 6/5

Table 6: Knowledge based classification rules with band ratios 4/2, 7/3, 6/5 and IC1 Landsat 8
4/2 (0- 14.69) 7/3(0 – 7.91) 6/5(0 – 12.99) IC1 (-5.32 – 27.08)
Igneous rock 0.75 – 0.3 0.725 – 0.35 0.75 – 0.5
1 – 0.8 0.7 – 0.6 0.75 – 0.35
Basic igneous < 0.5 < 0.875 < 0.65 < 2.3
1 – 0.4 0.35 – 0.150 < 0.5 <3
Basalts 0.8 – 0.5 > 0.6 0.75 – 0.25
1.05 – 0.8 > 0.9 < 0.75
Acidic igneous 0.85 – 0.6 0.9 – 0.6 > 0.75
Granite 0.93 – 0.5 1.175 – 0.85 > 0.9
0.6 – 0.45 0.85 – 0.6 > 0.75
< 0.6 < 0.6 > 0.5 <2
Intermediate igneous 1 – 0.8 0.7 – 0.85 0.35 – 0.85
1 – 0.8 0.85 – 0.90 0.4 – 0.75
Intermediate (A.T.P) > 0.93 0.85 – 1.175 1.35 – 0.95
Ultra basic igneous 1 – 0.655 0.6 – 0.35 < 0.65
1.1 – 0.75 0.6 – 0.25 0.9 – 0.5
Pyroclastic unconsolid. 0.75 – 0.5 0.6 -0.35 < 0.5
Acidic metamorphic 1 – 0.93 > 0.85 0.95 – 0.75
> 1.2 0.85 – 0.6 > 0.85
Basic metamorphic < 1.2 > 1.175 > 0.75
Eulian unconsolidat. >1 1 – 0.5 0.95 – 0.25
Fluvial > 1.2 > 1.175 > 0.8
Classic sediments 1 – 0.8 0.7 -0.6 0.85 – 0.75
>1 1 – 1.175 0.95 – 0.25
Organic unconsolid. 0.93 – 0.5 1.175 – 0.75 0.75 – 1.0
Organic >1 < 0.6 < 0.5 < 3.9
Carbonates/Limestone 1.1 – 0.8 0.9 – 0.52 > 0.85
0.8 – 0.65 0.6 – 0.3 > 0.75
> 1.05 0.5 – 0.25 0.825 – 0.5
Clear water < 0.6 < 0.15 <1 3.9 - 2
Turbid water 1 – 0.6 < 0.4 <1 >2
< 0.6 < 0.15 <1 > 3.9
Salty water >1 < 0.5 < 0.5 > 3.9
Clay deposits < 0.6 0.55 – 0.15 >0 >2
1 – 0.6 < 0.6 > 0.75 15
2.2.3 Image enhancement for lineament extraction and visualization
Image enhancement for lineament extraction aimed at enhancing texture and increasing the
possibilities of extracting structural linear features. Consequently, the implemented geology
enhancing band ratios were examined individually for texture information, in which case band
ratios 5/1 for Landsat 7 and 6/3 for Landsat 8 were found to have enhanced texture information
compared to the other band ratios. Non-directional sober filter was applied on each band ratio
followed by thresholding to select the significant lineament features. The same procedure was
repeated using pan-band8 and the results merged into a single file; pan-band 8 and band ratio 5/1,
Landsat 7 (Figure 6a), pan-band 8 and band ratio 6/3 Landsat 8 (Figure 6b).

Figure 6 (a): Lineament map using pan-band 8 and band ratio 5/1

16
 Figure 6 (b): Lineament map using pan-band 8 and band ratio 6/3

Another method that was used to visualize the lineaments was the use of FCC with transformed
feature components, in which PCA, ICA and IHS transformation were used. Firstly, a geology
combination band (already identified as numerators in the band ratioing combinations, i.e. 5,7,3 for
Landsat 7 and 6,7,4 for Landsat 8), was transformed from Red Green Blue (RGB) space to IHS
(Intensity, Hue saturation) space. Secondly, a new RGB was formed with an IC, PC and Saturation
component as the Red, Green and Blue channels respectively. The IC and PC were identified
through PC Factor loading, those which contained most geology information. A variation of
visualizing lineament alone was done using an RGB combination of the edges obtained from band
ratio, band 8 and slope in the Blue channel.

17
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The results consist of comparisons: firstly, for Landsat 7, comparison between classifications with
band ratios; secondly, for each Landsat dataset, comparison between the PC and band ratio
enhanced classification; thirdly, comparison between Landsat 7 and 8 geology classifications and
then visualization. Figures 7 and 8 were the classified geological maps obtained from band ratio sets
(3/2, 5/1, 7/4, 5/4, and 7/3) and (3/2, 5/1, 7/3, 5/4), respectively. Comparing Figures 7 and 8, more
rock discrimination was achieved in Figure 7, which had more band ratios. The extra band ratio 7/4
was included in Figure 7 classification using a multiplicative band, 7/3*7/4.

Figure 7: Geology classification map using band ratios 3/2, 5/1, 7/4, 5/4, 7/3

18
 Figure 8: Geology classification map using band ratios 3/2, 5/1, 7/3

Geology contrast by band ratios was facilitated by the use of bands from different spectral regions,
avoiding band redundancy and use of geology enhancing bands as numerators in the ratio
combination. Further, each individual band ratio work to emphasize certain minerals in a rock i.e.
3/2- iron oxides, 5/4- ferrous minerals, 5/1-variation of soil line, 7/3 & 7/4 – geology components.
Thus, better discrimination ability was afforded with the combination 3/2, 5/1, 7/4 (containing
unique bands), compared to the combination 3/2, 5/1, 7/3 (which had band 3 redundancy). It was
noted that although the use of multiplicative bands introduced redundancy, its use resulting to
square of a band in the numerator or dominator of a band ratio, e.g. 7/3*7/4 or 5/4*7/4, yielded
enhanced contrast (e.g. Figure 3 b & c) unlike multiplicative bands with cancelling effects, e.g.
(7/3*3/2) or completely different (7/3*5/4). Thus, the inclusion of band ratio 7/4 into the
classification (Figure 7), yielded increased discrimination of rock types.
19
On the other hand, geological mapping with Landsat 7, PCs (1, 4, 5) and IC1 (Figure 9), resulted in
slightly increased rock discrimination and failure to detect water clay minerals. This could be
explained using Figures 2, whereby the inclusion of IC1 into the PCs-FCC had better visual
discrimination of rock from water covers. Also, PC being a feature reduction method, led to
merging geological information, thus the selected PCs contained most of the needed information.
However, comparing the FCC of the PCs versus band ratios, band ratios had better visual contrast
enhancement. Consequently, it was much easier to implement density slicing (set class boundaries)
with band ratios-FCC as compared to PC-FCC.

Figure 9: Geology classification map using PCs 1, 4, 5 and IC1

The use of band ratios with the Landsat 8 dataset, differed slightly owing to an extra band 6 in the
Shortwave Infrared Region (SWIR) and the far visible band 1 which is lacking in Landsat 7 bands.
Consequently, the geology enhancing bands were 6, 7, 4, corresponding to Landsat 7 bands 5, 7, 3.
20
Observing geology band ratio rule by Drury (1993), a combination comprising ratios 4/2, 7/3, 6/5
(see, Figure 5a) was found to have the most geology contrast and the inputs were implemented in a
classification resulting in Figure 10. In this scenario, the use of multiplicative band, 7/3*7/4 did not
yield significant contrast improvement (see, Figure 5b) and consequently, band ratio 7/4 was not
used in the classification. It was noted that the inability to utilise all the bands in the visible region
affected water discrimination ability; even with the attempt to use IC1 together with band ratios in
the classification. However, with only the 3 band ratios, more geology features were mapped
compared to all Landsat 7 with band ratios (Figure 7). This may be attributed to the extra band in
the SWIR (band 6) region of Landsat 8, and the narrower bandwidth spectral bands of Landsat 8
compared to Landsat 7.

21

Figure 10: Geology classification map using band ratios (4/2, 7/3, 6/5) Landsat 8
On the other hand, geological classification with Landsat 8, PCs 2,4,5,3 and IC1 was mapped in
Figure 11. In comparison with Landsat 8 band ratio classification (Figure 10), similar numbers of
rock types are discriminated with both classifications. However, band ratios classification with
Landsat 8 achieved water clay deposits which were not mapped in the PCs classification. This
observation was similar to Landsat 7 classified geological maps. Also, similar to Landsat 7, it was
easier to implement density slicing with band ratios-FCC compared to PCs-FCC.

Figure 11: Geology classification map using PCs 2,4,5,3 and IC1, Landsat 8

Representation of structural geology was completed with both lineament and lithology mapping for
both Landsat sets with the band ratios maps overlaid with lineament maps extracted with the
application of non directional filters and thresholding. The criteria for the choice of band ratios 5/1
and 6/3 for Landsat 7 and 8 respectively, was based on enhanced texture qualities, while the use of
pan-band 8 was aimed at increasing the number of lineaments due to its higher spatial resolution.
However, it was observed that while Landsat 8, pan-band 8 spans only the visible region compared

22
to Landsat 7, spanning Red, green and NIR regions of the spectrum, Landsat 8 band 8 edges had
more noise even after thresholding unlike Landsat 7 band 8 edges, which appeared more sharp. The
edges obtained from band ratios 5/1 and 6/3 for Landsat 7 and 8 respectively, complemented the
missing lineament features in pan-band 8. Although, both pan-bands 8 from Landsat 7 and 8 were
properly matched, it was not possible to substitute them because the time epoch (years 2000 and
2014) was large and contained some discernable changes in feature outlines. The resulting structural
geology from the overlay between the classified geology maps and the lineaments were Figures 12
and 13 for Landsat 7 and 8 respectively, which had an added texture component to the lithology
maps.

Figure 12: Structural geology band ratio classification map with Landsat 7 23
 Figure 13: Structural geology band ratio classification maps with Landsat 8

Another variation of visualizing the lineaments alone was presented in Figure 14 (a) and (b) in
shaded relief maps comprising RGB of the edges extracted from band ratio (5/1 for Landsat 7, 6/3
for Landsat 8), pan-band8 and slope map. The folds and fault lines along the Rift Valley floor and
drainage channels in the study area were more enhanced in this representation compared to Figures
15 (a) and (b). Figures 15 revealed enhanced rock discrimination as well as lineament visualization
and were comprised of: Figure 15 (a) IC1, PC5 and Saturation band (IHS transformation of bands
5,7,3) of Landsat 7; Figure 15 (b) IC1, PC4, and Saturation band (IHS transformation of bands
6,7,4) of Landsat 8. This idea was advanced from works by Mondini et al. (2011) who mapped

24
 landslides using a multi-change detection technique involving an FCC comprising: change in
NDVI, IC4 and PC4 using Formasat images. While extending this idea, the authors of this paper
have advanced the idea to map landslide scars in the study area, by detecting exposed geological
features in a recent publication (Mwaniki et al., 2015b).

(a) (b)

Figure 14: (a) RGB with edges from Band ratio 5/1, Band 8 & Slope (b) RGB with edges from Band ratio 6/3, Band 8 & Slope

(a) (b)

Figure 15(a): FCC {IC1,PC5, Saturation Band (5,7,3)} Landsat 7 (b): FCC {IC1,PC4, Saturation Band (6,7,4)} Landsat 8
25
4. CONCLUSIONS
It was noted that more geology contrast was achieved with band ratioing compared to the use of
PCs for both Landsat datasets. While PC geological classification may offer an alternative to the use
of band ratios, its success depend mainly on the PC Factor-loading and further, the use of feature
transform with ICA components. On the other hand, the success of band ratios in geological
mapping with Landsat datasets, was the increased contrast with band ratio combinations utilising
different spectral regions and following Drury’s geological rule (Drury, 1993). In addition to this
rule, this research has also established that more contrast is enhanced with vegetation enhancing
bands as denominators in the band ratios, use of geology and soil information containing bands as
numerators and the avoidance of band redundancy in the band ratio combination. The more band
ratios were used, the more the discrimination against many rock types. However, Landsat 8
achieved more rock discrimination than Landsat 7, even with the same number of band ratios, a
factor that was attributed to its narrower bands and the extra SWIR band 6 which is more sensitive
to geology compared to Landsat 7, band 5.

It was found that although pan-band 8 (with higher spatial resolution) yields more detailed
lineament features, in vegetated areas it had completely no lineament information which could be
attributed to the fact that it covers the lower spectral region of the spectrum. Particularly Landsat 8,
band 8 lineaments had more noise compared to Landsat 7, band 8 lineaments which appeared
clearer and sharper. This was explained by the slight difference in the span of the spectral region
occupied by the two datasets i.e. only visible region for Landsat 8 but both visible and NIR regions
for Landsat 7. Instead, band ratios involving SWIR and visible regions of the spectrum (i.e. band
ratios 5/1 and 6/3 for Landsat 7 and 8 respectively) were found to have more texture and
complemented lineaments from pan-band 8.

The use of FCC with enhanced components comprising an IC, PC and saturation band of the RGB
bands contributing most to enhance geology, was explored to enhance geology and lineament
visualisation. The result was superior compared to the use of PC only FCC, a strength derived from
the combination of bands from different spectral regions; combinations (5, 7, 3) for Landsat 7 and
(6, 7, 4) Landsat 8. The use of band ratios was limited to the few ratios enhancing texture and
therefore, lineaments could only be visualised separately after filter and thresholding, or enhanced
shaded relief with slope or overlaid to the classified geology maps.

26
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank John G. Mbaka for the assistance with proof-reading and all the other
anonymous reviewers who have ensured the quality of this paper is improved. Also, the continued
support of the Jomo Kenyatta University of Technology and Agriculture is highly appreciated.

REFERENCES
Abdeen, M. M., & Abdelghaffar, A. A. (2008). Mapping Neoproterozoic structures along the central
Allaqiheiani suture, Southeastern Eqypt, using remote sensing and field data (Vol. 3). Presented at the 29th
Asian Conference on Remote Sensing, Colombo, Sri Lanka: Curran Associates, Inc. Retrieved from
http://www.a-a-r-s.org/acrs/proceeding/ACRS2008/Papers/TS%2036.1.pdf

Abdeen, M. M., Thrurmond, K. A., Abdelsalam, G. M., & Stern, J. R. (2001, November). Application of
ASTER Band-ratio Images for Geological Mapping in Arid Regions: The Neoproterozoic Allaqi Suture,
Egypt. Presented at the Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Boston, USA. Retrieved from
https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2001AM/finalprogram/abstract_27348.htm

Abdullah, A., Nassr, S., & Ghaleeb, A. (2013). Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System for
Fault Segments Mapping a Study from Taiz Area, Yemen. Journal of Geological Research, 2013, 1–16.
http://doi.org/10.1155/2013/201757

Ali, E. A., El Khidir, S. O., Babikir, A. A., & Abdelrahnam, E. M. (2012). Landsat ETM+7 Digital Image
Processing Techniques for Lithological and Structural Lineament Enhancement: Case Study Around Abidiya
Area, Sudan. The Open Remote Sensing Journal, 5(1), 83–89. http://doi.org/10.2174/1875413901205010083

Argialas, D., Mavrantza, O., & Stefouli, M. (2003). Automatic mapping of tectonic lineaments (faults) using
methods and techniques of Photointerpretation /Digital Remote Sensing and Expert Systems (Geology No.
THALES Project 1174).

Aspinall, R. J., Marcus, W. A., & Boardman, J. W. (2002). Considerations in collecting, processing, and
analysing high spatial resolution hyperspectral data for environmental investigations. Journal of
Geographical Systems, 4(1), 15–29. http://doi.org/10.1007/s101090100071

Binaghi, E., Madella, P., Grazia Montesano, M., & Rampini, A. (1997). Fuzzy contextual classification of
multisource remote sensing images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 35(2), 326–340.
http://doi.org/10.1109/36.563272

Boettinger, J. L., Ramsey, R. D., Bodily, J. M., Cole, N. J., Kienast-Brown, S., Nield, S. J., … Stum, A. K.
(2008). Landsat Spectral Data for Digital Soil Mapping. In A. E. Hartemink, A. McBratney, & M. de L.
Mendonça-Santos (Eds.), Digital Soil Mapping with Limited Data (Vol. III, pp. 193–202). Dordrecht:
Springer Netherlands.

Campbell, J. B. (2002). Band ratios. In Introduction to remote sensing (3rd ed., p. 505). New York: Guilford
Press.

Campbell, J. B. (2009). Remote sensing of Soils. In The Sage handbook of remote sensing (pp. 341–354).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carranza, E. J. M., & Hale, M. (2002). Mineral imaging with Landsat Thematic Mapper data for
hydrothermal alteration mapping in heavily vegetated terrane. International Journal of Remote Sensing,
23(22), 4827–4852. http://doi.org/10.1080/01431160110115014

27
Chaabouni, R., Bouaziz, S., Peresson, H., & Wolfgang, J. (2012). Lineament analysis of South Jenein Area
(Southern Tunisia) using remote sensing data and geographic information system. The Egyptian Journal of
Remote Sensing and Space Science, 15(2), 197–206. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrs.2012.11.001

Chen, X., & Campagna, D. J. (2009). Remote Sensing of Geology. In The Sage handbook of remote sensing
(pp. 328–340). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cloutis, E. A. (1996). Review Article Hyperspectral geological remote sensing: evaluation of analytical
techniques. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 17(12), 2215–2242.
http://doi.org/10.1080/01431169608948770

Cortez, L., Durão, F., & Ramos, V. (1997). Testing some Connectionist Approaches for Thematic Mapping
of Rural Areas. In I. Kanellopoulos, G. G. Wilkinson, F. Roli, & J. Austin (Eds.), Neurocomputation in
Remote Sensing Data Analysis (pp. 142–150). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved
from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-642-59041-2_16

Cudahy, T. J., Hewson, R., Huntington, J. F., Quigley, M. A., & Barry, P. S. (2001). The performance of the
satellite-borne Hyperion hyperspectral VNIR-SWIR imaging system for mineral mapping at Mount Fitton,
South Australia (Vol. 1, pp. 314–316). IEEE. http://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2001.976142

Drury, S. A. (1993). Image interpretation in geology (2nd ed). London ; New York: Chapman & Hall.
Retrieved from http://library.dmr.go.th/library/TextBooks/10146.pdf

Favretto, A., Geletti, R., & Civile, D. (2013). Remote sensing as a preliminary analysis for the detection of
active tectonic structures: an application to the Albanian orogenic system. Geoadria, 18(2), 97–111.

Gad, S., & Kusky, T. (2006). Lithological mapping in the Eastern Desert of Egypt, the Barramiya area, using
Landsat thematic mapper (TM). Journal of African Earth Sciences, 44(2), 196–202.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2005.10.014

Gong, P. (1996). Integrated Analysis of Spatial Data from Multiple sources: Using Evidential reasoning and
Artificial Neural network Techniques for Geological mapping. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
Sensing, 62(5), 513–523.

Govender, M., Chetty, K., & Bulcock, H. (2007). A review of hyperspectral remote sensing and its
application in vegetation and water resource studies. Water SA, 33(2), 145–152.
http://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v33i2.49049

Gupta, R. P. (2013). Remote Sensing Geology. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-12914-2

Harris, J. R., Eddy, B., Rencz, A., de Kemp, E., Budketwitsch, P., & Peshko, M. (2001). Remote sensing as a
geological mapping tool in the Arctic: preliminary results from Baffin Island, Nunavut, 2001-E12, 13.

Hung, L. Q., Batelaan, O., & De Smedt, F. (2005). Lineament extraction and analysis, comparison of
LANDSAT ETM and ASTER imagery. Case study: Suoimuoi tropical karst catchment, Vietnam. In M.
Ehlers & U. Michel (Eds.), Proceedings of SPIE Remote sensing for Environmental monitoring, GIS
applications and Geology (Vol. 5983, p. 59830T–59830T–12). International Society for Optics and
Photonics. http://doi.org/10.1117/12.627699

Jolliffe, I. (2005). Principal Component Analysis (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Karnieli, A., Meisels, A., Fisher, L., & Arkin, Y. (1996). Automatic Extraction and Evaluation of Geological
Linear features from Digital Remote Sensing Data Using a Hough Transform. Photogrammetric Engineering
and Remote Sensing, 62(5), 525–531.
28
Kavak, K. S. (2005). Determination of palaeotectonic and neotectonic features around the Menderes Massif
and the Gediz Graben (West. Turkey) using Landsat TM image. International Journal of Remote Sensing,
26(1), 59–78. http://doi.org/10.1080/01431160410001709994

Kenea, N. H. (1997). Improved geological mapping using Landsat TM data, Southern Red Sea Hills, Sudan:
PC and IHS decorrelation stretching. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 18(6), 1233–1244.
http://doi.org/10.1080/014311697218386

King, T. V. V., Kokaly, R. F., Hoefen, T. M., & Johnson, M. R. (2012). Hyperspectral remote sensing data
maps minerals in Afghanistan. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 93(34), 325.
http://doi.org/10.1029/2012EO340002

Kocal, A., Duzgun, H. S., & Karpuz, C. (2004). Discontinuity mapping with automatic lineament extraction
from high resolution satellite imagery. In Proceedings of the XXth ISPRS Congress. Istanbul, Turkey.
Retrieved from http://www.cartesia.org/geodoc/isprs2004/comm7/papers/205.pdf

Kruse, A. F. (1998). Advances in Hyperspectral Remote Sensing for Geologic Mapping and Exploration. In
9th Australasian Remote Sensing Conference. Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from
http://www.hgimaging.com/PDF/Kruse_9th_australasian_rs_98.pdf

Laake, A. (2011). Integration of satellite Imagery, Geology and geophysical Data. In Earth and
Environmental Sciences (pp. 467–492). INTECH Open Access Publisher. Retrieved from
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/24568.pdf

Maina-Gichaba, C., Kipseba, E. K., & Masibo, M. (2013). Overview of Landslide Occurrences in Kenya. In
Developments in Earth Surface Processes (Vol. 16, pp. 293–314). Elsevier. Retrieved from
http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11295/66302/Full%20text.pdf?sequence=1

Marghany, M. (2012). Three-dimensional lineament visualization using fuzzy B-spline algorithm from
multispectral satellite data. In B. Escalante-Ramirez (Ed.), Remote Sensing - advanced techniques and
platforms (pp. 213–232). Croatia: INTECH Open Access Publisher, University Campus STeP Ri.

Marghany, M., & Hashim, M. (2010). Lineament Mapping Using Multispectral Remote Sensing Satellite
Data. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, 5(2), 126–130. http://doi.org/10.3923/rjasci.2010.126.130

Mavrantza, O. D., & Argialas, D. P. (2006). Object-oriented image analysis for the identification of geologic
lineaments. International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences,
36(4).

Mia, B., & Fujimitsu, Y. (2012). Mapping hydrothermal altered mineral deposits using Landsat 7 ETM+
image in and around Kuju volcano, Kyushu, Japan. Journal of Earth System Science, 121(4), 1049–1057.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-012-0211-9

Mwaniki, M. W., Matthias, M. S., & Schellmann, G. (2015). Application of Remote Sensing Technologies to
Map the Structural Geology of Central Region of Kenya. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth
Observations and Remote Sensing, 8(4), 1855–1867. http://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2015.2395094

Mwaniki, M. W., Ngigi, T. G., & Waithaka, E. H. (2011). Rainfall Induced Landslide Probability Mapping
for Central Province. In Fourth International Summer School and Conference (Vol. 1, 2011, pp. 203–213).
JKUAT, Kenya: Publications of AGSE Karlsruhe, Germany. http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4509.9046

Ngecu, W. M., & Mathu, E. M. (1999). The El-Nino- triggered landslides and their socio-economic impact
on Kenya. Engineering Geology, 38(4), 277–285.

29
Ngecu, W. M., Nyamai, C. M., & Erima, G. (2004). The extent and significance of mass-movements in
Eastern Africa: case studies of some major landslides in Uganda and Kenya. Environmental Geology, 46(8),
1123–1133. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-004-1116-y

Ninomiya, Y., Fu, B., & Cudahy, T. J. (2005). Detecting lithology with Advanced Spaceborne Thermal
Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) multispectral thermal infrared ‘radiance-at-sensor’ data.
Remote Sensing of Environment, 99(1–2), 127–139. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2005.06.009

Novak, I. D., & Soulakellis, N. (2000). Identifying geomorphic features using Landsat-5/TM data processing
techniques on Lesvos, Greece. Geomorphology, 34(1–2), 101–109. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-
555X(00)00003-9

Ogallo, S. N., Gaya, C. O., & Omuterema, S. O. (2006). Landslide Hazard Zonation Mapping for Murang’a
District, Kenya. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Disaster Management & Human
Security in Africa (pp. 303–308). Masinde Muliro University of Science & Technology, Kakamega, Kenya:
Center for Disaster Management & Humanitarian Assisstance.

Ott, N., Kollersberger, T., & Tassara, A. (2006). GIS analyses and favorability mapping of optimized
satellite data in northern Chile to improve exploration for copper mineral deposits. Geosphere, 2(4), 236.
http://doi.org/10.1130/GES00017.1

Pal, S. K., Majumdar, T. J., & Bhattacharya, A. K. (2007). ERS-2 SAR and IRS-1C LISS III data fusion: A
PCA approach to improve remote sensing based geological interpretation. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry
and Remote Sensing, 61(5), 281–297. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2006.10.001

Papadaki, E. S., Mertikas, S. P., & Sarris, A. (2011). Identification of lineaments with possible structural
origin using ASTER images and DEM derived products in Western Crete, Greece. In EARSeL
ePrcoceedings 10 (pp. 9–26). Retrieved from http://eproceedings.org/static/vol10_1/10_1_papadaki1.pdf

Perez, F. G., Higgins, C. T., & Real, C. R. (2006). Evaluation of use of remote sensing imagery in refinement
of geological mapping for seismic hazard zoning in northern loss angeles county, California. In Proceedings
of ISPRS XXXVI Congress (Vol. XXXVI Part 7). Retrieved from
http://www.isprs.org/proceedings/xxxvi/part7/PDF/180.pdf

Pour, A. B., & Hashim, M. (2013). Fusing ASTER, ALI and Hyperion data for enhanced mineral mapping.
International Journal of Image and Data Fusion, 4(2), 126–145.
http://doi.org/10.1080/19479832.2012.753115

Prost, L. G. (2001). Remote sensing for geologists: a guide to image interpretation. [Amsterdam]; New
York; Abingdon: Gordon & Breach ; Marston.

Qari, M. H. T., Madani, A. A., Matsah, M. I. M., & Hamimi, Z. (2008). Utilization of Aster and Landsat data
in geologic mapping of basement rocks of Arafat area, Saudi Arabia. The Arabian Journal for Science and
Engineering, 33(1C), 99–117.

Rahman, M. M., Tetuko Sri Sumantyo, J., & Sadek, M. F. (2010). Microwave and optical image fusion for
surface and sub-surface feature mapping in Eastern Sahara. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 31(20),
5465–5480. http://doi.org/10.1080/01431160903302999

Rahnama, M., & Gloaguen, R. (2014). TecLines: A MATLAB-Based Toolbox for Tectonic Lineament
Analysis from Satellite Images and DEMs, Part 1: Line Segment Detection and Extraction. Remote Sensing,
6(7), 5938–5958. http://doi.org/10.3390/rs6075938

30
Rajendran, S., Thirunavukkaraasu, A., Poovalingaganesh, B., Kumar, K. V., & Bhaskaran, G. (2007).
Discrimination of low-grade magnetite ores using remote sensing techniques. Journal of the Indian Society
of Remote Sensing, 35(2), 153–162. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02990779

Ramli, M. F., Yusof, N., Yusoff, M. K., Juahir, H., & Shafri, H. Z. M. (2010). Lineament mapping and its
application in landslide hazard assessment: a review. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment,
69(2), 215–233. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-009-0255-5

Rigol-Sanchez, J. P., Chica-Olmo, M., & Abarca-Hernandez, F. (2003). Artificial neural networks as a tool
for mineral potential mapping with GIS. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 24(5), 1151–1156.
http://doi.org/10.1080/0143116021000031791

Roy, D. P., Wulder, M. A., Loveland, T. R., C.E., W., Allen, R. G., Anderson, M. C., … Zhu, Z. (2014).
Landsat-8: Science and product vision for terrestrial global change research. Remote Sensing of Environment,
145, 154–172. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2014.02.001

Sabins, F. F. (1997). Remote sensing: principles and interpretation. New York: W.H. Freeman and
Company.

Sabins, F. F. (1999). Remote sensing for mineral exploration. Ore Geology Reviews, 14(3), 157–183.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-1368(99)00007-4

Sultan, M., Arvidson, R. E., Sturchio, N. C., & Guinness, E. A. (1987). Lithologic mapping in arid regions
with Landsat thematic mapper data: Meatiq dome, Egypt. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 99(6),
748. http://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1987)99<748:LMIARW>2.0.CO;2

Suzen, M. L., & Toprak, V. (1998). Filtering of satellite images in geological lineament analyses: An
application to a fault zone in Central Turkey. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 19(6), 1101–1114.
http://doi.org/10.1080/014311698215621

Ultsch, A., Korus, D., & Wehrmann, A. (1995). Neural networks and their rules for classification in marine
geology. In Raum und zeit in Umweltinformationsystemen (Vol. 7, pp. 676–693). Marburg: Metropolis.

van der Meer, F. D., van der Werff, H. M. A., van Ruitenbeek, F. J. A., Hecker, C. A., Bakker, W. H.,
Noomen, M. F., … Woldai, T. (2012). Multi- and hyperspectral geologic remote sensing: A review.
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 14(1), 112–128.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2011.08.002

Wahid, M., & Ahmed, R. E. (2006). Identifying Geomporphic Features between Ras Gemsha and Safaga,
Red Sea Coast, Egypt, Using Remote Sensing Techniques. Marine Geology, 17(1), 23.

Zhu, A.-X., Wang, R., Qiao, J., Qin, C.-Z., Chen, Y., Liu, J., … Zhu, T. (2014). An expert knowledge-based
approach to landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS and fuzzy logic. Geomorphology, 214, 128–138.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.02.003

31