remote sensing

Article

An Object-Based Image Analysis Approach for

Detecting Penguin Guano in very High Spatial
Resolution Satellite Images
Chandi Witharana 1,2, * and Heather J. Lynch 1
1
2

Department of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, NY 11794, USA;
heather.lynch@stonybrook.edu
Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA
Correspondence: chandi.witharana@stonybrook.edu; Tel.: +1-860-450-0428

Academic Editors: Ioannis Gitas and Prasad S. Thenkabail

Received: 10 February 2016; Accepted: 25 April 2016; Published: 30 April 2016

Abstract: The logistical challenges of Antarctic field work and the increasing availability of very high
resolution commercial imagery have driven an interest in more efficient search and classification
of remotely sensed imagery. This exploratory study employed geographic object-based analysis
(GEOBIA) methods to classify guano stains, indicative of chinstrap and Adlie penguin breeding areas,
from very high spatial resolution (VHSR) satellite imagery and closely examined the transferability
of knowledge-based GEOBIA rules across different study sites focusing on the same semantic class.
We systematically gauged the segmentation quality, classification accuracy, and the reproducibility
of fuzzy rules. A master ruleset was developed based on one study site and it was re-tasked
without adaptation and with adaptation on candidate image scenes comprising guano stains.
Our results suggest that object-based methods incorporating the spectral, textural, spatial, and
contextual characteristics of guano are capable of successfully detecting guano stains. Reapplication
of the master ruleset on candidate scenes without modifications produced inferior classification
results, while adapted rules produced comparable or superior results compared to the reference
image. This work provides a road map to an operational image-to-assessment pipeline that will
enable Antarctic wildlife researchers to seamlessly integrate VHSR imagery into on-demand penguin
population census.
Keywords: Antarctica; penguins; guano; GEOBIA; VHSR imagery; census

1. Introduction
Climate change, fisheries, cetacean recovery, and human disturbance are all hypothesized as
drivers of ecological change in Antarctica [14]. Climate change is of particular concern on the
western Antarctic Peninsula, because mean annual temperatures have risen 2 C while mean winter
temperatures have risen more than 5 C [59]. The consequences of climate change may be seen
across the marine food web from phytoplankton to top predators [3,1013], though study of these
processes has been traditionally limited by the challenges of doing field research across most of the
Antarctic continent.
The brushtailed penguins (Pygoscelis spp.) are represented throughout Antarctica, and are
composed of the Adlie penguin (P. adeliae), the chinstrap penguin (P. antarctica), and the gentoo
penguin (P. papua). Adlie penguins are found around the entire continent, while chinstrap penguins
and gentoo penguins are restricted to the Antarctic Peninsula and sub-Antarctic islands further
north [14]. Owing to their narrow diets and the relative tractability of monitoring their populations
at the breeding colony, penguins can serve as indicators of environmental and ecological change

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375; doi:10.3390/rs8050375

www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

2 of 29

in the Southern Ocean [1517]. Changes in the abundance and distribution of Antarctic penguin
populations have been widely reported [13,18], though it is only just recently, with the development of
remote sensing (RS) as a tool for direct estimation of penguin populations, that we have been able to
survey the Antarctic coastline comprehensively rather than at a few selected, easily-accessed breeding
sites (e.g., [1921]). These rapid and spatially-heterogeneous changes in penguin populations, and
the appeal of penguins as an indicator of comprehensive shifts in the ecological functioning of the
Southern Ocean, motivate the development of robust, automated (or semi-automated) workflows
for the interpretation of satellite imagery for routine (annual) tracking of penguin populations at the
continental scale.
The Antarctic is quickly becoming a model system for the use of Earth Observation (EO) for the
physical and biological sciences because the costs of field access are high, the landscape is simple
(e.g., rock, snow, ice, water) and free of woody vegetation, and polar orbiting satellites provide
extensive regular coverage of the region. Logistical challenges, difficulty in comprehensively searching
out animals (individuals or groups) that are scattered across a vast continent, and limited scalability and
repeatability of traditional survey approaches have further catalyzed the addition of EO-based methods
to more traditional ground-based census methods [22]. Increased access to sub-meter commercial
satellite images of very high spatial resolution (VHSR) EO sensors like IKONOS, QuickBird, GeoEye,
Pliades, Worldview-2, and Worldview-3, which rival aerial imagery in terms of spatial resolution, has
added new methods for direct survey of individual animals or animal groups to the existing suite of
tools available for land cover types.
Since the early studies conducted by [23,24], which uncovered the potential of penguin guano
detection from medium-resolution EO sensors, a number of efforts to detect the distribution
and abundance of penguin populations have been conducted using aerial sensors [25,26],
medium-resolution satellite sensors like Landsat and SPOT [19,21,2731], and VHSR satellite sensors,
such as IKONOS, Quickbird, and WorldView [13,20,22,32]. While the use of VHSR imagery
for Antarctic surveys has been demonstrated as feasible, there remain several challenges before
VHSR imagery can be operationalized for regular ecological surveys or conservation assessments.
Classification currently hinges on the experience of trained interpreters with direct on-the-ground
experience with penguins, and manual interpretation is so labor intensive that large-scale surveys
can be completed only infrequently. At current sub-meter spatial resolutions, penguin colonies are
detected by the guano stain they create. Because chinstrap and Adlie penguins nest at a relatively fixed
density, the area of the guano stain can be used to estimate the size of the penguin colony [22], though
weathering of the guano and the timing of the image relative to the colony's breeding phenology can
affect the size of the guano stain as measured by satellites. While these guano stains are spectrally
distinct from bare rock, there are spectrally similar features in the Antarctic created by certain clay soils
(e.g., kaolinite and illite) and by the guano of other, non-target, bird species. Manual interpretation
of guano hinges on auxiliary information such as the size and shape of the guano stain, texture
within the guano stain, and the spatial context of the stain, such as its proximity to the coastline and
relationship to surrounding land cover classes. Creating the image-to-assessment pipeline will require
automated algorithms and workflows for classification such as have been successfully developed for
medium-resolution imagery [21,30].
While the encoded high-resolution information in VHSR imagery is an indispensable resource
for fine scale human-augmented wildlife census, it is problematic with respect to automated
image interpretation because traditional pixel-based image classification methods fail to extract
meaningful information on target classes. The GEographic Object-Based Image Analysis (GEOBIA)
framework, a complementary approach to per-pixel based classification methods, attempts to mimic
the innate cognitive processes that humans use in image interpretation [3337]. GEOBIA has
evolved in response to the proliferation of very high resolution satellite imagery and is now widely
acknowledged as an important component of multi-faceted RS applications [36,3841]. GEOBIA
involves more than sequential feature extraction [42]. It provides a cohesive methodological

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

3 of 29

framework for machine-based characterization and classification of spatially-relevant, real-world

entities by using multiscale regionalization techniques augmented with nested representations and
rule-based classifiers [42,43]. Image segmentation, a process of partitioning a complex image-scene
into non-overlapping homogeneous regions with nested and scaled representations in scene space [44],
is the fundamental step within the geographic object-based information retrieval chain [40,4548]. This
step is critical because the resulting image segments, which are candidates for well-defined objects on
the landscape [36,49], form the basis for the subsequent classification (unsupervised/supervised
methods or knowledge-based methods) based on spectral, spatial, topological, and semantic
features [34,35,39,44,47,5053].
The use of VHSR imagery for penguin survey is rapidly evolving to the point at
which spatially-comprehensive EO-based population estimates can be seamlessly integrated into
continent-scale models linking spatiotemporal changes in penguin populations to climate change or
competition with Southern Ocean fisheries. To reach this objective, however, it is critical to move
beyond manual image interpretation by exploiting sophisticated image processing techniques. The
study described below reports the first attempt to use a geographic object-based image analysis
approach to detect and delineate penguin guano stains. The central objective of this research is to
develop a GEOBIA-driven methodological framework that integrates spectral, spatial, textural, and
semantic information to extract the fine-scale boundaries of penguin colonies from VHSR images and
to closely examine the degree of transferability of knowledge-based rulesets across different study
sites and across different sensors focusing on the same semantic class.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the study area, data,
and conceptual framework and implementation. Section 3 reports the image segmentation, rule-set
transferability, and classification accuracy assessment results. Section 4 contains a discussion explaining
the potential of GEOBIA in semi-/fully-automated detection of penguin guano stains from VHSR
images, transferability of object-based rulesets, and opportunities of migrating the proposed conceptual
framework to an operational context. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 5.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area and Image Data
In this study, we used a set of cloud-free QuickBird-2 and Worldview-2 images (Figure 1) over
sites containing either Adlie or chinstrap penguin colonies (Table 1).
Table 1. Abundance information of candidate sites.
Site

Coordinates (Lat, Lon)

Species

# of Pairs

Source

Barrientos Island in the Aitcho Islands

62.381, 59.776

Chinstrap

4047

[54]

Baily Head, Deception Island

62.967, 60.500

Chinstrap

50,408

[55]

Spine Island

60.594, 46.020

Chinstrap

unknown

[56]

Hope Bay

63.397, 56.998

Adlie

~100,000

[20]

Paulet Island

63.581, 55.788

Adlie

~100,000

[20]

Cape Bird

77.229, 166.413

Adlie

66,679

[57]

Zavodovski Island

56.298, 27.577

Chinstrap
Macaroni

~600,000
~90,000

[58]

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

4 of 29

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

4 of 29

(a) Aitcho Islands (AITC). Acquired

by QuickBird sensor

(b) Deception Island, which includes

the colony at Baily Head (BAIL).
Acquired by QuickBird sensor

(c) Cape Bird on Ross Island (BIRD).

Acquired by WorldView-2 sensor

(e) Spine Island (SPIN). Acquired by

WorldView-2 sensor

(f) Zavodovski Island (ZAVO).

Acquired by WorldView-2 sensor

(g) Hope Bay (HOPE). Acquired by

QuickBird sensor

(d) Paulet Island (PAUL). Acquired

by WorldView-2 sensor

Figure 1. Geographical setting of study sites and candidates image scenes: (a) Aitcho Islands (b) Deception Island; (c) Cape Bird on Ross Island (d) Paulet Island; (e) Spine
Figure 1. Geographical setting of study sites and candidates image scenes: (a) Aitcho Islands (b) Deception Island; (c) Cape Bird on Ross Island (d) Paulet Island;
Island; (f) Zavodovski Island; and (g) Hope Bay. Imagery copyright DigitalGlobe, Inc., Westminster, CO, USA.
(e) Spine Island; (f) Zavodovski Island; and (g) Hope Bay. Imagery copyright DigitalGlobe, Inc., Westminster, CO, USA.

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

5 of 29

Colonies are generally too large to count all at once, so they are divided up by the surveyor(s)
into easily distinguished sub-groups. In each sub-group, the number of nests (or chicks, depending on
the time of year) are counted three times using a handheld tally counter. Each count is required to be
within 5% of each other and if they are not, the process is repeated. The average of the three counts are
used to determine to total number of breeding pairs at a given site. The candidate locations have been
previously surveyed on the ground and therefore automated classification could be validated against
prior experience, photodocumentation, and existing GPS data on colony locations. Both Adlie and
chinstrap penguins form tightly packed breeding colonies, which aids in the interpretation of satellite
imagery. Gentoo penguins (P. papua) also breed in this area, but their colonies are more difficult to
interpret in satellite imagery (even for an experienced interpreter) because they often nest in smaller
groupings or at irregular densities that can weaken the guano stain signature. For this reason, while
Gentoo penguins breed in the Aitcho Islands, and at other locations that might have been included in
our study, we have excluded them from this analysis.
Candidate scenes that have been radiometrically corrected, orthorectified, and spatially registered
to the WGS 84 datum and the Stereographic South Pole projection were provided by the Polar
Geospatial Center (University Minnesota). The QuickBird-2 sensor has a ground sampling distance
(GSD) of 0.61 cm for the PAN and 2.44 m for MS bands at nadir with 11-bit radiometric resolution.
The Worldview-2 hyperspatial sensor records the PAN and the 8 MS bands with a GSD of 0.46 m and
1.84 m at nadir, respectively.
2.2. Conceptual Framewok
While VHSR sensors enable the detection of a single seal (or, under some circumstances, a
penguin) hauled out on pack ice, it remains very difficult to intelligently transform very high resolution
image pixels to predefined semantic labels. Automated processes for interpreting VHSR imagery are
increasingly critical because recent policy easements allow the release of 0.31 m resolution satellite
images (e.g., WorldView 3) for civilian use, and the number of commercial satellites supplying EO
imagery continues to grow. While there are some developments in fully-automated VHSR image
interpretation, the intriguing question of how to meaningfully link RS quantifications and user
defined class labels remains largely unanswered and voices the argument of considering this issue
as a technological challenge rather a broader knowledge management problem [59] in VHRS image
processing. To address the big data challenge in EO of Antarctic wildlife, we propose a conceptual
outline (Figure 2), which resonates with the framework of [59], for automated segmentation and
classification of guano in VHSR imagery. In this framework, scene complexity is reduced through
multi-scale segmentation, which incorporates multisource RS/GIS/thematic data and creates a
hierarchical object structure based on the premise that real world features are found in an image
at different scales of analysis [36]. Image object candidates extracted at different scales are adaptively
streamed into semantic categories through knowledge-based classification (KBC), which interfaces
low-level image object features and expert knowledge by means of fuzzy membership functions.
The classified image objects can then be integrated into ecological models; for example, areas of guano
staining can be used to estimate the abundance of breeding penguins [22].
In a cyclic manner, classified image objects and model outputs are further integrated into the
segmentation and rule-set tuning process. Operator- and scene-dependency of rulesets can impair
the repeatability and transferability of KBC workflows across scenes and sensors for the same land
cover of interest. We propose to organize rulesets into target- and sensor-specific libraries [59,60] and
systematically store a set of classified image objects as bag-of-image-objects (BIO) for refining and
adapting KBC workflows.

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

6 of 29
6 of 29

Figure
guano detection
detectionfrom
fromVHSR
VHSRimages.
images.
Figure2.2.Object-based
Object-based penguin
penguin guano

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

7 of 29

It is important to emphasize that our approach is not a fully-developed system architecture but
instead represents a road map for an image-to-assessment pipeline that links integral components
like class explanation, remote sensing expert knowledge, domain ontology [61,62], multiscale image
content modeling, and ecological model integration. This work is crucial to decision support
software that links image interpretation with statistical models of occupancy (presence and absence
of populations) and abundance and, at a subsequent step, model exploration applications that allow
stakeholders to perform geographic searches for populations, aggregate abundance across areas of
interest (e.g., proposed Marine Protected Areas), and visualize predicted dynamics for future years.
In this exploratory study, we develop those elements critical to the image interpretation components
of this pipeline, specifically image segmentation, object-based classification, and ruleset transferability.
2.3. Image Segmentation
When thinking beyond perfect image object candidates (i.e., an ideal correspondence between
an image object and a real-world entity), two failure modes expected in segmentation are
over-segmentation and under-segmentation [37,40,63]. The former is generally acceptable, although it
could be problematic if the geometric properties of image object candidates are used in the classification
step. The latter is highly unfavorable because the resulting segments represent a mixture of elements
that cannot be assigned a single target class [37,47]. Thus, better classification accuracy hinges on
optimal segmentation, in which the average size of image objects is similar to that of the targeted
real-world objects [40,6467].
Image segmentation is inherently a time- and processor-intense process. The processing time
exponentially rises with respect to the scene size, spatial resolution, and the size of image segments.
We employed two algorithms to make the segmentation process more efficient, a multi-threshold
segmentation (MTS) algorithm and a multiresolution segmentation (MRS) algorithm within the
eCognition Developer 9.0 (Trimble, Raunheim, Germany) software package. The former is a simple and
less time-intense algorithm, which splits the image object domain and classifies resulting image objects
based on a defined pixel value threshold. In contrast, the latter is a complex and time-intense algorithm,
which partitions the image scene based on both spectral and spatial characteristics, providing an
approximate delineation to real-world entities. In the initial passes of segmentation, we employed
the MTS algorithm in a self-adaptive manner for regionalizing the entire scene into manageable
homogenous segments. The MRS algorithm was then tasked for targeted segments for generating
progressively smaller image objects in a multiscale architecture.
2.3.1. Multi-Threshold Segmentation Algorithm
The MTS algorithm uses a combination of histogram-based methods and the homogeneity
measurement of multiresolution segmentation to calculate a threshold dividing the selected set of
pixels into two subsets whereby the heterogeneity is increased to a maximum [68]. This algorithm
splits the image object domain and classifies resulting image objects based on a defined pixel value
threshold. The user can define the pixel value threshold or it can operate in self-adaptive manner
when coupled with the automatic threshold (ATA) algorithm in eCognition Developer [69]. The ATA
algorithm initially calculates the threshold for the entire scene, which is then saved as a scene variable,
and makes it available for the MTS algorithms for segmentation. Subsequently, if another pass of
segmentation is needed, the ATA algorithm calculates the thresholds for image objects and saves them
as object variables for the next iteration of the MTS algorithm.
2.3.2. Multiresolution Segmentation Algorithm
Of the many segmentation algorithms available, multiresolution segmentation (MRS, see [69])
is the most successful segmentation algorithm capable of producing meaningful image objects in
many remote sensing application domains [41], though it is relatively complex and image- and
user-dependent [37,51]. The MRS algorithm uses the Fractal Net Evolution Approach (FNEA), which

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

8 of 29

iteratively merges pixels based on homogeneity criteria driven by three parameters: scale, shape, and
compactness [39,46,47]. The scale parameter is considered the most important, as it controls the relative
size of the image objects and has a direct impact on the subsequent classification steps [64,66,70].
2.3.3. Segmentation Quality Evaluation
As discussed previously, optimal segmentation maximizes the accuracy of the classification
results. Over-segmentation is acceptable but leads to plurality of solutions while under-segmentation
is unfavorable and produces mixed classified objects that defy classification altogether. In this study,
we used a supervised metric, namely the Euclidean Distance 2 (ED2), to estimate the quality of
segmentation results. This metric optimizes two parameters in Euclidian space: potential-segmentation
error (PSE) and the number-of-segmentation ratio (NSR). The PSE gauges the geometrical congruency
between reference objects and image segments (image object candidates) while the NSR measures the
arithmetic correspondence (i.e., one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-one) between the reference and
image object candidates. The highest segmentation quality is reported when the calculated ED2 metric
value is close to zero. We refer the reader to [46] for further detail on the mathematical formulation of
PSE and NSR. In order to generate a reference data set for quality evaluation, we tasked an expert to
manually digitize guano stains.
2.4. Quantifying the Transferability of GEOBIA Rulesets
While GEOBIA provides rich opportunities for expert (predefined) knowledge integration for
the classification process, it also makes the classification more vulnerable to operator-/scene-/
sensor-/target-dependency, which in turn hampers the repeatability and transferability of rules.
Building a well-defined ruleset is a time-, labor-, and knowledge-intense task. Assuming that the
segmentation process is optimal, robustness of GEOBIA rulesets rely heavily on the design goals of the
ruleset describing the target classes of interest (e.g., class description) and their respective properties
(e.g., low-level image object features) (see Figure 2). Table 2 lists important spectral, spatial, and
textural properties, which we elected for developing the original ruleset.
Table 2. Image object properties and corresponding spectral bands.
Spectral Bands Used

Property
QuickBird

WorldView-2

Mean brightness

all bands

all bands

Ratio red

relative brightness of the red band

against the mean brightness

relative brightness of the red band

against the mean brightness

Normalized difference
vegetation index (NDVI)

red, NIR

red, NIR1

Normalized difference
water index (NDWI)

red, NIR

red, NIR1

Red/Green ratio

red, green

red, green

Gray level co-occurrence

matrix (GLCM) dissimilarity

PAN

PAN

Distance to coastline

Border contrast

PAN

PAN

Gray level co-occurrence

matrix (GLCM) contrast

PAN

PAN

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

9 of 29

Use of fuzzy rules (which can take membership values between 0 and 1) is much favored
in object-based classification over crisp rules (which can take membership values constrained to
two logical values true (=1) and false (=0)) because the fuzzification of expert-steered thresholds
improves transferability. In the case of GEOBIA, the classes of interest can be realized as a fuzzy set
of image objects where a membership function(s) defines the degree of membership ( P [0, 1], = 0
means no membership to the class of interest, = 1 means the conditions for being a member of the
class of interest is completely satisfied) of each image object to the class of interest with respect to a
certain property. A fuzzy function describing a property p can be defined using: (lower border of p),
(upper border of p), a (mean of membership function), and v (range of membership function).
In this study, we employed the framework proposed by [71] for quantifying the robustness of
fuzzy rulesets. While briefly explaining the conceptual basis and implementation of the robustness
measure, we encourage the reader to refer [71] for further details.
A ruleset is considered to be more robust if it is capable of managing the variability of the target
classes detected in different images given that the images are comparable and the segmentation results
are optimal. [71] identified three types (C, O, F) of changes that a reference rule set (Rr ) is exposed to
during adaptation and used them to quantify the total deviation (d) of the adapted ruleset (Ra ).
Type C: Adding, removing, or deactivating a class.
Type O: Change of the fuzzy-logic connection of membership functions.
Type F: Inclusion or exclusion (Type Fa ) and changing the range of fuzzy membership
functions (Type Fb ).
The total deviation (d) occurring when adapting Rr to Ra is given by summation of individual
changes of Types C, O, and F;
d

i 1

Ci `

fa

Oi `

i 1

Fia

i 1

F a `

fb

Fib

(1)

i 1

(2)

Figure 3 exhibits the possible changes of a membership function, which is subjected to adaptation
under Type Fb . Let Rr be the master ruleset [72] developed based on the reference image (Ir ) and Ra be
the adapted version on Rr over a candidate image I (Ia ). The robustness (rr ) of the master ruleset can
be quantified by coupling with a quality parameter q (qa and qr denotes the classification accuracy of
image Ia and Ir , respectively) and total deviations associated with Ra (da ).
rr

qa
qr

da ` 1

(3)

RemoteSens.
Sens.2016,
2016,8,8,375
375
Remote

10ofof29
29
10

Figure 3. Possible changes of membership function during adaptation. (a) initial fuzzy function;
Figure 3. Possible changes of membership function during adaptation. (a) initial fuzzy function; (b)
(b) adapted: upper and lower border shifted but range fixed; (c) adapted: upper and lower border
adapted: upper and lower border shifted but range fixed; (c) adapted: upper and lower border
shifted and range stretched; (d) upper and lower border shifted and the range reduced.
shifted and range stretched; (d) upper and lower border shifted and the range reduced.

2.5. Classification Accuracy Assessment

2.5. Classification Accuracy Assessment
The areas correctly detected (True PositiveTP: correctly extracted pixels), omitted
The areas correctly detected (True PositiveTP: correctly extracted pixels), omitted (True
(True NegativeTN: correctly unextracted pixels), or committed (False PositiveFP: incorrectly
NegativeTN: correctly unextracted pixels), or committed (False PositiveFP: incorrectly extracted
extracted pixels) were computed by comparison to the manually-extracted guano stains. Based on
pixels) were computed by comparison to the manually-extracted guano stains. Based on these areas
these areas the Correctness, Completeness, and Quality indices were computed as follows [73,74]:
the Correctness, Completeness, and Quality indices were computed as follows [73,74]:
Correctness

Correctness =

TP
TP
TP
TP+`FPFP

TPTP
Completeness =
Completeness
TP + FN
TP ` FN
TP

(4)(4)
(5)(5)

TP
(6)
Quality =
Quality TP + FP + TN
(6)
TP ` FP ` TN
Correctness
is a measure ranging between 0 and 1 that indicates the detection accuracy rate
Correctness is a measure ranging between 0 and 1 that indicates the detection accuracy rate
relative
to
ground
truth. It can be interpreted as the converse of commission error. Completeness is
relative to ground truth. It can be interpreted as the converse of commission error. Completeness is
also a measure ranging from 0 and 1 that can be interpreted as the converse of omission error. The
also a measure ranging from 0 and 1 that can be interpreted as the converse of omission error. The two
two metrics are complementary measures and should be interpreted simultaneously. For example, if
metrics are complementary measures and should be interpreted simultaneously. For example, if all
all scene pixels are classified as TPs, then the Completeness value approaches 1 while the
scene pixels are classified as TPs, then the Completeness value approaches 1 while the Correctness
Correctness approaches 0. Quality is a more meaningful metric that normalizes the Completeness
approaches 0. Quality is a more meaningful metric that normalizes the Completeness and Correctness.
and Correctness. The Quality measure can never be higher than either the Completeness or
The Quality measure can never be higher than either the Completeness or Correctness. The Quality
Correctness. The Quality parameter (Equation (6)) is then used as q in Equation (3) to compute the
robustness of the master ruleset in each adaptation.

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

11 of 29

parameter (Equation (6)) is then used as q in Equation (3) to compute the robustness of the master
ruleset in each adaptation.
3. Results
3.1. Segmentaion Quality and Classfication Accuracy
Table 3 reports the overall segmentation quality and the classification accuracy. The segmentation
quality is evaluated using the number-of-segmentation ratio (NSR), potential segmentation error
(PSE), and Euclidian Distance 2 (ED2) for the reference image scene (HOPE) and the candidate image
scenes. With respect to the NSR metric, segmentation results from HOPE exhibited the highest
arithmetic correspondence while ZAVO exhibited the lowest arithmetic correspondence between
the reference objects and the image object candidates. Image segments from PAUL, SPIN, and
BIRD reported relatively high NRS values. When analyzing PSE values of each site, BIRD and
ZAVO reported the highest geometrical congruency between the manually-digitized targets and
the image object candidates. In contrast, despite the high arithmetic fit, HOPE reports the worst
geometrical agreement. According to the ED2 metric, which gauges the arithmetic- and geometrical-fit
simultaneously, HOPE and ZAVO exhibit the lowest and the highest values, respectively, indicating
best and worst segmentation quality. Of the other sites, AITC and BAIL showed relatively low ED2
values manifesting mediocre segmentation quality. The classification accuracy is reported for both
the master ruleset and the adapted ruleset based on three parameters: Completeness, Correctness,
and Quality. It should be noted that for each of the test-bed sites (AITC, BAIL, BIRD, PAUL, SPIN,
and ZAVO), the classification accuracy was individually assessed based on the results obtained
by applying the reference ruleset and the adapted ruleset. When the reference ruleset is executed
without adaptations, in terms of Correctness, SPIN and ZAVO reported the highest (62.1%) and
the lowest (0.0%) detection of targets, respectively. However, compared to HOPE, SPIN exhibited
inferior results. In the case of the Completeness metric, BIRD and ZAVO showed the best (51.4%) and
worst (0.0%) results while PAUL and AITC marked relatively poor metric values. When comparing
metric scores of BIRD and HOPE, the latter shows inferior classification accuracy with respect to
the Completeness metric. Even though SPIN reported the highest Correctness, it showed relatively
low completeness (20.3%). When analyzing scores reported for the Quality (combined metric of
correctness and completeness) metric when the reference ruleset is executed without adaptations,
BAIL had the highest classification accuracy (36.8%) while ZAVO reported the lowest accuracy (0.0%).
Of the others, BIRD exhibited relatively high classification accuracy (34.3%) while PAUL marked
notably low accuracy (9.5%). Similar to Correctness and Completeness, HOPE reported superior
results for the Quality metric (55.9%) compared to that of all the testbeds. This highlights the site- and
scene-dependency of the master ruleset.
When considering classification accuracy with respect to the adapted ruleset, BAIL and AITC had
the highest (79.1%) and the lowest (29.3%) correctness, respectively. ZAVO also yielded a high value
(73.5%) and BIRD, PAUL, and SPIN marked comparable scores. Of the testbeds, BAIL and ZAVO
reported superior results to HOPE (70.0%). Generally speaking, we can deduce that the adaptations
of fuzzy rules have improved the correctness of classification. This fact is well highlighted in ZAVO,
where the Correctness metric has been improved from 0.0% to 73.5%. In the case of Completeness,
BIRD reported the highest score, which exceeds HOPE while AITC reported the lowest value. Of
the other testbeds, BAIL, PAUL, SPIN, and ZAVO yielded high metric scores and the former three
exceeded HOPE. In terms of overall classification quality, BAIL was classified with the highest accuracy
(66.4%) while AITC had the worst accuracy (23.1%). Overall, BAIL, BIRD, PAUL, SPIN, and ZAVO
outperform the accuracy of HOPE, which indicates the success of adaptation.

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

12 of 29

Table 3. A site-wise summary of segmentation quality and classification accuracy.

Segmentation Quality

Classification Accuracy
Correctness

Site

AITC
BAIL
BIRD
HOPE
PAUL
SPIN
ZAVO

Completeness

Quality

NSR

PSE

ED2

Reference
Ruleset

Adapted
Ruleset

Reference
Ruleset

Adapted
Ruleset

Reference
Ruleset

Adapted
Ruleset

1.43
1.13
2.73
0.20
4.03
4.40
7.53

0.10
0.10
0.05
0.22
0.14
0.09
0.05

1.44
1.14
2.73
0.30
4.03
4.40
7.53

44.8
58.3
50.8

29.3
79.1
66.6

17.1
49.9
51.4

52.2
80.5
96.6

14.1
36.8
34.3

23.1
66.4
65.1

66.4
64.7
73.5

11.6
20.3
0.0

79.9
78.2
72.0

9.5
18.1
0.0

70.0
34.8
62.1
0.0

73.60

55.9
56.9
54.8
57.2

AITCAitcho Islands, BAILBaily Head, BIRDCape Bird, PAULPaulet Island, SPINSpine Island, and
ZAVOZavodovski Island, NSRnumber-of-segmentation ratio, PSEpotential segmentation error (PSE),
ED2Euclidian Distance 2.

3.2. Ruleset Adaptation

Tables 49 document all of the fine-scale adjustments to the fuzzy rules made during the
adaptation of the master ruleset from HOPE to each candidate site. We would like to emphasize
that the adaptation process only pertains to the fuzzy rules but not to the segmentation process.
Parameter settings of the segmentation algorithms (e.g., scale, shape, compactness values of the MRS
algorithm) were fine tuned on a trial-and-error basis at each site until an acceptable segmentation
quality was met. Because we wanted to elaborate on the concept of middleware ruleset [74] in
this analysis, we primarily focused on the changes occurring to the most operative fuzzy rules in the
master ruleset. From that respect, in addition to the information reported in Tables 4-9 there is always
potential for having higher or lower levels in the class hierarchy and scene-specific fuzzy rules for the
sake of high classification accuracy. Table 4 summarizes the ruleset adaptations pertaining to AITC.
Of all rules, 10 membership functions exhibited Type Fb changes while the others remained unchanged.
The highest deviation (F = 4.98) was reported by Red/Green ratio rule under the class Guano. As seen
on Table 5, BAIL reported three Type Fb changes and one Type Fa change at Level I while at Level II a
majority of classes showed only Type Fb changes. In the case of class Guano, the fuzzy membership
function of Red/Green ratio remained intact while all other associated rules exhibited both limit (upper
and lower) and range changes in their fuzzy membership functions. Of all fuzzy rules, the GLCM
contrast rule marked the highest total deviation (F) of 3.85. When the master ruleset was adapted
to BIRD (Table 6), two membership functions remained unchanged at Level I, three membership
functions exhibited no changes at Level II. With respect to the class Guano, the Red/Green ratio rule
was intact, the GLCM contrast rule was kept inactive, and the remaining rules had changes in their
fuzzy functions. As seen on Table 7, all of PAULs fuzzy membership functions at both Level I and
II have undergone Type Fb changes. In certain instances, the membership function has shifted while
keeping the range (v) intact. For example, the Red/Green ratio rule of class Guano exhibited a positive
shift from 0.90 to 0.95 (lower border) and 0.95 to 1.10 (upper border) while maintaining a zero change
in the range (v). In the case of class Guano, the highest deviation (F) exhibited by GLCM dissimilarity
while the lowest (0.07) was marked by the Red/Green ratio. Adaptation of the master rule set from
HOPE to SPIN (Table 8) reported seven Type Fb changes and one Type Fa change. At Level II, five
fuzzy membership functions showed no changes (F = 0); of those, three are associated with the class
Guano, in which the border contrast rule was kept silent. Table 9 lists the ruleset adaptations associated
with ZAVO. Under the class Guano, the border contrast rule was kept inactive, which contributed to a
Type Fa deviation. The distance to coastline rule remained unchanged while other rules contributed to
Type Fb changes, of those the GLCM dissimilarity rule marked the highest total deviation (F = 9.20).

Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
Base
level
level
Level
I1
Level
I1
Level
I1
Level
Level
I1
Level
Level
Level
Level
I1
Level
Level
I1Level
I1I1I1I1I1I1

Top
level
Top
Level
level
ILevel
Top
level
Level
ILevel
Top
level
Level
ILevel
Top
level
Top
Top
level
level
Level
IILevel
I II I I I
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Level
Top
level
Level
Top
level
Level
I Level

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

13 of 29

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x

13 of 29
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x
13 of 29
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x
13 of 29
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
x
13 of
of 29
29
Remote Sens.
Sens. 2016,
2016, 8,
8, x
x
13
Table 4. Ruleset adaptation from HOPE to AITC.
Remote
13
of
29
Remote Sens.
Sens. 2016,
2016, 8,
8, x
13 of
of 29
29
Table
4.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
AITC.
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
xx
13
of
29
Remote
13
Table
4.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
AITC.
Table 4. Ruleset adaptation from HOPE to AITC.
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x
13 of 29
Table
4.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
AITC.
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
x
13
of
29
Table 4.
4. Ruleset
Ruleset adaptation
adaptation from
from HOPE
HOPE to
to AITC.
AITC.
Deviations13 of 29
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x
Deviations
Image Object
Table
Deviations
Table 4.
4. Ruleset
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to AITC.
AITC.
Parameters
of the
Ruleset
ParametersParameters
of the Adapted
of theRuleset
Adapted Ruleset
Parameters
ofMaster
the
Master
Ruleset
Table
4.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
AITC.
Membership
a
Table
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
Parameters
of the
Master
Ruleset
Parameters of the Adapted
Ruleset
Image Object Property Property
Membership
Type FbbDeviations
Type F
Class
Parameters
of the Master
Ruleset
Parameters of the Adapted Ruleset
Deviations Type
Image Object Property
Membership
Type FbDeviations
TypeFbFaa
Type Fa
Class
Function
Table
4.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
AITC.
Image
Object Property
Membership
Type F bDeviations
Type F a
Parameters
of the
the Master
Master
Ruleset
Parameters of
of the
the Adapted
Adapted Ruleset
Ruleset
Class
(Feature/Variable)
Table
adaptation
fromRuleset
HOPE
to AITC.
(Feature/Variable)
Function
Parameters
of
Ruleset
Parameters
DeviationsAdd/Remove/
Class
Table 4.
4. Ruleset
Ruleset
adaptation
HOPE
Image
Object Property
Property
Membership
Type
FbDeviations
Type F
Fa
Deviations
the
Master
Parameters
the
Adapted
Ruleset
(Feature/Variable)
Function
Add/Remove/
Parameters
r
r of
vfrom
r
r to AITC.

a
aof
va
ava
v a Type
aF
F
Image
Object
Membership
Type
F
Type
Parameters
of the
the
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of the
the Adapted
Adapted
Ruleset
bb
aa
(Feature/Variable)
Function
Class
Add/Remove/

v
a
F
Add/Remove/Change
Parameters
of
the
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of
the
Adapted
Ruleset
Image
Object
Property
Membership
Type
F
r
r
r
r
a
a
a
a

r
v
r

a
v
a
a
v
a
F
b
a
Parameters
of
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of
Ruleset
Change
Class
Image
Object Property
Property
Membership
Type
FbbDeviations
Type F
Faa
(Feature/Variable)
Function
r
r
vr
r
a
a
va
aa
v Type
aF
F
Add/Remove/
Image
Object
Property
Membership
Type
F
Type
F
Class
Change
Image
Object
Membership
Type
(Feature/Variable)
Function
Add/Remove/
Class
Parameters
of the Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of the Adapted
Ruleset
Change
Parameters
r
rr of
vrr
rr

a
aaof
vaa
aaa
v
a Deviations
F
Class
(Feature/Variable)
Function
Add/Remove/
Class
b
Snow/Wave

v
a
v
a
F
the
Ruleset
Parameters
the Adapted
Ruleset
(Feature/Variable)
Function
Snow/Wave
Add/Remove/
Image
Object Property
Membership
Type
FbDeviations
Type
Faa
Change
(Feature/Variable)
Function
11
Add/Remove/

rr80.0

rr of
v
rr

rr

aa

aaof the Adapted

v
aa
a
aa
v
a
F
Parameters
the Master
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
Ruleset
Snow/Wave
(Feature/Variable)
Function
Add/Remove/
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
55.00
65.00
10.00
60.00
1.00
0.5
1.5
Change
Brightness
100.0
20.0
90.0
55.00
65.00
10.00
60.00
1.00
0.5
1.5
Image
Object
Property
Membership
Type
F
Type
F

r
v
r

a
v
a
a
a
v
a
F
Class
b
r
r
r
r
a
a
a
a
Snow/Wave
r
r
vr
r
a
a
va
aa
v Type
aF
F
Change
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
55.00
65.00
10.00
60.00
1.00
0.5
1.5
- Fa
Image
Object Property
Membership
Type
crest/Cloud

v
a
v
a
F
crest/Cloud
1
Class
Change
(Feature/Variable)
Function
Add/Remove/
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
55.00
65.00
10.00
60.00
1.00
0.5
1.5
Snow/Wave
Change
crest/Cloud
Class
Change
Top
level
Snow/Wave
(Feature/Variable)
Function
1
Add/Remove/

r
v
r

a
v
a
a
a
v
a
F
crest/Cloud
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
55.00
65.00
10.00
60.00
1.00
0.5
1.5
1
(Feature/Variable)
Function
Snow/Wave
Add/Remove/
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
55.00
65.00
10.00
60.00
1.00
0.5
1.5

r
v
r

a
v
a
a
a
v
a
F
Snow/Wave
1
Change
Land
Ratio red
0.85
1.00
0.70
1.00
0.30
0.85
0.00
0.09
-crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
Level
I
Brightness
80.0
20.0
90.0
55.00
65.00
10.00
60.00
1.00
0.5
1.5
r0.85 100.0
r 1.00 0.15
vr 0.15 0.93
r
a
a
va
a0.30
a
v 0.85 0.09
a
F
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
Land
Ratio red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.70
1.00
0.30
0.85
0.00
0.09
0.09
Land
Ratio red
0.93
0.70
1.00
0.00
0.09
0.09
Change
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
55.00
65.00
10.00
60.00
1.00
0.5
1.5
12221
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
55.00
65.00
10.00
60.00
1.00
0.5
1.5
crest/Cloud
Change
Land
Ratio red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.70
1.00
0.30
0.85
0.00
0.09
0.09
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
55.00
65.00
10.00
60.00
1.00
0.5
1.5
-crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.70
1.00
0.30
0.85
0.00
0.09
0.09
crest/Cloud
1
2
Snow/Wave
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
-Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
55.00
65.00
10.00
60.00
1.00
0.5
1.5
3
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.70
1.00
0.30
0.85
0.09
0.09
2
1
Snow/Wave
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.00
0.00
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.70
1.00
0.30
0.85
0.00
0.09
0.09
Brightness
80.0
20.0
90.0
55.00
65.00
10.00
60.00
1.00
0.5
1.5
crest/Cloud
Land
Ratio
red
0.850.40 100.0
1.00 0.60 0.15
0.15 0.20 0.93
0.93 0.50
0.70
1.00
0.30
0.85
0.000.50 0.09
0.09
0.09
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
55.00
65.00
10.00
60.00
1.00
0.5
1.5
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.00
0.00
31232
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.70
1.00
0.30
0.85
0.00
0.09
0.09
Water
NDWI2
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
crest/Cloud
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.70
1.00
0.30
0.85
0.00
0.09
---crest/Cloud
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
Water
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
433432
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.70
1.00
0.30
0.85
0.09
0.09
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.70
1.00
0.30
0.85
0.09
0.09
Water
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
3
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
2
Water
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
4
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.70
1.00
0.30
0.85
0.09
0.09
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
3
2
Snow/Wave
Shadows
NDWI
0.150.15 0.40
0.40 0.40 0.25
0.25 0.25 0.28
0.28 0.28
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.000.28 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
Shadows
NDWI5
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.00
0.00
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.00
0.00
Snow/Wave
443
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
0.00
0.08
0.08
--Water
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
Snow/Wave
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
0.08
0.08
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
crest/Cloud
533445
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
Water
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
0.08
0.08
Snow/Wave
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
--crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
5
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
0.00
0.08
0.08
Snow/Wave
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40 65.0 0.10
0.25 10.0 0.35
0.28 60.0
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.00 0.00
0.00
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
0.00
0.08
0.08
-Brightness
55.0 0.40
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00 0.00
0.08
0.08
Snow/Wave
554
crest/Cloud
Water
0.30
0.30
0.10
0.35
Snow/Wave
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
0.08
0.08
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.00
0.00
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
crest/Cloud
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
0.08
0.08
Water
0.30
0.10
0.35
0.30
0.10
0.35
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
5644665
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
0.08
0.08
crest/Cloud
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
0.00
0.08
0.08
-Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.00
0.00
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
crest/Cloud
5
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
6
Snow/Wave
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
0.08
0.08
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
Snow/Wave
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.20
0.25
0.05
0.23
0.06
0.43
0.49
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
0.00
0.08
--Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.00
0.00
crest/Cloud
Water
NDWI5
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.00
0.00
57667
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.20
0.25
0.05
0.23
0.060.35 0.08
0.43
0.49
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
0.00
0.08
0.08
Water
NDWI
0.300.30 0.40
0.40 0.40 0.10
0.10 0.10 0.35
0.35 0.35
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.00 0.00
0.00
crest/Cloud
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.20
0.25
0.05
0.23
0.06
0.43
0.49
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
-6776
crest/Cloud
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.20
0.25
0.05
0.23
0.06
0.43
0.49
Shadows/
7
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.20
0.25
0.05
0.23
0.06
0.43
0.49
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
6
8
Shadows/
7
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.20
0.25
0.05
0.23
0.06
0.43
0.49
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
6678
Vegetation
NDVI
0.120.12 0.14
0.14 0.14 0.02
0.02 0.02 0.13
0.13 0.13
0.20
0.25
0.05
0.23
0.060.23 0.43
0.43 0.06
0.49
Shadows/
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.20
0.25
0.05
0.23
0.06
0.43
0.49
small
dark
0.15
0.25
0.28
0.01
0.24
0.13
0.04
1.15
1.19
Vegetation
NDVI8
0.20
0.25
0.05
0.43
0.49
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.20
0.25
0.05
0.23
0.06
0.49
--Shadows/
small
dark
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.01
0.25
0.24
0.13
0.04
1.15
1.19
Shadows/
Basedark
87
small
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.01
0.25
0.24
0.13
0.04
1.15
1.19
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.20
0.05
0.23
0.06
0.43
0.49
8
Shadows/
objects
Shadows/
7
8
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.20
0.25
0.05
0.23
0.06
0.43
0.49
-small
dark
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.01
0.24
0.13
0.04
1.15
1.19
Shadows/
objects
level
7
Shadows/
small
dark
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.01
0.24
0.13
0.04
1.15
1.19
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.20
0.25
0.05
0.23
0.06
0.43
0.49
8
objects
Shadows/small
small
dark
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.01
0.25
0.24
0.13
0.04
1.15
1.19
Bare
small
dark
NDWIratio
0.150.15 0.40
0.40 0.40 0.25
0.25 0.25 0.28
0.28 0.28
0.01
0.25
0.24
0.13
0.040.13 1.15
1.15 0.04
1.19
NDWI9
0.01
0.25
0.24
1.15
1.19
Shadows/
objects
Level
I1
small
dark
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.01
0.25
0.24
0.13
0.04
1.15
1.19
Bare
small
dark
NDWI
0.15
0.01
0.25
0.24
0.13
0.04
1.19
--Red/Green
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.42
objects
8
dark
objects
Shadows/
Bare
objects
Red/Green
ratio
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.42
Shadows/
earth/rock
9889
objects
small
dark
NDWIratio
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.01
0.25
0.24
0.13
0.04
1.15
1.19
Red/Green
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.42
Bare
objects
earth/rock
objects
Bare
9
small
dark
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.01
0.25
0.24
0.13
0.04
1.15
1.19
-earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.42
9
Bare
small
dark
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.01
0.25
0.24
0.13
0.04
1.15
1.19
Red/Green ratio
ratio
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.42
Bare
9
objects
earth/rock
Bare
0.70
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.42
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.99
1.10
0.01
1.00
4.00
0.98
4.98
Bare Red/Green
earth/rock ratio Red/Green10
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.09
0.42
Bare
earth/rock
objects
Red/Green
0.700.70 0.90
0.90 0.90 0.20
0.20 0.20 0.80
0.80 0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.330.88 0.09
0.09 0.33
0.42
10
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.99
1.10
0.01
1.00
4.00
0.98
4.98
99ratio
Red/Green
ratio
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.42
earth/rock
objects
Red/Green
ratio
0.70
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.42
--10
earth/rock
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.99
1.10
0.01
1.00
4.00
0.98
4.98
Bare
earth/rock
earth/rock
9
10
Bare
Red/Green
ratio
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.99
1.10
0.01
1.00
4.00
0.98
4.98
0.70
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.42
10
Red/Green
ratio
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.99
1.10
0.01
1.00
4.00
0.98
4.98
99
Bare
11
Red/Green
ratio
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.42
--GLCM
Dissimilarity
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.75
2.25
0.50
2.00
1.00
0.75
1.75
10
earth/rock
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.99
1.10
0.01
1.00
4.00
0.98
4.98
Red/Green
ratio
0.70
0.90
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.42
11
GLCM
Dissimilarity
3.00
4.00 0.90 0.20
1.00
3.50
1.75
2.25
0.50
2.00
1.00
0.75
1.75
0.950.95 0.90
0.05 0.05 0.98
0.98 0.98
0.99
1.10
0.01
1.00
4.001.00 0.98
0.98 4.00
4.98
ratio
0.99
1.10
0.01
0.98
4.98
earth/rock
10
Red/Green
ratio Red/Green11
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.99
1.10
0.01
1.00
4.00
0.98
4.98
Red/Green
ratio
0.95
0.05
0.99
1.10
0.01
1.00
4.00
4.98
-GLCM
Dissimilarity
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.75
2.25
0.50
2.00
1.00
0.75
1.75
earth/rock
11
GLCM
Dissimilarity
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.75
2.25
0.50
2.00
1.00
0.75
1.75
-10
Red/Green
ratio
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.99
1.10
0.01
1.00
4.00
0.98
4.98
11
GLCM
Dissimilarity
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.75
2.25
0.50
2.00
1.00
0.75
1.75
Guano
Distance
to
coastline
(m)
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12
11
10
GLCM
Dissimilarity
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.75
2.25
0.50
2.00
1.00
0.75
1.75
Red/Green
ratio
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.99
1.10
0.01
1.00
4.00
0.98
4.98
Guano
Distance
to
coastline
(m)
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12
10
GLCM
Dissimilarity
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.75
2.25
0.50
2.00
1.00
0.75
1.75
Red/Green
ratio (m) GLCM
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.99
1.10
0.01
1.00
4.00
0.98
4.98
11
GLCM
Dissimilarity
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.75
2.25
0.50
2.00
1.00
0.75
1.75
Guano
Distance
to
coastline
50.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
--12
GLCM
Dissimilarity
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.75
2.25
0.50
2.00
1.00
0.75
1.75
3.00 1500.00
4.00 1450.00
1.00725.00
3.50
1.75
2.25
0.50
2.00 0.00
1.00
0.75
1.75
Guano
Distance
to
coastline
(m)Dissimilarity
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12
Guano
13
Guano
Distance
to
coastline
(m)
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
11
Border
contrast (m)
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.50
0.00
1.00
1.00
--GLCM
Dissimilarity
3.00
4.00
3.50
1.75
2.25
0.50
2.00
1.00
0.75
1.75
12
Guano
Distance
to
coastline
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13
12
11
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
3.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.50
1.00
1.00
GLCM
Dissimilarity
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.75
2.25
0.50
2.00
1.00
0.75
1.75
Guano
Distance
to
coastline
(m)
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12
11
13
Guano
Distance
to
coastline
(m)
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
GLCM
Dissimilarity
3.00
4.00
3.50
1.75
2.25
0.50
2.00
1.00
0.75
1.75
Border
contrast (m)
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.50
0.00
1.00
1.00
-Guano
Distance
to
coastline
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12
to
13
Border
contrast (m) Distance13
2.50
3.501500.001450.00
1.00 1450.00
3.00 725.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.50
0.00
1.00
1.00
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.50
0.00
1.00
1.00
50.00 1500.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.000.85
0.00
0.00
Guano
Distance
to Contrast
coastline
50.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
14
12
GLCM
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
6.50
3.00
3.85
--13
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
2.50
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Guano
Distance
to
coastline
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(m)
14
13
12
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
Border
contrast (m)
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
2.50
1.00
1.00
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.50
1.00
1.00
Guano
Distance
to Contrast
coastline
(m)coastline13
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12
14
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.50
0.00
1.00
1.00
-GLCM
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
7.00
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
14
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
13
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
2.50
0.00
1.00
1.00
14
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
a fuzzy
membership
14
13
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
4.00
6.00
7.00
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
3.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.50
0.00
1.00
1.00
Border
2.50 14.00
3.50 1.00
1.00 12.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
1.00 For
0.00
1.00
1.00
NDWINormalized
difference
watercontrast
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
fuzzy
membership
14 NDVINormalized
13
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00 index,
12.00
6.00
7.00 co-occurrence
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
Border Contrast
contrast
2.50
3.50 vegetation
1.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.50
0.00
1.00
1.00
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
difference
GLCMGray
level
matrix.
For
aa2.50
fuzzy
membership
14
GLCM
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
--function
describing
property
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
rr and
aa denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
NDWINormalized
differencep:
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
a fuzzy
fuzzy
membership
14
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
a
membership
function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
and
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
a fuzzy
membership
function
describing
property
p:water
lower
upper border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
r andlevel
a denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
14
GLCM
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
-NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
fuzzy
membership
14 border,
GLCM Contrast
Contrast
10.00
14.00vegetation
4.00 index,
6.00r and
7.00
1.00
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
fuzzy
membership
respectively.
GLCM
Contrast
10.00 vrange,
14.00 amean.
4.00 12.00
12.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
3.00
3.85
function
describing
property
p:water
lower
border,
upper border,
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset, 0.85
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
GLCMGray
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
aaa6.50
fuzzy
membership
function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
Subscripts
r andlevel
aa denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.

function
describing
property
lower
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
r and
a denote
reference
ruleset
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
NDWINormalized
differencep:
water
index,border,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,Subscripts
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
Forand
a fuzzy
membership
function
describing property
property
p:water
lower
border,
upper border,
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
and
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
and
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
aa fuzzy
membership
respectively.
function
describing
p:
lower
border,
upper
vrange,
amean.
rrr and
aaa denote
reference
ruleset
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,Subscripts
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
Forand
fuzzy
membership
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index, GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For aruleset,
fuzzy membership function describing
respectively.
function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
r
and
a
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
respectively.
respectively.
function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
r
and
a
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
function
property
lower border,
border, vrange,
upper amean.
border, vrange,
amean.
r and a ruleset
denote and
reference
ruleset
and respectively.
adapted ruleset,
propertydescribing
p: lower
border,p:upper
Subscripts
r and aSubscripts
denote reference
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
respectively.
respectively.

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

14 of 29

Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
Base
level
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Level
I1
Level
I1I1I1I1I1
Level
Level
Level
I1
Level
I1
Level
Level
I1
Level
Level
Level
Level
I1I1
Level
I1
Level
I1I1

Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
Top
level
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
ILevel
II II I
Level
ILevel
Level
ILevel
Level
Level
ILevel
Level
Level
I ILevel
ILevel
Level
I ILevel

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x

14 of 29
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x
14 of 29
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x
14 of 29
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
x
14 of
of 29
29
Table
5.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
BAIL.
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x
14
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x
14 of 29
Table 5. Ruleset adaptation from HOPE to BAIL.
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
xx
14
of
29
Table
5.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
BAIL.
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
14
of
29
Table 5. Ruleset adaptation from HOPE to BAIL.
Remote Sens.
Sens. 2016,
2016, 8,
8, xx
14 of
of 29
29
Remote
Table 5.
5. Ruleset
Ruleset adaptation
adaptation from
from HOPE
HOPE to
to BAIL.
BAIL.
Remote
14
Deviations14
Table
Remote Sens.
Sens. 2016,
2016, 8,
8, x
x
14 of
of 29
29
Deviations
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
14
of
29
Deviations
Table
5.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
BAIL.
Parameters
of
the
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of
the
Adapted
Ruleset
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
xx Image Object Image Object
14
of
29
Parameters
of
the
Adapted
Ruleset
Parameters
of
the
Master
Ruleset
Membership
b
Table
5.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
BAIL.
Parameters
of the Master
Ruleset
Parameters of the Adapted Ruleset
Image Object
Membership
Type FDeviations
Type bFaa
Property
Class Image
Table
5.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
BAIL.
b
Parameters
of the Master
Ruleset
Parameters of the Adapted Ruleset
Object
Deviations
Membership
Type FDeviations
TypeF Fa
Class
Property
Table
5.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
BAIL.
Type Fa
Type
Function
b
Membership
Type F Deviations
Type F
Parameters
of the
the Master
Master
Ruleset
Parameters of
of the Adapted
Adapted Ruleset
Ruleset
Table
adaptation
from
HOPE
Image
Object (Feature/Variable)
Class
Property
Function
Add/Remove/
Table 5.
5. Ruleset
Ruleset
adaptation
fromRuleset
HOPE to
to BAIL.
BAIL.
b
Parameters
Parameters
Image
Object
Class
Property
Membership
Type
Type FFaa
Function
(Feature/Variable)
Add/Remove/
Table 5.
5.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to BAIL.
BAIL.
r
r of
vr vRuleset
r to

a
a of the
va
aa
va Type
a FFDeviations
F
b
Parameters
ofthe
Master
Parameters
the Adapted
Ruleset
Image
Object
Membership
Type
Function
Table
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
Deviations
Add/Remove/

v
v
a
F
Add/Remove/Change
Class
Property
(Feature/Variable)
b
a
r
r
r
r
a
a
a
a

r
v
r

a
v
a
a
a
v
a
F
Parameters
of
the
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of
the
Adapted
Ruleset
Change
Image
Object
Membership
Type
Type
F
Class
Property
(Feature/Variable)
bDeviations
Parameters
r
r of
vr
r
Parameters
a
a of
va
aa
v Type
a FFDeviations
F
the
Master
Ruleset
the
Adapted
Ruleset
Function
Image
Object
Add/Remove/
Change
Membership
Type
FFaa
Class
Property
Parameters
of the
the Master
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of the
the Adapted
Adapted
Ruleset
b
Image
Object
Deviations
Function
Add/Remove/
Change
(Feature/Variable)
Membership
Type
Parameters
r
rr of
rr

a
aaof
v Type
a F
F
Deviations
b
Class
Property
Parameters
Ruleset
Snow/Wave Snow/Wave
Image
Object
Function
Deviations
Add/Remove/
Membership
Type
FDeviations
Type
Faaa
(Feature/Variable)
Parameters
of
Ruleset
Parameters
of
Ruleset
Image
Object
15

vvrr Ruleset

vvaa
aaaa
v
a
F
Class
Property
bb 0.13
Change
Parameters
of the
the Master
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of the
the Adapted
Adapted
Ruleset
Snow/Wave
Function
Image
Object
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
70.0
90.0
20.0
80.0
0.0
0.13
Membership
Type
F
Type
F
Add/Remove/
(Feature/Variable)
100.0
90.0
70.0
90.0
20.0
80.0
0.0
0.13
0.13
Brightness
Parameters
the
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
the
Adapted
Ruleset

r80.0

r of
v
r 20.0

aof
v
a
a
a
v
a
F
Image
Object
Class
Property
15
Membership
Type
F
Type
F
Change
b
Function
Snow/Wave
Add/Remove/
Parameters
Parameters
Ruleset
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
70.0
90.0
20.0
80.0
0.0 Type
0.13
- F
(Feature/Variable)
Membership
Type
Fbb 0.13
Type
Faaa
Image
Object
crest/Cloud crest/Cloud
Class
Property

r of the Master
vvrr Ruleset

aof the Adapted

vvaa
aaaa
v
a
F
15
Change
Membership
F
Type
Function
Add/Remove/
Class
Property
(Feature/Variable)
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
70.0
90.0
20.0
80.0
0.0
0.13
- F

v
a
F
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
Class
Property
Membership
Type
Function
Change
Top
level
Add/Remove/
15
Class
Property
(Feature/Variable)
rrr
rrr
vrr
rrr
aaa
aaa
vaa
aaa
v Type
a F 0.13
F
Function
Add/Remove/
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
Change
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
70.0
90.0
20.0
80.0
0.0
0.13
0.13
15
Function
Class
Property
(Feature/Variable)
Add/Remove/

v
a
v
a
F
Function
Snow/Wave
Add/Remove/
Change
(Feature/Variable)

r
v
r

a
v
a
a
a
v
a
F
16
Land
Ratio red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.04
0.06
0.10
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
20.0
80.0
0.0
0.13
0.13
15
crest/Cloud
Level
I
(Feature/Variable)
Function
r0.85
r
rr 1.00
vrr 0.15 90.0
rr 0.9370.0
aa
aa
vaa
aaa
v
a 0.04
F
Add/Remove/
Change
Snow/Wave
(Feature/Variable)
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
70.0
90.0
20.0
80.0
0.0
0.13
0.13

v
a
v
a
F
16
Land
Ratio red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.04
0.06
0.10
Land
Ratio red
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88 0.13
0.06-0.10
Change
crest/Cloud
15
Snow/Wave
(Feature/Variable)
Change

r
v
r

a
v
a
a
a
v
a
F
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
70.0
90.0
20.0
80.0
0.0
0.13
16
Land
Ratio red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.04
0.06
0.10
15
crest/Cloud
Change
Snow/Wave
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
70.0
90.0
20.0
80.0
0.0
0.13
0.13
-15
Change
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
16
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.04
0.06
0.10
17
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
70.0
90.0
20.0
80.0
0.0
0.13
0.13
Snow/Wave
15
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
crest/Cloud
16
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.04
0.06
0.10
Snow/Wave
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
70.0
90.0
20.0
80.0
0.0
0.13
0.13
17
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
70.0
90.0
20.0
80.0
0.0
0.13
0.13
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
16
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.04
0.06
0.10
15
17
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0 0.20 0.93
90.0 0.500.75
70.0
90.0
20.0
80.0
0.0
0.13 1.00
0.13
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
70.0
90.0
20.0
80.0
0.0
0.13
0.13
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60 0.60 0.15
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
15
crest/Cloud
16
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.04
0.10
Water
NDWI
0.40 100.0
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55 0.06
0.09--1.09
crest/Cloud
Brightness
80.0
20.0
90.0
70.0
90.0
20.0
80.0
0.0
0.13
0.13
17
16
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.04
0.06
0.10
crest/Cloud
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
17
16
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.04
0.06
0.10
18
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
inactive
crest/Cloud
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
---16
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.04
0.06
0.10
17
18
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
inactive
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.04
0.06
0.10
-Water
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
17
16
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.04
0.06
0.10
18
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
inactive
Water
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.04
0.06
0.10
17
Snow/Wave
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
16
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.88
0.04
0.06
0.10
17
18
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
inactive
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
-60.0
-0.25
- -- -- --inactive
19
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60 0.40
0.20 0.25 0.28
0.50 0.2855.0
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
Snow/Wave
17
18
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
5.0
58.0
1.00
1.03
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
----- - 0.03
-inactive
19
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
-Snow/Wave
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
18
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
inactive
17
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
55.0
60.0
5.0
58.0
0.03
1.03
crest/Cloud
19
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
18
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
inactive
Water
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
0.09
1.09
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
55.0
60.0
5.0
58.0
1.00
0.03
1.03
--Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
17
19
18
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
inactive
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
55.0
60.0
5.0
58.0
1.00
0.03
1.03
Snow/Wave
19
18
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40 65.0
0.25 10.0 60.0
0.28 60.055.0
inactive
Snow/Wave
20
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
5.0
58.0
1.00
1.03
18
Brightness
55.0
55.0
60.0
5.0
1.00
0.03--1.03
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
-----------58.0 0.03
----inactive
19
crest/Cloud
Water
0.30
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
inactive
Snow/Wave
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
55.0
60.0
5.0
58.0
1.00
0.03
1.03
20
crest/Cloud
19
crest/Cloud
18
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
inactive
Water
0.30
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
Snow/Wave
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
inactive
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
55.0
60.0
5.0
58.0
1.00
0.03
1.03
--20
19
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
18
Shadows
0.15
0.25
0.28
-------inactive
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
55.0
60.0
5.0
58.0
0.03
1.03
19
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
20
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
55.0
60.0
5.0
58.0
1.00
0.03
1.03
Snow/Wave
19
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
0.09
1.09
crest/Cloud
20
Snow/Wave
21
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
55.0
60.0
5.0
58.0
0.03
1.03
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
55.0
60.0
5.0
58.0
0.03
1.03
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32
0.32
20
19
21
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0 0.10 0.35
60.0 0.350.50
55.0
60.0
5.0
58.0
0.03 1.00
1.03
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40 0.40
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55 0.09
0.09-1.09
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
55.0
60.0
5.0
58.0
0.03
1.03
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32
0.32
19
crest/Cloud
20
21
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
1.09
crest/Cloud
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
55.0
60.0
5.0
58.0
0.03
1.03
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32
0.32
20
crest/Cloud
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
-20
21
crest/Cloud
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32
0.32
Shadows/small
20
21
22
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32
0.32
Shadows/small
Water
0.30
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.38
0.00
0.26
0.26
-21
22
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32
0.32
20
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
Shadows/small
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
0.15
0.25
0.28
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.38
0.00
0.26
0.26
dark
objects Vegetation
22
20
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32
NDVI21
0.12
0.14 0.02
0.02 0.13
0.130.18
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19 0.32
0.00
0.32--0.32
21
Water
0.30
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.38
0.00
0.26
0.26
Shadows/small
dark
objects
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.32
0.32
Base
21
22
Shadows/small
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.32
0.32
dark
objects
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.38
0.00
0.26
0.26
21
22
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32
0.32
--Shadows/small
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
23
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.00
0.00
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.38
0.26
0.26
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32
0.32
22
level
dark
objects
Shadows/small
21
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32
0.32
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.38
0.26
0.26
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
23
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.00
0.00
dark
objects Shadows/small
22
Vegetation
NDVI ratio
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32
0.32
Shadows/small
21
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.38
0.00
0.26
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
23
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.00
0.00
22
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.32
0.32
dark
objects
Shadows/small
Level
I1objects
NDWI
0.15
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.38 0.26
0.26--0.26
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.38
0.00
0.26
0.26
22
dark
Shadows/small
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
23
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
24
NDWIratio
0.15
0.40 0.40
0.25 0.25 0.80
0.28 0.280.70
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.38
0.26 0.00
0.26
Shadows/small
22
dark Red/Green
objects
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
dark
objects
Bare
earth/rock
23
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
-Shadows/small
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.38
0.26
0.26
24
Shadows/small
dark
objects
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.38
0.00
0.26
0.26
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
Red/Green
ratio
Bare
earth/rock
23
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
22
24
NDWIratio
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.38
0.00
0.26
0.26
Shadows/small
dark
objects
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.38
0.26
0.26
22
dark
objects
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
23
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
dark
objects
NDWI ratio
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.38
0.00
0.26
0.26
24
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
23
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.00
0.00
dark
objects
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
GLCM
24
Bare earth/rock
0.70
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80 0.00
0.00--0.00
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratioRed/Green
23
0.70
0.90 0.90
0.20 0.20 0.98
0.80 0.800.95
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
25
dark
objects
0.90
0.95
0.05
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
Red/Green
GLCMratio
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
2.30
2.50
0.20
2.40
0.50
0.46
0.96
-24ratio
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
23
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.70
0.90
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
25
Bare
Red/Green
ratio
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
GLCMratio
24
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
2.30
2.50
0.20
2.40
0.50
0.46
0.96
Bare earth/rock
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
23
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.70
0.90
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
Dissimilarity
25
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
--Red/Green
Bare
earth/rock
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
24
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
2.30
2.50
0.20
2.40
0.50
0.46
0.96
GLCM
Dissimilarity
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
23
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.70
0.90
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
24
25
GLCM
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
Red/Green
ratio
Dissimilarity
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
2.30
2.50
0.20
2.40
0.50
0.46
0.96
24
25
Distance
to Red/Green
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
Red/Green
GLCMratio
0.90 1500.00
0.95 1450.00
0.05 725.00
0.9825.00
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98 0.46
0.00
0.00-0.00
26
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
2.30
2.50
0.20
2.40
0.50
0.96
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
Red/Green
ratio
25ratio
Dissimilarity
Guano
Distance
to
50.00
1150.00
1125.00
587.50
0.29
0.23
0.52
GLCM
24
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
Red/Green
ratio
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
2.30
2.50
0.20
2.40
0.50
0.46
0.96
26
Dissimilarity
25
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
Red/Green
ratio
Distance
to
Guano
GLCM
24
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
25.00
1150.00
1125.00
587.50
0.29
0.23
0.52
coastline
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
2.30
2.50
0.20
2.40
0.50
0.46
0.96
--26
25
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
Red/Green
ratio
Dissimilarity
GLCM(m)
Guano
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
25.00
1150.00
1125.00
587.50
0.29
0.23
0.52
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
2.30
2.50
0.20
2.40
0.50
0.46
0.96
25
Distance
to
coastline
(m)
Dissimilarity
GLCM
26
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
2.30
2.50
0.20
2.40
0.50
0.46
0.96
GLCM
25
Distance
to
Guano
coastline
Dissimilarity
GLCM
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
25.00
1150.00
1125.00
587.50
0.29
0.23
0.52
26
GLCM(m)
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
2.30
2.50
0.20
2.40
0.50
0.46
0.96
Guano
Distance
to
GLCM
Dissimilarity
25
27
3.00
4.00
1.00 1.00 725.00
3.50
2.30
2.50
0.20
2.40
0.50
0.46
0.96
50.00
1150.00
1125.00
587.50
0.29
0.52
3.00 1500.00
2.30
2.50
0.20
2.40 0.23
0.46---0.96
26
coastline
(m)
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
3.00
4.00 4.00 1450.00
3.50 3.5025.00
2.30
2.50
0.20
2.40
0.50
0.46 0.50
0.96
GLCM
Dissimilarity
Distance
to
Guano
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
25.00
1150.00
1125.00
587.50
0.29
0.23
0.52
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
2.30
2.50
0.20
2.40
0.50
0.46
0.96
27
25
Dissimilarity
coastline
(m)
26
Dissimilarity
Guano
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
Distance
to
Guano
Dissimilarity
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
2.30
2.50
0.20
2.40
0.50
0.46
0.96
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
25.00
1150.00
1125.00
587.50
0.29
0.23
0.52
--27
26
coastline
(m)
Dissimilarity
Distance
to
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
Guano
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
25.00
1150.00
1125.00
587.50
0.29
0.23
0.52
26
Dissimilarity
coastline
(m)
Distance
to
Guano
27
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
25.00
1150.00
1125.00
587.50
0.29
0.23
0.52
Distance
to
26
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
coastline
(m)
27
Guano
Distance
to
Distance28
50.00
1500.00
725.00
25.00
1150.00
1125.00
587.50
0.29
0.23
0.52
Guano
Border
contrast
2.50
3.501500.001450.00
1.00
3.00 725.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
1.00
Distance
to
coastline
(m)
50.00
1450.00
25.00
1150.00
1125.00
587.50
0.29
0.23
0.52
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
27to
26
Guano
50.00 1500.00
25.00
1150.00
1125.00
587.50 0.25
0.23--0.52
28
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
25.00
1150.00
1125.00
587.50
0.29
0.23 0.29
0.52
Distance
to
coastline
(m)
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.001450.00725.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
Guano
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
25.00
1150.00
1125.00
587.50
0.29
0.23
0.52
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
26
coastline
(m)
28
coastline27
(m)
Guano
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
-coastline
(m)
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
25.00
1150.00
1125.00
587.50
0.29
0.23
0.52
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
27
coastline
(m)
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
27
28
coastline
(m)
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
27
28
NDWINormalized
difference
water index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,12.00
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For3.00
a fuzzy
membership
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
6.50
0.85
3.85
--Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
28
27
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For0.75
fuzzy
membership
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
Borderdifference
contrast Border
2.50
3.50vegetation
1.00 index,
3.00
2.00
6.00co-occurrence
4.00
4.00 For
0.75
0.25
1.00
28
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.25
1.00
contrast
2.50 14.00
3.50 4.00
1.00 12.00
3.006.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
0.75
0.25---1.00
NDWINormalized
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
GLCMGray
matrix.
aa4.00
fuzzy
membership
27
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
7.00
1.00
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
28
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.25
1.00
function
describing
lower
upper border,
vrange,
amean.
r andlevel
a denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
28 border,
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,Subscripts
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For0.75
fuzzy
membership
GLCMproperty
Contrast p:
10.00
14.00vegetation
4.00 index,
12.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
6.50 For
3.00
0.85
3.85
function
describing
property
p:water
lower
border,
upper border,
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
r and
and
a denote
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
28
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
aaa fuzzy
membership
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
--function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
r
a
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
fuzzy
membership
28
GLCMproperty
Contrast p:water
10.00
14.00vegetation
4.00 index,Subscripts
12.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
6.50 For3.00
3.00
0.85
3.85
respectively.
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
6.50
0.85
3.85
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
aa6.50
fuzzy
membership
function describing
describing
lower
upper border,
border,
vrange,
amean.
and
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset, 0.85--28 border,
respectively.
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
7.00
1.00
6.50
3.00
0.85
3.85
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
membership
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00 Subscripts
12.006.00
6.00
7.00
1.00
3.00
3.85
function
property
p:water
lower
upper
vrange,
amean.
rr and
aa denote
reference
ruleset
adapted
ruleset,
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,border,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
Forand
a fuzzy
fuzzy
membership
respectively.

function describing
describing property
property
p:water
lower
border,
upper border,
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
and
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
aa fuzzy
membership
function
lower
upper
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
rrr and
aaa denote
reference
ruleset
adapted
ruleset,
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
membership
respectively.
NDWINormalized
differencep:
water
index,border,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
Forand
a fuzzy
fuzzy
membership
function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
and
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
function
describing property
property
p:water
lower
border,
upper border,
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
and
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,Subscripts
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
Forand
a fuzzy
membership
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index, GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For aruleset,
fuzzy membership function describing
function
describing
p:
lower
border,
upper
vrange,
amean.
rrr and
aaa denote
reference
ruleset
adapted
respectively.
function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
and
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
function
describing property
property p:
lower border,
border, upper
upper border,
border, vrange,
vrange, amean.
amean. Subscripts
and aa denote
denote reference
reference ruleset
ruleset and
and adapted
adapted ruleset,
ruleset,
respectively.
function
describing
lower
rr and
property
p: lower
border,p:upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
r and aSubscripts
denote reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
respectively.
respectively.
respectively.
respectively.

Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
Base
level
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
Base
level
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Level
I1I1
Level
Level
I1
Level
Level
I1
Level
I1Level
I1I1I1I1I1I1
Level
Level
I1Level
Level
I1Level
Level
Level
I1

Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
Top
level
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Level
I ILevel
Level
Level
IILevel
Level
Level
ILevel
I Level
II I I I I
I Level
Level
I Level
Level
Level

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

15 of 29

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x

15 of 29
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x
15 of 29
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x
15 of 29
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
x
15 of
of 29
Table
6.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
BIRD.
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
x
15
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x
15 of 29
29
Table 6. Ruleset adaptation from HOPE to BIRD.
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
xx
15
of
29
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
15
of
29
Table
6.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
BIRD.
Remote Sens. 2016,
2016, 8, xx
15 of
of 29
29
Table 6. Ruleset adaptation from HOPE to BIRD.
Remote
15
Remote Sens.
Sens. 2016, 8,
8, x
15
of
29
Table
6.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
BIRD.
Deviations15 of 29
Table
6.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
BIRD.
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x
Deviations
Image
Object
Table
6.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
BIRD.
Deviations15 of 29
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x Image Object
Parameters
of the
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of the Adapted
Ruleset Ruleset
Parameters
of the Adapted
Parameters
of
the
Master
Ruleset
Membership
Table
6.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
BIRD.
Parameters
of the Master
Ruleset
Parameters of the Adapted Ruleset
Image Object
Table
6.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
BIRD.
Membership
Type FbbDeviations
TypebFaa
Property
Class
Table
6.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
BIRD.
Parameters
of
the
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of
the
Adapted
Ruleset
Image
Object
Deviations
Membership
Type
F
Type
F
Type Fa
Type
F
Class
Property
Function
Table
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
Membership
Type FbDeviations
Type Fa
Parameters
of the
the Master
Ruleset
Parameters of
of the
the Adapted
Adapted Ruleset
Ruleset
Image
Object (Feature/Variable)
Deviations
Table 6.
6. Parameters
Ruleset
adaptation
fromRuleset
HOPE to
to BIRD.
BIRD.
Class
Property
Function
Add/Remove/
of
Parameters
Image
Object
Class
Property
Table
Ruleset
adaptation
HOPE
Membership
Type
Type FFaa
Parameters
the Master
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
Ruleset
Function
Image
Object
Add/Remove/
(Feature/Variable)
r
r of
vfrom
r
r to

a
aof the Adapted
va Type
a FFbbbDeviations
F
Deviations
Membership
Type
Table 6.
6.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
toBIRD.
BIRD.
a
r
the
vRuleset
a
avvaa
vaaaaa
v
a
F
Add/Remove/Change
Function
Parameters
of
Master
Parameters
of
the
Adapted
Ruleset
Add/Remove/
Image
Object
Class
Property
r
r
r
a
(Feature/Variable)
Membership
Type
F
Type
F
Deviations

r
v
r

a
v
a
F
Change
Ruleset
Class
Property
bDeviations
Image
Object
(Feature/Variable)
Membership
Type
Faa
Parameters
r
r of
vr Ruleset
r
Parameters
a
aof
va
aa
v Type
a F
F
Function
Add/Remove/
Class
Property
Change
Parameters
of the
the Master
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of the
the Adapted
Adapted
Ruleset
bDeviations
Image
Object
Function
Membership
Type
Add/Remove/
Parameters
Ruleset
Image
Object
Change
Class
Property
(Feature/Variable)
Parameters
r
r of
vr Ruleset
r

a
aof
va
aa
v Type
a F
F
Function
Add/Remove/
Membership
Type
FbbDeviations
Type FF
Faa
Snow/Wave Snow/Wave
Parameters
of the
the Master
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of the
the Adapted
Adapted
Ruleset
Image
Object
(Feature/Variable)
Class
Property

v
a
v
a
F
29
Membership
Type
Type
Function
Add/Remove/
Change
(Feature/Variable)
bDeviations
a
Parameters
r80.0
rr of
vrr 20.0
rr 90.060.00

a
aaof the Adapted
vaa
aaa
v
a F
F
Class
Property
Snow/Wave
the
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
Ruleset
Image
Object
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
70.00
10.00
65.00
1.00
0.38
1.38
Brightness
100.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
1.00
0.38
1.38
Membership
Type
F
Type
F
Function
29
Change
Add/Remove/
b
Class
Property
(Feature/Variable)
b 1.38
aa

r of the Master
v
r

aof the Adapted

v
a
a
a
v
a
F
Snow/Wave
Parameters
Ruleset
Parameters
Ruleset
Image
Object
Change
Function
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
1.00
0.38
Add/Remove/
Membership
Type
F
Type
F
crest/Cloud crest/Cloud
29
Class
Property
(Feature/Variable)

r
v
r

a
v
a
a
a
v
a
F
b
Function
Add/Remove/
Change
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
1.00
0.38
- Fa
Membership
Type
Snow/Wave
(Feature/Variable)
crest/Cloud
rr
rr
vrr
rr
aa
aa
vaa
aaa
v Type
a F 1.38
F
Class
Property
Top
level
Function
29
Add/Remove/
Change
Snow/Wave
(Feature/Variable)

v
a
v
a
F
crest/Cloud
Class
Property
29
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
1.00
0.38
1.38
Snow/Wave
Change
Function
Add/Remove/
(Feature/Variable)

r
v
r

a
v
a
a
a
v
a
F
29
Brightness
80.0
70.00
10.00
65.00
1.00
1.38
30
Land
Ratio red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.40
0.06
0.46
Change
Function
Level
I
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
Add/Remove/
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
1.00
0.38
1.38
(Feature/Variable)
rr0.85 100.0
rr 1.00 20.0
vrr 0.15 90.0
rr 0.9360.00
aa
aa
vaa
aaa
v0.88 0.38
a
F
29
Change
30
Land
Ratio red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.40
0.06
0.46
Land
Ratio red
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.40
0.06--0.46
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
(Feature/Variable)
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
1.00
0.38
1.38
29
r
r
vr
r
a
a
va
aa
v
a
F
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
Change
30
Land
Ratio red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.40
0.06
0.46
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
1.00
0.38
1.38
29
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
Change
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
1.00
0.38
1.38
29
30
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.40
0.06
0.46
Snow/Wave
31
crest/Cloud
29
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
1.00
0.38
1.38
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
30
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.40
0.06
0.46
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
31
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
1.00
0.38
1.38
-30
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.40
0.06
0.46
29
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
crest/Cloud
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
60.00
70.00
10.00
65.00
1.00
0.38
1.38
Snow/Wave
31
30
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.40
0.06
0.46
crest/Cloud
29
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Water
NDWI
0.40 100.0
0.60
0.20 90.0
0.5060.00
0.40
0.60
0.00
0.00 0.38
0.00
0.00--0.00
30
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.40
0.06
0.46
Brightness
80.0
20.0
70.00
10.00
65.00
1.00
1.38
31
crest/Cloud
30
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.40
0.06
0.46
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
31
crest/Cloud
32
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
30
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.40
0.06
0.46
--Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
31
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
30
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.40
0.06
0.46
32
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
31
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.40
0.06
0.46
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
30
32
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
31
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
30
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.88
0.40
0.06
0.46
31
Snow/Wave
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32
Shadows
0.15
0.40 0.40 0.20
0.25 0.25 0.50
0.28 0.2865.00
0.10
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40 0.25
0.65
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.10
0.30
0.20
0.20 0.00
0.40--0.65
33
31
32
Snow/Wave
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.40
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
75.00
10.00
70.00
0.14
0.14
31
33
32
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
31
Snow/Wave
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
65.00
75.00
10.00
70.00
0.00
0.14
0.14
crest/Cloud
33
32
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
--Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
65.00
75.00
10.00
70.00
0.00
0.14
0.14
31
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
32
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.40
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
33
Snow/Wave
32
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
33
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
65.00
75.00
10.00
70.00
0.00
0.14
0.14
Snow/Wave
32
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.10
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.65
33
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
75.00
10.00
70.00
0.00
0.14
0.14
34
Brightness
55.0
65.0 0.25
10.0 0.28
60.065.00
65.00
75.00
10.00
70.00 0.40
0.00
0.14-0.14
Snow/Wave
32
crest/Cloud
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.10
0.35
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.00
0.00
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
65.00
75.00
10.00
70.00
0.00
0.14
0.14
33
34
32
crest/Cloud
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
65.00
75.00
10.00
70.00
0.00
0.14
0.14
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.00
0.00
33
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
34
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
65.00
75.00
10.00
70.00
0.00
0.14
0.14
32
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
--33
Water
0.30
0.10
0.35
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.00
0.00
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
65.00
75.00
10.00
70.00
0.00
0.14
0.14
33
34
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
33
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
65.00
75.00
10.00
70.00
0.00
0.14
0.14
-34
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
35
33
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
65.00
75.00
10.00
70.00
0.14
0.14
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.00
0.00
34
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14 0.40 0.10
0.02 0.10 0.35
0.13 0.3565.00
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
crest/Cloud
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
Snow/Wave
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35 0.00
0.00---0.00
35
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
75.00
10.00
70.00
0.00
0.14
0.14
34
crest/Cloud
33
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.00
0.00
35
34
crest/Cloud
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
65.00
75.00
10.00
70.00
0.00
0.14
0.14
-Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
34
crest/Cloud
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
-35
34
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shadows/small
35
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
34
36
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
35
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.40
0.10
0.35
Shadows/small
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
36
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40 0.14
0.10 0.02 0.35
0.35 0.130.30
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
35
0.00
0.00
Shadows/small
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
NDVI34
0.12
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13 0.00
0.00--0.00
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40 0.00
0.65
34
dark
objects Vegetation
36
35
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
-35
Shadows/small
Base
dark
objects
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
36
35
Shadows/small
dark
objects
36
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shadows/small
35
36
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
--Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
37
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.24
level
Shadows/small
dark
objects
35
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
36
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
37
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.24
dark
objects Shadows/small
Shadows/small
35
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
36
dark
Vegetation
NDVI ratio
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.00
Shadows/small
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
37
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.24
Level
I1objects
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25 0.13
0.280.12
0.15
0.30
0.20
0.20 0.00
0.25
0.40--0.65
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
36
Shadows/small
dark
objects
NDWIratio
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
36
dark Red/Green
objects
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
37
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.24
Shadows/small
38
dark
objects
36
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
-0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
Bare
earth/rock
ratio
37
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.24
Shadows/small
dark
objects
38
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
37
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.24
36
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
dark
objects
Shadows/small
38
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
37
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.24
dark
objects
36
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
Bare
Red/Green
37
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.24
NDWI ratio
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.15
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.65
38ratio
darkearth/rock
objects Bare earth/rock
0.70
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88 0.09
0.09--0.24
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratioRed/Green
37
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.24
0.90
0.95 0.90 0.20
0.05 0.20 0.80
0.98 0.800.80
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00 0.33
0.00
GLCM
38
dark
objects
39
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
37
0.70
0.90
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.24
38
GLCMratio
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
14.00
16.00
2.00
15.00
0.50
0.77
1.27
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
Bare
Red/Green
37
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.24
39
38
GLCMratio
Bare earth/rock
earth/rock
37
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.24
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
Red/Green
ratio
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
14.00
16.00
2.00
15.00
0.50
0.77
1.27
Dissimilarity
39
38
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
14.00
16.00
2.00
15.00
0.50
0.77
1.27
Bare earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
37
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.88
0.33
0.09
0.24
38
GLCM
Dissimilarity
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
Red/Green
ratio
39ratio
38
GLCM
Dissimilarity
39
3.00
4.00 0.95 0.05
1.00 0.05 0.98
3.50 0.9814.00
14.00
16.00
2.00
15.00
0.50
0.77 0.00
1.27
0.90
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
Red/Green
GLCMratio
38
0.90
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98 0.00
0.00--0.00
Distance
to Red/Green
39
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
Red/Green
ratio
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
16.00
2.00
15.00
0.50
0.77
1.27
40
38
GLCM
Dissimilarity
Guano
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
14.00
16.00
2.00
15.00
0.50
0.77
1.27
Distance
to
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1000.0
950.00
525.00
0.53
0.38
0.91
39
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
-Red/Green
ratio
40
Dissimilarity
GLCM
38
Distance
to
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
14.00
16.00
2.00
15.00
0.50
0.77
1.27
Guano
39
Dissimilarity
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1000.0
950.00
525.00
0.53
0.38
0.91
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
Red/Green
ratio
GLCM
coastline
(m)
40
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
14.00
16.00
2.00
15.00
0.50
0.77
1.27
39
Guano
GLCM
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1000.0
950.00
525.00
0.53
0.38
0.91
Dissimilarity
Distance
to
coastline
(m)
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
14.00
16.00
2.00
15.00
0.50
0.77
1.27
39
40
GLCM
Dissimilarity
Distance
to
GLCM
39
Guano
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
14.00
16.00
2.00
15.00
0.50
1.27
coastline
40
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00 14.00
1000.0
950.00
525.00
0.53
0.38
0.91
Distance
to
Dissimilarity
GLCM(m)
39
3.00
4.00
1.00 1.00 725.00
3.50
14.00
16.00
2.00
15.00
0.50
0.77
1.27
Guano
40
3.00 1500.00
16.00
2.00
15.00 0.77
0.77--1.27
50.00
1000.0
950.00
525.00
0.53
0.38
0.91
41
Dissimilarity
Guano
Distance
to
coastline
(m)
GLCM
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50 4.00 1450.00
3.00 3.5050.00
0.50
2.00
1.50
1.25
0.33
1.40 0.50
1.73
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1000.0
950.00
525.00
0.53
0.38
0.91
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
14.00
16.00
2.00
15.00
0.50
0.77
1.27
40
Dissimilarity
Dissimilarity
39
Guano
41
coastline
(m)
Distance
to
Guano
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1000.0
950.00
525.00
0.53
0.38
0.91
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
3.00
0.50
2.00
1.50
1.25
0.33
1.40
1.73
40
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
14.00
16.00
2.00
15.00
0.50
0.77
1.27
-coastline
(m)
Distance
to
Dissimilarity
41
Guano
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1000.0
950.00
525.00
0.53
0.38
0.91
40
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
0.50
2.00
1.50
1.25
0.33
1.40
1.73
Distance
to
coastline
(m)
Dissimilarity
Guano
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1000.0
950.00
525.00
0.53
0.38
0.91
-40
41
Distance
to
coastline
(m)
Guano
40
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
0.50
2.00
1.50
1.25
0.33
1.40
1.73
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1000.0
950.00
525.00
0.53
0.38
0.91
41
Distance
to
Distance
to
coastline
(m)
Guano
42
50.00
50.00
1000.0
950.00
525.00
0.53
0.38
0.91
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
0.50
2.00
1.50
1.25
0.33
1.40
1.73
41
40
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.001450.00725.00
12.00
inactive
coastline
(m)
Guano
Border
contrast
2.50
3.501500.001450.00
1.00
3.00 725.00
0.50
2.00
1.50
1.25
0.33
1.40
1.73
50.00 1500.00
50.00
1000.0
950.00
525.00
0.53
0.38--0.91
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1000.0
950.00
525.00
0.53
0.38
0.91
Distance
to
42
41
coastline
(m)
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
inactive
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
0.50
2.00
1.50
1.25
0.33
1.40
1.73
-coastline40
(m)
Guano
42
41
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1000.0
950.00
525.00
0.53
0.38
0.91
coastline
(m)
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
inactive
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
0.50
2.00
1.50
1.25
0.33
1.40
1.73
41
coastline
(m)
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
0.50
2.00
1.50
1.25
0.33
1.40
1.73
42
41
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
inactive
42
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
0.50
2.00
1.50
1.25
0.33
1.40
1.73
NDWINormalized
difference water41
index, NDVINormalized
GLCMGray
level
matrix.
For
GLCM
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
--- co-occurrence
----a fuzzy
-- membership
-inactive
42
Border Contrast
contrast
2.50difference
3.50 vegetation
1.00
3.00
0.50
2.00
1.50
1.25
0.33
1.40
1.73
41
GLCM
10.00
14.00
4.00 index,
12.00
inactive
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index, NDVINormalized
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
fuzzy
membership
42
Border Contrast
contrast
2.50
3.50 3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.50
1.25
0.33
1.40
1.73
Border
contrast
2.50
1.00
3.000.50
0.50
2.00
1.50
0.33
1.40-1.73
GLCM
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
-- co-occurrence
----1.25
-- membership
-inactive
41
42
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
difference
index,
GLCMGray
level
matrix.
For
aa fuzzy
Border Contrast
contrast
2.50
3.50 vegetation
1.00
3.00
0.50
2.00
1.50
1.25
0.33
1.40
1.73
GLCM
Contrast
14.00
4.00
12.00
inactive
42
function
describing
property
lower
border,
upper 10.00
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
a-- denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
GLCM Contrast
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00 index,
12.00
- rr and
-aa fuzzy
- membership
-ruleset,
inactive
NDWINormalized
differencep:
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
fuzzy
membership
42
function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
and
a
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
GLCM
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
inactive
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
42
NDWINormalized
differencep:water
index,border,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
Forand
GLCM Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00 index,
12.00
- r and
- denote
-a fuzzy
- membership
-ruleset, inactive
function
describing
property
lower
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
a
reference
ruleset
adapted
42
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
fuzzy
respectively.
GLCM Contrast
14.00
4.00 index,
12.00
- denote
-a
- membership
-ruleset, inactive
42
function
describing
property
p:water
lower
border,
upper 10.00
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
and
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
GLCM Contrast
14.00
4.00 4.00
12.00
-a
- membership
respectively.
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
12.00 - rrr and
- aa-a denote
- reference
-ruleset
- -ruleset,
inactive
function
describing
property
p:
lower
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
adapted
NDWINormalized
difference
index,border,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
co-occurrence
matrix.
Forand
a-fuzzy
fuzzy
membership
function
describing
property
p:water
lower
border,
upper 10.00
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
andlevel
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset, inactive

respectively.
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
aa fuzzy
membership
function
describing
lower
upper
vrange,
amean.
rr and
aa denote
reference
ruleset
adapted
ruleset,
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
membership
respectively.
function
describing property
property
p:water
lower
border,
upper border,
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
and
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
NDWINormalized
differencep:
water
index,border,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,Subscripts
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
Forand
a fuzzy
fuzzy
membership
respectively.

function describing
describing property
p: lower
lower
border,
upper border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
and aa denote
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,Subscripts
GLCMGray
co-occurrence
matrix.
Formatrix.
a fuzzy
membership
function
p:
border,
upper
vrange,
amean.
rrr and
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
For
a fuzzy
respectively.
function
describing property
property
p:water
lower
border,
upper border,
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
andlevel
a denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,membership function describing
respectively.
function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
rr and
aa denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
and
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
r
and
a
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
respectively.
respectively.
respectively.

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
Base
level
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Level
I1
Level
I1
Level
I1
Level
Level
I1I1
Level
Level
Level
I1
Level
I1I1
Level
Level
I1
Level
Level
I1
Level
I1I1I1I1

Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
Top
level
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Level
ILevel
Level
ILevel
Level
ILevel
Level
I ILevel
ILevel
III I I I
Level
ILevel
Level
Level
ILevel

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x

Remote Sens.
Sens. 2016,
2016, 8,
8, xx
Remote
Remote Sens.
Sens. 2016,
2016, 8,
8, xx
Remote
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
xxx
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
Remote Sens.
Sens. 2016,
2016, 8,
8, x
xx
Remote
Remote Sens.
Sens. 2016,
2016, 8,
8, xx
Remote
Remote
Sens. 2016,
8, x

16 of 29

16 of 29
16 of
of 29
29
16
16 of
of 29
29
16
Table 7. Ruleset adaptation from HOPE to PAUL.
16
of
29
16
of
29
Table 7. Ruleset adaptation from HOPE to PAUL.
16
of
29
Table
7.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
PAUL.
16
of
29
Table 7. Ruleset adaptation from HOPE to PAUL.
16 of
of 29
29
16
Table 7. Ruleset
Ruleset adaptation
adaptation from
from HOPE
HOPE to PAUL.
PAUL.
16 of
of 29
29
Table
16
Deviations16
Table 7.
7. Ruleset
Ruleset
adaptation
from Ruleset
HOPE to
to PAUL.
PAUL.
Deviations
of 29
Deviations
Table
7.
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
Parameters
of
the
Master
Parameters
of
the
Adapted
Ruleset
Image Object Image Object
Parameters
of
the
Adapted
Ruleset
Parameters
of
the
Master
Ruleset
Membership
Deviations Type Fa
Table
7.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
PAUL.
b
Parameters
of
the
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of
the
Adapted
Ruleset
Image
Object
Membership
Type
F
Property
Class
Table
7.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
PAUL.
bDeviations Type bFa
Parameters
of the Master
Ruleset
Parameters of the Adapted Ruleset
Image
Object
Table
7.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
PAUL.
Membership
Type
F
Type Fa
Type
F
Deviations
Class
Property
Function
b
a
Table
7.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
PAUL.
Deviations
Parameters
of the Master
Master
Ruleset
Parameters of
of the Adapted
Adapted Ruleset
Ruleset
Membership
Type FDeviations
Type F a
Image
Object (Feature/Variable)
Table 7.
7. Ruleset
Ruleset
adaptation
from Ruleset
HOPE to
to PAUL.
PAUL.
Class
Property
Function
Parameters
of
Parameters
Image
Object
Add/Remove/
b
Table
adaptation
from
HOPE
Parameters
of the
the Master
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of the
the Adapted
Adapted
Ruleset
Class
Property
Membership
Type
FbbDeviations
Type FFaa
Image
Object
Function
Table
7. Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
Add/Remove/
(Feature/Variable)
Membership
Type
Parameters
r
r of
vr vRuleset
rto PAUL.

a
aof
va
aa
va Type
a F
F
the
Parameters
the
Ruleset
Image
Object
Deviations
Function
Class
Property
Membership
Type
F
Type
F

v
v
a
F
Add/Remove/Change
Add/Remove/
r
r
r
r
a
a
a
a
(Feature/Variable)
b
a
Parameters
of
the
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of
the
Adapted
Ruleset
Image
Object

r
v
r

a
v
a
a
a
v
a
F
Class
Property
Change
Deviations
Membership
Type
F
(Feature/Variable)
Parameters
of the
the Master
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of the
the Adapted
Adapted
Ruleset
b
a
Function
Class
Property
Image
Object
Parameters
r
r of
vr Ruleset
r

a
aof
va
aa
v Type
a F
F
Add/Remove/
Change
Membership
Type
FDeviations
Type
F
Function
Deviations
Add/Remove/
Parameters
Ruleset
Class
Property
Image
Object
b
Deviations
(Feature/Variable)
Function
Parameters
Ruleset
Membership
Type
Type F
Faa
Image
Object
Change
Add/Remove/
Parameters
r
r of
vr Ruleset
r

a
aof
va
aa
v Type
a FFDeviations
F
b
Class
Property
(Feature/Variable)

v
a
v
a
F
Parameters
of the
the Master
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of the
the Adapted
Adapted
Ruleset
Snow/Wave Snow/Wave
Function
Membership
Type
Image
Object
b
Add/Remove/
43
(Feature/Variable)
Class
Property
Parameters
of
the
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of
the
Adapted
Ruleset
Membership
Type
Type
FFaaa
Image
Object
Change
Parameters
r
rrr of
vrrr 20.0
rrr 90.040.00

a
aaaof
vaaa
aaaa
v
a F
F
b 1.00
Function
Add/Remove/
Snow/Wave
Change
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
50.00
10.00
50.00
1.00
0.80
1.80
(Feature/Variable)
Class
Property
Membership
Type
F
Type
the
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
the
Adapted
Ruleset
Brightness
80.0
100.0
40.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
0.80
1.80
b

v
a
v
a
F
Image
Object
43
Function
Class
Property
Membership
Type
F
Type
F
Change
Add/Remove/
Snow/Wave
(Feature/Variable)
b 1.80
a

vr

va
aa
v
a
F
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
40.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
1.00
0.80
43
crest/Cloud crest/Cloud
Function
Class
Property
Change
Add/Remove/
Membership
Type
(Feature/Variable)
Function
Class
Property
rrr
rrr
rrr
aaa
aaa
v Type
a F 1.80
F
Add/Remove/
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
40.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
1.00
0.80
-- F
Snow/Wave
Change
crest/Cloud
43
Top
level
(Feature/Variable)
Function
Snow/Wave

vvrrr

vvaaa
aaaaa
v
a
F
Add/Remove/
Class
Property
(Feature/Variable)
43
Function
Change

r
v

a
v
a
v
a
F
crest/Cloud
Add/Remove/
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
40.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
1.00
0.80
1.80
Snow/Wave
43
(Feature/Variable)
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
40.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
1.00
0.80
1.80
Change
Function

r
v
r

a
v
a
a
a
v
a
F
Add/Remove/
Snow/Wave
(Feature/Variable)
44
Land
Ratio red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.80
1.00
0.20
0.90
0.25
0.03
0.28
Change
rr
rr
vrr
rr
aa
aa
vaa
aaa
v
a
F
crest/Cloud
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
40.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
1.00
0.80
1.80
43
Level
I
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
Change
(Feature/Variable)
Brightness
80.0
20.0
90.0
50.00
10.00
50.00
1.00
0.80
1.80

v
a
v
a
F
44
43
Land
Ratio red
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.80
1.00
0.20
0.90
0.25
0.03
0.28
Land
Ratio red
0.85 100.0
1.00
0.15 0.93
0.9340.00
0.80
1.00
0.20
0.90 0.03
0.25
0.03-0.28
Change
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
40.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
1.00
0.80
1.80
43
44
Land
Ratio
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.80
1.00
0.20
0.90
0.25
0.28
crest/Cloud
Change
Snow/Wave
43
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
40.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
1.00
0.80
1.80
-Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
43
44
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.80
1.00
0.20
0.90
0.25
0.03
0.28
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
40.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
1.00
0.80
1.80
Snow/Wave
45
44
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.80
1.00
0.20
0.90
0.25
0.03
0.28
crest/Cloud
43
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
40.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
1.00
0.80
1.80
Snow/Wave
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
0.09
1.09
43
44
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.80
1.00
0.20
0.90
0.25
0.03
0.28
crest/Cloud
45
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
40.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
1.00
0.80
1.80
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
0.09
1.09
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
40.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
1.00
0.80
1.80
44
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.80
1.00
0.20
0.90
0.25
0.03
0.28
43
45
crest/Cloud
Brightness
80.0
20.0
50.00
10.00
50.00
1.00
1.80
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
0.09
1.09
44
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.80
1.00
0.20
0.90
0.25
0.03
0.28
Water
NDWI
0.40 100.0
0.60
0.20 90.0
0.5040.00
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55 0.80
1.00
0.09-1.09
crest/Cloud
45
44
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.80
1.00
0.20
0.90
0.25
0.03
0.28
crest/Cloud
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
45
44
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.80
1.00
0.20
0.90
0.25
0.03
0.28
Water
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
45
46
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.00
0.07
0.07
44
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.80
1.00
0.20
0.90
0.25
0.03
0.28
--Water
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
45
44
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.80
1.00
0.20
0.90
0.25
0.03
0.28
46
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.00
0.07
0.07
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
44
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.80
1.00
0.20
0.90
0.25
0.03
0.28
45
46
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.00
0.07
0.07
Water
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
44
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.80
1.00
0.20
0.90
0.25
0.03
0.28
45
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
45
Snow/Wave
46
Shadows
0.15
0.40 0.40
0.25 0.25 0.50
0.28 0.280.50
0.10
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.00
0.07 0.00
0.07
ShadowsNDWI
NDWI
0.15
0.10
0.50
0.40
0.30 0.09
0.07--0.07
47
45
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
46
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.00
0.07
0.07
Water
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
1.09
Snow/Wave
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
85.00
90.00
5.00
88.00
0.32
1.32
45
46
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.00
0.07
0.07
47
Water
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
45
Snow/Wave
46
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.00
0.07
0.07
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
85.00
90.00
5.00
88.00
0.32
1.32
Water
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
47
crest/Cloud
45
46
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.00
0.07
0.07
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
0.55
1.00
0.09
1.09
-Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
85.00
90.00
5.00
88.00
0.32
1.32
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
47
Snow/Wave
46
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.00
0.07
0.07
Snow/Wave
47
crest/Cloud
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
85.00
90.00
5.00
88.00
1.00
0.32
1.32
Snow/Wave
46
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.00
0.07
0.07
47
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
90.00
5.00
88.00
1.00
0.32
1.32
46
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.10
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.00
0.07
Snow/Wave
Brightness
55.0
85.00
90.00
5.00
88.00 0.07
0.32-1.32
48
crest/Cloud
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
85.00
90.00
5.00
88.00
1.00
0.32
1.32
47
46
Shadows
0.15
0.40 65.0
0.25 10.0 0.28
0.28 60.085.00
0.10
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.00
0.07 1.00
0.07
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.55
0.05
0.53
1.00
0.66
1.66
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
46
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.00
0.07
0.07
crest/Cloud
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
85.00
90.00
5.00
88.00
1.00
0.32
1.32
48
47
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
Water
0.30
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.55
0.05
0.53
1.00
0.66
1.66
46
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.00
0.07
0.07
--Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
85.00
90.00
5.00
88.00
0.32
1.32
47
48
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.55
0.05
0.53
1.00
0.66
1.66
47
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
85.00
90.00
5.00
88.00
0.32
1.32
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
47
48
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
85.00
90.00
5.00
88.00
1.00
0.32
1.32
Snow/Wave
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.55
0.05
0.53
0.66
1.66
48
crest/Cloud
47
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
90.00
5.00
88.00
1.00
0.32
1.32
Snow/Wave
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.55
0.05
0.53
1.00
0.66
1.66
47
48
49
crest/Cloud
Brightness
55.0
65.0 0.40
10.0 0.10 60.0
60.0 0.3585.00
85.00
90.00
5.00
88.00
0.32 1.00
1.32
Snow/Wave
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.55
0.05
0.53
0.66
1.66
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.02
0.16
0.00
0.19
0.19
crest/Cloud
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.50
0.55
0.05
0.53 0.32
0.66--1.66
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
85.00
90.00
5.00
88.00
1.00
0.32
1.32
48
47
49
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.55
0.05
0.53
1.00
0.66
1.66
crest/Cloud
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
85.00
90.00
5.00
88.00
1.32
48
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.02
0.16
0.00
0.19
0.19
crest/Cloud
49
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.55
0.05
0.53
1.00
0.66
1.66
48
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.02
0.16
0.00
0.19
0.19
--crest/Cloud
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.55
0.05
0.53
1.00
0.66
1.66
48
49
48
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.55
0.05
0.53
1.00
0.66
1.66
-Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.02
0.16
0.00
0.19
0.19
49
Shadows/small
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.55
0.05
0.53
1.00
0.66
1.66
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.02
0.16
0.00
0.19
0.19
48
49
50
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.55
0.05
0.53
1.00
0.66
1.66
48
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.02
0.16
0.00
0.19
0.19
Shadows/small
49
NDWI
0.15
0.25
0.28
0.08
0.45
0.37
0.27
0.32
0.04
0.36
Water
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.50
0.55
0.05
0.53
1.00
0.66
1.66
50
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.02
0.16
0.00
0.19
0.19
NDVI48
0.12
0.14
0.02 0.35
0.130.50
0.15
0.17
0.02
0.16 0.66
0.00
0.19--0.19
Shadows/small
49
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.55
0.05
0.53
1.00
1.66
0.15
0.25
0.28
0.08
0.45
0.37
0.27
0.32
0.04
0.36
50
dark
objects Vegetation
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.02
0.16
0.00
0.19
0.19
49
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.08
0.45
0.37
0.27
0.32
0.04
0.36
Shadows/small
Base
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.02
0.16
0.00
0.19
0.19
dark
objects
49
50
Shadows/small
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.02
0.16
0.00
0.19
0.19
49
50
dark
objects
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.08
0.45
0.37
0.27
0.32
0.04
0.36
Shadows/small
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.02
0.16
0.00
0.19
0.19
49
50
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.08
0.45
0.37
0.27
0.32
0.04
0.36
Shadows/small
Vegetation
NDVI ratio
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.02
0.16
0.19
0.19
level
49
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
51
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.00
0.06
0.06
dark
objects
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.08
0.45
0.37
0.27
0.32
0.04
0.36
50
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.02
0.16
0.00
0.19
0.19
Shadows/small
49
Shadows/small
dark
objects
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.08
0.45
0.37
0.27
0.32
0.04
0.36
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
51
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.06
0.06
50
Vegetation
NDVI ratio
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.17
0.02
0.16
0.00
0.19
dark
objects
Shadows/small
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25 0.13
0.280.15
0.08
0.45
0.37
0.27 0.19
0.32
0.04--0.36
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.08
0.45
0.37
0.27
0.32
0.04
0.36
50
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
51
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.00
0.06
0.06
Level
I1objects
dark
Shadows/small
50
NDWIratio
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.08
0.45
0.37
0.27
0.32
0.04
0.36
Shadows/small
dark Red/Green
objects
dark
objects
50
Bare
earth/rock
ratio
51
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.00
0.06
0.06
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.08
0.45
0.37
0.27
0.32
0.04
0.36
Shadows/small
52
Bare
earth/rock
51
0.70
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.06
0.06
dark
objects
50
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.08
0.45
0.37
0.27
0.32
0.04
0.36
--Shadows/small
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
1.00
1.10
0.05
1.05
0.00
0.07
0.07
Red/Green
50
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
51
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.00
0.06
0.06
52
dark
objects
NDWIratio
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.08
0.45
0.37
0.27
0.32
0.04
0.36
Shadows/small
0.95
0.05
0.98
1.00
1.10
0.05
1.05
0.07
0.07
dark
objects
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.08
0.45
0.37
0.27
0.32
0.04
0.36
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
51
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.00
0.06
0.06
50
52
dark
objects
NDWIratio
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.08
0.45
0.37
0.27
0.32
0.04
0.36
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
1.00
1.10
0.05
1.05
0.00
0.07
0.07
Red/Green
Bare
earth/rock
51
0.70
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.06
0.06
dark
objects
52ratio
Bare earth/rock
0.70
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85 0.06
0.06-0.06
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratioRed/Green51
51
0.70
0.90 0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.00
0.06
0.06
dark
objects
0.95
0.05 0.20 0.80
0.98 0.800.75
1.00
1.10
0.05
1.05
0.07 0.00
0.07
52
GLCMratio
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.00
0.06
0.95
0.05
0.98
1.00
1.10
0.05
1.05
0.07
0.07
52
53
Bare
Red/Green
51
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.00
0.06
0.06
-0.95
0.05
0.98
1.00
1.10
0.05
1.05
0.07
0.07
GLCMratio
52
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.8
2.00
0.20
1.90
4.00
0.84
4.84
Bare earth/rock
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
51
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.85
0.00
0.06
0.06
53
0.95
0.05
0.98
1.00
1.10
0.05
1.05
0.07
0.07
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
51
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.00
0.06
0.06
-GLCM
52
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.8
2.00
0.20
1.90
4.00
0.84
4.84
53
Dissimilarity
0.95
0.05
0.98
1.00
1.10
0.05
1.05
0.07
0.07
Bare earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
51
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.85
0.00
0.06
0.06
52
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.8
2.00
0.20
1.90
4.00
0.84
4.84
GLCM
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
1.00
1.10
0.05
1.05
0.00
0.07
0.07
Red/Green
ratio
Dissimilarity
52
53ratio
GLCM
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
1.00
1.10
0.05
1.05
0.00
0.07
0.07
Red/Green
ratio Red/Green52
53
0.95
1.00
1.10
0.05
1.05 0.07
0.07--0.07
Dissimilarity
3.00
4.00 0.90
1.00 0.05 0.98
3.50 0.981.00
1.8
2.00
0.20
1.90
4.00
0.84 0.00
4.84
GLCMratio
0.95
0.90
0.05
1.10
0.05
1.05
0.00
0.07
Red/Green
52
53
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.8
2.00
0.20
1.90
4.00
0.84
4.84
Distance
to
GLCM
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
1.00
1.10
0.05
1.05
0.00
0.07
0.07
Red/Green
ratio
52
54
Dissimilarity
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.8
2.00
0.20
1.90
4.00
0.84
4.84
53
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
1.00
1.10
0.05
1.05
0.00
0.07
0.07
Red/Green
ratio
Guano
Distance
to
GLCM
52
Dissimilarity
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1200.00
1150.00
625.00
0.30
0.16
0.46
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.8
2.00
0.20
1.90
4.00
0.84
4.84
54
53
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
1.00
1.10
0.05
1.05
0.00
0.07
0.07
--Red/Green
ratio
Dissimilarity
GLCM(m)
Distance
to
Guano
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1200.00
1150.00
625.00
0.30
0.16
0.46
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.8
2.00
0.20
1.90
4.00
0.84
4.84
53
54
coastline
Dissimilarity
GLCM
Guano
53
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.8
2.00
0.20
1.90
4.00
0.84
4.84
GLCM
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1200.00
1150.00
625.00
0.30
0.16
0.46
Distance
to
coastline
(m)
Dissimilarity
GLCM
53
54
Distance
to
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.8
2.00
0.20
1.90
4.00
0.84
4.84
GLCM(m)
Guano
54
Dissimilarity
53
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.8
2.00
0.20
1.90
4.00
4.84
coastline
GLCM
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1200.00
1150.00
625.00
0.30
0.16 4.00
0.46
Distance
to
3.00 1500.00
1.8
2.00
0.20
1.90 0.84
0.84--4.84
Guano
53
54
50.00
1200.00
1150.00
625.00
0.30
0.16
0.46
Dissimilarity
3.00
4.00 4.00 1450.00
1.00 1.00 725.00
3.50 3.5050.00
1.8
2.00
0.20
1.90
4.00
0.84
4.84
Distance
to
GLCM
Guano
55
Dissimilarity
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.8
2.00
0.20
1.90
4.00
0.84
4.84
coastline
(m)
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1200.00
1150.00
625.00
0.30
0.16
0.46
54
Dissimilarity
53
Guano
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
Distance
to
Guano
coastline
(m)
Dissimilarity
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1200.00
1150.00
625.00
0.30
0.16
0.46
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.8
2.00
0.20
1.90
4.00
0.84
4.84
---55
54
Dissimilarity
coastline
(m)
Distance
to
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
Guano
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1200.00
1150.00
625.00
0.30
0.16
0.46
54
55
coastline
(m)
Distance
to
Dissimilarity
Guano
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
54
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1200.00
1150.00
625.00
0.30
0.16
0.46
Distance
to
coastline
(m)
54
Guano
55
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1200.00
1150.00
625.00
0.30
0.16
0.46
Distance
to
Distance54
Guano
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25 0.30
1.00
55
coastline
(m)
54to
50.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1200.00
1150.00
625.00
0.30
0.46
Distance
to
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
Guano
55
56
50.00 1500.00
50.00
1200.00
1150.00
625.00 0.16
0.16--0.46
coastline
(m)
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1200.00
1150.00
625.00
0.30
0.16
0.46
Distance
to
Guano
Border
contrast
2.50
3.501500.001450.00
1.001450.00725.00
3.00 725.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
8.00
2.00
7.00
1.00
0.71
1.71
coastline
(m)
50.00
1500.00
50.00
1200.00
1150.00
625.00
0.30
0.16
0.46
55
56
coastline54
(m)
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
Guano
coastline
(m)
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1200.00
1150.00
625.00
0.30
0.16
0.46
-55
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
8.00
2.00
7.00
1.00
0.71
1.71
coastline
(m)
56
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
55
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
8.00
2.00
7.00
1.00
0.71
1.71
-coastline
(m)
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
55
56
55
Border Contrast
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
8.00
2.00
7.00
1.00
0.71
1.71
56
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
GLCM
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
8.00
2.00
7.00
1.00
0.71
1.71
55
56
NDWINormalized
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
GLCMGray
level
matrix.
a4.00
fuzzy
membership
Borderdifference
contrast Border
2.50
3.50vegetation
1.00 index,
3.00
2.00
6.00co-occurrence
4.00
4.00 For
0.75
0.25
1.00
55
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
8.00
2.00
7.00
1.00
0.71
1.71
56
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.75
0.25
1.00
contrast
2.50 14.00
3.50
1.00
3.002.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
0.75
0.25--1.00
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,12.00
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For0.75
fuzzy
membership
55
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
2.00
7.00
1.00
0.71
1.71
56
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
0.25
1.00
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
aa fuzzy
membership
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
8.00
2.00
7.00
1.00
0.71
1.71
-56 border,
GLCMproperty
Contrast p:water
10.00
14.00vegetation
4.00 index,
12.00
6.00
8.00
2.00
7.00
1.00
0.71
1.71
function
describing
lower
upper border,
vrange,
amean.
r andlevel
a denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
56
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,Subscripts
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For1.00
a fuzzy
fuzzy
membership
56
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
8.00
2.00
7.00
1.00
0.71
1.71
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
a
membership
function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
r
and
a
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
8.00
2.00
7.00
0.71
1.71
--56 border,
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,Subscripts
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For1.00
a fuzzy
fuzzy
membership
GLCMproperty
Contrast p:water
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
8.00
2.00
7.00
1.00
0.71
1.71
56
function
describing
lower
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
r
and
a
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
a
membership
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
6.00
8.00
2.00
7.00
0.71
1.71
56
respectively.
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
aa7.00
fuzzy
GLCMproperty
Contrast GLCM
10.00
14.0014.00
4.00 4.00
12.00
8.00
2.00
7.00
0.71membership
1.71
function describing
describing
property
p:water
lower
border,
upper border,
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
and6.00
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset, 0.71Contrast
10.00
12.006.00
8.00
2.00
1.00
1.71
function
p:
lower
upper
vrange,
amean.
rr and
aa denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,border,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,Subscripts
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For1.00
fuzzy
membership
respectively.

function describing
describing property
property
p:water
lower
border,
upper border,
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
and
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
NDWINormalized
differencep:
index,border,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,Subscripts
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
Forand
fuzzy
membership
respectively.
function
lower
upper
vrange,
amean.
rrr and
aaa denote
reference
ruleset
adapted
ruleset,
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
aaa fuzzy
membership
NDWINormalized
differencep:water
water
index,border,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,Subscripts
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
Forand
fuzzy
membership
function
describing property
lower
upper border,
vrange,
amean.
and
denote
reference
ruleset
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
a fuzzy
membership

respectively.
function describing
describing property
property
p:water
lower
border,
upper border,
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
and
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,Subscripts
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
Forand
a fuzzy
membership
respectively.
function
p:
lower
border,
upper
vrange,
amean.
rr and
aa denote
reference
ruleset
adapted
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index, GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
aruleset,
fuzzy membership function describing
respectively.
function
function describing
describing property
property p:
p: lower
lower border,
border, upper
upper border,
border, vrange,
vrange, amean.
amean. Subscripts
Subscripts rrr and
and aaa denote
denote reference
reference ruleset
ruleset and
and adapted
adapted ruleset,
ruleset,
respectively.
function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
and
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
r
and
a
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
property
p: lower border, upper border, vrange, amean. Subscripts r and a denote reference ruleset and adapted ruleset, respectively.
respectively.
respectively.
respectively.
respectively.
respectively.

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

17 of 29

Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
Base
level
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
Base
level
level
Base
level
Base
level
Level
I1
Level
I1I1
Level
I1I1
Level
Level
Level
I1I1I1I1I1
Level
Level
I1
Level
I1
Level
Level
I1Level
Level
I1Level

Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
Top
level
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
Top
level
level
Top
level
Top
level
Level
ILevel
I ILevel
Level
I ILevel
II II I
Level
Level
ILevel
Level
ILevel
Level
I Level
Level
I Level

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x

17 of 29
Remote Sens.
Sens. 2016,
2016, 8,
8, xx
17 of
of 29
29
Remote
17
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
x
17 of
of 29
29
Table
8.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
SPIN.
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
x
17
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x
17 of 29
Table 8. Ruleset adaptation from HOPE to SPIN.
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
xx
17
of
29
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
17
of
29
Table
8.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
SPIN.
Remote Sens.
Sens. 2016,
2016, 8,
8, x
17 of
of 29
29
Table 8. Ruleset adaptation from HOPE to SPIN.
Remote
17
Table 8.
8. Ruleset
Ruleset adaptation
adaptation from
from HOPE
HOPE to
to SPIN.
SPIN.
Remote
Sens. 2016,
8, xx
17
of 29
Deviations
Table
Remote
Sens.
2016,
8,
x
17
of
29
Deviations
Image
Object
Table 8.
8. Ruleset
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to SPIN.
SPIN.
Deviations17 of 29
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x Image Object
Parameters
of the
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of the Adapted
Parameters
of the Ruleset
Adapted Ruleset
Parameters
of the
Master
Ruleset
Membership
Table
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
Parameters
of the
the
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of the
the Adapted
Adapted
Ruleset
Image Object
Object
Membership
Type FbbDeviations
Type Fbaa
Table 8.
8. Ruleset
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to SPIN.
SPIN.
Property
Class Image
Parameters
of
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of
Ruleset
Deviations
Table
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
Membership
Type
F
Type
F
Class
Property
Type Fa
Type
F
Function
b
a
Table 8.
8. Ruleset
Ruleset
adaptation
from Ruleset
HOPE to
to SPIN.
SPIN.
Deviations
Membership
Type F Deviations
Type F
Parameters
of the
the Master
Master
Parameters of
of the
the Adapted
Adapted Ruleset
Ruleset
Image
Object (Feature/Variable)
Class
Property
Table
adaptation
from
HOPE
Function
Add/Remove/
b
Parameters
of
Ruleset
Parameters
Image
Object
Class
Property
Table 8.
8. Ruleset
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to SPIN.
SPIN.
Membership
Type
Type FFaa
Function
Parameters
of
the Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of the
Adapted
Ruleset
(Feature/Variable)
Add/Remove/
Image
Object
Parameters
r
r of
vr vRuleset
rto
a
aof
va
aa
v a Type
a FFbbDeviations
F
Deviations
Table
adaptation
from
HOPE
Membership
Type
Function
a

v
v
a
F
Add/Remove/Change
Add/Remove/
the
Master
Parameters
the
Adapted
Ruleset
Class
Property
Image
Object
r
r
r
r
a
a
a
a
(Feature/Variable)
Membership
Type
F
Type
F

r
v
r

a
v
a
a
a
v
a
F
Deviations
Change
Parameters
of the
the Master
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of the
the Adapted
Adapted
Ruleset
a
Image
Object
Class
Property
(Feature/Variable)
Deviations
Parameters
r
r of
vr
r
a
aof
va
aa
v Type
a FFbDeviations
F
Function
Membership
Type
Add/Remove/
Change
Class
Property
b
Ruleset
Parameters
Ruleset
Image
Object
Membership
Type
Type FF
Faa
Function
Add/Remove/
Change
Parameters
of the
the Master
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of the
the Adapted
Adapted
Ruleset
(Feature/Variable)
Class
Property
Image
Object
Parameters
r
rr of
vrr Ruleset
rr
aa
aaof
vaa
aaa
v Type
a FbbDeviations
F
Function
Add/Remove/
Membership
Type
Snow/Wave Snow/Wave
Parameters
Ruleset
Image
Object
Class
Property
(Feature/Variable)
57

v
a
v
a
F
Function
Membership
Type
FbDeviations
Type
Faa
Change
Parameters
the Master
Ruleset
Parameters
Ruleset
Add/Remove/
(Feature/Variable)

r80.0

r of
v
r 20.0

aof the Adapted

v
a
a
a
v
a
F
Snow/Wave
Class
Property
Image
Object
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
30.00
40.00
10.00
35.00
1.00
1.56
2.56
100.0
90.0
30.00
40.00
10.00
35.00
1.00
1.56
2.56
Brightness
Membership
Type
F
Type
F
Function
57
Add/Remove/
b
a
Change
(Feature/Variable)
Class
Property
b
a
Parameters
of
the
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of
the
Adapted
Ruleset
Snow/Wave
Image
Object

rr
vvrr

aa
vvaa
aaaa
v
a
F
Change
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
30.00
40.00
10.00
35.00
1.00
1.56
2.56
Function
Membership
Type
Type
crest/Cloud crest/Cloud
57
Add/Remove/
Class
Property
(Feature/Variable)
rrr
rrr
aaa
v Type
a FFb 2.56
F
Function
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
30.00
40.00
10.00
35.00
1.00
1.56
-- FFa
Membership
Type
Change
Add/Remove/
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
(Feature/Variable)
Class
Property

rr
vrr

aa
vaa
aaa
v
a
F
Top
level
57
Function
Add/Remove/
Change
Snow/Wave
(Feature/Variable)
crest/Cloud
Class
Property

v
a
v
a
F
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
30.00
40.00
10.00
35.00
1.00
1.56
2.56
57
Function
Snow/Wave
Change
Add/Remove/
(Feature/Variable)

r
v
r

a
v
a
a
a
v
a
F
57
58
Land
Ratio red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
0.90
0.15
0.83
0.00
0.12
0.12
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
30.00
40.00
10.00
35.00
1.00
1.56
2.56
Function
Change
Add/Remove/
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
r
a
a
Level
I
(Feature/Variable)
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
30.00
40.00
10.00
35.00
1.00
1.56
2.56
-rrr0.85 100.0
rrr 1.00 20.0
rrr 0.9330.00
aaa
aaa
v0.83 1.56
a
F
57
Change
58
Land
Ratio red
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
0.90
0.15
0.83
0.00
0.12
0.12
Snow/Wave
Land
Ratio red
0.75
0.90
0.15
0.00
0.12
0.12
crest/Cloud
(Feature/Variable)

vvrr 0.15 90.0

vvaa
aaaa
v
a
F
Brightness
80.0
40.00
10.00
35.00
1.00
2.56
---57
crest/Cloud
Change
58
Land
Ratio
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
0.90
0.15
0.83
0.00
0.12
0.12
Snow/Wave
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
30.00
40.00
10.00
35.00
1.00
1.56
2.56
57
Change
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
30.00
40.00
10.00
35.00
1.00
1.56
2.56
57
58
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
0.90
0.15
0.83
0.00
0.12
0.12
59
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
57
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
30.00
40.00
10.00
35.00
1.56
2.56
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.45
0.55
0.10
0.48
1.00
0.04
1.04
Snow/Wave
58
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
0.90
0.15
0.83
0.00
0.12
0.12
crest/Cloud
59
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
30.00
40.00
10.00
35.00
1.00
1.56
2.56
--58
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
0.90
0.15
0.83
0.00
0.12
0.12
57
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.45
0.55
0.10
0.48
0.04
1.04
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
30.00
40.00
10.00
35.00
1.00
1.56
2.56
59
57
58
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
0.90
0.15
0.83
0.00
0.12
0.12
crest/Cloud
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.45
0.55
0.10
0.48
1.00
0.04
1.04
Water
NDWI
0.40 100.0
0.45
0.55
0.10
1.00
0.04
1.04
Brightness
80.0
40.00
10.00
35.00
1.00
2.56
---crest/Cloud
58
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00 0.60 20.0
0.15 0.20 90.0
0.93 0.5030.00
0.75
0.90
0.15
0.83
0.000.48 1.56
0.12
0.12
59
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.45
0.55
0.10
0.48
1.00
0.04
1.04
58
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
0.90
0.15
0.83
0.00
0.12
0.12
crest/Cloud
59
60
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.30
0.45
0.15
0.38
0.67
0.26
0.93
58
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
0.90
0.83
0.00
0.12
0.12
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.45
0.55
0.10
0.48
1.00
0.04
1.04
59
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.45
0.55
0.10
0.48
1.00
0.04
1.04
58
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
0.90
0.15
0.83
0.00
0.12
0.12
-60
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.30
0.45
0.38
0.67
0.26
0.93
59
0.15
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.45
0.55
0.10
0.48
1.00
0.04
1.04
58
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.75
0.90
0.83
0.00
0.12
0.12
60
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.30
0.45
0.15
0.38
0.67
0.26
0.93
59
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60 0.40 0.15
0.20 0.25 0.93
0.50 0.280.75
0.45
0.55
0.10
0.48
1.000.38 0.12
0.04
1.04
58
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.90
0.15
0.83
0.00
0.12
--59
Snow/Wave
60
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.30
0.45
0.15
0.38
0.67
0.26
0.93
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.30
0.45
0.15
0.67
0.26
0.93
Water
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.45
0.55
0.10
0.48
1.00
0.04
1.04
61
59
Snow/Wave
60
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.45
0.55
0.10
0.48
1.00
0.04
1.04
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.30
0.45
0.15
0.38
0.67
0.26
0.93
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
35.00
45.00
10.00
40.00
0.00
0.50
0.50
59
61
60
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.30
0.45
0.15
0.38
0.67
0.26
0.93
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.45
0.55
0.10
0.48
1.00
0.04
1.04
Snow/Wave
59
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
35.00
45.00
10.00
40.00
0.00
0.50
0.50
crest/Cloud
61
60
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.30
0.45
0.15
0.38
0.67
0.26
0.93
--Water
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.45
0.55
0.10
0.48
1.00
0.04
1.04
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
35.00
45.00
10.00
40.00
0.00
0.50
0.50
59
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
60
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.30
0.45
0.15
0.38
0.67
0.26
0.93
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.45
0.55
0.10
0.48
1.00
0.04
1.04
---61
Snow/Wave
60
crest/Cloud
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.30
0.45
0.15
0.38
0.67
0.26
0.93
Snow/Wave
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
35.00
45.00
10.00
40.00
0.00
0.50
0.50
61
Snow/Wave
60
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40 65.0
0.25 10.0 0.28
0.28 60.035.00
0.30
0.45
0.15
0.38
0.67
0.26
0.93
61
62
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
45.00
10.00
40.00
0.00
0.50
0.50
Brightness
55.0
35.00
45.00
10.00
40.000.26
0.00
0.50
0.50
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
60
Water
0.30
0.10
0.35
0.45
0.50
0.05
0.48
1.00
0.27
1.27
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.30
0.45
0.15
0.38
0.67
0.93
--Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
35.00
45.00
10.00
40.00
0.00
0.50
0.50
61
60
62
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.30
0.45
0.15
0.38
0.67
0.26
0.93
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
crest/Cloud
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
35.00
45.00
10.00
40.00
0.00
0.50
0.50
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.45
0.50
0.05
0.48
1.00
0.27
1.27
61
crest/Cloud
62
Snow/Wave
60
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.30
0.45
0.15
0.38
0.67
0.26
0.93
--Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
35.00
45.00
10.00
40.00
0.00
0.50
0.50
61
Water
0.30
0.10
0.35
0.45
0.50
0.05
0.48
1.00
0.27
1.27
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
35.00
45.00
10.00
40.00
0.00
0.50
0.50
61
62
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.45
0.50
0.05
0.48
1.00
0.27
1.27
61
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
35.00
45.00
10.00
40.00
0.00
0.50
0.50
62
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
63
61
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.45
0.50
0.05
0.48
1.00
0.27
1.27
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
35.00
45.00
10.00
40.00
0.00
0.50
0.50
--62
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.00
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.45
0.50
0.05
0.48
1.00
0.27
1.27
63
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.45
0.50
0.05
1.00
0.27
1.27
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
35.00
45.00
10.00
40.00
0.00
0.50
0.50
61
62
crest/Cloud
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14 0.40 10.0
0.02 0.10 60.0
0.13 0.3535.00
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.000.48 0.50
0.00
0.00
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.45
0.50
0.05
0.48
1.00
0.27
1.27
63
Brightness
55.0
65.0
45.00
10.00
40.00
0.00
0.50
--62
crest/Cloud
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.45
0.50
0.05
0.48
1.00
0.27
1.27
62
crest/Cloud
63
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.45
0.50
0.05
0.48
1.00
0.27
1.27
62
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
-Shadows/small
63
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.45
0.50
0.05
0.48
1.00
0.27
1.27
62
64
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
63
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.45
0.50
0.05
0.48
1.00
0.27
1.27
Shadows/small
0.15
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.45
0.35
0.28
0.29
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
62
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.45
0.50
0.05
0.48
1.00
0.27
1.27
64
63
Shadows/small
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.45
0.35
0.28
0.29
dark
objects Vegetation
64
NDVI62
0.12
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
63
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.05
0.48
1.00
1.27
---Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14 0.14 0.10
0.02 0.02 0.35
0.13 0.130.45
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.000.13 0.27
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.45
0.35
0.28
0.29
0.00
0.00
Shadows/small
63
Base
dark
objects
64
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
63
Shadows/small
dark
objects
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.45
0.35
0.28
0.29
64
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shadows/small
63
64
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
65
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.06
0.06
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.45
0.35
0.28
0.29
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
--level
dark
objects
Shadows/small
63
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.45
0.35
0.28
0.29
0.00
0.00
64
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
65
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.00
0.06
0.06
Shadows/small
dark
objects Shadows/small
63
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.45
0.35
0.28
0.29
64
Vegetation
NDVI ratio
0.12
0.14
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.00
0.00
--dark
objects
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
65
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.06
0.06
Shadows/small
Level
I1objects
NDWI
0.15
0.10
0.45
0.35
0.29
0.00
0.00
NDWI
0.15
0.40 0.40 0.02
0.25 0.25 0.13
0.28 0.280.12
0.10
0.45
0.35
0.28
0.290.28 0.00
0.00
0.00
64
dark
Shadows/small
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.45
0.35
0.28
0.29
0.00
0.00
64
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
65
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.00
0.06
0.06
objects
66
Shadows/small
dark
objects dark Red/Green
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.0
64
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.45
0.35
0.28
0.29
0.00
Shadows/small
Bare
earth/rock
ratio
65
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.00
0.06
0.06
dark
objects
66
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.45
0.35
0.28
0.29
0.00
0.00
--Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
65
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.00
0.06
0.06
64
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.0
dark
objects
Shadows/small
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.10
0.45
0.35
0.28
0.29
0.00
0.00
66
64
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
65
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.00
0.06
0.06
dark
objects
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.0
NDWI ratio
0.15
0.40
0.45
0.35
0.28
0.29
0.00
--Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratioRed/Green66
65ratio
0.70
0.90 0.90 0.25
0.20 0.20 0.28
0.80 0.800.10
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.000.85 0.00
0.06
0.06
dark
objectsBare earth/rock
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.0
Red/Green
0.70
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.00
0.06
0.06
Bare
earth/rock
65
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.20
0.85
0.06
0.06
GLCMratio
66
dark
objects
67
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.0
-Red/Green
Bare
earth/rock
65
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.20
0.85
0.06
0.06
66
GLCMratio
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.40
1.60
0.20
1.50
0.33
1.33
1.66
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.0
Bare
Red/Green
65
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.85
0.00
0.06
0.06
67
66
GLCM
Bare earth/rock
earth/rock
65
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.20
0.85
0.06
0.06
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.0
-Red/Green
ratio
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.40
1.60
1.50
0.33
1.33
1.66
Dissimilarity
67
66
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.0
Red/Green
ratio
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.40
1.60
1.50
0.33
1.33
1.66
Bare earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
65
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.75
0.95
0.20
0.85
0.00
0.06
0.06
GLCM
66
Dissimilarity
67
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.0
Red/Green
ratio
66
GLCM
Dissimilarity
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.40
1.60
0.20
1.50
0.33
1.33
1.66
67
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.0
Red/Green
ratio
GLCMratio
Distance
to Red/Green66
ratio
0.90
0.95
0.05 0.98
0.980.90
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
67
68
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.40
1.60
0.20
1.50
0.33
1.33
1.66
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.0
--Red/Green
66
Dissimilarity
GLCM
Guano
Distance
to
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.40
1.60
0.20
1.50
0.33
1.33
1.66
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
67
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.0
Red/Green
ratio
68
GLCM(m)
Dissimilarity
66
Distance
to
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.40
1.60
0.20
1.50
0.33
1.33
1.66
Guano
67
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.90
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.0
-Red/Green
ratio
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
Dissimilarity
coastline
68
GLCM
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.40
1.60
0.20
1.50
0.33
1.33
1.66
67
Guano
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Dissimilarity
GLCM(m)
Distance
to
coastline
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.40
1.60
0.20
1.50
0.33
1.33
1.66
67
68
GLCM
Dissimilarity
Distance
to
GLCM
Guano
coastline
67
3.00
4.00 4.00 1450.00
1.00
3.50 3.5050.00
1.40
1.60
0.20
1.50
0.33
1.33
1.66
50.00
1500.00
725.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.001.50 1.33
0.00
0.00
68
Distance
to
Dissimilarity
GLCM(m)
67
Guano
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.40
1.60
0.20
1.50
0.33
1.66
--68
3.00 1500.00
1.40
1.60
0.20
0.33
1.33
1.66
69
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Dissimilarity
coastline
(m)
GLCM
Distance
to
Guano
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00 1.00 725.00
3.00
inactive
50.00
1450.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
4.00
3.50
1.40
1.60
0.20
1.50
0.33
1.33
1.66
67
68
Dissimilarity
Dissimilarity
Guano
69
Distance
to
coastline
(m)
Guano
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
1.40
1.60
0.20
1.50
0.33
1.33
1.66
-50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
3.00
inactive
68
coastline
(m)
Dissimilarity
69
Distance
to
Guano
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
68
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
inactive
Dissimilarity
coastline
(m)
Distance
to
Guano
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
68
69
Distance
to
coastline
(m)
Guano
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
inactive
68
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Distance
to
69
Distance
to
coastline
(m)
70
Guano
Border
contrast
2.50
3.501500.001450.00
1.00
3.00 725.00
inactive
50.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
-69
68
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.001450.00725.00
12.00
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
coastline
(m)
Distance
to
50.00 1500.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
------725.000.00
--inactive
Guano
70
69
coastline
(m)
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Guano
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
-------inactive
coastline68
(m)
70
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
--coastline
(m)
69
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
inactive
69
coastline
(m)
70
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
inactive
69
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
70
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
inactive
69
NDWINormalized
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
GLCMGray
level
matrix.
For0.00
fuzzy
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00 index,12.00
12.00
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
70
Borderdifference
contrast water
2.50
3.50vegetation
1.00
3.00
- co-occurrence
-a
- membership
inactive
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
0.00
0.00
69
NDWINormalized
difference
watercontrast
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
a fuzzy
membership
70
Borderdifference
contrast Border
2.50
3.50vegetation
1.00 index,
3.00
inactive
2.50 14.00
3.50 1.00
1.00 12.00
3.0010.00
- -- co-occurrence
- -- 0.00
--inactive
69
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
4.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
0.00
0.00
NDWINormalized
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
GLCMGray
level
matrix.
For
70 border,
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
3.00
--r and
----a fuzzy
-- membership
--ruleset,
inactive
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00 index,
12.00
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
70
function
describing
property
p:water
lower
upper border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
a denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
a fuzzy
fuzzy
membership
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
70
function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
r
and
a
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
a
membership
70
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
a
fuzzy
membership
function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
r
and
a
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
70
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
aa fuzzy
respectively.
GLCMproperty
Contrast p:water
10.00
14.00vegetation
4.00 index,
12.00
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
0.00
0.00membership
0.00
70 border,
function
describing
lower
border,
upper border,
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
and
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset, 0.00
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
fuzzy
membership
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-GLCM
Contrast
10.00 vrange,
14.00 amean.
4.00 Subscripts
12.00
10.00
14.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
respectively.
function
describing
property
p:water
lower
upper
rr and
aa denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
a12.00
fuzzy
membership

function
describing property
property
p:water
lower
border,
upper border,
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
andlevel
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
NDWINormalized
differencep:
index,border,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,Subscripts
GLCMGray
co-occurrence
matrix.
Forand
fuzzy
membership
function
lower
upper
vrange,
amean.
rrr and
aaa denote
reference
ruleset
adapted
ruleset,
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
aaa fuzzy
membership
respectively.
function describing
describing property
property
p:water
lower
border,
upper border,
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
and
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
NDWINormalized
differencep:
water
index,border,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,Subscripts
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
Forand
fuzzy
membership
respectively.
function
describing
lower
upper
vrange,
amean.
and
denote
reference
ruleset
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,Subscripts
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
Forand
a fuzzy
membership
function
describing
property
p:water
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
rr and
and
aa denote
denote
reference
ruleset
adapted
ruleset,
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index, GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For aruleset,
fuzzy membership function describing
respectively.
function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
r
a
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
respectively.
function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
r
and
a
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
function
property
lower border,
border, vrange,
upper border,
vrange,
amean.
r and a ruleset
denote and
reference
ruleset
and respectively.
adapted ruleset,
propertydescribing
p: lower
border,p:upper
amean.
Subscripts
r and aSubscripts
denote reference
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
respectively.
respectively.
respectively.

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

Base
level
Base
level
Base
Base
level
level
Base
Base
level
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Base
level
Level
I1
Level
Level
I1I1I1I1I1I1
Level
Level
I1
I1
Level
I1
Level
I1Level
Level
I1Level
Level
Level
I1Level
Level
I1

Top
level
Top
level
Top
Top
level
level
Top
Top
level
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Top
level
Level
ILevel
III I I I
Level
Level
ILevel
ILevel
Level
IILevel
I Level
Level
I Level
Level
I Level
Level

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x

Remote Sens.
Sens. 2016,
2016, 8,
8, xx
Remote
Remote Sens.
Sens. 2016,
2016, 8,
8, xx
Remote
Remote
Sens. 2016,
8, x
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x
Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x
Remote Sens.
Sens. 2016,
2016, 8,
8, xx
Remote
Remote
Sens. 2016,
8, x
Remote
Sens. 2016,
2016, 8,
8, xx
Remote Sens.

18 of 29

18 of 29
18 of
of 29
29
18
18 of
of 29
29
Table 9. Ruleset adaptation from HOPE to ZAVO.
18
18
of
29
Table 9. Ruleset adaptation from HOPE to ZAVO.
18 of 29
18 of 29
Table 9.
9. Ruleset
Ruleset adaptation
adaptation from
from HOPE
HOPE to
to ZAVO.
ZAVO.
Table
18 of
of 29
29
18
Table
9.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
ZAVO.
18
of 29
Table 9.
9. Ruleset
Ruleset adaptation
adaptation from
from HOPE
HOPE to
to ZAVO.
ZAVO.
Deviations
18
of 29
29
Deviations
Image
Object
Table
18 of
Deviations
Parameters
of the
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of the Adapted
Ruleset Ruleset
Image Object
Parameters
of
the
Adapted
Table
9.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
ZAVO.
Parameters
of
the
Master
Ruleset
Membership
b
Parameters
of the
the Master
Master
Ruleset
Parameters of
of the
the Adapted
Adapted Ruleset
Ruleset
Image Object
Object
Membership
Type FDeviations
Typeb Faa
Table
9.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
ZAVO.
Property
Class
b
Deviations
Parameters
of
Ruleset
Parameters
Image
Table
9.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to
ZAVO.
Membership
Type
F
Type
F
Class
Property
Type Fa
Type
F
Function
Deviations
b
a
Table 9.
9. Ruleset
Ruleset
adaptation
fromRuleset
HOPE to
to ZAVO.
ZAVO.
Parameters
of the
the Master
Ruleset
Parameters of
of the
the Adapted
Adapted Ruleset
Ruleset
Image
Object (Feature/Variable)
Membership
Type FDeviations
Type F a
Class
Property
Table
adaptation
from
HOPE
Function
Add/Remove/
Parameters
of
Parameters
Image
Object
b
Membership
Type
Type FFa
Class
Property
Table 9.
9.
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
to ZAVO.
ZAVO.
Parameters
the Master
Master
Parameters
Image
Object
b
Function
(Feature/Variable)
Add/Remove/
r
r of
vr vRuleset
r to
a
of
a the Adapted
va Ruleset
aa
v
a FFDeviations
F
Membership
Type
Type
Table
Ruleset
adaptation
from
HOPE
Deviations
b
a
Parameters
of
the
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of
the
Adapted
Ruleset
Image
Object
Class
Property
Function

v
a
v
a
F
Add/Remove/Change
Add/Remove/
Membership
Type
F
Type
F
r
r
r
r
a
a
a
a
(Feature/Variable)

r
v
r

a
v
a
a
a
v
a
F
Change
Deviations
Class
Property
b
the Master
Parameters
Adapted
Image
Object
Membership
Type
Faa
Function
(Feature/Variable)
Add/Remove/
Parameters
r
r of
vr Ruleset
r
a
of
a the
va Ruleset
aa
v Type
a F
F
Deviations
Class
Property
Change
b
Parameters
of the Master
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
of
the Adapted
Ruleset
Image
Object
Function
Deviations
Add/Remove/
Membership
Type
F
Class
Property
(Feature/Variable)
Change
Parameters
r
r of
vr Ruleset
r
a

va Ruleset
aa
v Type
a F
F
Function
Deviations
Parameters
of
b
Image
Object
Add/Remove/
Snow/Wave Snow/Wave
Membership
Type
Type FFaa
(Feature/Variable)
Parameters
of the
the Master
Ruleset
Parameters
ofaaa the
the Adapted
Adapted
Ruleset

v
a
v
a
F
Image
Object
Class
Property
b
71
Function
Add/Remove/
Change
(Feature/Variable)
Membership
Type
FFDeviations
Type
Parameters
r80.0
rr of
vrr 20.0
rr 90.0 125.00
aa 125.00
of
vaa Ruleset
aaa
v Type
a F
F
b3.00
a
Parameters
of
the Master
Master
Ruleset
Parameters
ofa the
the130.00
Adapted
Ruleset
Snow/Wave
Image
Object
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
130.00
5.00
127.50
3.00
0.29
3.29
Class
Property
Brightness
100.0
5.00
127.50
0.29
3.29
Change
Membership
Type
F
Function
71
Add/Remove/
b
(Feature/Variable)
the
Ruleset
Parameters
Adapted
Image
Object

r
v
r

v
a
a
a
v
a
F
b
aa
Snow/Wave
Class
Property
Change
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
125.00
130.00
5.00
127.50
3.00
0.29
Membership
Type
F
Type
F
crest/Cloud
crest/Cloud
71
Function
b 3.29
Add/Remove/
Class
Property
(Feature/Variable)

r
v
r

a
v
a
a
a
v
a
F
Membership
Type
F
Type
F
Change
Snow/Wave
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
125.00
130.00
5.00
127.50
3.00
0.29
3.29
- a
Function
Add/Remove/
crest/Cloud
Class
Property
71
(Feature/Variable)
Top
level
rr
rr
vrr
rr
aa
aa
vaa
aaa
v
a
F
Function
Add/Remove/
Snow/Wave
Change
Class
Property
crest/Cloud
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
125.00
130.00
5.00
127.50
3.00
0.29
3.29
71
(Feature/Variable)

v
a
v
a
F
Snow/Wave
Function
Add/Remove/
Change
(Feature/Variable)
71
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
125.00
130.00
5.00
127.50
3.00
0.29
3.29

r
v
r

a
v
a
a
a
v
a
F
72
Land
Ratio red
0.85
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.75
0.70
0.24
0.94
Function
Add/Remove/
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
Change
Level
I
r
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
127.50
3.00
3.29
(Feature/Variable)
rr0.85
rrr 1.00 0.15
vrrr 0.15 0.93
rrr 0.93 125.00
aaa
aaa
vaaa
aaaa
v
a 0.70
F
71
crest/Cloud
Change
72
Land
Ratio red
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.75
0.70
0.24
0.94
Land
Ratio red
0.50130.00
1.005.00
0.50
0.75 0.29
0.24
0.94
Snow/Wave
(Feature/Variable)

v
a
v
a
F
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
125.00
130.00
5.00
127.50
3.00
0.29
3.29
crest/Cloud
71
Change
72
Land
Ratio
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.75
0.70
0.24
0.94
--Snow/Wave
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
125.00
130.00
5.00
127.50
3.00
0.29
3.29
Change
crest/Cloud
71
Snow/Wave
72
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.75
0.70
0.24
0.94
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
125.00
130.00
5.00
127.50
3.00
0.29 0.86
3.29
71
73
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
72
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.75
0.70
0.24
0.94
71
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
0.60
0.26
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
125.00
130.00
5.00
127.50
3.00
0.29
3.29
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
73
72
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.75
0.70
0.24
0.94
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
125.00
130.00
5.00
127.50
3.00
0.29
3.29
71
Snow/Wave
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
0.60
0.26
0.86
crest/Cloud
Brightness
80.0
100.0
20.0
90.0
125.00
130.00
5.00
127.50
3.00
0.29
3.29
73
71
72
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00 0.60
0.15 0.20 90.0
0.93 0.50 125.00
0.50 0.65130.00
1.00
0.50
0.75
0.70
0.24 0.60
0.94
crest/Cloud
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
0.60
0.26
0.86
Water
NDWI
0.40 100.0
0.705.00
0.05
0.68 0.29
0.26-0.86
Brightness
80.0
20.0
127.50
3.00
3.29
crest/Cloud
72
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.75
0.70
0.24
0.94
73
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
0.60
0.26
0.86
73
crest/Cloud
72
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.75
0.70
0.24 1.23
0.94
Water
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
0.60
0.26
0.86
74
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.55
0.65
0.15
0.63
0.67
0.56
--73
72
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.75
0.70
0.24
0.94
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
0.60
0.26
0.86
72
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.75
0.70
0.24
0.94
74
73
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.55
0.65
0.15
0.63
0.67
0.56
1.23
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
0.60
0.26
0.86
72
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.75
0.70
0.24
0.94
74
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.55
0.65
0.15
0.63
0.67
0.56
1.23
73
72
Land
Ratio
red
0.85
1.00
0.15
0.93
0.50
0.75
0.70
0.94
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
0.60
0.26
0.86
Snow/Wave
73
74
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.55
0.65
0.15
0.63
0.67
0.56
1.23
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.55 1.00
0.650.50
0.15
0.63 0.24
0.56---1.23
75
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60 0.40 10.0
0.20 0.25 60.0
0.50 0.28 0.55
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
0.60
0.26 0.67
0.86
73
74
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.65
0.15
0.63
0.67
0.56
1.23
Snow/Wave
Brightness
55.0
65.0
160
170
10.00
165.00
0.00
0.63
0.63
Water
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
0.60
0.26
0.86
73
75
74
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.55
0.65
0.15
0.63
0.67
0.56
-Water
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
0.60
0.26
0.86
Snow/Wave
73
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
160
170
10.00
165.00
0.00
0.63 1.23
0.63
crest/Cloud
75
74
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.55
0.65
0.15
0.63
0.67
0.56
1.23
Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
0.60
0.26
0.86
73
Snow/Wave
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
160
170
10.00
165.00
0.00
0.63
0.63
--Water
NDWI
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.50
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
0.60
0.26
0.86
crest/Cloud
74
Shadows
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.55
0.65
0.15
0.63
0.67
0.56
1.23
75
Snow/Wave
Snow/Wave
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
160
170
10.00
165.00
0.00
0.63
0.63
crest/Cloud
75
74
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.55
0.65
0.15
0.63
0.67
0.56
1.23
Snow/Wave
75
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
160
170
165.00
0.00
0.63
0.63
74
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40 65.0 0.10
0.25
0.28
0.55
0.65
0.15
0.63
0.67
0.56
1.23
Brightness
55.0
10.0 0.35
60.0 0.65
160 0.70
17010.00
10.00
165.00
0.00
0.63-0.63
76
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
74
Shadows
0.15
0.25
0.28
0.55
0.65
0.15
0.63
0.67
0.56
1.23
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
160
170
10.00
165.00
0.00
0.63
0.63
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.05
0.68
1.00
0.49
75
crest/Cloud
crest/Cloud
76
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.55
0.65
0.15
0.63
0.67
0.56 1.49
1.23
Snow/Wave
74
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
160
170
10.00
165.00
0.00
0.63
0.63
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
1.00
0.49
1.49
crest/Cloud
75
76
74
Shadows
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.55
0.65
0.15
0.63
0.67
0.56
1.23
---Snow/Wave
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
160
170
10.00
165.00
0.00
0.63
0.63
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
1.00
0.49
1.49
75
crest/Cloud
Snow/Wave
76
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
160
170
10.00
165.00
0.00
0.63
0.63
75
Snow/Wave
crest/Cloud
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
1.00
0.49 1.49
1.49
76
75
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
160
170
10.00
165.00
0.00
0.63
0.63
Snow/Wave
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
1.00
0.49
77
crest/Cloud
76
75
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
160
170
165.00
0.00
0.63
0.63
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.02
0.19
0.32
Snow/Wave
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
1.00
0.49
1.49
crest/Cloud
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.7010.00
0.05
0.68 0.32
0.49-1.49
75
77
76
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
60.0
160 0.65 0.20
170
10.00
165.00
0.00
0.63
0.63
crest/Cloud
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14 0.40
0.02 0.10 60.0
0.13 0.35 0.18
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.32 1.00
0.32
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
1.00
0.49
1.49
Brightness
55.0
65.0
10.0
160
170
10.00
165.00
0.00
0.63
-77
76
crest/Cloud
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32
0.32
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
1.00
0.49 0.63
1.49
crest/Cloud
76
77
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
1.00
0.49
1.49
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32 0.32
0.32
76
77
Shadows/small
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
1.00
0.49
1.49
76
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32
78
77
Water
0.30
0.10
0.35
0.65
0.70
0.05
0.68
1.00
0.49
1.49
Shadows/small
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32
0.32
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.15
0.43
0.67
0.35
1.02
76
78
77
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10 0.02 0.28
0.35 0.13 0.35
0.65 0.18 0.50
0.70
0.05
0.68
1.00
0.49 0.00
1.49
Shadows/small
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32
0.32
NDVI76
0.12
0.200.05
0.02
0.19 0.49
0.32--0.32
0.15
0.25
0.28
0.35
0.50
0.15
0.43
0.67
0.35
1.02
dark
objects Vegetation
78
Water
NDWI
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.65
0.70
0.68
1.00
1.49
77
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14 0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32
0.32
Shadows/small
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.35
0.50
0.15
0.43
0.67
0.35
-Base
dark
objects
77
78
Shadows/small
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32 1.02
0.32
77
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.35
0.50
0.15
0.43
0.67
0.35
1.02
dark
objects
78
Shadows/small
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32
0.32
77
78
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.35
0.50
0.15
0.43
0.67
0.35
1.02
-Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
79
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
1.00
1.29
Vegetation
NDVI ratio
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32 2.29
0.32
level
Shadows/small
dark
objects
77
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.35
0.50
0.15
0.43
0.67
0.35
1.02
78
Vegetation
NDVI
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.13
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.32
0.32
dark
objects Shadows/small
77
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
79
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
1.00
1.29 0.32
2.29
Shadows/small
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.35
0.50
0.15
0.43
0.67
0.35
1.02
Vegetation
NDVI ratio
0.12
0.14
0.02
0.19
0.00
dark
78
Bare
earth/rock
79
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
1.00
1.29
2.29
Level
I1objects
Shadows/small
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25 0.13
0.28 0.18
0.35 0.20
0.500.02
0.15
0.43 0.32
0.67
0.35---1.02
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.35
0.50
0.15
0.43
0.67
0.35
1.02
78
dark
objects dark Red/Green
Shadows/small
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
79
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
1.00
1.29
2.29
NDWIratio
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.35
0.50
0.15
0.43
0.67
0.35 2.89
1.02
78
objects
80
Shadows/small
dark
objects
Bare
earth/rock
79
0.70
0.20
0.80
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
1.00
1.29
2.29
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.40
0.42
0.02
0.41
1.50
1.39
-Red/Green
78
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.35
0.50
0.15
0.43
0.67
0.35
1.02
Shadows/small
dark
objects
80
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
79
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
1.00
1.29
2.29
NDWIratio
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.35
0.50
0.15
0.43
0.67
0.35
1.02
78
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.40
0.42
0.02
0.41
1.50
1.39
2.89
Red/Green
ratio
Shadows/small
dark
objects
80
78
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
79
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
1.00
1.29 1.02
2.29
NDWIratio
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.35
0.50
0.15
0.43
0.67
0.35
1.02
-dark
objects
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.40
0.42
0.02
0.41
1.50
1.39
2.89
Red/Green
NDWI
0.15
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.35
0.50
0.15
0.43
0.67
0.35
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
79
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
1.00
1.29
2.29
80
dark
objectsBare earth/rock
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.40
0.42
0.02
0.41
1.50
1.39
2.89
Red/Green
ratio
80
GLCMratio
dark
objects
0.70
0.400.02
0.10
0.35 1.39
1.29--2.29
Bare
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratioRed/Green
79ratio
0.70
0.90 0.90
0.20 0.20 0.98
0.80 0.80 0.40
0.30 0.30 0.42
0.40
0.10
0.35
1.00
1.29 1.00
2.29
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.41
1.50
2.89
Red/Green
81
80
Bare
79
0.70
0.20
0.80
0.30
0.40
0.35
1.00
1.29
2.29
GLCMratio
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.40
0.42
0.02
0.41
1.50
1.39
2.89
Red/Green
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
4.30
4.50
0.10
4.35
9.00
0.20
9.20
Bare earth/rock
earth/rock
79
0.70
0.20
0.80
0.30
0.40
0.35
1.00
1.29
2.29
81
80
GLCM
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.40
0.42
0.02
0.41
1.50
1.39
2.89
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
4.30
4.50
4.35
9.00
0.20 2.29
9.20
Bare earth/rock
earth/rock
Red/Green
ratio
79
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
1.00
1.29
2.29
Dissimilarity
81
80
Bare
Red/Green
ratio
79
0.70
0.90
0.20
0.80
0.30
0.40
0.10
0.35
1.00
1.29
0.95
0.05
0.98
0.40
0.42
0.02
0.41
1.50
1.39
2.89
GLCM
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
4.30
4.50
4.35
9.00
0.20
9.20
Dissimilarity
80
81
GLCM
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.40
0.42
0.02
0.41
1.50
1.39 2.89
2.89
Red/Green
ratio
80
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
4.30
4.50
0.10
4.35
9.00
0.20
9.20
Dissimilarity
81
GLCMratio
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.40
0.42
0.02
0.41
1.50
1.39
Red/Green
80
Distance
to Red/Green
0.95
0.90
0.05 3.50
0.98 4.30
0.40 4.50
0.420.10
0.02
0.41 0.20
1.50
1.39-2.89
81
3.00
4.00
1.00
4.35
9.00
9.20
82
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.40
0.42
0.02
0.41
1.50
1.39
2.89
Red/Green
GLCMratio
Dissimilarity
80ratio
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
4.30
4.50
0.10
4.35
9.00
0.20
9.20
Guano
Distance
to
81
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
--0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.40
0.42
0.02
0.41
1.50
1.39
2.89
Red/Green
ratio
Dissimilarity
80
82
GLCM(m)
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
4.30
4.50
0.10
4.35
9.00
0.20
9.20
Distance
to
0.95
0.90
0.05
0.98
0.40
0.42
0.02
0.41
1.50
1.39
2.89
Red/Green
ratio
Guano
Dissimilarity
81
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
coastline
82
GLCM
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
4.30
4.50
0.10
4.35
9.00
0.20
9.20
-Guano
81
Dissimilarity
Distance
to
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GLCM
coastline
(m)
82
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
4.30
4.50
0.10
4.35
9.00
0.20
9.20
81
Distance
to
GLCM
Dissimilarity
Guano
GLCM
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
coastline
82
81
3.00
4.00 4.00 1450.00
1.00 1.00 725.00
3.50 3.50 50.00
4.30 4.301500.00
4.50
0.10
4.35
9.00
0.20
9.20
Distance
to
GLCM(m)
Guano
Dissimilarity
82
81
50.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
--3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
4.30
4.50
0.10
4.35
9.00
0.20
9.20
3.00 1500.00
4.50
0.10
4.35
0.20
9.20
83
GLCM
Distance
to
coastline
(m)
Guano
Dissimilarity
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
- 9.00
inactive
81
82
3.00
4.00
3.50
4.30
4.50
0.10
4.35
9.00
0.20
9.20
coastline
(m)
Dissimilarity
Dissimilarity
Guano
Guano
Distance
to
83
3.00
4.00
1.00
3.50
4.30
4.50
0.10
4.35
9.00
0.20
9.20
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
3.00
inactive
coastline
(m)
82
Dissimilarity
83
Distance
to
Guano
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
inactive
Dissimilarity
82
coastline
(m)
Distance
to
Guano
83
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
82
Distance
to
coastline
(m)
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
inactive
Guano
82
83
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Distance
to
Distance
to
Border
contrast
2.50
3.501500.00 1450.00
1.001450.00725.00
3.00 725.0030.00
inactive
84
Guano
coastline
(m)
50.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
83
82
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
35.00
5.00
32.50
0.20
0.63
0.83
-Distance
to
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
------- 0.00
-inactive
50.00 1500.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
coastline
(m)
Guano
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
82
84
coastline
(m)
Guano
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
30.00
35.00
5.00
32.50
0.20
0.63
0.83
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
inactive
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
50.00
1500.00
1450.00
725.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-coastline83
(m)
84
83
coastline
(m)
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
30.00
35.00
5.00
32.50
0.20
0.63
0.83
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
inactive
coastline
(m)
84
83
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
inactive
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
30.00
35.00
5.00
32.50
0.20
0.63
0.83
84
83
Border Contrast
contrast
2.50
3.50 vegetation
1.00 index,
3.00
inactive
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
30.00
35.00
5.00
32.50
0.20
0.63
0.83
NDWINormalized
difference
water83
index, NDVINormalized
difference
GLCMGray
level
matrix.
a-- fuzzy0.63
84
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
---co-occurrence
--- For
--membership
-inactive
GLCM
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
30.00
35.00
5.00
32.50
0.83
-83
84
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index, NDVINormalized
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For0.20
fuzzy
membership
Border Contrast
contrast
2.50
3.50 3.50
1.00
3.00
inactive
Border
contrast
2.50
3.00 30.00
- 35.00
- 5.00
-32.50
-0.83
- inactive
GLCM
10.00
14.00
4.00 1.00
12.00
0.20
0.63
83
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
difference
vegetation
GLCMGray
matrix.
aa---fuzzy
Border
contrast
2.50
3.50
1.00
3.00
---co-occurrence
--- For
--membership
-inactive
84
GLCM
Contrast
14.00
4.00 index,
12.00
30.00
5.00
32.50
0.20
0.63
0.83
function
describing
property
lower
upper 10.00
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
r andlevel
a35.00
denote
reference
ruleset
adapted
ruleset,
84
NDWINormalized
differencep:
water
index,border,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
Forand
a fuzzy
fuzzy
membership
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
30.00
35.00
5.00
32.50
0.20
0.63
0.83
84
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
a
membership
function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
r
and
a
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
GLCM property
Contrast
10.00
14.00 vegetation
4.00 index,
12.00
30.00
35.00
5.00 matrix.
32.50 Forand
0.20
0.63
0.83
-84
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
a
fuzzy
membership
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00
30.00
35.00
5.00
32.50
0.20
0.63
0.83
function
describing
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
r
and
a
denote
reference
ruleset
adapted
ruleset,
84
NDWINormalized
differencep:water
index,border,
NDVINormalized
difference
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
Forand
a fuzzy
membership
GLCM Contrast
Contrast
10.00
14.00 vegetation
4.00 index,
12.00
30.00
35.00
5.00 matrix.
32.50
0.20
0.63
0.83
respectively.
84
function
describing
property
lower
upper 10.00
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
r and
and
a35.00
denote
reference
ruleset
adapted
ruleset, 0.63-GLCM
14.00
4.00
12.00
5.00
32.50
0.20
0.63
0.83
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
aa fuzzy
membership
GLCM
Contrast
10.00
14.00
4.00
12.00 30.00
30.00
35.00
5.00
32.50
0.20
0.83
function
describing
property
p:water
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,border,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,Subscripts
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
Forand
fuzzy
membership
function
describing
property
p:
lower
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
rr and
aa denote
reference
ruleset
adapted
ruleset,

respectively.
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
a
membership
function
describing property
p:water
lower
border,
upper border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
r andlevel
a denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
For
aa fuzzy
fuzzy
membership
respectively.
function
describing property
lower
upper border,
vrange,
amean.
r and
a denote
reference
ruleset
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
NDWINormalized
differencep:water
water
index,border,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,Subscripts
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
Forand
fuzzy
membership

function describing
describing property
property
p:water
lower
border,
upper border,
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
r and
and
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
NDWINormalized
difference
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index,Subscripts
GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
matrix.
Formatrix.
a fuzzy
membership
NDWINormalized
difference
water
index,
NDVINormalized
difference
vegetation
index, GLCMGray
level
co-occurrence
For
a ruleset,
fuzzy membership function describing
function
p:
lower
border,
upper
vrange,
amean.
aa denote
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
rr and
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
respectively.
function
describing
property
p:
lowerborder,
border,vrange,
upper amean.
border, vrange,
vrange,
amean.
Subscripts
and aaaruleset
denoteand
reference
ruleset
andrespectively.
adapted ruleset,
ruleset,
respectively.
function
describing
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
border,
amean.
Subscripts
rr and
denote
reference
ruleset
and
adapted
property
p:
lower
border,
upper
Subscripts
r
and
a
denote
reference
adapted
ruleset,
respectively.
respectively.
respectively.
respectively.

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

19 of 29

3.3. Site-Wise Summary

Table 10 provides a site-wise summary of the type and the total amount of deviations associated
with each study site. None of the sites reported Type C and Type O deviations. BAIL, BIRD, SPIN, and
ZAVO exhibited Type Fa changes. All sites reported Type Fb changes, of those, the highest and the
lowest marked by ZAVO (25.0) and SPIN (7.43). In terms of total deviations (d), ZAVO (26.0) and BIRD
(8.43) emerged as the highest and lowest candidates. Among the others, AITC and PAUL showed
relatively large total deviations. Table 11 summarizes the robustness of the master ruleset when
adapted from the reference image to the each of the candidate image. This measure is based on the
classification accuracy (quality parameter pertaining to reference ruleset and adapted ruleset in Table 3)
and the total deviations in the ruleset (d value in Table 10). Of all candidate sites, BIRD and AITC
recorded the highest (0.123) and the lowest (0.025) robustness values, respectively. The remaining sites
ranked from the highest robustness to the lowest robustness as: SPIN > BAIL > PAUL > ZAVO.
Table 10. A site-wise summary of type and total amount of deviation required for adaptation.
Study Site

Type C

Type O

Type Fa

Type Fb

AITC
BAIL
BIRD
PAUL
SPIN
ZAVO

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
1
1
0
1
1

15.4
10.4
7.43
14.9
8.0
25.0

15.4
11.4
8.43
14.9
9.0
26.0

AITCAitcho Islands, BAILBaily Head, BIRDCape Bird, PAULPaulet Island, SPINSpine Island, and
ZAVOZavodovski Island, dtotal deviation.

Table 11. Robustness of the master ruleset when adapted from the reference image to the
candidate image.
Robustness

Site
AITC
BAIL
BIRD
PAUL
SPIN
ZAVO

d=0

d=d

0.413
1.188
1.165
1.018
0.980
1.023

0.025
0.095
0.123
0.064
0.098
0.038

AITCAitcho Islands, BAILBaily Head, BIRDCape Bird, PAULPaulet Island, SPINSpine Island, and
ZAVOZavodovski Island, dtotal deviation.

3.4. Visual Inspection

We have corroborated the quantitative analysis with visual inspections. Figure 4 shows a set of
representative zoomed-in areas selected from the reference image scene (HOPE) and the six candidate
images scenes. Classification results achieved by tasking the reference ruleset and the adapted ruleset
have been draped (shown in red) over the original multispectral images. For visual clarity, white arrows
have been drawn on the reference and the candidate image scenes to point some of the exemplar guano
stains. When inspecting the classification results of HOPE, it is clear that the reference ruleset has been
fine-tuned to successfully discriminate the targets on the reference image scene. When the reference
ruleset is tasked without adaptation, ZAVO exhibited a zero detection of guano stains while others
showed some sort of detection. Of those, BAIL and BIRD noted relatively high accurate and complete
detection of guano patches. A distinct improvement of the classification accuracy can be observed
when the reference ruleset is applied after adaptations. A section of the reference ruleset, which was

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

20 of 29

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x

20 of 29

based on the QuickBird image scene from Hope Bay area and programmed in Cognitive Network
and programmed in Cognitive Network Language (CNL) is also provided for the sake of
Language (CNL) is also provided for the sake of understanding the implementation workflow.
understanding the implementation workflow.

A zoomed-in area of HOPE

Classification based on the

reference rule set

Section of the reference ruleset

programmed in CNL

A zoomed-in area of AITC

Classification based on the

reference rule set

Classification based on the adapted

rule set

A zoomed-in area of BAIL

Classification based on the

reference rule set

Classification based on the adapted

rule set

A zoomed-in area of BIRD

Classification based on the

reference rule set

Classification based on the adapted

rule set

Figure 4. Cont.

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

21 of 29

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, x

21 of 29

A zoomed-in area of PAUL

Classification based on the

reference rule set

Classification based on the adapted

rule set

A zoomed-in area of SPIN

Classification based on the

reference rule set

Classification based on the adapted

rule set

A zoomed-in area of ZAVO

Classification based on the

reference rule set

Classification based on the adapted

rule set

Figure 4. Zoomed-in areas showing: the original image (left); classification based on the reference

Figure 4. Zoomed-in areas showing: the original image (left); classification based on the reference
ruleset (middle); and classification based on the adapted ruleset (right), from the reference study site
ruleset (middle); and classification based on the adapted ruleset (right), from the reference study
and the candidate sites. A section of the reference ruleset programmed in Cognitive Network
siteLanguage
and the candidate
sites.
A section
the reference
Cognitive
Network
(CNL) is also
provided
at topofright.
Classified ruleset
guano isprogrammed
shown in red. in
Imagery
copyright
Language
(CNL)
is
also
provided
at
top
right.
Classified
guano
is
shown
in
red.
Imagery
copyright
DigitalGlobe, Inc.
DigitalGlobe, Inc.
4. Discussion

4. Discussion
This is the first attempt of which we are aware to use of geographic object-based image analysis
paradigm
in penguin
guanoofstain
detection
an alternative
time- andobject-based
labor-intensive
This is the
first attempt
which
we areasaware
to use offor
geographic
image
human-augmented
image
interpretation.
In
this
exploratory
study,
we
tasked
object-based
methods
analysis paradigm in penguin guano stain detection as an alternative for time- and labor-intensive
to classify chinstrap and Adlie guano stains from very high spatial resolution satellite imagery and
human-augmented image interpretation. In this exploratory study, we tasked object-based methods
closely examined the transferability of knowledge-based GEOBIA rules across different study sites
to classify chinstrap and Adlie guano stains from very high spatial resolution satellite imagery
focusing on the same semantic class. A master ruleset was developed based on a QuickBird image
andscene
closely
examined the transferability of knowledge-based GEOBIA rules across different study
encompassing the Hope Bay area and it was re-tasked without adaptation and with
sitesadaptation
focusing on
the same image
semantic
class.
A master
was developed
a QuickBird
on candidate
scenes
(QuickBird
and ruleset
WorldView-2)
comprisingbased
guanoon
stains
from

image scene encompassing the Hope Bay area and it was re-tasked without adaptation and with
adaptation on candidate image scenes (QuickBird and WorldView-2) comprising guano stains from

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

22 of 29

six different study sites. The modular design of our experiment aimed to systematically gauge the
segmentation quality, classification accuracy, and the robustness of fuzzy rulesets.
Image segmentation serves as the precursor step in the GEOBIA. Based on the highlighted success
rate, in this study, we used eCognition developers multiresolution segmentation (MRS) algorithm and
complemented it with the multi-threshold segmentation (MTS) algorithm, which can be manipulated in
a self-adaptive manner. The underlying idea of coupling MTS and MRS algorithms is to initially reduce
the scene complexity at multiscale settings and later feed those pointer segments (semantically
ill-defined and mixed objects) to the MRS algorithm for more meaningful fine-scale segmentation
that creates segments resembling real-world target objects. This hybrid procedure consumes notably
less time for scene-wise segmentation than tasking the complex MRS algorithm alone over the entire
scene. Segmentation algorithms are inherently scene dependent, which impairs the transferability of a
particular segmentation algorithms parameter settings (e.g., scale parameter of the MRS algorithm)
from one scene to another. Thus, we fine-tuned the segmentation process on a trial-and-error basis at
each study site until an acceptable segmentation quality was achieved before tasking either master
or adapted rulesets. In general, optimal segmentation results, an equilibrium stage of under- and
over-segmentation, are favored for achieving a better classification. From that respect, we purposely
employed an empirical segmentation quality measure- Euclidean Distance 2 (ED2), which operates
on arithmetic and geometric agreement between reference objects and the image object candidates.
Compared to other sites, HOPE reported equally high geometric and arithmetic fit yielding the best
overall segmentation quality (lowest ED2). The marked spectral contrast between the guano stains and
the dark background materials has led to a better delineation of object boundaries in the segmentation
process. In contrast, ZAVO showed the highest ED2 metric value, which was mainly due to the weak
arithmetic congruency (high NSR score) at the expense of high geometrical fit. A similar trend can be
observed in the remaining study sites as well, for example, BIRD, PAUL, and SPIN. This one-to-many
relationship between the reference objects and the image object candidates arises primarily due to two
reasons: (1) the occurrence of target objects at multiple scales, which impairs the proper isolation of
object boundaries at a single scale; (2) when producing reference objects, human interpreters tend to
generalize object boundaries [75] based on their experience and semantic meanings of objects than
low-level image features like color, texture, or shape. It is interesting to see the fact that study sites
with high ED2 scores (poor segmentation quality) have achieved higher classification accuracy than
the sites with low ED2 scores. For example, overall classification accuracy (Table 3) of ZAVO has
surpassed that of HOPE. By performing a segmentation quality evaluation, we aimed to rule out the
possibility that the variations in classification accuracies across candidate study sites attributed not
merely because of perturbations in fuzzy rules but because of inferior or superior segmentation.
GEOBIAs wide adoption in VSHR image based land use land cover (LULC) mapping reflects
the fact that object-based workflows are more transferable across image scenes than alternative image
analysis methods. However, GEOBIA cannot explicitly link low-level image attributes encoded in
image object candidates to high-level user expectations (semantics). While the challenge is universal to
VHSR image based LULC mapping in general, within the scope of this study, the intriguing question
is what is the degree of transferability of a master ruleset for guano across scenes and across sites?
Designing a master ruleset based on a certain image scene and targeting a set of target classes is a
time-, labor-, and knowledge-intensive process as the operator has to choose the optimal object and
scene features and variables to meaningfully link class labels and image object candidates. Thus, in
an operations context, reapplication of the master ruleset without adaptations across different scenes
would be ideal; however, it is highly unrealistic in most image classification scenarios to achieve
acceptable classification accuracy without ruleset modification.
When the master ruleset is reapplied without adaptations (Table 3), the QuickBird scene over
BAIL and WorldView-2 scene over BIRD showed relatively high detection of guano stains but still the
classification accuracies were inferior to the reference QuickBird scene over HOPE. This is mainly due
to the similar spectral, textural, and most importantly neighborhood characteristics (spatially-disjoint

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

23 of 29

patches embedded with dark substrate) of the target class in these three study sites. On the other hand,
the WorldView-2 scene over ZAVO showed a zero detection of guano stains when the master ruleset
was re-tasked as is. One could argue that this is due to the different sensor characteristics, however;
results from BAIL and BIRD challenge that argument. We suspect that notably high reflectance of
clouds and wave crests, spectral characteristics of guano, and the hierarchical design (labelling of
sub-objects based on super-objects) may have led to an ill detection of guano. From the view point
of ruleset without adaptations, our analysis reveals that the success rate of the master rulesets
repeatability is low and unpredictable even in instances where the classification is constrained to a
particular semantic class. As seen in Table 3, scene- or site-specific adaptations inevitably enhance the
classification accuracy at the expense of operator engagement in re-tuning of fuzzy rules.
When revisiting the fine-scale adjustments associated with the fuzzy rules across all candidate
sites (Tables 49), it is clear that a majority of changes fall onto the Type Fb category, which harbors
the changes associated with the underlying fuzzy membership function. In certain instances, for
example SPIN and ZAVO, the border contrast rule was left inactive because of the spectral ambiguity
between the guano and the surrounding geology. Across all candidate sites, Type Fb deviations have
been dominated by the v component, which elucidates the fact that the shape (range v) of the fuzzy
membership function (stretch or shrink) has changed rather than a shift in the mean value (a). This
reflects the potential elasticity available to the operator to refine rules. In most cases, our changes to
the fuzzy membership functions associated with the class guano are designed to capture the spectral
and textural characteristics that distinguish guano stains from the substrate dominating clay minerals
like illite and kaolinite [19]. Based on the adapted versions of the master ruleset, study sites like BAIL,
BIRD, and ZAVO exhibited superior classification results compared to that of the reference image. Of
those, BIRD showed the lowest amount of deviations (d), while ZAVO showed the highest number of
total changes in fuzzy membership functions (Table 10). This might be due the fact that HOPE and
BIRD share comparable substrate characteristics and contextual arrangement. Except AITC, other
candidate sites exhibited either superior or comparable detection of guano stains with respect to the
reference image scene. Even the manual delineation of guano stains in AITC was difficult due the
existence of guano-like substrate and moss (early stage or dry). This site appeals for inclusion of new
rules to discriminate guano rather than simple adaptation of the master ruleset. When considering
the robustness of the master ruleset (Table 11) on a site-wide basis and neglecting deviations (d = 0 in
Equation (3)), BAIL, BIRD, PAUL, and ZAVO reported highest robustness (r > 1) while AITC reported
the lowest. Overall, the mean robustness of all sites is high (0.965), which gives the impression that the
master ruleset has been able to produce classification results in all candidate sites almost comparable
to the reference study site. When associating Type Fa and Type Fb (d 0 in Equation (3)) changes to
the analysis, site-wise and mean robustness exhibit low values compared to the previous scenario as d
penalizes the robustness measure. While accepting the importance of ruleset deviations as a parameter
in the robustness measure, we think that Equation (3) does not necessarily include the capacity of
the master ruleset to withstand perturbations because the parameter d in the penalization process
appears to be asymmetrical. Thus, we realize that the documentation of rule-specific changes and total
deviations are of high value in judging the degree of transferability.
The general consensus of the GEOBIA community is to fully exploit all opportunitiesspectral,
spatial, textural, topological, and contextual features and variables at scene, object, and process
levelsavailable for manipulating image segments in the semantic labelling process. This approach
inevitably enhances the classification accuracy; however, it does so at the expense of transferability.
We highlight the importance of designing a middleware [76] ruleset, which inherits a certain degree of
elasticity rather than a complete master ruleset. From the perspective of knowledge-based classification
(KBC), middleware products harbor the optimal set of rules, which combine explicit domain ontology
and remote sensing quantifications. In our study, we have purposely confined ourselves to a relatively
small number of rules for discriminating focal target classes. These rules are some of the most
likely remote sensing quantifications and contextual information that a human interpreter would

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

24 of 29

use in semantic labelling process other than his/her procedural or structured knowledge. There is
always potential for introducing higher- and lower-level rules for the middleware products to refine
coarse- and fine-scale objects, respectively. Rather than opaquely claiming the success of object-based
image analysis in a particular classification effort, a systematic categorization and documentation
(e.g., Tables 49) of individual changes in fuzzy membership functions and a summary of overall
changes in the reference ruleset (e.g., Table 10) makes the workflow more transparent and provides rich
opportunities to analyze the modification required for each property. This helps identify crucial
aspects of the rule set, interpret possible reasons for such deviations, and introduce necessary
mitigations. Moreover, this kind of retrospective analysis provides valuable insights on the cost
(e.g., time, knowledge, and labor) and benefits (classification accuracy) encoded in the workflow.
We are no longer able to rely on low-level image attributes (e.g., color, texture, and shape) for
describing LULC classes but require high-level semantic interpretations of image scenes. Image
semantics are context sensitive, which means that semantics are not an intrinsic property captured
during the image acquisition process but rather an emergent property of the interactions of human
perception and the image content [7780]. GEOBIAs Achilles heelthe semantic gap (lack of explicit
link)impedes repeatability, transferability, and interoperability of classification workflows. On
the one hand, the rule-based classification reduces the semantic gap. On the other hand, it leads
to plurality of solutions and hampers the transferability due to the need for significant operator
involvement. For instance, in this study, another level of thematically-rich guano classification based
on species (e.g., Adlie, gentoo, chinstrap, and possibly other seabirds) is critical for ecological model
integration and will require deviations in the ruleset across image scenes or even possibly an array of
new rules. From a conceptual perspective, we recognize GEOBIAs main challenge as a knowledge
management problem and possibly mitigated with fuzzy ontologies [59,74,75,81]. This serves as the
key catalyst for our proposed conceptual sketch (Figure 2) for an image-to-assessment pipeline that
leverages class explanation, remote sensing expert knowledge, domain ontology, multiscale image
content modeling, and ecological model integration. We have proposed the concepts of target- and
sensor-specific ruleset libraries and a repository of classified image objects as bag-of-image-objects
(BIO) for refining and adapting classification workflows. Revisiting our findings, we should highlight
that the deviations in the master ruleset across sites (also sensors) are not necessarily influenced
by the variations in the class guano itself (Adlie vs. chinstrap penguins) but may be attributed
to site-/region-specific characteristics such as existence of extensive vegetation. This precludes the
use of a master ruleset that operates at the continent-scale but suggests instead an array of ruleset
libraries representing regions, habitats, and possibly different sites within the continent. We emphasize
the fact that a deep analysis on what factor(s) affected deviation(s) in a specific rule(s) seriously
appeals for new components to the current experiment. Such analysis is beyond the scope of this
study. Thus, here we provided plausible causes that hamper the transferability. We did not include
gentoo penguins in our study even though their colonies also produce a guano stain visible in satellite
imagery because their nesting densities are so highly variable that identification of gentoo colonies in
imagery can be challenging even at well-mapped sites. For that reason, segmentation and classification
of sites with gentoo penguins should be approached with particular caution until gentoo-specific
methods can be developed. Future research will need to focus on a deeper understanding of the
specific causes controlling the transferability, the engagement of machine learning algorithms, and a
well-structured cognitive experiment to understand human visual reasoning in wildlife detection from
remote sensing imagery.
5. Conclusions
We used geographic object-based image analysis (GEOBIA) methods to classify guano stains
from very high spatial resolution satellite imagery and closely examined the transferability of
knowledge-based GEOBIA rules across different study sites focusing on the same semantic
class. We find that object-based methods incorporating spectral, textural, spatial, and contextual

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

25 of 29

characteristics from very high spatial resolution imagery are capable of successful detection of guano
stains. Reapplication of the master ruleset on candidate scenes without modifications produced
inferior classification results, while tasking of adapted rules produced comparable or superior results
compared to the reference image at the expense of operator involvement, time, and transferability.
Our findings reflect the necessity of employing a systematic experiment to not only gauge the potential
of GEOBIA in a certain classification task but also to identify possible shortcomings, especially
from an operational perspective. As EO becomes a more routine method of surveying Antarctic
wildlife, findings of this exploratory study will serve as baseline information for Antarctic wildlife
researchers to identify opportunities and challenges of GEOBIA as a best-available mapping tool
in automated wildlife censusing. In future research, we aim to transform the proposed conceptual
sketchimage-to-assessment pipelineinto an operational architecture.
Acknowledgments: C.W. and H.L. would like to acknowledge funding provided by the National Science
foundations Office of Polar Programs (PLR) and Geography and Spatial Sciences (GSS) divisions (Award No.
1255058). We would also like to thank the University of Minnesotas Polar Geospatial Center for imagery
processing support.
Author Contributions: Chandi Witharana designed research plan, processed image data, performed analysis.
Heather Lynch involved manuscript preparation and classification accuracy assessment as a domain expert.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.
9.

10.
11.

Fraser, W.R.; Trivelpiece, W.Z.; Ainley, D.G.; Trivelpiece, S.G. Increases in Antarctic penguin populations:
Reduced competition with whales or a loss of sea ice due to environmental warming? Pol. Biol. 1992, 11,
525531. [CrossRef]
Clarke, A.; Murphy, E.J.; Meredith, M.P.; King, J.C.; Peck, L.S.; Barnes, D.K.A.; Smith, R.C. Climate change
and the marine ecosystem of the western Antarctic Peninsula. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2007, 362,
149166. [CrossRef]
Ducklow, H.W.; Baker, K.; Martinson, D.G.; Quetin, L.B.; Ross, R.M.; Smith, R.C.; Stammerjohn, S.E.;
Vernet, M.; Fraser, W. Marine pelagic ecosystems: The West Antarctic Peninsula. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.
2007, 362, 6794. [CrossRef]
Ainley, D.; Ballard, G.; Blight, L.K.; Ackley, S.; Emslie, S.D.; Lescrol, A.; Olmastroni, S.; Townsend, S.;
Tynan, C.T.; Wilson, P.; et al. Impacts of cetaceans on the structure of Southern Ocean food webs. Mar. Mammal Sci.
2010, 26, 482498.
Smith, R.C.; Ainley, D.; Baker, K.; Domack, E.; Emslie, S.; Fraser, B.; Kennett, J.; Leventer, A.;
Mosley-Thompson, E.; Stammerjohn, S.; et al. Marine ecosystem sensitivity to climate change. BioScience
1999, 49, 393404. [CrossRef]
Vaughan, D.G.; Marshall, G.J.; Connolley, W.M.; Parkinson, C.; Mulvaney, R.; Hodgson, D.A.; King, J.C.;
Pudsey, C.J.; Turner, J. Recent rapid regional climate warming on the Antarctic Peninsula. Clim. Chang. 2003,
60, 243274. [CrossRef]
Mayewski, P.A.; Meredith, M.P.; Summerhayes, C.P.; Turner, J.; Worby, A.; Barrett, P.J.; Casassa, G.;
Bertler, N.A.N.; Bracegirdle, T.; Naveira Garabato, A.C.; et al. State of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean
climate system. Rev. Geophys. 2009, 47, 231239. [CrossRef]
Smith, R.C.; Stammerjohn, S.E. Variations of surface air temperature and sea ice extent in the western
Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) region. Ann. Glaciol. 2001, 33, 493500. [CrossRef]
Stammerjohn, S.E.; Martinson, D.G.; Smith, R.C.; Iannuzzi, R.A. Sea ice in the Western Antarctic Peninsula
region: Spatio-temporal variability from ecological and climate change perspectives. Deep Sea Res. Top.
Stud. Oceanogr. 2008, 55, 20412058. [CrossRef]
Ainley, D.G.; Ballard, G.; Emslie, S.D.; Fraser, W.R.; Wilson, P.R.; Woehler, E.J.; Croxall, J.P.; Trathan, P.N.;
Murphy, E.J. Adlie penguins and environmental change. Science 2003, 300, 429430. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Atkinson, A.; Siegel, V.; Pakhomov, E.; Rothery, P. Long-term decline in krill stock and increase in salps
within the Southern Ocean. Nature 2004, 432, 100103. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

12.

13.

14.
15.
16.
17.

18.

19.
20.
21.

22.

23.
24.
25.

26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.

33.
34.

26 of 29

Montes-Hugo, M.; Doney, S.C.; Ducklow, H.W.; Fraser, W.; Martinson, D.; Stammerjohn, S.E.; Schofield, O.
Recent changes in Phytoplankton Communities associated with rapid regional climate change along the
western Antarctic Peninsula. Science 2009, 323, 14701473. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lynch, H.J.; Naveen, R.; Trathan, P.N.; Fagan, W.F. Spatially integrated assessment reveals widespread
changes in penguin populations on the Antarctic Peninsula. Ecology 2012, 93, 13671377. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Borboroglu, P.G.; Boersma, P.D. Penguins: Natural History and Conservation; University of Washington Press:
Seattle, WA, USA, 2003.
Ainley, D. The Adlie Penguin: Bellwether of Climate Change; Columbia University Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2002.
Boersma, P.D. Penguins as marine sentinels. BioScience 2008, 58, 597607. [CrossRef]
Trathan, P.N.; Garca-Borboroglu, P.; Boersma, D.; Bost, C.-A.; Crawford, R.J.M.; Crossin, G.T.; Cuthbert, R.J.;
Dann, P.; Davis, L.S.; de la Puente, S.; et al. Pollution, habitat loss, fishing, and climate change as critical
threats to penguins. Conserv. Biol. 2014, 29, 3141. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Trivelpiece, W.Z.; Hinke, J.T.; Miller, A.K.; Reiss, C.S.; Trivelpiece, S.G.; Watters, G.M. Variability in krill
biomass links harvesting and climate warming to penguin population changes in Antarctica. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 76257628. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Fretwell, P.T.; Phillips, R.A.; Brooke, M.D.L.; Fleming, A.H.; McArthur, A. Using the unique spectral signature
of guano to identify unknown seabird colonies. Remote Sens. Environ. 2015, 156, 448456. [CrossRef]
Lynch, H.J.; LaRue, M.A. First global census of the Adlie Penguin. Auk 2014, 131, 457466. [CrossRef]
Lynch, H.J.; Schwaller, M.R. Mapping the abundance and distribution of Adlie Penguins using Landsat-7:
First steps towards an integrated multi-sensor pipeline for tracking populations at the continental scale.
PLoS ONE 2014, 9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
LaRue, M.A.; Lynch, H.J.; Lyver, P.O.B.; Barton, K.; Ainley, D.G.; Pollard, A.; Fraser, W.R.; Ballard, G. A
method for estimating colony sizes of Adlie penguins using remote sensing imagery. Pol. Biol. 2014, 37,
507517. [CrossRef]
Schwaller, M.R.; Benninghoff, W.S.; Olson, C.E. Prospects for satellite remote sensing of Adelie penguin
rookeries. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1984, 5, 849853. [CrossRef]
Schwaller, M.R.; Olson, C.E., Jr.; Ma, Z.; Zhu, Z.; Dahmer, P. A remote sensing analysis of Adlie penguin
rookeries. Remote Sens. Environ. 1989, 28, 199206. [CrossRef]
Chamaille-Jammes, S.; Guinet, C.; Nicoleau, F.; Argentier, M. A method to assess population changes in king
penguins: The use of a Geographical Information System to estimate area-population relationships. Pol. Biol.
2000, 23, 545549. [CrossRef]
Trathan, P.N. Image analysis of color aerial photography to estimate penguin population size. Wildl. Soc. Bull.
2004, 32, 332343. [CrossRef]
Bhikharidas, A.K.; Whitehead, M.D.; Peterson, J.A. Mapping Adlie penguin rookeries in the Vestfold Hills
and Rauer Islands, east Antarctica, using SPOT HRV data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1992, 13, 15771583. [CrossRef]
Barber-Meyer, S.; Kooyman, G.; Ponganis, P. Estimating the relative abundance of emperor penguins at
inaccessible colonies using satellite imagery. Pol. Biol. 2007, 30, 15651570. [CrossRef]
Fretwell, P.T.; Trathan, P.N. Penguins from space: Faecal stains reveal the location of emperor penguin
colonies. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2009, 18, 543552. [CrossRef]
Schwaller, M.R.; Southwell, C.J.; Emmerson, L.M. Continental-scale mapping of Adlie penguin colonies
from Landsat imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 2013, 139, 353364. [CrossRef]
Southwell, C.; Emmerson, L. Large-scale occupancy surveys in East Antarctica discover new Adlie penguin
breeding sites and reveal an expanding breeding distribution. Antarct. Sci. 2013, 25, 531535. [CrossRef]
Mustafa, O.; Pfeifer, C.; Peter, H.; Kopp, M.; Metzig, R. Pilot Study on Monitoring Climate-Induced Changes
in Penguin Colonies in the Antarctic Using Satellite Images; German Ministry of the Federal Environment:
Dessau-Rolau, Germany, 2012.
Hay, G.J.; Castilla, G.; Wulder, M.A.; Ruiz, J.R. An automated object-based approach for the multiscale image
segmentation of forest scenes. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2005, 7, 339359. [CrossRef]
Baatz, M.; Hoffmann, C.; Willhauck, G. Progressing from object-based to object-oriented image analysis.
In Object Based Image Analysis; Blaschke, T., Lang, S., Hay, G.J., Eds.; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany;
Berlin, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 2008.

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.

42.
43.

44.

45.
46.

47.

48.

49.

50.
51.
52.

53.
54.
55.

56.

27 of 29

Maral, A.R.S.; Rodrigues, A.S. A method for multi-spectral image segmentation evaluation based on
synthetic images. Comput. Geosci. 2008, 35, 15741581. [CrossRef]
Blaschke, T. Object based image analysis for remote sensing. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2010, 65,
216. [CrossRef]
Marpu, P.R.; Neubert, M.; Herold, H.; Niemeyer, I. Enhanced evaluation of image segmentation results.
J. Spat. Sci. 2010, 55, 5568. [CrossRef]
Jyothi, B.N.; Babu, G.R.; Murali Krishna, L.V. Object oriented and multi-scale image analysis: Strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threatsA review. J. Comput. Sci. 2008, 4, 706712. [CrossRef]
Smith, G.M.; Morton, R.D. Real world objects in GEOBIA through the exploitation of existing digital
cartography and image segmentation. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2010, 76, 163171. [CrossRef]
Kim, M.; Warner, T.A.; Madden, M.; Atkinson, D.S. Multi-scale GEOBIA with very high spatial resolution
digital aerial imagery: Scale, texture and image objects. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2011, 32, 28252850. [CrossRef]
Witharana, C.; Civco, D.L. Optimizing multi-resolution segmentation scale using empirical methods:
Exploring the sensitivity of the supervised discrepancy measure Euclidean distance 2 (ED2). ISPRS J.
Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2014, 87, 108121. [CrossRef]
Lang, S.; Albrecht, F.; Kienberger, S.; Tiede, D. Object validity for operational tasks in a policy context.
J. Spat. Sci. 2008, 55, 922. [CrossRef]
Hagenlocher, M.; Lang, S.; Tiede, D. Integrated assessment of the environmental impact of an IDP camp
in Sudan based on very high resolution multi-temporal satellite imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 126,
2738. [CrossRef]
Lang, S. Object-based image analysis for remote sensing applications: Modeling realityDealing with
complexity. In Object-Based Image Analysis; Blaschke, T., Lang, S., Geoffrey, H., Eds.; Springer: Heidelberg,
Germany; Berlin, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 2008.
Dey, V.; Zhang, Y.; Zhong, M. A review on image segmentation techniques with remote sensing perspective.
Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2010, 38(Part 7A), 3142.
Liu, Y.; Bian, L.; Meng, Y.; Wang, H.; Zhang, S.; Yang, Y.; Shao, X.; Wang, B. Discrepancy measures for
selecting optimal combination of parameter values in object-based image analysis. ISPRS J. Photogramm.
Remote Sens. 2012, 68, 144156. [CrossRef]
Tong, H.; Maxwell, T.; Zhang, Y.; Dey, V. A supervised and fuzzy-based approach to determine optimal
multi-resolution image segmentation parameters. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2012, 78, 10291043.
[CrossRef]
Duro, D.C.; Franklin, S.E.; Duba, M.G. 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 Sens. Environ. 2012, 118, 259272. [CrossRef]
Blaschke, T.; Hay, G.J.; Kelly, M.; Lang, S.; Hofmann, P.; Addink, E.; Queiroz Feitosa, R.; van der Meer, F.;
van der Werff, H.; van Coillie, F.; et al. Geographic object-based image analysis: Towards a new paradigm.
ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2014, 87, 180191. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Burnett, C.; Blaschke, T. A multi-scale segmentation/object relationship modelling methodology for
landscape analysis. Ecol. Model. 2003, 168, 233249. [CrossRef]
Hay, G.J.; Blaschke, T.; Marceau, D.J.; Bouchard, A. A comparison of three image-object methods for the
multiscale analysis of landscape structure. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2003, 57, 327345. [CrossRef]
Benz, U.C.; Hofmann, P.; Willhauck, G.; Lingenfelder, I.; Heynen, M. Multi-resolution, object-oriented fuzzy
analysis of remote sensing data for GIS-ready information. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2004, 58,
239258. [CrossRef]
Maral, A.R.S.; Borges, J.S.; Gomes, J.A.; De Costa, J.F.P. Land cover update by supervised classification of
segmented ASTER images. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2005, 26, 13471362. [CrossRef]
Lynch, H.; Naveen, R.; Casanovas, P.V. Antarctic site inventory breeding bird survey data 1994/952012/13.
Ecology 2013. [CrossRef]
Naveen, R.; Lynch, H.J.; Forrest, S.; Mueller, T.; Polito, M. First direct, site-wide penguin survey at Deception
Island, Antarctica suggests significant declines in breeding chinstrap penguins. Pol. Biol. 2012, 35, 18791888.
[CrossRef]
Naveen, R.; Lynch, H.J. Antarctic Peninsula Compendium, 3rd ed.; Environmental Protection Agency:
Washington, DC, USA, 2011.

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

57.
58.

59.

60.
61.

62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.

68.
69.

70.

71.
72.
73.

74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.

28 of 29

Landcare Research.
Available online:
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/resources/data/
adelie-census-data/surveyed-colonies (accessed on 2 October 2013).
Lynch, H.J.; White, R.; Naveen, R.; Black, A.; Meixler, M.S.; Fagan, W.F. In stark contrast to widespread
declines along the Scotia Arc, a survey of the South Sandwich Islands finds a robust seabird community.
Pol. Biol. 2016. [CrossRef]
Arvor, D.; Durieux, L.; Andrs, S.; Laporte, M. Advances in geographic object-based image analysis with
ontologies: A review of main contributions and limitations from a remote sensing perspective. ISPRS J.
Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2013, 82, 125137. [CrossRef]
Strasser, T.; Lang, S.; Riedler, B.; Pernkopf, L.; Paccagnel, K. Multiscale object feature library for habitat
quality monitoring in riparian forests. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2014, 11, 559563. [CrossRef]
Bannour, H.; Hudelot, C. Towards ontologies for image interpretation and annotation. In Proceedings of the
IEEE 9th International Workshop on Content-Based Multimedia Indexing (CBMI), Madrid, Spain, 1315
June 2011; pp. 211216.
Kohli, D.; Warwadekar, P.; Kerle, N.; Sliuzas, R.; Stein, A. Transferability of object-oriented image analysis
methods for slum identification. Remote Sens. 2013, 5, 42094228. [CrossRef]
Clinton, N.; Holt, A.; Scarborough, J.; Yan, L.; Gong, P. Accuracy assessment measures for object-based image
segmentation goodness. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2010, 76, 289299. [CrossRef]
Dorren, L.K.A.; Maier, B.; Seijmonsbergen, A.C. Improved Landsat-based forest mapping in steep
mountainous terrain using object-based classification. For. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 183, 3146. [CrossRef]
Addink, E.A.; De Jong, S.M.; Pebesma, E.J. The importance of scale in object-based mapping of vegetation
parameters with hyperspectral imagery. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2007, 72, 905912. [CrossRef]
Smith, A. Image segmentation scale parameter optimization and land cover classification using the Random
Forest algorithm. J. Spat. Sci. 2010, 55, 6979. [CrossRef]
Myint, S.W.; Gober, P.; Brazel, A.; Grossman-Clarke, S.; Weng, Q. Per-pixel vs. object-based classification of
urban land cover extraction using high spatial resolution imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 2011, 115, 11451161.
[CrossRef]
Trimble Germany GmbH. eCognition Developer 8.7.2 Reference Book; Trimble Germany GmbH: Munich,
Germany, 2014.
Baatz, M.; Schpe, M. Multiresolution segmentationAn optimization approach for high quality multi-scale
image segmentation. In Angewandte Geographische Informations-Verarbeitung XII; Strobl, J., Blaschke, T.,
Griesebner, G., Eds.; Wichmann Verlag: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2000; pp. 1223.
Belgiu, M.; Drgut, L.; Strobl, J. Quantitative evaluation of variations in rule-based classifications of land
cover in urban neighbourhoods using WorldView-2 imagery. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2014, 87,
205215. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hofmann, P.; Blaschke, T.; Strobl, J. Quantifying the robustness of fuzzy rule sets in object-based image
analysis. Int. J. Remote Sen. 2011, 32, 73597381. [CrossRef]
Tiede, D.; Lang, S.; Hlbling, D.; Freder, P. Transferability of OBIA rulesets for IDP camp analysis in Darfur.
In Proceedings of the GEOBIA Geographic Object-Based Image Analysis, Ghent, Belgium, 29 June2 July 2010.
Agouris, P.; Doucette, P.; Stefanidis, A. Automation and digital photogrammetric workstations. In Manual
of Photogrammetry; McGlone, C., Mikhail, E., Bethel, J., Eds.; American Society for Photogrammetry and
Remote Sensing: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2004; pp. 949981.
Argyridis, A.; Argialas, D.P. A fuzzy spatial reasoner for multi-scale GEOBIA ontologies. Photogramm. Eng.
Remote Sens. 2015, 81, 491498. [CrossRef]
Albrecht, F.; Lang, S.; Hlbling, D. Spatial accuracy assessment of object boundaries for object-based image
analysis. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2010, XXXVIII-4/C7, 610.
Belgiu, M.; Lampoltshammer, T.J.; Hofer, B. An extension of an ontology-based land cover designation
approach for fuzzy rules. In Proceedings of the GI_Forum, Salzburg, Austria, 25 July 2013. [CrossRef]
Zhao, L.; Tang, P.; Huo, L. A 2-D wavelet decomposition-based bag-of-visual-words model for land-use
scene classification. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2015, 35, 22962310.
Gueguen, L.; Datcu, M. A similarity metric for retrieval of compressed objects: Application for mining
satellite image time series. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2008, 20, 562575. [CrossRef]
Aksoy, S.; Cinbis, R.G. Image mining using directional spatial constraints. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett.
2010, 7, 3337. [CrossRef]

Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 375

80.
81.

29 of 29

Quartulli, M.; Olaizola, I.G. A review of EO image information mining. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens.
2013, 75, 1128. [CrossRef]
Kohli, D.; Sliuzas, R.; Kerle, N.; Stein, A. An ontology of slums for image-based classification. Comput. Environ.
Urban Syst. 2012, 36, 154163. [CrossRef]
2016 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/).