Back to Search Start Over

Reliable Crops Classification Using Limited Number of Sentinel-2 and Sentinel-1 Images

Authors :
Beata Hejmanowska
Piotr Kramarczyk
Ewa Głowienka
Sławomir Mikrut
Source :
Remote Sensing, Vol 13, Iss 16, p 3176 (2021)
Publication Year :
2021
Publisher :
MDPI AG, 2021.

Abstract

The study presents the analysis of the possible use of limited number of the Sentinel-2 and Sentinel-1 to check if crop declarations that the EU farmers submit to receive subsidies are true. The declarations used in the research were randomly divided into two independent sets (training and test). Based on the training set, supervised classification of both single images and their combinations was performed using random forest algorithm in SNAP (ESA) and our own Python scripts. A comparative accuracy analysis was performed on the basis of two forms of confusion matrix (full confusion matrix commonly used in remote sensing and binary confusion matrix used in machine learning) and various accuracy metrics (overall accuracy, accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, etc.). The highest overall accuracy (81%) was obtained in the simultaneous classification of multitemporal images (three Sentinel-2 and one Sentinel-1). An unexpectedly high accuracy (79%) was achieved in the classification of one Sentinel-2 image at the end of May 2018. Noteworthy is the fact that the accuracy of the random forest method trained on the entire training set is equal 80% while using the sampling method ca. 50%. Based on the analysis of various accuracy metrics, it can be concluded that the metrics used in machine learning, for example: specificity and accuracy, are always higher then the overall accuracy. These metrics should be used with caution, because unlike the overall accuracy, to calculate these metrics, not only true positives but also false positives are used as positive results, giving the impression of higher accuracy. Correct calculation of overall accuracy values is essential for comparative analyzes. Reporting the mean accuracy value for the classes as overall accuracy gives a false impression of high accuracy. In our case, the difference was 10–16% for the validation data, and 25–45% for the test data.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
20724292
Volume :
13
Issue :
16
Database :
Directory of Open Access Journals
Journal :
Remote Sensing
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
edsdoj.89cef783a2874694b0d61eb1b92c8ce0
Document Type :
article
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13163176