remote sensing

Article
Automated Built-Up Extraction Index: A New
Technique for Mapping Surface Built-Up Areas Using
LANDSAT 8 OLI Imagery
Mohammad Karimi Firozjaei 1,2 , Amir Sedighi 1 , Majid Kiavarz 1 , Salman Qureshi 2, *,
Dagmar Haase 2 and Seyed Kazem Alavipanah 1,2
1 Department of Remote Sensing and GIS, University of Tehran, Tehran 1417853933, Iran
2 Department of Geography, Humboldt University Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany
* Correspondence: salman.qureshi@geo.hu-berlin.de




Received: 29 June 2019; Accepted: 16 August 2019; Published: 21 August 2019


Abstract: Accurate built-up area extraction is one of the most critical issues in land-cover classification.
In previous studies, various techniques have been developed for built-up area extraction using Landsat
images. However, the efficiency of these techniques under different technical and geographical
conditions, especially for bare and sandy areas, is not optimal. One of the main challenges of built-up
area extraction techniques is to determine an optimum and stable threshold with the highest possible
accuracy. In many of these techniques, the optimum threshold value fluctuates substantially in
different parts of the image scene. The purpose of this study is to provide a new index to improve
built-up area extraction with a stable optimum threshold for different environments. In this study,
the developed Automated Built-up Extraction Index (ABEI) is presented to improve the classification
accuracy in areas containing bare and sandy surfaces. To develop and evaluate the accuracy of the new
method for built-up area extraction with Landsat 8 OLI reflective bands, five test sites located in the
Iranian cities (Babol, Naqadeh, Kashmar, Bam and Masjed Soleyman), eleven European cities (Athens,
Brussels, Bucharest, Budapest, Ciechanow, Hamburg, Lyon, Madrid, Riga, Rome and Porto) and high
resolution layer imperviousness (HRLI) data were used. Each site has varying environmental and
complex surface coverage conditions. To determine the optimal weights for each of the Landsat 8
OLI reflective bands, the pure pixel sets for different classes and the improved gravitational search
algorithm (IGSA) optimization were used. The Kappa coefficient and overall error were calculated
to evaluate the accuracy of the built-up extraction map. Additionally, the ABEI performance was
compared with the urban index (UI) and normalized difference built-up index (NDBI) performances.
In each of the five test sites and eleven cities, the extraction accuracy of the built-up areas using the
ABEI was higher than that using the UI, and NDBI (P-value of 0.01). The relative standard deviations
of the optimal threshold values for the ABEI and UI were 27 and 155% (at five test sites) and were 16
and 37% (at eleven European cities), respectively, which indicates the stability of the ABEI threshold
value when the location and environmental conditions change. The results of this study demonstrated
that the ABEI can be used to extract built-up areas from other land covers. This index is effective even
in bare soil and sandy areas, where other indices experience major challenges.

Keywords: built-up extraction; threshold stability; improved gravitational search algorithm; Landsat 8

1. Introduction
Urban areas generally cover a small portion of land worldwide. However, the high population
density and intensity of utilizing resources relative to their surroundings turn these areas into highly
important land areas [1,2]. Understanding the spatial distribution and growth pattern of urban built-up

Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966; doi:10.3390/rs11171966 www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing

Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 2 of 20

areas is vital for urban planning, natural resource management, climate change monitoring, etc., and
the ecological, economic and social effects of built-up lands have made the mapping of built-up areas
very important [2–6].
Satellite images are a valuable source for built-up mapping in areas with different environmental
conditions [7–12]. Remote sensing technology provides an integrated, comprehensive view of urban
areas that is difficult to achieve through surveying. Another advantage of using remote sensing
data for urban studies is the availability of archives of past periods that can be used to review,
monitor, and prepare a distribution map of built-up areas over time [13,14]. Over recent years, satellite
imagery capabilities have been used for studies on urban expansion [15], effective factors on urban
development [16], and the negative effects of urban growth [17].
Generally, in previous studies for mapping built-up areas usually coarse-resolution satellite
imagery such as moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS) [18,19] and defense
meteorological program / operational line-scan system (DMSP/OLS) [20], medium-resolution satellite
imagery such as Landsat [21] and Sentinel-2 [22], and high-resolution satellite imagery such as Quick
Bird [23] and WorldView [24] have been used. Landsat imagery has the potential to provide a historical
record for mapping built-up areas, as Landsat has been acquiring images since the early 1980s. Landsat
imagery has been used frequently to extract built-up areas in urban studies [25]. Its large coverage,
suitable spatial resolution (30 m), historical observations and free access have proved that Landsat
imagery is useful for mapping built-up areas [1,2,25].
Currently, satellite imagery is increasingly being used automatically and semi-automatically to
generate various maps of land surface characteristics, such as vegetation, snow, water and built-up land
characteristics [26–30]. Several techniques have been developed for this purpose, which are grouped
into two general categories. The first group relates to image classification techniques, which have
been widely developed based on pixel-based and object-oriented classification methods [13,31]. The
second group involves information extraction from images based on specific indices [2]. Both groups
of techniques have a set of advantages and disadvantages. The accuracy of classification methods may
be higher than indices, but, in general, the use of indices in a case of certain land-cover extraction
according to the amount of information, need to train data, and time required for processing is more
efficient than the use of classification techniques.
Different indices have been developed for built-up area extraction using satellite
imagery [2,7–9,11,29]. The basis of the development of these indices is the spectral behaviour of
the built-up land and various features associated with the wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum
in terms of absorption or reflection. Different bands of the satellite image represent the different
wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. Accordingly, these indices have been developed with a
special combination of image bands. Investigating and studying the spectral signatures of various
features are necessary to create and develop various indices related to the identification and extraction
of these phenomena [26].
In previous studies, different indices, such as the index-based built-up index (IBI) [12], urban index
(UI) [32,33], normalized difference bareness index (NDBaI) [33], normalized difference built-up index
(NDBI) [29], modified NDBI [9], normalized built-up area index (NBAI) and band ratio for built-up
area (BRBA) [11], new built-up index (NBI) [8], built-up index (BUI) [10], bare soil index (BI) [34],
enhanced built-up and bareness index (EBBI) [7], and built-up area extraction method (BAEM) [2],
have been developed for built-up and urban area mapping.
Kawamura et al. (1996) proposed the UI for mapping built-up areas. The UI is computed by using
the bands 7 and 4 from Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery [32]. Zha et al. (2003) developed the
NDBI for the automatic mapping of built-up areas. They extracted built-up areas through arithmetic
calculation using the NDVI and NDBI derived from Landsat TM images. In the binary images created
by the NDBI and NDVI images via this technique, it is assumed that positive values of the NDBI
indicate built-up areas and that positive NDVI values indicate vegetation covers. Zha et al. (2003)
reported that their method is incapable of separating built-up areas from bare land [29]. As-syakur
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 3 of 20

et al. (2012) developed the EBBI for mapping built-up and bare land in urban areas. They extracted
built-up and bare land areas through single calculation using near infrared (NIR), short wave infrared
(SWIR), and thermal infrared (TIR) bands simultaneously [7]. Waqar et al. (2012) developed NBAI
and BRBA Indices for mapping built-up area and bare soil covers using Landsat TM images. They
extracted built-up areas through NBAI using the bands 2, 5 and 7 of Landsat TM images. Also, they
extracted built-up areas through BRBA using the ratio of bands 3 and 5 of Landsat TM images [11].
Kaimaris and Patias (2016) developed the BUI based on the combination of the bands 3, 5 and 7 of
Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) images. In BUI, unlike other indices, the NIR band
was not used for mapping built-up areas [10]. The IBI was distinguished from other built-up indices
because of its first-time use of thematic indices rather than using original bands. The soil adjusted
vegetation index (SAVI), modified normalized difference water index (MNDWI) and NDBI indices
were used in IBI [12].
The NDBI and UI provide quick mapping of built-up areas or bare land. However, these two
indices are unable to separate built-up areas from bare land effectively [9,29,35]. He et al. [9] noted in
their study that this incapability was due to the complex spectral response generated by the combination
of the spectral responses of built-up areas, vegetation and bare land, especially in terms of mixed pixels
in areas with heterogeneous features.
Having reviewed previous studies in this field of study, it is clear that most of the developed
indices are effective in mapping bare land and built-up areas, but these indices are not able to completely
isolate built-up and bare lands in the same area [7]. In different areas, the performances of these
indices are affected by the type of land use in the region. Therefore, these indices have problems in
distinguishing between built-up and other land use areas that have similar spectral behaviours. Even
the spectral heterogeneity between pixels related to built-up areas reduces the accuracies of the indices.
Generally, the accuracies of these indices for built-up area extraction are low [10]. For this reason, in
some studies, several different indices have been combined with built-up area extraction [2].
Simplified techniques, such as two-band indices and single-band thresholding, may not accurately
separate built-up pixels from non-built-up bright surfaces, particularly in scenes where non-built-up
bright surfaces are seen. Current built-up extraction methods have accuracy problems in distinguishing
built-up areas from bare land and rock surfaces [2,7,8,29]. It is worth mentioning that no existing
built-up index has been capable of automatically separating built-up and bare lands using Landsat 8
OLI (Operational Land Imager) images. Therefore, in this study, a multiple-band index, called the
Automated Built-up Extraction Index (ABEI), was introduced with two main objectives: (1) increase
the accuracy of built-up extraction mapping by automatically separating built-up areas from other
non-built-up bright surfaces and (2) test the novel technique under various environmental conditions
and assess its accuracy in comparison with other techniques.
The major distinctions between the present study and other studies in this field are (1) the
development of a new index for built-up extraction using all of the Landsat 8 OLI reflective bands, (2)
the use of the improved gravitational search algorithm (IGSA) optimization to determine the relevant
weights in different reflective bands and (3) the use of the stable optimum threshold value for the
classification of built-up areas under different environmental conditions and various surfaces.

2. Test Sites and Cities

To perform an accuracy assessment with the new technique for automatic built-up extraction
from Landsat 8 OLI reflective bands, 5 test sites with different environmental conditions and complex
land covers were selected. Test sites from Babol, Naqadeh, Kashmar, Bam and Masjed Soleyman are
included and located in different geographical locations with different climatic conditions in Iran. The
characteristics of the test sites are shown in Table 1.
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 4 of 20

Table 1. General characteristics of the test sites and cities.

Centre Point
Test Site and Area Mean Alt. Population
Coordinate (Lon, Country Climate
City (Km2 ) (m) (2019)
Lat-WGS84)
Test sites
Babol 52.68, 36.54 Iran 2.0 3 Humid >5600
Naqadeh 45.38, 36.95 Iran 0.5 1325 Semi-humid >1500
Masjed Dry and
49.28, 31.96 Iran 3.4 240 >6500
Soleyman semi-arid
Kashmar 58.46, 35.24 Iran 5.4 1060 Warm and dry >7000
Bam 58.33, 29.10 Iran 1.3 1083 Warm and dry >2800
European cities
Rome 12.45, 41.85 Italy 631.7 50 Mediterranean >4,234,000
Humid
Riga 24.09, 56.94 Latvia 558.0 10 >633,000
continental
Mediterranean
Madrid −3.70, 40.41 Spain 2332.3 650 >6,559,000
and semi-arid
Athens 23.72, 37.97 Greece 2142.2 80 Mediterranean >3,154,000
Brussels 4.38, 50.85 Belgium 608.1 60 Oceanic >2,065,000
Porto −8.60, 41.16 Portugal 481.4 80 Mediterranean >1,309,000
Humid
Lyon 4.83, 45.76 France 1143.6 175 >1,704,000
subtropical
Humid
Ciechanow 20.60, 52.82 Poland 81.1 151 >44,000
subtropical
Hamburg 10.02, 53.60 Germany 1097.5 10 Oceanic >1,791,000
Oceanic and
Budapest 19.07, 47.59 Hungary 3664.3 120 Humid >1,763,000
subtropical
Humid
Bucharest 26.10, 44.42 Romania 1385.7 85 >1,812,000
continental

The test sites are selected in the form of complex features in terms of spectral properties, such as
soil, sand, and rock properties. The Babol and Naqadeh test sites are selected due to their humid and
semi-humid climates, including built-up, agricultural, water, soil, and dense vegetation covers. The
Kashmar and Bam test sites are selected due to their warm and dry climates, including built-up, bare
land, sandy soil and vegetation covers. The test site of Masjed Soleyman is a mountainous region with
a semi-arid climate, including built-up, bare land and rock surfaces.
To broadly evaluate the ABEI performance in different geographical locations with different
environmental conditions, the ABEI were implemented on 11 European cities including Athens,
Brussels, Bucharest, Budapest, Ciechanow, Hamburg, Lyon, Madrid, Riga, Rome and Porto. The cities
are selected to cover different geographical locations and climatic conditions across Europe. Among
the selected cities, Athens, Riga, Rome and Porto are Coastal cities. The areas around Athens and
Madrid include bare land. The Brussels, Budapest, Bucharest, Ciechanow, Hamburg, Lyon, Riga and
Porto have high vegetation cover due to humid climates. Above all, the main reason for selecting
these cities in Europe was the absence of cloud-free Landsat 8 OLI images in 2015. In summary, the
characteristics of the European cities are listed in Table 1. The geographical locations of the test sites
and European cities are shown in Figure 1.
Budapest 19.07, 47.59 Hungary 3664.3 120 Humid >1,763,000
subtropical
Humid
Bucharest 26.10, 44.42 Romania 1385.7 85 >1,812,000
continental
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 5 of 20

Figure
Figure1.1.The
Thegeographical
geographicallocations
locationsofoftest
testsites
sitesand
andcities.
cities.

3. Data and Methods

3.1. and
3. Data Landsat Images and Reference Data
Methods
In the present study, the reflective bands of the satellite images acquired by Landsat 8 OLI were
3.1. used.
Landsat Images
The and images
satellite Reference Data
with no cloud cover and no rainfall within 2 days before satellite overpass
were selected.
In the presentThe images
study, were georeferenced
the reflective bands of the insatellite
the UTM coordinate
images system.
acquired The downloaded
by Landsat 8 OLI weredata
from
used. TheUSGS included
satellite imagesthe highest
with quality
no cloud Level-1
cover and noPrecision
rainfallTerrain
within(L1TP)
2 days data, which
before were
satellite considered
overpass
suitable for time-series analysis. The geo-registration was consistent, and
were selected. The images were georeferenced in the UTM coordinate system. The downloaded data the root mean square error
(RMSE) was less than 12 m (≤0.5 pixel) [36]. For each of the five
from USGS included the highest quality Level-1 Precision Terrain (L1TP) data, which weretest sites, high-spatial-resolution
Google Earth
considered Images
suitable were used analysis.
for time-series as reference
Thedata. The times forwas
geo-registration theconsistent,
reference data
andandthe Landsat
root mean8 OLI
square error (RMSE) was less than 12 m (≤0.5 pixel) [36]. For each of the five test sites,from
images used in this study were very similar at the test sites. To digitize and extract built-up areas
Google Earth images,
high-spatial-resolution a photointerpretation
Google Earth Images were method
used was used. The
as reference derived
data. built-up
The times for map was used to
the reference
dataaccurately
and Landsatassess the images
8 OLI different build-up
used in thisextraction
study were methods.
very similar at the test sites. To digitize and
Additionally, the high resolution layer imperviousness
extract built-up areas from Google Earth images, a photointerpretation (HRLI) data method
have been wasused as reference
used. The
data built-up
derived to evaluate
mapABEIwas performance in European
used to accurately cities.
assess the The HRLI
different dataextraction
build-up provided methods.
by the Copernicus
Global Land Service
Additionally, the high(CGLS) had a layer
resolution pixel imperviousness
resolution of 20 (HRLI)
m. The dataHRLIhave
databeen
wereused
generated based on
as reference
IRS-P6/Resourcesat-2 LISS-III, SPOT 5 and Landsat 8 data sets for different
data to evaluate ABEI performance in European cities. The HRLI data provided by the Copernicus regions of Europe. These
reference
Global data for(CGLS)
Land Service 2006, 2009,
had a2012
pixeland 2015 areofavailable
resolution 20 m. The at HRLI
the https://land.copernicus.eu/
data were generated based website.
on
The results of applying the ABEI on the Landsat 8 OLI imagery from European
IRS-P6/Resourcesat-2 LISS-III, SPOT 5 and Landsat 8 data sets for different regions of Europe. These cities were evaluated
with the HRLI data of 2015 for each city. Details of the Landsat images and reference data are presented
in Table 2.
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 6 of 20

Table 2. Description of the Landsat 8 OLI scenes and corresponding reference data.

Landsat Scene
Test Site Reference Data and Sources
Acquisition Date Path Row
Google Earth™ image acquired on 29
Babol 1 May 2015 164 35
April 2015, ©Digital Globe
Google Earth™ image acquired on 10
Naqadeh 13 August 2014 169 34
August 2014, ©Digital Globe
Google Earth™ image acquired on 14
Masjed Soleyman 15 August 2016 165 38
August 2016, ©Digital Globe
Google Earth™ image acquired on 14
Kashmar 14 October 2016 160 35
August 2016, ©CNES/Airbus
Google Earth™ image acquired on 9
Bam 6 May 2018 159 40
May 2018, ©Digital Globe
Cities
Rome 17 July 2015 191 031
Riga 9 May 2015 188 020
Madrid 7 July 2015 201 032
Athens 26 August 2015 180 031
High Resolution Layer
Brussels 11 September 2015 199 025 Imperviousness (HRLI) for the 2015
Porto 12 July 2015 204 031 reference year, European
Lyon 12 August 2015 197 028 Environment Agency
Ciechanow 4 August 2015 189 023
Hamburg 21 August 2015 196 023
Budapest 29 August 2015 188 027
Bucharest 3 August 2015 189 029

3.2. Methods

3.2.1. Image Preprocessing

Atmospheric correction of satellite imagery was performed using the Fast Line-of-sight
Atmospheric Analysis of Hypercubes (FLAASH) algorithm [37]. This module employs the MODTRAN
6 model [38]. To this end, some parameters, such as the satellite overpass time, the sensor altitude,
the geographical location, the specific atmospheric model related to the region, and the solar zenith
angle, are considered. For each of the five test sites, the aerosol optical depth (AOD) and total water
vapor content in the atmosphere used in the FLAASH algorithm were derived from the Terra MODIS
atmospheric profile product, which was collected by the Terra platform [18]. The overpass times of
Terra and Landsat 8 approximately match each other (less than a 2 h difference). There was no need for
manual co-registration because the co-registration between the Landsat and Google Earth images at
the test sites was accurate.

3.2.2. Formulation of the Automated Built up Extraction Index (ABEI)

Landsat 8 OLI reflective bands (7 bands) were used to develop the ABEI. The purpose of the
ABEI is to create maximum similarity between the pixel values of the built-up class and the maximum
difference between the pixel values of the built-up class and other land-cover classes. For this purpose,
the combination of the reflective bands of Landsat 8 OLI and the weight of each band are used, as
shown in Equation (1).

ABEI = µ1 Ref1 + µ2 Ref2 + µ3 Ref3 + µ4 Ref4 + µ5 Ref5 + µ6 Ref6 + µ7 Ref7 (1)

In this study, IGSA optimization was applied to determine the weights of the reflective bands (µ1 ,
µ2 , µ3 , µ4 , µ5 , µ6 and µ7 ). To implement IGSA optimization for determining the optimal weights of
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 7 of 20

different bands applicable to all areas, a pure pixel data set of surface covers and a specific objective
function were used. The objective function in the IGSA optimization to determine the scale of the
feature space considered (weights of different bands) is defined in Equation (2), where ∆ABEIiMi is
the distance (difference) between the ABEI value of the i-th built-up training sample and the built-up
cluster centre (Mi ) (Mean ABEI values of built-up samples) and ∆ABEIiMnearest is the distance (difference)
between the ABEI value of the i-th built-up training sample and the nearest neighbour cluster centre
(Mnearest ) (Mean ABEI values of each land cover samples were calculated (cluster centre for each land
cover was obtained). The difference of ABEI value of a built-up sample and other land cover cluster
centre was calculated. The minimum value of difference determines the nearest neighbour cluster
centre to a built-up sample).
X ∆ABEIiMi
Fobj = (2)
∆ABEIiMnearest
i=1:T

In Equation (2), T is the total number of selected training samples for the built-up area. The
purpose of IGSA optimization is to search the space for all possible states that allow the coefficient
values of µ1 , µ2 , µ3 , µ4 , µ5 , µ6 and µ7 to reach the optimal value (minimum) for the objective function.
This objective function establishes a balance in the feature space in such a way that the maximum
homogeneity of ABEI values between built-up pixels and the maximum difference of the ABEI values
between built-up pixels and other land-cover classes can be established. Additionally, by finding the
optimum value for this objective function and using the pure pixels of different land-cover classes, the
threshold values are also close to each other for different dates and regions. Therefore, the effective
feature vectors and their scales can be predicted and we can use them to achieve the best accuracy
of the built-up area classification. Main reasons for employing the IGSA algorithm instead of other
optimization algorithms in this study are: (a) in many optimization algorithms, the initial population
does not cover some parts of problem space. Therefore, optimization algorithms face challenges to find
the optimum location in problem space. However, IGSA is able to remove this problem with negative
mass; (b) The process time to achieve the optimum coefficients in IGSA compared to other algorithms
is short; (c) the IGSA properties such as the memory and using the negative mass significantly decrease
the occurrence possibility of local minima and search in a more efficient way the problem space.

3.2.3. Pure-Pixel Selection

To extract the surface reflectance values for 8 different land covers, 7 reflective bands of the
Landsat 8 OLI images of the test sites and surrounding areas were sampled. The types of surface covers
include built-up, vegetation, bare land, sandy soil, rock, agricultural and water land covers. Given that
the spectral values related to the pure pixels of surface covers directly affect the accuracy of the results
of the built-up extraction, this stage is one of the most important stages of the study. For each of the
surface covers, 150 pure pixels were extracted from 7 reflective bands of the Landsat 8 OLI images.
The set of methods includes photointerpretation from Google Earth images, ground sampling,
the pixel purity index (PPI) and selection from the feature space scatter plot used to extract pure
pixels of the land-cover types. Spectral separability of the selected land-cover classes was tested by
the Jeffries–Matusita distance separability measure [39]. All pairs of land-cover classes, with values
ranging from 1.76 to 2.01 were separable from each other.

3.2.4. Improved Gravitational Search Algorithm

In the IGSA, optimization was accomplished through the application of gravitational laws and
motion in a synthetic discrete-time system. The system environment is the same as the definition of the
problem. According to the law of gravity, every object is able to understand the location and situation
of other objects through the law of gravitational attraction. Therefore, this force can be utilized as
an instrument to exchange information. The designed optimum finder can be used to solve every
optimization problem in which each solution is defined as a situation in space, and its similarity to
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 8 of 20

the other solutions was expressed as a distance. The mass amounts were determined by the objective
function. More detail about IGSA optimization can be found in [40].

3.2.5. Classification, Threshold Optimization and Per-Pixel Accuracy Assessment

To compare the accuracy of the ABEI with those of other indices, in the present study, indices
such as the NDBI, modified NDBI, IBI, UI, NBAI, BRBA, NDBaI, BI, EBBI, BAEM, NBI and BUI were
applied. The results of applying these indices on the data from the test sites proved that the UI has
been more efficient in built-up extraction. For this reason, only the UI performance was compared
with the ABEI performance in this study.
According to the ABEI, a default value of the threshold equal to zero is used to separate built-up
and non-built-up pixels. Pixels with a value greater than zero are built-up areas, and pixels with
values less than zero are non-built-up areas. However, due to different environmental conditions in
different regions, the threshold values for both the ABEI and UI indices were determined according
to the reference map for test sites and based on the overall error parameter. For this purpose, the
threshold value was changed to 0.001, and with each change, the value of the overall error parameter
was calculated. Finally, the optimal threshold for each test site was calculated with the condition of
minimizing the overall error value. To assess the stability of the ABEI and UI threshold values, the
changes in the optimal threshold values for the two indices applied to the test sites were investigated
based on relative standard deviation criteria. To compare the accuracies of the ABEI, and UI the overall
errors and Kappa coefficients were calculated based on confusion matrices. To compare the ABEI and
UI accuracies, the results from the optimal threshold values of each index were used.
Additionally, to investigate whether the ABEI remarkably improves accuracy compared to the
UI method at these test sites, the McNemar statistical test was applied. According to Equation (3),
McNemar’s continuity-corrected chi-square statistic was calculated as [41]:
  2
 f12 − f21  − 1
2
X = (3)
f12 − f21

where f12 and f21 define the frequencies of pixels that were correctly classified by one method but
incorrectly classified by the other, respectively.

3.2.6. Mixed Pixel (Heterogeneous Region) Accuracy Assessment

The sensitivity and efficiency of different classifiers for the accurate classification of mixed pixels
of built-up and non-built-up lands were evaluated using the overall accuracy assessment for mixed
pixels and boundary regions. For this assessment, 1800 mixed pixels of the 5 test sites were selected.
Using Google Earth Images for each test site, the percentages of built-up and non-built-up areas for
each pixel were computed. Then, the pixels were classified into 10 classes based on the percentage of
built-up area. Finally, the percentages of pixels of each class classified by each of the three methods
(ABEI and UI) for built-up areas were calculated. Ideally, if the percentage of built-up areas in a pixel
is higher than 50%, this pixel should be classified in the built-up class and, conversely, the opposite is
classified in the non-built-up class.

3.2.7. The Performance Evaluation of ABEI Using Cross-Validation Analysis

In this study, HRLI reference data were used for the final evaluation of the ABEI performance
for mapping surface built-up areas. The results of ABEL were compared with HRLI reference maps
of 2015 for European cities. Finally, the overall accuracy of the built-up map extracted by ABEI was
computed based on reference map for each city. Also, the performance of ABEI was compared with
NDBI and UI for mapping built-up areas in European cities based on reference maps. Finally, the
changes of optimal threshold values for built-up extraction with ABEI, UI and NDBI were analyzed for
the different European cities.
of 2015 for European cities. Finally, the overall accuracy of the built-up map extracted by ABEI was
computed based on reference map for each city. Also, the performance of ABEI was compared with
NDBI and UI for mapping built-up areas in European cities based on reference maps. Finally, the
changes of optimal threshold values for built-up extraction with ABEI, UI and NDBI were analyzed
for the different European cities.
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 9 of 20

4. Results
4. Results
4.1. ABEI
4.1. ABEI
The aim of the ABEI is to create the greatest similarity between pixel values within the built-up
class and
Thethe
aimgreatest difference
of the ABEI in pixel
is to create thevalues between
greatest the between
similarity built-up pixel
class values
and other classes.
within In this
the built-up
study, using
class and theIGSA optimization,
greatest difference inthepixel
objective
valuesfunction
betweenand pure pixels
the built-up classofand
different surface In
other classes. land
this
covers
study, and
usingthe optimal
IGSA coefficients
optimization, the for each reflective
objective band
function and were
pure obtained.
pixels The surface
of different obtained ABEI
land is
covers
shown
and thein optimal
Equationcoefficients
(4). for each reflective band were obtained. The obtained ABEI is shown in
Equation (4).
𝐴BEI = 0.312Ref1 + 0.513Ref2 − 0.086Ref3 − 0.441Ref4 + 0.052Ref5 − 0.198Ref6
+ 0.278Ref (4)
ABEI = 0.312Ref1 + 0.513Ref27− 0.086Ref3 − 0.441Ref4 + 0.052Ref5 − 0.198Ref6 + 0.278Ref7 (4)
According to Equation (4), the coefficient value for each spectral band indicates the extent of the
According to Equation (4), the coefficient value for each spectral band indicates the extent of
effect of each spectral band on built-up area extraction. It should be noted that in this technique,
the effect of each spectral band on built-up area extraction. It should be noted that in this technique,
simultaneously with applying NDVI, water pure pixels (NDVI < 0) and vegetation pure pixels
simultaneously with applying NDVI, water pure pixels (NDVI < 0) and vegetation pure pixels
(NDVI > 0.5) were classified into the non-built-up class and in the built-up extraction process with
(NDVI > 0.5) were classified into the non-built-up class and in the built-up extraction process with
ABEI were not included.
ABEI were not included.
4.2.
4.2.Built-Up
Built-UpExtraction
ExtractionMaps
Maps
The
Theresults
resultsofofthe
thetwo
twoclassification
classificationmethods
methodsfor forthe
thefive
fivetest
testsites
siteswere
wereshown
shownininFigure
Figure2.2.The
The
visual assessment of Figure 2 demonstrates that the accuracy of the
visual assessment of Figure 2 demonstrates that the accuracy of the built-up extraction map extractedbuilt-up extraction mapby
extracted
the ABEIby the ABEI
is better thanisthat
better than that
extracted extracted
by the by the
UI. In each UI.five
of the In each of the
test sites, thefive test of
results sites,
the the results
UI are noisy.
ofHowever,
the UI are noisy. However, for the Naqadeh and Babol test sites, there are
for the Naqadeh and Babol test sites, there are fewer differences between the classification fewer differences
between
methodsthe in classification
terms of built-upmethods in terms
extraction. of built-up
However, extraction.
for the However,
Bam, Kashmar andfor the Bam,
Masjed Kashmar
Soleyman test
and Masjed Soleyman test sites, due to their bare land, sandy soil and rocky
sites, due to their bare land, sandy soil and rocky surfaces, there is a remarkable difference between the surfaces, there is a
remarkable difference between the results of the ABEI and those of the other
results of the ABEI and those of the other methods. A visual examination of the results indicates that methods. A visual
examination
the increase in of ABEI
the results
efficiency indicates
compared that the UI
to the increase in ABEI
efficiencies at the efficiency compared
arid test sites, including to bare
the land
UI
efficiencies
and sandy at the arid
areas, test than
is more sites,that
including bare land
at the humid test and
sites.sandy areas,reason
The main is more than
is the that at thethat
limitations humid
other
test sites. The main reason is the limitations that other methods have with
methods have with bare lands. At the Bam site, due to the complexity of the region and the presence bare lands. At the Bamof
site,
baredue to the
lands, complexity
sandy of the surfaces,
soils and desert region and the the presence
UI has a very oflow bare lands, in
efficiency sandy soilsextraction.
built-up and desert
surfaces, the UI has a very low efficiency in built-up extraction.
Site RGB (7 5 2) Reference map ABEI UI
Babol
Naqadeh

Figure 2. Cont.
 Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 10 of 20
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 10 of 20

Soleyman
Masjed
Kashmar
Bam

Figure Comparisonofofthe
Figure2.2.Comparison thebuilt-up
built-upextraction
extractionresults
resultsusing
usingthree
threeclassifiers
classifiersatatthe
thefive
fivetest
testsites.
sites.

Thevisual
The visualassessment
assessmentofofthese
theseresults
resultsillustrates
illustratesthe
thehigher
higherefficiency
efficiencyofofthe
theABEI
ABEIfor
forbuilt-up
built-up
extraction under bare land and sandy soil conditions.
extraction under bare land and sandy soil conditions.

4.3.Classification
4.3. ClassificationAccuracy
Accuracyand
andEdge
EdgePixel
PixelEffects
Effects
TheKappa
The Kappacoefficient
coefficientand
andoverall
overallaccuracy
accuracyof ofthe
thebuilt-up
built-upmaps
mapsobtained
obtainedfor foreach
eachtest
testsite
sitewere
were
shown in Table 3. For all test sites, the accuracy obtained by the ABEI is higher than
shown in Table 3. For all test sites, the accuracy obtained by the ABEI is higher than that obtained bythat obtained by
theUI.
the UI.According
AccordingtotoFigure
Figure3,3,the
theaverage
averagetotal
totalomission
omissionand andcommission
commissionerrors
errorsatatthe
thefive
fivetest
testsites
sites
by the ABEI, and UI are 15.21, and 58.2%, respectively. Additionally, the standard
by the ABEI, and UI are 15.21, and 58.2%, respectively. Additionally, the standard deviations in the deviations in the
average of total omission and commission errors by the ABEI, and UI methods
average of total omission and commission errors by the ABEI, and UI methods are 2.9, and 26.08%, are 2.9, and 26.08%,
respectively. The
respectively. The standard
standard deviation
deviationvalues
valuesindicate
indicatethat thethe
that ABEI method
ABEI method error compared
error compared to thetomean
the
error has a small difference. However, UI errors have large differences. In other
mean error has a small difference. However, UI errors have large differences. In other words, words, the resultstheof
the accuracy assessment indicate the high stability of the accuracy of the ABEI at
results of the accuracy assessment indicate the high stability of the accuracy of the ABEI at all testall test sites with
different
sites with environmental conditionsconditions
different environmental and surfaces
andinsurfaces
contrastintocontrast
the UI method.
to the UI method.
 Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 11 of 20

Table 3. Summary of the classification accuracies of the various methods by test site.

Test Masjed
Babol Naqadeh Kashmar Bam
Site Soleyman
Kc OA Kc OA Kc OA Kc OA Kc OA
ABEI 0.93 94.01 0.96 97.62 0.94 95.95 0.92 93.34 0.9 92.04
UI 0.87 89.21 0.90 92.54 0.82 83.02 0.82 85.89 0.69 73.88
NDBI 0.84 86.16 0.86 87.12 0.78 79.92 0.79 80.65 0.66 86.34
IBI 0.73 74.32 0.74 75.23 0.68 68.91 0.70 71.36 0.59 74.23
NBAI 0.78 75.65 0.79 80.32 0.70 71.24 0.69 70.54 0.60 61.63
BRBA 0.74 75.36 0.73 74.53 0.69 70.32 0.70 71.25 0.58 59.41
NDBaI 0.73 74.63 0.75 75.96 0.69 71.01 0.68 69.69 0.53 54.74
BI 0.75 76.81 0.78 79.86 0.62 63.45 0.66 67.31 0.55 56.81
EBBI 0.82 83.12 0.81 82.31 0.76 77.98 0.75 76.85 0.64 65.45
BAEM 0.81 82.54 0.79 80.45 0.75 76.31 0.76 77.65 0.63 64.85
NBI 0.75 76.75 0.79 80.23 0.70 71.65 0.63 63.87 0.57 58.96
Remote BUI
Sens. 2019, 0.74
11, 1966 75.96 0.75 76.87 0.71 72.26 0.65 66.23 0.60 61.32
11 of 20

100
Total error (%omission and commission)

80

60

ABEI
40
UI

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Test Site

Figure
Figure 3. Total
3. Total classification
classification error
error (combined
(combined commission
commission andand omission
omission errors).
errors).

A summary
A summary of the
of the classification
classification accuracies
accuracies of various
of the the various methods
methods bysite
by test testissite is shown
shown in Table
in Table 4. 4.

McNemar
Tableof4.the
Table 3. Summary chi-square
classification test results
accuracies of the for the five
various test sites.
methods by test site.
p-Value 2
Test Site BabolTest SitesNaqadeh Masjed Soleyman X Kashmar Bam
Kc OA Kc OA Classifier
Kc OA UI Kc OA UI Kc OA
Babol ABEI 26.03 0
ABEI 0.93 94.01
Naqadeh 0.96 97.62 0.94
ABEI 95.95
20.04 0.92 93.34
0 0.9 92.04
UI 0.87 89.21
Masjed 0.90 92.54 ABEI
Soleyman 0.82 83.02
288 0.82 85.89 0 0.69 73.88
NDBI Kashmar
0.84 86.16 0.86 87.12 ABEI
0.78 749
79.92 0
0.79 80.65 0.66 86.34
Bam ABEI 27.03 0
IBI 0.73 74.32 0.74 75.23 0.68 68.91 0.70 71.36 0.59 74.23
NBAI 0.78 75.65 0.79 80.32 0.70 71.24 0.69 70.54 0.60 61.63
The difference between the accuracies and errors of the built-up extraction methods among the
BRBA 0.74 75.36 0.73 74.53 0.69 70.32 0.70 71.25 0.58 59.41
test sites is different. This is because of the differences in the complexities of the surface land cover
NDBaI 0.73 74.63 0.75 75.96 0.69 71.01 0.68 69.69 0.53 54.74
at various test sites. The difference among the overall accuracies of the built-up extractions by three
BI 0.75 76.81 0.78 79.86 0.62 63.45 0.66 67.31 0.55 56.81
methods at the Babol and Naqadeh test sites is low, but for the Kashmar and Bam test sites, this
EBBI 0.82 83.12 0.81 82.31 0.76 77.98 0.75 76.85 0.64 65.45
BAEM 0.81 82.54 0.79 80.45 0.75 76.31 0.76 77.65 0.63 64.85
NBI 0.75 76.75 0.79 80.23 0.70 71.65 0.63 63.87 0.57 58.96
BUI 0.74 75.96 0.75 76.87 0.71 72.26 0.65 66.23 0.60 61.32
The difference between the accuracies and errors of the built-up extraction methods among the test
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 12 of 20

Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 12 of 20

difference is very high. The McNemar chi-square test results for the five test sites were shown in
TableBam
4. ABEI 27.03 0
According
According toto
thethe
Table 4, the
Table improvement
4, the improvement in the
inaccuracy of theof
the accuracy ABEI
the was
ABEI significant < 0.01
(p-value(p-value
was significant
at< the
0.01 at the 99% confidence level) compared to those of the UI at all test sites. For test sites wherethe
99% confidence level) compared to those of the UI at all test sites. For test sites where the
difference
differenceininthe
thebuilt-up
built-upextraction
extractionaccuracy
accuracyofofthe
theABEI
ABEIcompared
comparedtotothose
thoseofofother
othermethods
methodsisislow,
low,
the
theMcNemar
McNemarchi-square
chi-squarevalue
valueisisalso
alsolow.
low.The
Theresults
resultsofofthe
thesubpixel
subpixelaccuracy
accuracyassessment
assessmentusing
using
various methods were shown in Figure
various methods were shown in Figure 4. 4.

100

ABEI UI
Cumulative % of edge pixels classified as built-

80

60
up areas

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of built-up areas in edge pixels

Figure 4. Cumulative frequency of mixed edge pixels classified as built-up pixels.

Figure 4. Cumulative frequency of mixed edge pixels classified as built-up pixels.
The results indicate that the abilities of the ABEI, and UI to correctly classify pixels with various
The results
percentages indicateareas
of built-up that the
areabilities of the
different. In ABEI, andwith
general, UI tothecorrectly
ABEI, classify
60% of pixels with various
the mixed pixels
percentages of built-up areas are different. In general, with the ABEI, 60% of the
were classified correctly into the built-up class. Using the UI method, due to the lack of completely mixed pixels were
classified correctly
distinguishing into the
bare lands, sandybuilt-up class.
soils, and rockUsing the from
surfaces UI method,
built-updue to an
areas, theaverage
lack ofofcompletely
24.5% of
distinguishing bare lands, sandy soils, and rock surfaces from built-up areas, an
the pixels with less than 50% built-up areas were classified in the built-up class. Additionally, usingaverage of 24.5%
theof
the pixels with less than 50% built-up areas were classified in the built-up class.
UI, an average of 30% of pixels with more than 50% built-up areas were classified into the non-built-upAdditionally, using
the UI,
class. an average
However, becauseof of
30%the of pixels function
objective with more thanin50%
defined built-up areas
the optimization were classified
algorithm into the
that determines
non-built-up class. However, because of the objective function defined in the optimization
the optimal weight of each spectral band in the ABEI, the capability of this index is high for separating algorithm
that determines
built-up areas from thebare
optimal
lands,weight
sandy of each
soils and spectral band in For
rock surfaces. the this
ABEI, the capability
reason, with this of this index
method, onlyis
highoffor
4.6% separating
pixels with less built-up
than 50% areas from bare
built-up areaslands, sandy soils
are classified andbuilt-up
into the rock surfaces. Foron
class, and this reason,
average,
with this method, only 4.6% of pixels with less than 50% built-up areas
11.2% of pixels with more than 50% built-up areas were classified into the non-built-up class. are classified into the
built-up class, and on average, 11.2% of pixels with more than 50% built-up areas were classified into
4.4.
theOptimal Threshold
non-built-up and Its Variability
class.
The comparison results for the stability of the optimal threshold values for the ABEI and UIwere
4.4. Optimal Threshold and Its Variability
shown in Figure 5.
The comparison results for the stability of the optimal threshold values for the ABEI and
UIwere shown in Figure 5.
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 13 of 20

RemoteSens.
Remote Sens.2019, 11,1966
2019,11, 1966 1313ofof20
20

0.12
0.12
0.08
0.08
0.04
threshold

0.04
threshold

0
ABEI
Optimal

0
ABEI
Optimal

UI
-0.04
UI
-0.04
-0.08
-0.08
-0.12
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-0.12
0 1 2 Test3 Site 4 5 6
Test Site

Figure 5. Optimal thresholds for the five test sites.

Figure 5. Optimal thresholds for the five test sites.
Figure 5. Optimal thresholds for the five test sites.
The
The results
results indicate
indicate that that the
the optimal
optimal threshold
threshold values
values forfor the
the different
different test
test sites
sites using
using the the UI
UI
compared
compared to
The results those
to those using
indicate the
using that ABEI experience
the optimal
the ABEI more
threshold
experience changes.
values for
more changes. For example,
Forthe at
different
example, the Babol
testBabol
at the and
sites using Naqadeh
and Naqadehthe UI
test
test sites,
sites, the
compared optimal
to those
the optimal threshold
using the ABEI
threshold value for
for the
the UI
experience
value more
UI has changed
has changes.
changed fromfromexample,
For −0.1 to
−0.1 to −0.02,
at theand
−0.02, Babol
and that
that for
and the
the ABEI
forNaqadeh ABEI
has
test changed
hassites,
changed from
from 0.3
the optimal to
to 0.232.
0.3threshold Generally,
0.232. value the
for the
Generally, UIrelative
the standard
has changed
relative fromdeviations
standard of
−0.1 to −0.02,
deviations of the
andoptimal
the that for threshold
optimal the ABEI
threshold
values
has
values at the
changed
at thefrom
testsites
test sites
0.3 tousing
using thethe
0.232. UI and
Generally,
UI and ABEI ABEI
the areand
arerelative
155 155 andrespectively.
standard
27%, 27%, respectively.
deviations the The
of lower
The lower
optimal
relative relative
threshold
standard
standard
values
deviation deviation
at the
of the of
testoptimal the
sites using optimal
the UI
threshold threshold
and for
values ABEI values
theare for the
155compared
ABEI ABEI compared
and 27%,torespectively. to
those for the The those for the
lower relative
UI represents moreUI
represents
standard
stability of more
deviation stability
the threshold ofoptimal
of thevalue the with
threshold value
threshold
spatial with
andvalues spatial
temporal and temporal
for variations.
the ABEI variations.
compared to those for the UI
The
represents advantages
more stability
The advantages of the ABEI
of the
of the ABEI include
threshold a
includevalue simple
a simple method
withmethod and systematic
spatial and systematic technique
technique for
temporal variations. for the
the precise
precise
separation
separation of
The advantagesbuilt-up
of built-up areas
ofareas from
the ABEI other
frominclude surface
a simple
other surface land-cover
method and
land-cover classes, such
systematic
classes, as bare land,
such as technique
bare land, for sandy
sandythesoil and
precise
soil and
rock surfaces.
separation
rock surfaces. The
of built-up advantages of the
areas fromofother
The advantages new index
surface
the new index in comparison
land-cover with
classes,with
in comparison other
suchotherindices
as bare in this
land, in
indices sandyfield
this soil are the
fieldandare
relatively
rock high
surfaces. The
the relatively stability
highadvantages of the
stability ofofthe optimum
theoptimum threshold
new index value
in comparison
threshold with respect
with respect
value with to the
other indices
to theinchanges
this field
changes in spatial,
in are the
spatial,
temporal,
relatively
temporal,high and
and environmental
stability of theconditions
environmental optimumand
conditions surface
threshold
and land
land cover
surfacevalue with for
cover for the
the separation
respect to the changes
separation of
of built-up areas
in spatial,
built-up areas
from non-built-up
temporal, areas.
and environmental
from non-built-up areas. conditions and surface land cover for the separation of built-up areas
from non-built-up areas.
4.5.
4.5. Cross-Validation
Cross-Validation Analysis
Analysis
4.5. Cross-Validation
The
The results Analysis
results of the ABEI, UI and NDBI
NDBI indices
indices for
forthe
theeleven
elevenEuropean
Europeancities
citiesare
areshown
shownininFigure
Figure6.
6. Based
Based
The on
thethe
onresults
HRLIHRLI
of the reference
reference
ABEI, map
UI map of each
of NDBI
and each city, city,
the
indices forthe
theresults
results of of
indices
eleven indices were
cities evaluated.
were evaluated.
European areThe The
bluein
shown blue
pixels
Figurein
pixels
each in
map each map
represent represent
omission omission
errors errors
and the and
green the green
pixels in pixels
each in
map each map
represent represent commission
commission
6. Based on the HRLI reference map of each city, the results of indices were evaluated. The blue errors.
errors.in each map represent omission errors and the green pixels in each map represent commission
pixels
errors. RGB (7-5-2) Reference map ABEI UI NDBI
RGB (7-5-2) Reference map ABEI UI NDBI
Rome
Rome

Figure 6. Cont.
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 14 of 20
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 14 of 20
Riga
Madrid
Athens
Brussels
Porto
Lyon
Ciechanow
Hamburg
Budapest

Figure 6. Cont.
 Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 15 of 20
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 15 of 20
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966
Bucharest 15 of 20
Bucharest

Figure
Figure6.
6.Comparison
Comparisonof ofthe
thebuilt-up
built-upextraction
extractionresults
resultsusing
usingthree
three indices
indices at
at the
the 11
11 European
European cities.
cities.
Figure 6. Comparison of the built-up extraction results using three indices at the 11 European cities.
The
The visual
visualassessment
assessmentofofFigure
Figure 6 demonstrates
6 demonstrates thatthat
the the
accuracy
accuracyof the
ofbuilt-up extraction
the built-up map
extraction
The extracted
map visual
extracted byassessment
the
byABEI of better
is
the ABEI Figure 6 demonstrates
than
is better thatthat
than thatby
extracted
extractedthebyaccuracy
the UIUI
the and ofNDBI.
and the built-up
NDBI. extraction
Additionally,
Additionally, mapisis aa
there
there
extracted by the
significant
significant ABEI isbetween
difference
difference better than
between thethe that
results extracted
results the by
of ABEI
of the thethose
ABEI
and UI and
and NDBI.
those
of the Additionally,
of the
other casethere
otherinindices
indices of in is a of
case
separation
significant
betweendifference
separation between
built-up between
andbuilt-up
bare landthe
and results
bare A
areas. of
land the ABEI
areas.
summary A andoverall
of summary
the thoseof ofthethe other
overall
accuracies indices
accuracies
of the inofcase
three indicesthebyof
three
city
separation
indices between
by city
was shown built-up
was shown
in Figure 7. and bare
in Figure 7. land areas. A summary of the overall accuracies of the three
indices by city was shown in Figure 7.
100 ABEI UI NDBI
100 ABEI UI NDBI
90
90
80
80
Overall accuracy (%)
Overall accuracy (%)

70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30

City
City
Figure 7. Overall accuracies of the three indices by city.
Figure
Figure 7. Overall
7. Overall accuracies
accuracies ofthree
of the the three indices
indices by city.
by city.
The
The mean
mean value
value of overall
of overall accuracy
accuracy at at the
theeleven
elevenEuropean
Europeancities
citiesusing
usingthetheABEI,
ABEI,UIUIandandNDBI
NDBI
isThe mean
89.3, 72.4 value
and of overall
64.7%, accuracy at
respectively. theresults
The elevenindicate
European the cities
high using the ABEI,
efficiency of UI and
ABEI for NDBI is
mapping
89.3,72.4
is 89.3, 72.4and
and 64.7%,
64.7%, respectively.
respectively. The
Theresults
results indicate
indicate thethe
high efficiency
high efficiency of ABEI for mapping
of ABEI for most built-up
mapping
built-up
areas areasareas
in absolutein absolute
and relative and relative terms
terms according according
to UI and to UI
NDBI and NDBI results. The highest
built-up
overall errorinofabsolute
the UI andNDBI
and relative
is terms
seen in according
Madrid (48 to
and andresults.
UI67%, NDBI The
respectively).
mostThe
results. In
highest
mostoverall
general, highest
the
error
overall
of
overall the UI and NDBI
error ofofthe is seen in Madrid (48 and 67%, respectively). In general, the overall accuracies of
accuracies
the built-up theUIbuilt-up
and NDBI
extraction using
is seen in
extraction
the UI and
Madrid
usingNDBIthe are(48and
UI andNDBI
low
67%, respectively).
in areasare low
that covers
In general,
in areas
with that
bare
the overall
covers
land. with bare
However,
accuracies
land. of the built-up
However, ABEI extraction
has good using the UI and
performance for NDBI are low
separating in areasareas
built-up that covers with bare
from other surface
ABEI
land. has
However,goodABEI
performance
has good forperformance
separating built-up
for areas
separating from other
built-up surface
areas land-cover
from other classes.
surface The
land-cover
comparison classes.
results The
for comparison
the stability results
of the for
optimal the stability
threshold of the
values optimal
for the threshold
ABEI, UI values
and NDBI forwere
the
land-cover
ABEI, UIclasses.
and The were
NDBI comparison
shown results
in Figure for8. the stability of the optimal threshold values for the
ABEI,shown in Figure
UI and 8.
NDBI were shown in Figure 8.
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 16 of 20
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 16 of 20

0.1

0
Optimal threshold

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4
ABEI UI NDBI
-0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
City

Figure 8. Optimal thresholds of the three indices by city.

Figure 8. Optimal thresholds of the three indices by city.

The relative standard deviations of the optimal threshold values at the eleven European cities
The relative standard deviations of the optimal threshold values at the eleven European cities
using the ABEI, UI and NDBI are 16, 37 and 125%, respectively. The results indicate that the optimal
using the ABEI, UI and NDBI are 16, 37 and 125%, respectively. The results indicate that the optimal
threshold values for the different European cities using the ABEI compared to those using UI and NDBI
threshold values for the different European cities using the ABEI compared to those using UI and
experience less changes. The lower changes of the optimal threshold values for the ABEI represent
NDBI experience less changes. The lower changes of the optimal threshold values for the ABEI
more stability of the threshold value over the different European cities. The results of the performance
represent more stability of the threshold value over the different European cities. The results of the
evaluation of ABEI based on reference data confirmed the high efficiency of this index for mapping
performance evaluation of ABEI based on reference data confirmed the high efficiency of this index
built-up areas.
for mapping built-up areas.
5. Discussion
5. Discussion
In previous studies, different indices have been developed for built-up area extraction using
In previous
satellite imagery studies, different
[8,9,42]. indicesregions,
In different have been developed for of
the performances built-up area extraction
these indices are affectedusing
by the
satellite imagery [8,9,42]. In different regions, the performances of these indices
type of surface covers in the region. These indices have problems in distinguishing between surface are affected by the
typecovers
of surface covers
that have in thespectral
similar region.behaviours.
These indices have problems
Therefore, in distinguishing
these indices are not able to between surface
completely isolate
covers that have similar spectral behaviours. Therefore, these indices are not
built-up and bare lands in the same area [9,29,36]. Additionally, the performance of these indices in able to completely
isolate built-up
regions withand dry bare
climateslands in the than
is lower sameinarea
humid [9,29,36].
regions.Additionally, the performance
Even the spectral heterogeneity of these
between
indices in related
pixels regionsto with dry climates
built-up is lower
areas reduces thethan in humid
accuracies regions.
of the Even
indices. Onthethespectral heterogeneity
other hand, the optimum
between pixelsvalue
threshold related to built-up
in the previous areas reduces
indices the accuracies
to distinguish of the
built-up indices.
areas under Ondifferent
the otherenvironmental
hand, the
optimum
conditionsthreshold value surfaces
and various in the previous indices to distinguish built-up areas under different
was not stable.
environmental
Built-up and bare lands have similar was
conditions and various surfaces not stable.
spectral behaviours. On the other hand, the spectral
heterogeneity due to the diversity and complexitybehaviours.
Built-up and bare lands have similar spectral On the other
of urban structures hand, the
is enormous. spectral the
Therefore,
heterogeneity
indices thatdue onlyto use
the two
diversity
bandsand have complexity
problems of in urban structures
distinguishing is enormous.
completely Therefore,
between built-uptheand
indices that only use two bands have problems in distinguishing completely
bare lands. For these reasons, the development of a new index to consider the spectral diversity of between built-up and
bareurban
lands.structures
For these in reasons,
built-up theextraction
development of aisnew
process index toInconsider
necessary. thethe
this study, spectral
ABEIdiversity of
was presented
urban
forstructures
mapping surfacein built-up extraction
built-up process
areas using is necessary.
Landsat In this study,
8 OLI imagery. the ABEI
In ABEI, all of was presented
the Landsat 8 OLI
for mapping
reflective bands were employed and optimal weights for each of the bands were obtained 8based
surface built-up areas using Landsat 8 OLI imagery. In ABEI, all of the Landsat OLI on
reflective
IGSA bands were employed
optimization. and optimal
The proposed index weights
has highfor each of the
efficiency bands
for the were obtained
classification based on
of built-up areas
IGSA optimization. The proposed
under different environmental conditions. index has high efficiency for the classification of built-up areas
under different
For the environmental conditions.
five test sites considered in this study, the standard deviations of the overall errors for the
For the five test sites considered
ABEI, and UI methods were 2.9 and 26.08%, in this study, the standard
respectively. For deviations
the eleven of the overall
European errors
cities for
considered
the in
ABEI, and UI methods were 2.9 and 26.08%, respectively. For the
this study, the standard deviations of the overall accuracy for the ABEI, UI, and NDBI indiceseleven European cities
considered in this study, the standard deviations of the overall accuracy for the ABEI, UI, and NDBI
indices were 2.2, 10.4 and 15.7, respectively. The difference of the accuracy of the built-up area
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 17 of 20

were 2.2, 10.4 and 15.7, respectively. The difference of the accuracy of the built-up area extraction for
different sites using ABEI is very low, but for other methods, is high. In other words, the stability of the
ABEI method in different environmental conditions and surface covers is higher than other methods.
Because of the defined objective function in the IGSA optimization to determine the optimal weight
of each spectral band in ABEI, the performance of this index is high for the separation of built-up
area from bare, sand, and rock surfaces (Figures 2 and 6). The values of these coefficients are constant
for different regions. Unlike most previous indices, the seven reflective bands of Landsat 8 OLI were
used in ABEI to produce built-up maps. For this reason, the ABEI was less influenced by spectral
similarities between built-up and bare lands and has better performance compared to previous indices.
The major advantage of the ABEI in addition to its high performance, is a simple implementation.
The relative standard deviations of optimal threshold values at 5 test sites for ABEI and UI were
27 and 155%, respectively. Additionally, the relative standard deviations of optimal threshold at eleven
European cities for ABEI, UI and NDBI were 16, 37 and 125%, respectively. The lower value of the
relative standard deviation of the optimum threshold values for ABEI to the UI and NDBI represents
the higher stability of the threshold value under spatial and temporal variations. Additionally, due to
the simple implementation of ABEI, this index can be used easily to extract built-up area in different
regions. In previous studies, it has been shown that thermal bands can also be used to improve the
performance of methods for the built-up areas extraction [42]. For this reason, future studies may
consider using the thermal bands in ABEI to improve the performance of this index and comparing the
results with our index.

6. Conclusions
The main objective of this study was to develop an automatic technique that improves the
accuracy of built-up extraction by increasing spectral separability between built-up and non-built-up
surfaces, specifically in regions with bare land and sandy soils, which are often major causes of low
classification accuracy. A new Automated Built-up Extraction Index (ABEI) using Landsat 8 OLI
images was designed. The aim of the ABEI is to create the greatest similarity between pixel values
within the built-up class and the greatest difference between the pixel values in the built-up class and
other classes. Therefore, using IGSA optimization, the objective function and pure pixels of different
surface land covers, optimal coefficients for each reflective band are obtained. The accuracies and
threshold stabilities of the new index are compared with those of the UI, and NDBI methods. The ABEI
remarkably improved accuracy in regions where bare lands and other bright surfaces were the major
sources of classification errors. A mixed pixel assessment of errors at the edges of the built-up regions
demonstrated that the ABEI was more accurate in classifying edge pixels compared to the UI method.
Furthermore, the optimal threshold values of the ABEI were indicated to be less changeable under
different environmental conditions, locations and times compared to those of the UI. Accordingly,
the ABEI is suggested as an improved built-up index, particularly in extracting built-up areas from
regions where imprecise results are anticipated due to bare lands, sandy soils and rock surfaces.
Additionally, the ABEI technique would be appropriate for built-up area change detection analysis
because it separates edge pixels with high accuracy and an optimum threshold. The other advantages
of the ABEI include a simple method and systematic technique for the precise separation of built-up
areas from other surface land covers, such as bare lands, sandy soils and rock surfaces. Landsat 8
thermal bands are proposed to be used in future studies to increase the accuracy and efficiency of the
ABEI index. However, the accuracy of the ABEI can be negatively affected by deep and saltiness water
body, and density vegetation areas. Hence, Landsat 8 thermal bands are proposed to be used in future
studies to increase the accuracy and efficiency of the ABEI index. Also, we suggest that the efficiency
of ABEI and deep learning algorithms be investigated for built-up extraction in future studies.
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 18 of 20

Author Contributions: M.K.F., A.S., M.K. and S.K.A. conceived and designed the research of the first draft;
M.K.F. and A.S. performed data analysis and wrote the first draft; M.K. and S.K.A. edited the pre-draft; S.Q.
and D.H. re-designed the research, revised and edited the paper; all authors contributed to and approved the
final manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: We are grateful to editor, and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and
suggestions to improve this study. Also, the authors deeply thank International Relationship Program, University
of Tehran, for their great support in conducting this research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Cohen, B. Urbanization in developing countries: Current trends, future projections, and key challenges for
sustainability. Technol. Soc. 2006, 28, 63–80. [CrossRef]
2. Bhatti, S.S.; Tripathi, N.K. Built-up area extraction using landsat 8 oli imagery. Gisci. Remote Sens. 2014, 51,
445–467. [CrossRef]
3. Firozjaei, M.K.; Sedighi, A.; Argany, M.; Jelokhani-Niaraki, M.; Arsanjani, J.J. A geographical direction-based
approach for capturing the local variation of urban expansion in the application of ca-markov model. Cities
2019, 93, 120–135. [CrossRef]
4. Sudhira, H.; Ramachandra, T.; Jagadish, K. Urban sprawl: Metrics, dynamics and modelling using gis. Int. J.
Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2004, 5, 29–39. [CrossRef]
5. Seto, K.C.; Güneralp, B.; Hutyra, L.R. Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on
biodiversity and carbon pools. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 16083–16088. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Bhatta, B. Causes and consequences of urban growth and sprawl. In Analysis of Urban Growth and Sprawl
from Remote Sensing Data; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 17–36.
7. As-syakur, A.; Adnyana, I.; Arthana, I.W.; Nuarsa, I.W. Enhanced built-up and bareness index (ebbi) for
mapping built-up and bare land in an urban area. Remote Sens. 2012, 4, 2957–2970. [CrossRef]
8. Bouzekri, S.; Lasbet, A.A.; Lachehab, A. A new spectral index for extraction of built-up area using landsat-8
data. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens. 2015, 43, 867–873. [CrossRef]
9. He, C.; Shi, P.; Xie, D.; Zhao, Y. Improving the normalized difference built-up index to map urban built-up
areas using a semiautomatic segmentation approach. Remote Sens. Lett. 2010, 1, 213–221. [CrossRef]
10. Kaimaris, D.; Patias, P. Identification and area measurement of the built-up area with the built-up index (bui).
Int. J. Adv. Remote Sens. GIS 2016, 5, 1844–1858. [CrossRef]
11. Waqar, M.M.; Mirza, J.F.; Mumtaz, R.; Hussain, E. Development of new indices for extraction of built-up area
& bare soil from landsat data. Open Access Sci. Rep. 2012, 1, 4.
12. Xu, H. A new index for delineating built-up land features in satellite imagery. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2008, 29,
4269–4276. [CrossRef]
13. Guindon, B.; Zhang, Y.; Dillabaugh, C. Landsat urban mapping based on a combined spectral–spatial
methodology. Remote Sens. Environ. 2004, 92, 218–232. [CrossRef]
14. Griffiths, P.; Hostert, P.; Gruebner, O.; van der Linden, S. Mapping megacity growth with multi-sensor data.
Remote Sens. Env. 2010, 114, 426–439. [CrossRef]
15. Weng, Q. A remote sensing? Gis evaluation of urban expansion and its impact on surface temperature in the
zhujiang delta, china. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2001, 22, 1999–2014.
16. Jat, M.K.; Garg, P.K.; Khare, D. Monitoring and modelling of urban sprawl using remote sensing and gis
techniques. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. 2008, 10, 26–43. [CrossRef]
17. Firozjaei, M.K.; Kiavarz, M.; Alavipanah, S.K.; Lakes, T.; Qureshi, S. Monitoring and forecasting heat island
intensity through multi-temporal image analysis and cellular automata-markov chain modelling: A case of
babol city, iran. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 91, 155–170. [CrossRef]
18. Sharma, R.C.; Tateishi, R.; Hara, K.; Gharechelou, S.; Iizuka, K. Global mapping of urban built-up areas of
year 2014 by combining modis multispectral data with viirs nighttime light data. Int. J. Digit. Earth 2016, 9,
1004–1020. [CrossRef]
19. Schneider, A.; Friedl, M.A.; Potere, D. Mapping global urban areas using modis 500-m data: New methods
and datasets based on ‘urban ecoregions’. Remote Sens. Env. 2010, 114, 1733–1746. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 19 of 20

20. Su, Y.; Chen, X.; Wang, C.; Zhang, H.; Liao, J.; Ye, Y.; Wang, C. A new method for extracting built-up urban
areas using dmsp-ols nighttime stable lights: A case study in the pearl river delta, southern china. Gisci.
Remote Sens. 2015, 52, 218–238. [CrossRef]
21. Zhang, J.; Li, P.; Wang, J. Urban built-up area extraction from landsat tm/etm+ images using spectral
information and multivariate texture. Remote Sens. 2014, 6, 7339–7359. [CrossRef]
22. Ettehadi Osgouei, P.; Kaya, S.; Sertel, E.; Alganci, U. Separating built-up areas from bare land in mediterranean
cities using sentinel-2a imagery. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 345. [CrossRef]
23. Chen, Y.; Lv, Z.; Huang, B.; Jia, Y. Delineation of built-up areas from very high-resolution satellite imagery
using multi-scale textures and spatial dependence. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1596. [CrossRef]
24. Kumar, A.; Pandey, A.C.; Jeyaseelan, A. Built-up and vegetation extraction and density mapping using
worldview-ii. Geocarto Int. 2012, 27, 557–568. [CrossRef]
25. Xu, H. Extraction of urban built-up land features from landsat imagery using a thematicoriented index
combination technique. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2007, 73, 1381–1391. [CrossRef]
26. Feyisa, G.L.; Meilby, H.; Fensholt, R.; Proud, S.R. Automated water extraction index: A new technique for
surface water mapping using landsat imagery. Remote Sens. Env. 2014, 140, 23–35. [CrossRef]
27. Robinson, N.; Allred, B.; Jones, M.; Moreno, A.; Kimball, J.; Naugle, D.; Erickson, T.; Richardson, A. A
dynamic landsat derived normalized difference vegetation index (ndvi) product for the conterminous united
states. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 863. [CrossRef]
28. Choi, H.; Bindschadler, R. Cloud detection in landsat imagery of ice sheets using shadow matching technique
and automatic normalized difference snow index threshold value decision. Remote Sens. Env. 2004, 91,
237–242. [CrossRef]
29. Zha, Y.; Gao, J.; Ni, S. Use of normalized difference built-up index in automatically mapping urban areas
from tm imagery. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2003, 24, 583–594. [CrossRef]
30. Moghaddam, M.H.R.; Sedighi, A.; Fayyazi, M.A. Applying mndwi index and linear directional mean analysis
for morphological changes in the zarriné-rūd river. Arab. J. Geosci. 2015, 8, 8419–8428. [CrossRef]
31. Cleve, C.; Kelly, M.; Kearns, F.R.; Moritz, M. Classification of the wildland–urban interface: A comparison of
pixel-and object-based classifications using high-resolution aerial photography. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst.
2008, 32, 317–326. [CrossRef]
32. Kawamura, M.; Jayamana, S.; Tsujiko, Y. Relation between social and environmental conditions in colombo
sri lanka and the urban index estimated by satellite remote sensing data. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens.
1996, 31, 321–326.
33. Zhao, H.; Chen, X. Use of Normalized Difference Bareness Index in Quickly Mapping Bare Areas from
Tm/Etm+. In Proceedings of the International geoscience and remote sensing symposium, Seoul, South
Korea, 29 July 2005; p. 1666.
34. Rikimaru, A. Development of forest canopy density mapping and monitoring model using indices of
vegetation, bare soil and shadow. Presented Pap. 18th Acrs 1997, 1, 91–102.
35. Sukristiyanti, R. Suharyadi; jatmiko, rh evaluasi indeks urban pada citra landsat multitemporal dalam
ekstraksi kepadatan bangunan. J. Ris. Geol. Dan Pertamb. 2007, 17, 1–10. [CrossRef]
36. Moghaddam, M.H.R.; Sedighi, A.; Fasihi, S.; Firozjaei, M.K. Effect of environmental policies in combating
aeolian desertification over sejzy plain of iran. Aeolian Res. 2018, 35, 19–28. [CrossRef]
37. Cooley, T.; Anderson, G.P.; Felde, G.W.; Hoke, M.L.; Ratkowski, A.J.; Chetwynd, J.H.; Gardner, J.A.;
Adler-Golden, S.M.; Matthew, M.W.; Berk, A. Flaash, a Modtran4-Based Atmospheric Correction Algorithm,
Its Application and Validation. IEEE Int. Geosci. Remote Sens. Symp. 2002, 3, 1414–1418.
38. Berk, A.; Conforti, P.; Kennett, R.; Perkins, T.; Hawes, F.; Van Den Bosch, J. Modtran®6: A major upgrade of
the modtran®radiative transfer code. In Proceedings of the 2014 6th Workshop on Hyperspectral Image
and Signal Processing: Evolution in Remote Sensing (WHISPERS), Lausanne, Switzerland, 24–27 June 2014;
pp. 1–4.
39. Richards, J.A.; Richards, J. Remote Sensing Digital Image Analysis; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1999;
Volume 3.
40. Firozjaei, M.K.; Daryaei, I.; Sedighi, A.; Weng, Q.; Alavipanah, S.K. Homogeneity distance classification
algorithm (hdca): A novel algorithm for satellite image classification. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 546. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1966 20 of 20

41. De Leeuw, J.; Jia, H.; Yang, L.; Liu, X.; Schmidt, K.; Skidmore, A. Comparing accuracy assessments to infer
superiority of image classification methods. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2006, 27, 223–232. [CrossRef]
42. Ezimand, K.; Kakroodi, A.; Kiavarz, M. The development of spectral indices for detecting built-up land areas
and their relationship with land-surface temperature. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2018, 39, 1–22. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).