See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328638063

Hybrid model to optimize object-based land cover classification by meta-

heuristic algorithm: an example for supporting urban management in Ha Noi,
Viet Nam

Article  in  International Journal of Digital Earth · October 2018

DOI: 10.1080/17538947.2018.1542039

CITATIONS READS

0 237

2 authors, including:

Manh Van Pham

Vietnam National University, Hanoi
6 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Manh Van Pham on 31 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Digital Earth

ISSN: 1753-8947 (Print) 1753-8955 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjde20

Hybrid model to optimize object-based land cover

classification by meta-heuristic algorithm: an
example for supporting urban management in Ha
Noi, Viet Nam

Quang-Thanh Bui, Manh Pham Van, Nguyen Thi Thuy Hang, Quoc-Huy
Nguyen, Nguyen Xuan Linh, Pham Minh Hai, Tran Anh Tuan & Pham Van Cu

To cite this article: Quang-Thanh Bui, Manh Pham Van, Nguyen Thi Thuy Hang, Quoc-Huy
Nguyen, Nguyen Xuan Linh, Pham Minh Hai, Tran Anh Tuan & Pham Van Cu (2018): Hybrid model
to optimize object-based land cover classification by meta-heuristic algorithm: an example for
supporting urban management in Ha Noi, Viet Nam, International Journal of Digital Earth, DOI:
10.1080/17538947.2018.1542039

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2018.1542039

Published online: 31 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjde20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH
https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2018.1542039

Hybrid model to optimize object-based land cover classification

by meta-heuristic algorithm: an example for supporting urban
management in Ha Noi, Viet Nam
Quang-Thanh Bui a, Manh Pham Vana, Nguyen Thi Thuy Hangb, Quoc-Huy Nguyena,
Nguyen Xuan Linha, Pham Minh Haic, Tran Anh Tuand and Pham Van Cub
a
Center for Applied Research in Remote sensing and GIS (CARGIS), VNU University of Science, Ha Noi, Viet Nam; bVNU
University of Science, Ha Noi, Viet Nam; cVietnam Institute of Geodesy and Cartography, Ha Noi, Viet Nam; dMinistry
of Education and Training, Ha Noi, Viet Nam

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study proposed a novel object-based hybrid classification model Received 8 March 2018
named GMNN that combines Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm Accepted 25 October 2018
(GOA) and the multiple-class Neural network (MNN) for urban pattern
KEYWORDS
detection in Hanoi, Vietnam. Four bands of SPOT 7 image and derivable Urban; remote sensing;
NDVI, NDWI were used to generate image segments with associated object-based classification;
attributes by PCI Geomatics software. These segments were classified neural network; grasshopper
into four urban surface types (namely water, impervious surface, optimization algorithm
vegetation and bare soil) by the proposed model. Alternatively, three
training and validation datasets of different sizes were used to verify the
robustness of this model. For all tests, the overall accuracies of the
classification were approximately 87%, and the Area under Receiver
Operating Characteristic curves for each land cover type was 0.97. Also,
the performance of this model was examined by comparing several
statistical indicators with common benchmark classifiers. The results
showed that GMNN out-performed established methods in all
comparable indicators. These results suggested that our hybrid model
was successfully deployed in the study area and could be used as an
alternative classification method for urban land cover studies. In a
broader sense, classification methods will be enriched with the active
and fast-growing contribution of metaheuristic algorithms.

1. Introduction
Urban management activities require an accurate spatial/temporal database and an effective manage-
ment strategy to minimize adverse effects (Herold and Sawada 2012; Jonkman and Dawson 2012). In
these database, land cover maps are very important as they provide preliminary information about
the spatial variation of surface types. Therefore, adequate detection of urban landscape plays a con-
siderable role in the proper handling of certain types of land covers. It also helps the decision-making
process in coping various environmental hazards, such as excessive surface runoff and urban flood-
ing. The identification of land cover types can significantly contribute to the efficient management
and reduction of damages to the settlement, agriculture, and livelihood by avoiding construction and
developments in hazard-prone areas.
Methods for land cover classification methods can be divided into two branches, which are pixel-
based and object-based classification. The latter has significantly grown in the last several years with

CONTACT Quang-Thanh Bui thanhbq@vnu.edu.vn; qthanh.bui@gmail.com VNU University of Science, 334 Nguyen Trai
Road, Ha Noi, Viet Nam
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 Q.-T. BUI ET AL.

the rapid emergence of high spatial resolution, i.e. (smaller than 4 m). Applications of this approach
can be found in many studies that have shown the superior performance of object-based classification
over the traditional pixel-based approach (Duro, Franklin, and Dubé 2012; Myint et al. 2011). In fact,
object-based classification is sensitive to landscape morphology and is found to be a robust method in
an urban study where the human-made structure is present at a high density (Qian et al. 2015).
Typically, the conventional object-based classification process comprises of image segmentation and
classification of segments based on predefined class properties. Depending on specific locations, three
typical parameters, which are scale, compactness, and shape are be defined, mainly by user’s experi-
ences (Qian et al. 2015). The definition of those parameters controls how pixels or existing objects
are grouped and ultimately impacts the overall accuracy of classification tasks. In addition to built-
in algorithms (rule-based method) in popular image analysis packages (W. Zhou and Troy 2008),
machine learning has been increasingly used to fine tune the parameters of classifiers. This approach
could be found in (Hamedianfar et al. 2014) with the C4.5 algorithm in urban mapping from hyper-
spectral images, or the applications of Support Vector Machine (SVM) with high resolution images in
review papers of (Mountrakis, Im, and Ogole 2011) and (Petropoulos, Kalaitzidis, and Prasad Vadrevu
2012). Another common technique could also be found in (Belgiu and Drăguţ 2016; Gong, Im, and
Mountrakis 2011) where random forest and variances of neural network (including deep learning) sig-
nificantly improved classification accuracies of the regular object-based method. Some methods also
introduced and evaluated ensemble techniques to strengthen weak classifiers as in (Chan and Paelinckx
2008). From the literature, it could be seen that few studies employed the power of metaheuristic algor-
ithms in optimizing image classification methods, except for some recent works of (Dou et al. 2015).
Recently, researchers have enriched optimization libraries with fast-developed algorithms, mainly by
nature-inspired algorithms. In fact, no algorithm is capable of solving all optimization problems and
the examinations of new algorithms to specific applications are therefore necessary.
This study posed several questions on how meta-heuristic algorithms could be used for fine tun-
ing classifiers to improve classification performance and how the variation in sizes of training data
could impact classification overall accuracy and individual accuracies for each of four surface type
extractions. To partly answer these questions, this study proposed a novel hybrid model, named
GMNN that employs Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm (GOA) to optimize parameters of the
multiple-class neural network (MNN) for urban pattern detection. GOA was chosen because despite
being successfully tested against benchmarked theoretical functions, the algorithm has yet been
examined in a real application.
Hanoi, the capital of Vietnam was selected as the subject of a case study because of its complex
surface morphology and patterns of land cover types. GMNN was run with different training and
validation data sizes, and the classified outputs were compared to several benchmarked classifiers
such as Support Vector Machine (SVM), Decision Tree (DT) (Qian et al. 2015), and MNN optimized
by two other new algorithms such as Grey Wolf Optimization (GWO), Biogeography-based Optim-
ization (BBO) through conventional statistical indicators. Throughout the experiments, PCI Geo-
matics (Trial mode) was used for image segmentation and feature extraction; Matlab was used for
modeling; QGIS was used for map visualization. Detail description of the procedure and results
are in the following sections, including Data and method in the second part, Results, and discussion
in the third and Conclusion in the final section.

2. Data and methods

2.1 Study area
Hanoi, the capital city of Viet Nam, currently experiences a high rate of urbanization, which was a
consequence of the decision to expand the city administrative boundary in 2008. The rapid urban-
ization was associated with the conversion of large areas of agricultural land into residential/public
land and was accompanied with rapid inhabitation (Nguyen et al. 2016). The study area is special as
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH 3

it comprises of (1) a central area including ancient and French-style districts; (2) a new urban area
with high-rise building in the western part where impervious surfaces are dominant with mixed
patches of open space; (3) the remaining areas are a mixture of urban-rural styles in outskirt of
the city, in which bare soil and agricultural are commonly found (Figure 1).

2.2 Remotely sensed data and preprocessing

High spatial resolution images, such as Worldview, Ikonos, Quickbird, SPOT … are the usual
sources of data for object-based classification studies. Indeed, the selection of satellite images is
much dependent on the availability of data and dates of capture. For this study, we used SPOT 7
image captured on 28 December 2016 with the spectral specification described in (Table 1). In
sequential order, the image pre-processing includes converting the Digital number into surface
reflectance and rectifying image into local map projection. In this study, we used COST (COSine
Theta) method to determine 1% of dark objects in the image and to calculate surface reflectance
by subtracting radiance differences. The image was then rectified to global UTM projection
(WGS84). Since SPOT 7 was characterized by one Panchromatic and four spectral bands as
described in (Table 1), the fusion technique as introduced by (Yuri 2002) was used to generate mul-
tiple spectral bands with a 1.5 m spatial resolution. The fusion process started with standardizing
histograms of Pan and MS bands to minimize spectral errors, and the output image was calculated
by using (Equation 1)


N
S= vi MSi (1)
i=1

where S is the synthesized image, N is the total number of MS bands, vi is a scalar weight, MSi is the
up-scaled i-th MS band. vi is determined by minimizing the least square error of ||P-S|| (Yuri 2002).

Figure 1. Study area.

4 Q.-T. BUI ET AL.

Table 1. SPOT 7 specification.

Bands Spectral range Spatial resolution
Original image Blue 0.455 µm – 0.525 µm 6.0 m
Green 0.530 µm – 0.590 µm 6.0 m
Red 0.625 µm – 0.695 µm 6.0 m
Near-Infrared 0.760 µm – 0.890 µm 6.0 m
Panchromatic 0.450 µm – 0.745 µm 1.5 m
Fusion (B,G,R,NIR) 1.5 m

After that, fussed bands are generated by using

P
Fi = MSi (2)
S
where Fi is the ith band in the fused (pan-sharpened) image, P is the PAN image, S is the synthesized
image, and MSi is the up-scaled i-th MS band (Yuri 2002).

2.3 Image segmentation

After the enlargement of the administrative border in 2008, the study area is described as having com-
plex urban morphology and livelihoods. We selected a horizontally stretched subset, covering all four
types of land covers to construct training and validation datasets. For this study, aiming at classifying
urban cover pattern to support urban management, we proposed four separable classes namely (1)
impervious surfaces; (2) vegetation; (3) water; and (4) bare soil. These four classes are typically gen-
eralized pattern in an urban area and were also investigated in previous studies (Qian et al. 2015).
The quantification of those surface covers has a significant contribution to urban management,
such as flood management. Indeed, shadows in the high-spatial resolution are inevitable. They were
also classified into a separate class by using the method described in (Weiqi Zhou and Troy 2009)
and were manually assigned a label into one of the four mentioned classes.
The object-based classification started with image segmentation procedure. Although there is
some guidance to select criteria for the segmentation process, it is truly generalizable and normally
subjected to the specific geographic condition. The image segments are essentially groups of adjacent
pixels that have similar characteristics regarding spectral and spatial information (Yuri 2002). Nor-
mally, image segmentation is based on the determination of scale, shape, and compactness. Of all, the
scale parameter is the most important parameter that directly affects the size of each image object.
The quality of image classification depends directly on the quality of the image segmentation. An
optimal selection of the three parameters is achieved through a trial-error approach, based on the
nature of the study area, to generate meaningful segments. The smaller the scale, the smaller seg-
ments are generated and it might lead to fragmented but more homogenous segmentation. After sev-
eral trials, to avoid mixture of objects, we defined the scale level at 30 as objects were visually
homogenous and seem fit with typical pattern arrangement of Hanoi. Embedded procedure in
PCI Geomatics (2017 Trial mode) was used to generate segments with a definition for scale at 30,
shape at 0.75, and compactness at 0.5. Four bands of SPOT 7 including Blue, Green, Red, NIR
and derivable NDVI, NDMI were used as input images. Specifically, NDVI was calculated by
(NIR – Red)/(NIR + Red), and NDWI was calculated by using equation (Green – NIR)/(Green +
NIR). Totally, the procedure generated approximately 54.000 objects and (Figure 2) showed a subset
of segmentation result.
Another crucial step is feature selection that aims to find an optimal collection of predictor vari-
ables. Feature attributes generated in the previous step including channel and geometrical statistics
such as area, perimeters, pixel value … for each segment and for each band. Indeed, proper selection
of attributes is subjected to geographic variations of the study area and spatial resolution of input
images (Qian et al. 2015). In fact, each commercial and open-source software generates different
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH 5

Figure 2. Image segmentation at Scale: 30, Shape: 0.75, and Compactness: 0.5.

attributes associated with image segments, such as default Mean value, brightness, Mean-difference-
to-super-object, etc. in eCognition or with custom measurements in OpenCV (Wieland and Pittore
2014). Sometimes, these attributes were further processed to filter redundant variables and to reduce
dimensionality by using embedded algorithms in commercial image processing software or by using
machine learning techniques (Dou et al. 2015; Hamedianfar et al. 2014). In this study, we used all
attributes that were generated from the image processing procedure using PCI Geomatics. Detail
description of variables was presented in (Table 2)

2.4 Multiple-classes neural network

The neural network is one of the most common methods, among other conventional machine learn-
ing techniques, for solving either binary or multiple-classes classification problems (Gong, Im, and
Mountrakis 2011). For this study, neural topology is presented in (Figure 3). The Input layer con-
sisted of 52 predictor variables as described in (Table 2), N hidden neurons in the middle, and
four output classes, as mentioned in the previous section, in the output layer. The determination
of N value would be discussed in the next section.

1
n
RMSE = (observedij − calculatedij )2 (3)
4∗n 1

Table 2. Predictor variables extracted from image segmentation.

ID Object features Number of bands Description
1. Min pixel value 6 Min pixel values for each of 6 bands
2. Max pixel value 6 Max pixel values for each of 6 bands
3. Mean pixel value 6 Mean pixel values for each of 6 bands
4. Standard deviation 6 Standard deviation of pixel value
5. Min_PP 6 Mean pure pixel
6. Max_PP 6 Max pure pixel
7. Mean_PP 6 Mean pure pixel
8. Standard deviation _PP 6 Standard deviation of pure pixel
9. Circular 1 Circular
10. Compactness 1 Compactness
11. Elongation 1 Elongation
12. Rectangular 1 Rectangular
Total predictor variables 52
6 Q.-T. BUI ET AL.

Figure 3. Neural network topology.

where i = 1 : n (number of samples); j = 1 : 4 (number of classes); observedij is observed value of

samplei for classj and calculatedij is value generated by model of samplei for classj. Four classes
are described in section 2.3
Mathematically the network was [1 × 52] (input vector) -> [n × 52] (first weight matrix) -> [n × 4]
(the second weight matrix) -> [1 × 4] (output classes). Also, Tangent sigmoid activation function was
used in each node. Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) was used as fitness function and was calculated
by differences between output values and observed values as described in (Equation 3).

2.5 Grasshopper optimization algorithm

Metaheuristic algorithm is a fast growing and active research area to catch up with changes of the
nature of problems, particularly with increasing data size. Of which, GOA is a relatively new
swarm intelligence algorithm that mathematically mimics the behaviors of grasshopper movement.
It was first introduced by (Saremi, Mirjalili, and Lewis 2017) to solve either constrained and uncon-
strained problems (Abhishek G Neve 2017). The performance of this algorithm was examined
against several popular algorithms for solving 13 benchmark test functions. Simply, GOA procedure
can be described as follows:
Grasshoppers move in a swarm and the relative positions between two insects are defined in a
comfort zone (the boundary where repulsion and attraction forces are equal). Each of grasshoppers
is positioned in space by:
Xi = r1 Si + r2 Gi + r3 Ai (4)
(Saremi, Mirjalili, and Lewis 2017)
⎛ ⎞
⎜
⎟
⎜ N ubd − lbd ⎟
d xj − xi ⎟
in modified form Xid = c⎜
⎜ c s(|x d
− x |) + Td (5)
⎝ j=1 2 j i
dij ⎟⎠
j =i
(Saremi, Mirjalili, and Lewis 2017)
Where (1) X di is d-dimensional position of the ith grasshopper; (2) Si is defined as social inter-
action; (3) Gi is gravitational force; (4) Ai represents the wind advection; (5) r1 , r2 , r3 are random
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH 7

values between [0,1] to define random behaviors of grasshopper; (6) function s defines the social
forces; (7) ub, lb are lower and upper bounds of the variables; (8) c is a decreasing coefficient to
shrink the comfort zone and is defined as c = Cmax − l(Cmax − Cmin)/L with Cmax, Cmin are
two predefined parameters, l is current iteration and L is maximum number of iterations; (9) T d
is the best location and it is updated after each iteration. Detail description of X, S,A and s-function
can be found in (Saremi, Mirjalili, and Lewis 2017). Si , Gi and Ai are further defined and updated
after each iteration. In short, the procedure of GOA for optimizing urban pattern classification in this
study is showed as follows:

. Initializing the swarm Xid in d-dimensional space and normalizing the distances between grass-
hoppers, in which i = 1 … N; N is number of grasshoppers or population size; The population
size was determined based on trial-error test of RMSE
. Initializing model parameters including Cmax, Cmin and a maximum number of iteration. The
fitness of search agent was calculated by using Equation (3). Preliminary best agent T was defined.
. Updating the position of each grasshopper by Equation (5); Recalculate RMSE and compare it to
the previous value. Update T if a better solution was found.
. Checking the current position of grasshoppers if they were out of the predefined boundaries
. The iteration continued until reaching max iteration or RMSE reaches predefined value. The final
position of the swarm was the optimal solution. These dimensional values would be used in mul-
tiple class neural network to classify land cover pattern in the study area.

2.6 Accuracy assessment

This paper is one of the first studies on combining an optimization algorithm and a single classifier
for multiple-class classification of urban surface types. The performance of this model must be com-
pared to those benchmark methods or methods that had been successfully deployed for urban
classification. For this study, Decision Tree, Support Vector Machine were selected as the single clas-
sifier benchmarks and two newly developed optimization algorithms were used for tuning neural
network parameters. We ran several trials to determine parameters for benchmark classifiers to
make sure the settings were optimal for the current datasets.
SVM is a supervised non-parametric statistical learning technique that had been investigated in
many studies that either for the non-linear problem in general or for remotely sensed image classifi-
cation. SVM applications can be found in (Lary et al. 2016; Mountrakis, Im, and Ogole 2011; Pet-
ropoulos, Kalaitzidis, and Prasad Vadrevu 2012). Decision tree, on the other hand, is another
technique that is widely used in either pixel-based or object-based classification. It has been proved
to be a robust supervised machine learning algorithm to a variety of satellite images, including Land-
sat (Duro, Franklin, and Dubé 2012), or higher spatial resolution data (Qian et al. 2015).
Also, we selected two newly developed optimization algorithms namely Biogeography-Based
Optimization (BBO) and Grey Wolf Optimization (GWO) for tuning Neural Network. These two
algorithms were introduced and had been successfully examined against 23 benchmark functions
as mentioned in (Simon 2008) and (Mirjalili, Mirjalili, and Lewis 2014). However, none of these
two have been used in determining spatial variation of geographic phenomena or remote sensing
classification. Table 3 shows the optimal parameter values of BBO and GWO (after several trials)
with the selected training and validation dataset.
The confusion matrix and the overall accuracy were used to evaluate the performance of the
model. This indicator measured the ratio between correctly classified objects over total objects in
the validation set. Other indicators such as Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (ROC), Area
under ROC (AUC) were also used. ROC is a common method for evaluating the performance of
the classification model, in which False Positive Rate (FP/FP + TN) is plotted on the x axis and
True Positive Rate (TP/TP + FN) is on the y axis. Theoretically, the AUC range is between [0 1]
8 Q.-T. BUI ET AL.

Table 3. Parameters of GOA, GWO, and BBO.

Parameters GOA BBO GWO
Number of agents 100 (Number of grasshoppers) 100 (Number of habitats) 100 (Number of Wolfs)
(population size)
Variable dimensions 560: Positions of grasshoppers in 560 (Suitability Index 560: Positions of Wolfs in 560-
560-dimensional space Variables – SIV) dimensional space
Fitness function RMSE by Equation (3) RMSE by Equation (3) RMSE by Equation (3)
Optimal value The location of the best agent Highest Habitat Suitability The location of Alpha Wolf
(grasshopper) Index (HIS)
Specific parameters cMax = 1; cMin = 0.00004 Emigration rate (ER) is defined Parameters are initialized are updated
by population size during the optimization course.
Immigration rate (IM) = 1 –
ER
Mutation rate = 0.1
Keep rate = 0.3
Maximum iteration 500 500 500
Variable lower and [−1,1] [−1,1] [−1,1]
upper bounds

and the random value is 0.5. The model performs well if the AUC is larger than 0.5 and by versus. In
fact, the higher the AUC is, the better the model performs.
Predicted value
Yes No
Actual value Yes True Positive (TP) False Negative (FN)
No False Positive (FP) True Negative (TN)

Also, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), which measures the square root of the difference between
observed and predicted values, Mean Absolute Error (MAE), which measures the difference between
observed and predicted values, and Kappa index, which measures classification accuracy could give
some different views for model comparison.

3. Prototype model for pattern detection

As stated, this study aimed to verify whether GMNN was applicable in remotely sensed image
classification and whether the training sizes would impact the model performance. After preparing
the training datasets, we initialized GMNN and alternatively ran it and four other algorithms on a
training and validation dataset.

3.1 Preparation of training and validation dataset

Principals for building up training and validation samples could be found in previous studies, in
which land surface classes were manually identified by using up-to-date high-resolution satellite
images such as Google Earth, air-born photos or referenced documents. From segmented objects
in the previous step, a reference dataset was compiled by manual interpretation and assignment
of four classes (impervious surface, vegetation, water and bare soil) to image objects. For the
whole study area (Figure 1), we randomly selected 4000 objects, equally divided for each class.
70% was used for training, and the remaining 30% was for validation.
Since variables were measured on different scales, they had to be standardized into a similar range.
There are several conventional conversion methods, such as Min–max normalization, Z-score nor-
malization, the median and median absolute deviation, and tanh-estimators. To retain9 the original
distribution of scores, Min–max conversion was used in this study to convert to [0 1] value range by
using (x – min/ max–min) equation.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH 9

3.2 Initialization of GMNN

The performance of a novel model is considered to be validated when it out-performs referenced
models or classifiers based on defined parameters. The overall diagram of this proposed model is
shown in (Figure 4), in which image segmentation process generated segments, 4000 of which were
selected as training and validation datasets. Each of the selected objects was associated with 52
attributes as described in (Table 2). 52 predictor factors were used as input for the proposed
model to determine whether each object would be assigned to one of four classes. Technically,
70% of the dataset was randomly determined to train the model, and the remaining (30%) was
used for validation. Stopping criteria could be a predefined desirable RMSE value or the maximum
number of iteration.
The performance of the optimization algorithm initially depended on the proper setting of its
parameters. The first group identified the structure of the neural network by defining an optimal
number of hidden neurons in the hidden layer. We found that, from literature, the optimal
number should be less than the input nodes (52 predictor variables in this case) and larger
than output nodes (4 land surface classes). By running several trials, we decided to select ten
hidden neurons as the model generated highest RMSE with this setting. Thereofre, n-variable
from (Figure 3) was replaced with 10. The typical topology for this experiment consisted of
52 inputs, ten hidden neurons, and four output classes. The second group of GOA was
defined as follows: Maximum iteration was set to 500; low bound and upbound were −1 and
1; swarm population or number of grasshopper was 100; cMax = 1; cMin = 0.00004; fitness func-
tion was set as in (Equation 3). Those parameters were kept constant for other runs with differ-
ent training sizes. Detail description of parameters of GOA in comparison with GWO and BBO
is shown in Table 3
The initial swarm was generated, in which positions of grasshoppers were defined as 560-dimen-
sions space (representing 560 weight parameters of the multiple-class neural network that equal to 52
predictor variables multiplied by ten hidden neurons +10 hidden neurons multiplied by four output
classes). The best values for these weights were determined through optimization iteration of the
training process. For each iteration, RMSE as in (Equation 3) was used as the fitness function.
This hybrid model was iterated for 500 times.

Figure 4. Prototype model.

10 Q.-T. BUI ET AL.

4. Results and discussion

To examine the model consistency over the study area, we tested several scenarios with different data
size. Based on segmented objects as described in the previous section, we selected a subset of 4000,
2000, and 400 objects. The objects were randomly selected across the diverse surface morphology of
the study area, and each of the subsets included equal percentages of the four classes (water, veg-
etation, impervious surface, and bare soil). The general procedure for data preparation and model
initialization for each run is described in section 3.
GMNN was initialized and ran for the first trial with 4000 objects. The model operated and
stopped when the iteration process reached 500 with the smallest objective value. It could be
observed that RMSE of GOA dramatically dropped at around the 190th iteration and gradually
decreased from iteration 210. GOA overcame GWO and BBO around iteration 220 and from this
point, all three curves ran almost horizontally until reaching iteration 500. It could be seen that
GOA ended up with RMSE was 0.2225, which was smaller than RMSE from other methods as
shown in (Table 4) (Figure 5).
Optimal parameters from the 500th iteration were used in MNN to classify objects in the vali-
dation dataset. The accuracies for land cover classification are shown in (Table 4) with four perform-
ance indicators. By comparing the area under ROCs for each category (Figure 6), GMNN
outperformed the remaining algorithms in all separate four land cover type extractions. Specifically,
GMNN achieved AUC at 0.985 for water extraction, 0.987 for vegetation type, 0.959 for impervious
surface and 0.971 for bare soil class. In addition, both RMSE and overall accuracy of GMNN were
better than the remaining methods, which validated its ability in multiple class classification. MAE of
GMNN was also smaller than the other three but slightly larger than MNN optimized by GWO
(GWO-MNN). This is due to GWO-MNN generating a larger variance associated with the frequency
distribution of error, which makes RMSE of GWO-MNN higher than GMNN.
Overall accuracy measured the overall performance of models. However in some cases, the extrac-
tion of specific surface type is the most important for different applications (Duro, Franklin, and
Dubé 2012; Huang et al. 2015). For multiple-class classification, the proposed model generated
four percentage values that determine the probabilities for each segment to be placed in one of
the four targeted classes. If each surface cover was to be separately investigated, the overall accuracy
of the classification would be significantly improved.
In some cases, machine learning algorithms are found to be sensitive to sample sizes as they
remain robust with larger training size but accuracies decrease with smaller training data (Duro,
Franklin, and Dubé 2012; Im et al. 2012). GMNN and other algorithms were also examined by
using two different subsets of 2000 and 400 objects. The results are shown in (Tables 5 and 6)
and (Figures 7 and 8), which reaffirmed the classifiable capability of GMNN over the other algor-
ithms. GMNN resulted in the smallest RMSE and the highest overall accuracy, kappa index.
GMNN also outperformed the others in classifying single classes with higher AUC values, except
AUC for bare soil. In these cases, BBO-MNN was slightly higher than GMNN (Figure 7) and DT
was better than GMNN (Figure 8). For land cover classification, when the error costs of missclas-
sification of all classes are unknown or equal, the ROC curves are useful for exploring the tradeoffs
between classes. Therefore finding the optimal sizes for the training datasets for each type of land
covers will be important, particularly for the detection of specific pattern.

Table 4. Accuracy assessment for 4000 training objects (best values in shaded cells).
Classifier/Base classifier Optimization algorithm RMSE MAE Kappa Overall Accuracy
MNN GWO 0.2477 0.0902 0.7685 83.2381
MNN BBO 0.2335 0.1129 0.7843 84.4762
MNN GOA 0.2225 0.1086 0.8284 87.1905
DT 0.2345 0.1244 0.7848 84.4771
SVM 0.2564 0.1221 0.7503 82.0012
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH 11

Figure 5. Neural network optimized GOA after 500 iteration.

An additional test was carried out to determine whether the performance of models was statisti-
cally different. Non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test was chosen as the dependent variable was
measured in nominal scale. Each pair of two models was tested by using AUC values with Null
hypothesis stating that there was no difference between the predictive capability of the two selected
model. The results in (Table 7) show that all p values are smaller than 0.05 that the null hypothesis
would be rejected and the differences were statistically significant. The differences in performance
between classification methods could be caused by either the predictive capability of the techniques
or the variation within the dataset. Nonetheless, in this study, several training datasets randomly
selected across heterogenous urban morphology and then classified by our proposed model and
benchmark classifiers show that, from all trials, GMNN significantly improved both the overall accu-
racy and detection accuracy of each land surface. Therefore, with its robustness, this method can be

Figure 6. ROCs and AUC values for 4000 training objects.

12 Q.-T. BUI ET AL.

Table 5. Accuracy assessment for 2000 training objects (best values in shaded cells).
Classifier/Base classifier Optimization algorithm RMSE MAE Kappa Overall Accuracy
MNN GWO 0.2337 0.0846 0.798 0.853333
MNN BBO 0.2241 0.112 0.799 0.854667
MNN GOA 0.2217 0.0866 0.8136 0.869300
DT 0.2375 0.1309 0.7759 0.838667
SVM 0.258 0.1238 0.7348 0.809333

Table 6. Accuracy assessment for 400 training objects (best values in shaded cells).
Classifier/Base classifier Optimization algorithm RMSE MAE Kappa Overall Accuracy
MNN GWO 0.2826 0.1033 0.7242 0.802
MNN BBO 0.2447 0.1043 0.777 0.840
MNN GOA 0.2373 0.1029 0.7836 0.844
DT 0.2414 0.1299 0.7715 0.836
SVM 0.267 0.1316 0.7353 0.806

used in urban applications to partially satisfy the requirements of planners in detecting detailed
change patterns in a metropolitan area.

5. Map generation
To visually display the classification capabilities of GMNN, we produced three maps using the
trained models with three different training and validation datasets. (Table 8) shows the sample out-
put of the model, as each object was assigned four probability values of being assigned to one of the
four classes. For the entire study area, more than 54.000 objects were classified based on probability
values. The results are shown in (Figure 9). It could be seen that three maps were almost identical in
water class. The misclassified objects were mainly between impervious and bare soil because of the
mixture between two types. Although overall accuracies of three cases were quite similar, the spatial

Figure 7. ROCs and AUC values for 2000 training objects.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH 13

Figure 8. ROCs and AUC values for 400 training objects.

Table 7. Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Pairwise comparison p-value (<0.05) Significance
GMNN vs. GWO-MNN 0.0004883 Yes
GMNN vs. BBO-MNN 0.003216 Yes
GMNN vs SVM 0.0009766 Yes
GMNN vs. DT 0.007602 Yes

placement of misclassified objects resulted in more fragmented patterns in maps associated with
smaller training datasets.

6. Conclusion and future remarks

Machine learning has been widely used in remote sensing as mining techniques to support classify-
ing land surface patterns in either high spatial resolution or multiple spectral resolutions. This study
verified this trend by successfully integrating GOA into MNN for urban pattern detection in Hanoi.
This novel method was robust in classifying all four types of urban surface as it outperformed other
established classifiers with regards to overall accuracies and separate AUCs. The overall accuracy of

Table 8. Sample of probability assignments.

Predicted classes Prob of being Vegetation Prob of being Water Prob of being Bare soil Prob of being Impervious
water 0 0.973 0.026 0
bare soil 0.222 0.098 0.655 0.024
vegetation 0.955 0 0 0.045
vegetation 0.967 0 0 0.033
vegetation 0.986 0.001 0 0.013
impervious 0.002 0.095 0 0.903
water 0.036 0.832 0.014 0.118
water 0 0.672 0.328 0
14 Q.-T. BUI ET AL.

Figure 9. Subsets of classified maps by GMNN with different training and validation sizes. From left to right: 4000 objects, 2000
objects, 400 objects.

around 87% for a spatially varied study area is the affirmative reasoning for its applicability in other
urban regions. Though this value was measured by multiplying extraction accuracies of four classes,
the extraction accuracy of any single class was much higher, and that would be very useful for specific
applications of certain types of urban land cover.
The consistency of classification algorithms is normally subject to variation of training sample
sizes. However, it was not the case in this study as GMNN seemed to be robust in all three training
and validation datasets. The success of this model was dependent on the proper selection of model
parameters as they were determined through trial-error processes, and these values were found suit-
able for the dataset of the study area. Therefore, settings might need to be changed when this method
is used with another study area with diverse surface morphology. The performance of this hybrid
model indicates a vast potential for the implementation of meta-heuristic algorithms in object-
based classification. In this case, GOA was more powerful than GWO and BBO, but it might be
different if another dataset was used.
Finally, this model was applied for high spatial resolution data but might be applicable for a var-
iety of mid-resolution satellite data such as Landsat or Sentinel. Therefore, more effort should be
spent on examining those kinds data and automating the image processing workflow to derive
land cover types, particularly in larger urban areas.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This research is funded by Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED)
under Grant Number [105.99-2016.05].

ORCID
Quang-Thanh Bui http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5059-9731

References
Abhishek G Neve, G. M. K. a. O. K. 2017. “Application of Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm for Constrained and
Unconstrained Test Functions.” International Journal of Swarm Intelligence and Evolutionary Computation 6 (3).
doi:10.4172/2090-4908.1000165.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH 15

Belgiu, M., and L. Drăguţ. 2016. “Random Forest in Remote Sensing: A Review of Applications and Future Directions.”
ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 114 (Supplement C): 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
isprsjprs.2016.01.011.
Chan, J. C.-W., and D. Paelinckx. 2008. “Evaluation of Random Forest and Adaboost Tree-Based Ensemble
Classification and Spectral Band Selection for Ecotope Mapping Using Airborne Hyperspectral Imagery.”
Remote Sensing of Environment 112 (6): 2999–3011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2008.02.011.
Dou, J., K.-T. Chang, S. Chen, P. A. Yunus, J.-K. Liu, H. Xia, and Z. Zhu. 2015. “Automatic Case-Based Reasoning
Approach for Landslide Detection: Integration of Object-Oriented Image Analysis and a Genetic Algorithm.”
Remote Sensing 7 (4). doi:10.3390/rs70404318.
Duro, D. C., S. E. Franklin, and M. G. Dubé. 2012. “A Comparison of Pixel-Based and Object-Based Image Analysis
with Selected Machine Learning Algorithms for the Classification of Agricultural Landscapes Using SPOT-5 HRG
Imagery.” Remote Sensing of Environment 118 (Supplement C): 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.11.020.
Gong, B., J. Im, and G. Mountrakis. 2011. “An Artificial Immune Network Approach to Multi-Sensor Land use/Land
Cover Classification.” Remote Sensing of Environment 115 (2): 600–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.10.005.
Hamedianfar, A., H. Z. M. Shafri, S. Mansor, and N. Ahmad. 2014. “Combining Data Mining Algorithm and Object-
Based Image Analysis for Detailed Urban Mapping of Hyperspectral Images.” Journal of Applied Remote Sensing 8
(1): 085091. doi:10.1117/1.JRS.8.085091.
Herold, S., and M. C. Sawada. 2012. “A Review of Geospatial Information Technology for Natural Disaster
Management in Developing Countries.” International Journal of Applied Geospatial Research 3 (2): 24–62.
doi:10.4018/jagr.2012040103.
Huang, X., C. Xie, X. Fang, and L. Zhang. 2015. “Combining Pixel- and Object-Based Machine Learning for Identification of
Water-Body Types From Urban High-Resolution Remote-Sensing Imagery.” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied
Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 8 (5): 2097–2110. doi:10.1109/JSTARS.2015.2420713.
Im, J., Z. Lu, J. Rhee, and L. J. Quackenbush. 2012. “Impervious Surface Quantification Using a Synthesis of Artificial
Immune Networks and Decision/Regression Trees From Multi-Sensor Data.” Remote Sensing of Environment 117
(Supplement C): 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.06.024.
Jonkman, S., and R. Dawson. 2012. “Issues and Challenges in Flood Risk Management – Editorial for the Special Issue
on Flood Risk Management.” Water 4 (4): 785–792.
Lary, D. J., A. H. Alavi, A. H. Gandomi, and A. L. Walker. 2016. “Machine Learning in Geosciences and Remote
Sensing.” Geoscience Frontiers 7 (1): 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2015.07.003.
Mirjalili, S., S. M. Mirjalili, and A. Lewis. 2014. “Grey Wolf Optimizer.” Advances in Engineering Software 69: 46–61.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.12.007.
Mountrakis, G., J. Im, and C. Ogole. 2011. “Support Vector Machines in Remote Sensing: A Review.” ISPRS Journal of
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 66 (3): 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2010.11.001.
Myint, S. W., P. Gober, A. Brazel, S. Grossman-Clarke, and Q. Weng. 2011. “Per-pixel vs. Object-Based Classification
of Urban Land Cover Extraction Using High Spatial Resolution Imagery.” Remote Sensing of Environment 115 (5):
1145–1161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.12.017.
Nguyen, T. H. T., V. T. Tran, Q. T. Bui, Q. H. Man, and T. d. V. Walter. 2016. “Socio-economic Effects of Agricultural
Land Conversion for Urban Development: Case Study of Hanoi, Vietnam.” Land Use Policy 54: 583–592. http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.02.032.
Petropoulos, G. P., C. Kalaitzidis, and K. Prasad Vadrevu. 2012. “Support Vector Machines and Object-Based
Classification for Obtaining Land-use/Cover Cartography From Hyperion Hyperspectral Imagery.” Computers &
Geosciences 41 (Supplement C): 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2011.08.019.
Qian, Y., W. Zhou, J. Yan, W. Li, and L. Han. 2015. “Comparing Machine Learning Classifiers for Object-Based Land
Cover Classification Using Very High Resolution Imagery.” Remote Sensing 7 (1). doi:10.3390/rs70100153.
Saremi, M., S. Mirjalili, and A. Lewis. 2017. “Grasshopper Optimisation Algorithm: Theory and Application.”
Advances in Engineering Software 105 (Supplement C): 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.01.004.
Simon, D. 2008. “Biogeography-Based Optimization.” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 12 (6): 702–
713. doi:10.1109/TEVC.2008.919004.
Wieland, M., and M. Pittore. 2014. “Performance Evaluation of Machine Learning Algorithms for Urban Pattern
Recognition From Multi-Spectral Satellite Images.” Remote Sensing 6 (4): 2912–2939. doi:10.3390/rs6042912.
Yuri, Z. (2002, 24-28 June 2002). A new Automatic Approach for Effectively Fusing Landsat 7 as Well as IKONOS
Images. Paper presented at the IEEE international geoscience and remote sensing symposium.
Zhou, W., and A. Troy. 2008. “An Object-Oriented Approach for Analysing and Characterizing Urban Landscape at
the Parcel Level.” International Journal of Remote Sensing 29 (11): 3119–3135. doi:10.1080/01431160701469065.
Zhou, W., and A. Troy. 2009. “Development of an Object-Based Framework for Classifying and Inventorying Human-
Dominated Forest Ecosystems.” International Journal of Remote Sensing 30 (23): 6343–6360. doi:10.1080/
01431160902849503.

View publication stats