2015 IEEE 11th International Colloquium on Signal Processing & its Applications (CSPA2015), 6 -8 Mac.

2015, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Differences of Image Classification Techniques for

Land Use and Land Cover Classification
Nur Anis Mahmon1, Norsuzila Ya’acob 1,* Azita Laily Yusof 2,*

1
Faculty of Electrical Engineering,Universiti Teknologi MARA,
404500 Shah Alam Selangor, Malaysia
*
Wireless Communication Technology (WiCoT),
Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA,
404500 Shah Alam Selangor, Malaysia
nuranismahmon@yahoo.com, norsuzilayaacob@yahoo.com, azita968@salam.uitm.edu.my

Abstract—Land use and land cover classification of remotely
sensed data is an important research and commonly used in
remote sensing application. In this study, the different types of
classification techniques were used by using satellite image of
some part of Selangor, Malaysia. For this objective, the land
use and land cover was classified with Landsat 8 satellite image
and ERDAS Imagine software as the image processing
packages. From the classification output, the accuracy
assessment and kappa statistic were evaluated to get the most
accurate classifier. The optimal performance would be
identified by validating the classification results with ground
truth data. Of classified image, the Maximum Likelihood
technique (overall accuracy 82.5%) is the highest and more
applicable for satellite image classification compared with
Mahalanobis Distance and Minimum Distance. The accurate
classification can produce the correct Land Use and Land
Cover map that can be used for many varieties purposes.
Index Terms—Land use and land cover, classification
techniques, accuracy assessment.
I. INTRODUCTION
Remote sensing application is the activities of the
surveying and recording the objects on Earth surfaces. The
satellite images became the main sources of remotely sensed
data to get the information for different application such as
monitoring land use changes, forestry and [1]. In land use
and land cover planning and management the remotely
sensed is very helpful tool for identification and
classification the features of the land surfaces from any
satellite images [2].
Analyzing the image and recognition the pattern is the
most important part of remote sensing application [3]. In
some cases, the classification itself can be the object of
analysis. For instance, the remotely sensed data can produce
a map like the image for land use classification which is as
the final product of analysis. Image classification it becomes
an important tool for digital image classification. The classifier
loosely refers to computer programs that perform specific
procedures for classification of images. At this time, there are
different image classification procedures used for different
purposes by various researchers [4].
The objectives of this study is to test and evaluate the
classification techniques to classifying land use and land cover
of some area in Selangor, Malaysia using three types of
classification techniques: Maximum Likelihood classifier,
Mahalanobis Distance classifier and Minimum Distance
classifier.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Land Use and Land Cover
Land cover refers to the characteristic or features of the
Earth's surfaces and also as subsurface, water surface,
containing soil, topographic, and well as human structures.
Examples of land cover include forest, grassland, cropland,
wetland, urban structure. While the land use is refer to
human use of land which involved the management and
modification of the natural environment such as urban.
Therefore, the land use and land cover is illustrated for
human made coverings and both natural of the earth's
surface. The relationship between land use and land cover is
not always direct and apparent. A single category of land
cover may support many use, while a single land use could
involve the maintenance of several distinct land covers [5].
B. Image Classification
Image processing is the one technique that uses a
computer to collect for manipulation of digital images.
Image classification normally included in four steps: Firstly
is pre-processing image, which is to finding the band ratio,
reduce haze and atmospheric correction. Secondly, is
training sample, it is the process to do the selection of
particular criteria feature for describes the pattern. Thirdly, is
the decision of selecting the suitable technique for
comparing the target with the image pattern. Lastly, is
assessing the accuracy of the image classification [6]. After
the satellite image classification was done, the land use and

978-1-4799-8249-3/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE 90

 2015 IEEE 11th International Colloquium on Signal Processing & its Applications (CSPA2015), 6 -8 Mac. 2015, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

land cover mapping will be produced with the accurate

classification.
III. STUDY AREA AND DATA SET

A. Study Area
The study area was referring coverage area of this study
that will be used. Fig.1 shows the study area selected for
this study is some district of Selangor which are Klang,
Petaling, Gombak and Hulu Langat. These areas were
selected to cover the classes of land use and land cover
classification. Remote sensing techniques will be used to
classify the land use and land cover. Selection of study area
can assist in the selection of satellite image correctly.
Fig. 2. Satellite image of study area

IV. METHODS

A. Research Structure
Based on Fig. 3, the methodology structure in this study
is divided into three stages. Firstly, is processing the satellite
image including image pre-processing process and image
classification. Secondly, the analysis part which is analyzed
the data with ground truth data and then get the accuracy
assessment for each classifier. While the third stage is
producing the land and land cover map as the final output for
image classification.

Landsat 8 Imagery 2014

Topographic map
Image pre-processing

Image classification
Fig. 1. Study area

B. Satellite Imagery Maximum likelihood classifier

Mahalanobis distance classifier
In this case area of study, the Landsat 8 satellite sensor Minimum distance classifier
will be used to analyze the land use and land cover
classification. The resolution of Landsat 8 is arrange 28.50
Ground validation
meter until 90.00 meter. This resolution can show the Earth
surfaces to land cover mapping, support resource
assessment and to see the changes of the land use and land Accuracy Assessment
cover area. The spectral information was collected which
have the ability to assess changes in Erath surfaces.
Land use and land cover
map

Fig. 3. Structure of research methodology

B. Pre-processing Image
This part is an important stage before the actual image
classification and image analysis. Software that used in this
part is ERDAS Imagine software. Pre-processing involves
three processes which are Geo-reference, radiometric
correction and subset image. Geo-referenced image need for

91
 2015 IEEE 11th International Colloquium on Signal Processing & its Applications (CSPA2015), 6 -8 Mac. 2015, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

specific geodetic coordinate system which is RSO classifiers was calculated by analyzed with the confusion
coordinate system to locate the coordinate in the correct matrix and also called error matrix. Other from that, there is
position according to the ground coordinate. Radiometric some indicator that used to show the classification results
correction processed to make the image clearer without the such as overall accuracy, producer accuracy, user accuracy
haze and lines. Pre-processing ensure the quality of the and Kappa coefficient value [11].
welds. r r
N ¦ x ii − ¦ xi + .x + i
C. Image Classification k = i =1
r
i =1

In this study, supervised classification classifiers have been V. N 2

− ¦ xi + .x + i (1)
used to classify the image of the study area for land use and i =1

land cover classification. The Maximum Likelihood, Where:

Mahalanobis classifier, and Minimum Distance classifiers are
used for this paper.
For land cover classification, the algorithm that widely and
most commonly used is maximum likelihood algorithm for
supervised classification technique [7]. Maximum Likelihood
Classification is a statistical decision criterion to assist in the
classification of overlapping signatures; pixels are assigned to
the class of highest probability. The Maximum Likelihood
classifier are considered to provide more accurate results
compare the minimum distance classification, but it is slower
due to the extra calculation. It was found that the maximum
likelihood method gives more accurate result and both
Minimum distance and Mahalanobis distance method trivia
agricultural land and urban areas [8].
Mahalanobis distance classifier is equal to the Minimum
Distance, except that the covariance matrix used in the
equation. This algorithm assumes that the histogram of the
band has a normal distribution [9]. Covariance is reflected in
the group so very different to lead the class also vary. For
example, when classifying urban areas- usually classes vary
widely-right pixel is usually not a very different class it is
slower to calculate the minimum distance then [10].
Mahalanobis distance is a parametric, meaning that it is largely
dependent on the normal distribution of data in each input
band.
The minimum distance classifier is based on data from the
training site. This classifier treating each class with an average
position of each band. The minimum distance classifier is
highly recommended in all applications for image
classification. The classification is done by placing pixels in a
nearby classroom min. Minimum distance algorithm is also
more attractive because it is a technique that is faster than the
maximum likelihood classification.
D. Field data processing
Field observation which is ground truthing was used to
identify the true type of classes in the study area. In this
work Global Positioning System (GPS) has been used to get
the observation of the study area are observed in 90 points
for ground categories according to classes in this study to
cover land use and land cover of study area.
For validation stages the coordinate data of ground data
used in the accuracy assessment stages to be compared with
the reference data in the confusion matrix.
E. Accuracy Assessment
The results of the classification are depending on the
accuracy assessment and Kappa coefficient value. The
percentage of accuracy of the classification result for all
Xii = Sum of diagonal input of error matrix
Xi+ = Sum of row I of error matrix
X+I = Sum of column I of error matrix
N = No. of elements in error
Based on [12], producer accuracy has been calculated by
dividing the number of objects that are right for a particular
class of objects with the actual amount of reference data for
that class. Although the accuracy of the user who has been
determined by dividing the number of objects that are right
for a particular class with a given number of objects in that
class. To carry out precision parts manufacturer labeled
objects in the reference data properly informed. Accuracy of
users, however, that quantifies the proportion of objects that
are assigned to a certain class who agreed with the objects
in the reference data. Accuracy user indicates the
probability that the object belongs to also specifically label
a particular class in reality. It can show the errors of
commission.
VI. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
A. Analyzing Kappa Coefficient
In classification stages, three methods of supervised were
selected to classify the image. Three accuracies of
classification output were tested in this study namely kappa
coefficient, error matrix and overall accuracy. The kappa
coefficient of each classifies is shown in Table 1. Based on
Fig. 4, Maximum Likelihood (0.8216) method produces the
highest value of the kappa statistic compares with other
techniques.
TABLE I. KAPPA COEFFICIENT FOR DIFFERENT TYPE OF CLASSIFIER
Classifier Kappa Coefficient
Maximum Likelihood 0.8216
Mahalanobis Distance 0.6982
Minimum Distance 0.7893

92
 2015 IEEE 11th International Colloquium on Signal Processing & its Applications (CSPA2015), 6 -8 Mac. 2015, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Urban 17 17 16 85.71% 85.71%

Open land 18 36 17 87.50% 26.92%
Totals 90 90 67
Overall Classification Accuracy = 74.44%

TABLE IV. CONFUSION MATRIX FOR MINIMUM DISTANCE

CLASSIFICATION

Class Ref. Classified Producers Users

Number
Name Total Total Accuracy Accuracy
Correct
Water
18 14 14 50.00% 100.00%
bodies
Fig. 4. Comparison of Kappa Statistic for different type of classifier. Forest 18 15 14 50.00% 80.00%
Agriculture 19 18 15 55.56% 62.50%
B. Analyzing Accuracy Classification Urban 17 28 16 85.71% 33.33%
The accuracy assessment was calculated by comparing Open land 18 12 12 25.00% 100.00%
the references data (validation point) with the output of the Totals 90 90 71
classification using Erdas Imagine Software. From the
accuracy assessment report, the confusion matrix was Overall Classification Accuracy = 78.88%
obtained to shows the producer accuracy, user accuracy and
overall accuracy. The confusion matrix results of three TABLE V. LAND USE AND LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION EFFICIENCY
OF DIFFERENT METHODS
techniques classifiers are shown in the Table II, Table III
and Table IV. From this table the overall accuracy is Maximum Mahalanobis Minimum
expressed as a percentage of the test pixel successfully Likelihood Distance Distance
Techniques/ PA UA PA UA PA UA
assigned to the correct classes that want to be classified. Class Name (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Based on Table V, the Maximum Likelihood classifier
Water bodies 50.00 100.00 25.00 100.00 50.00 100.00
produced the greater accuracy with overall accuracy of
88.88% for land use and land cover classification. While Forest 25.00 66.67 25.00 100.00 50.00 80.00
Mahalanobis Distance classifier gives the lowest of overall Agriculture 11.11 100.00 25.00 100.00 55.56 62.50
accuracy.
Urban 85.71 85.71 85.71 85.71 85.71 33.33
TABLE II. CONFUSION MATRIX FOR MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD Open land 87.50 31.82 87.50 26.92 25.00 100.00
CLASSIFICATION Overall
Classification 88.88% 74.44% 78.88%
Class Ref. Classified Number Producers Users
Accuracy
Name Total Total Correct Accuracy Accuracy
Water
18 14 14 50.00% 100.00% According to Fig. 5, the comparison of classification
bodies
Forest 18 13 12 25.00% 66.67% techniques shows the Maximum Likelihood techniques
always be the top of the percentage value for overall
Agriculture 19 11 11 11.11% 100.00%
accuracy.
Urban 17 17 16 85.71% 85.71%
Open land 18 35 27 87.50% 31.82%
Totals 90 90 80
Overall Classification Accuracy = 88.88%

TABLE III. CONFUSION MATRIX FOR MAHALANOBIS DISTANCE

CLASSIFICATION

Class Ref. Classified Producers Users

Number
Name Total Total Accuracy Accuracy
Correct
Water
18 12 12 25.00% 100.00%
bodies
Forest 18 12 12 25.00% 100.00% Fig. 5. Comparison of overall accuracy for different type of classifier.
Agriculture 19 10 10 25.00% 100.00%

93
 2015 IEEE 11th International Colloquium on Signal Processing & its Applications (CSPA2015), 6 -8 Mac. 2015, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

C. Land Use and Land Cover Map
Land use and land cover maps can play an important role
in the environment management. The five classes of image
classification from the land use and land cover
classifications can describe the environment of the study
area. So, this project obtained classified of Land Use and
Land Cover classification with analysis of Landsat 8
satellite image. Based on Fig. 6 the classified map produced
according to the best result of image classification.
Fig. 6. Land Use and Land Cover map of study area.
VII. CONCLUSION
From the investigation in this study, the results of image
classification show the efficiency of the three methods that
have been used to classify the Land Use and Land Cover map
of Selangor district. From different three classifiers, Maximum
Likelihood classification techniques produced the highest
overall accuracy with 88.88% of accuracy and also the kappa
coefficient which is 0.8216. Compare with the Mahalanobis
and Minimum classifier give the overall accuracy and kappa
value lowest which are 74.44% and 78.88%. For classes to
cover the land use and land cover for this study are, five
features from the image have been classified. The features are
Forest, Agriculture, Water bodies, Urban and Open Land. The
high resolution images gave more detail information of the
classified map. The classified images could be used for Natural
Resource management planning and development purposes in
the future.
International Earth Science Information Network of Columbia
University. 2002, pp. 67.
[3] Dean, A.M and Smith, G.M. “ An evaluation of per – parcel
land cover mapping using maximum likelihood class
probabilities” in International Journal of Remote Sensing, 24
(14), 2905-2920, 2003.
[4] Bruzzone, L., and S.B. Serpico “A technique for feature
selection in multiclass problems” in International Journal of
Remote Sensing, 21:549-563, 2000.
[5] M.Seetha, I.V.Muralikrishna “Artificial neural network and
other methods of image classification” in Journal of
theoretical and Applied Information Technology.
[6] Geospatial Innovation Facilities in Center for Biodiversity
and Conservation.
[7] Jia, X. and Richards, J.A. “Remote sensing digital image
analysis, an introduction”. Taylor and Industrial Arts, 2006.
[8] Al-Ahmadi, F. S. and Hames, A. S. “Comparison of Four
Classification Methods to Extract Land Use and Land Cover
from Raw Satellite Images for Some Remote Arid Areas”,
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia JKAU; Earth Sci., 20(1), 167-191,
2009.
[9] Perumal, K. and Bhaskaran, R. “Supervised classification
performance of multispectral images” in Journal of
computing, 2(2), arXiv:1002.4046v1, 2010.
[10] Swain, P. H. and Davis, S. M. “Remote Sensing: The
Quantitative Approach”, US, McGraw-Hill, Inc,1978.
[11] Sultan AlSultan “Innovative Satellite Image Map Of
R.Alkhabrta Area, Saudi Arabia Using High Resolution
Image”, School of Physics.
[12] Tso, B. and P.M. Mather. “Classification Methods for
Remotely Sensed Data”. 1st Edn., Taylor and Francis,
London. 2001.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research is sponsored by Universiti Teknologi MARA
(UiTM). The authors would like to thank Agency Remote
Sensing Malaysia (ARSM) for providing the satellite
imagery. The author also wishes to thank UiTM Library-
Tun Abdul Razak Library for supplying topographic map of
the study area.

REFERENCES
[1] S. E. Franklin “Remote Sensing for Sustainable Forest
Management”. New York .Lewis Publishers, 2001.
[2] A. De Sherbinin “Land use and land cover change” in 4 A
CLESIN Thematic Guides, Palisades, YN. Centre for

94