2020 International Conference on Computation, Automation and Knowledge Management (ICCAKM)
Amity University
Classification of Homogeneous Sites using IRS-
P5 Satellite Imagery
Chethan K S, Sinchana G.S.
PES University, India GEC, Kushalnagar, India
chethanks@pes.edu sinchanagowda28@yahoo.com
Abstract— Remotely Sensed data is an important component
of Land Use/Land Cover (LU/LC) studies. This paper
compares the performance of ISODATA classification with
Mahalanobis Distance classification for Arsikere semi-urban
study area of Karnataka State, INDIA using IRS-P5 PANF
satellite imagery. The Arsikere study area is a homogeneous
region comprised primarily of water features mixed with
impervious features. During the beginning of experiment,
ISODATA unsupervised classification was applied on IRS data.
Later, Mahalanobis Distance classification was applied on IRS
data with 6000 training sites and 100 validation points for
water, vegetation, soil and impervious surface features that
were randomly generated using a stratified sampling approach.
The LU/LC data associated with these points were then
compared with Topographic Maps (Survey of India, No.
D43Q3, D43Q7) and Ground Truth Data for performance
analysis. Based on the confusion matrices obtained for the
sample set, the OCA, Kappa statistics were compared with
ISODATA. The experimental analysis shows that unsupervised
ISODATA classification provides accuracy of 89% in Arsikere,
semi-urban area, however Mahalanobis distance classification
give up 93% OCA with TS = 6000 and VS = 100.
I. INTRODUCTION
Remote sensing is the science associated with the art of
getting data concerning an object, geographical or
development area, through the analysis of information non-
heritable by a tool that’s not connected with item, area or
development underneath investigation. This Study deals with
remote sensing knowledge non-heritable earth observation
satellites. Remote sensing image analysis is completed to
extract helpful data concerning the earth surfaces. Machine
learning techniques are often applied during a supervised and
unsupervised manner. Supervised classification is done by
characteristic ‘training’ sites of known targets then getting
information of those spectral signatures to different area of
targets which are unknown.
Robert A. Schowengerdt [1] provided techniques for
classification of remote sensing images. Classification of
images based mostly on the remote sensing having thrust
analysis space of the remote sensing community for
feasibility study on environment is discussed by D. Lu [2].
Nur Anis Mahmon et al. have used Landsat 8 satellite image
of certain part of Selangor, Malaysia to classify the image
based on MLC, with an accuracy of 82.5%. The results are
compared with Mahalanobis Distance and Minimum
184
978-1-7281-0666-3/20/$31.00©2020IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER. Downloaded on August 25,2020 at 03:14:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
A L Choodarathnakara
GEC, Kushalnagar, India
choodarathnakara@gmail.com
Distance. Ajay D. Nagne et al. [4] proposed Mahalanobis
classifier to examine the Land Use Land Cover of
Aurangabad Region on Hyperspectral EO-1 Hyperion
imaging Data. The image was classified into Water,
vegetation, hill without vegetation, settlement area and bare
soil, resulting 88.46% accuracy of classifier with Kappa co-
efficient 0.84.
Another study by B.R. Shivakumar et al. [5] analyzed the
efficiency of three different ancient classifiers upon the
present heterogeneous multispectral LANDSAT 8 data. In
order to define class separability for principle index the
method of normalized Eucledian distance was used. Di Long
and Vijay P. Singh [6] have proposed an entropy-based
classification (EC). The results of EC based classification
are compared with MDC, PC, Min DC, ISODATA, K-means
and MLC. Results indicate that EC, MDC and the Min DC
classification out-match the opposite classifiers beneath
investigation, providing overall accuracies of 77.90%,
77.11% and 75.55% and Kappa co-efficient of 0.72, 0.71
and 0.69 respectively. Giles M. Foody [7] has discussed
about different classification on accuracy assessment which
are usually recommended and employed. The author also
describes the dissimilar kind of errors which are met during
classification of images.
A. L. Choodarathnakara [9] was concerned for analysis work
with the objective of designing an efficient and reliable
classification of strategy was an attempt to find answers to
some of the conflicting issues dealt within the existing
literature pertaining to classification of fine resolution RS
data. The authors have conducted experiment on the MS
data of IRS LISS-IV sensor of 5m spatial resolution and
PAN data of 2.5m spatial resolution. Authors have
concluded that the hard classification procedure fails to
classify mixed pixel problem in Arasikere semi-urban area of
Karnataka State, INDIA. To overcome this problem, authors
proposed Decision Tree technique along with
Mamdani_Fuzzy Inference System (M_FIS) as a hybrid
classifier and concluded that Mamdani_FIS was a powerful
candidate to classify mixed pixels present in semi-urban
areas. Ashok Kumar T [10] presented the performance and
employability of the decision tree classification algorithm in
respect of varying training dataset size for class hierarchy
levels I and II along with effects of ancillary data on tree
complexity with number of rules induced.
2020 International Conference on Computation, Automation and Knowledge Management (ICCAKM)
Amity University
A. L. Choodarathnakara et al. [12] proposed PCA method to
detect built-up feature using LANDSAT 7 ETM+ Satellite
Imagery. The method stated in this paper, considers PCA1,
PCA2 and PCA3. These are combined in order to obtain
98% of 6 different dimensions starting from B1 to B6 and it
was found that PCA model is most successful with an
accuracy of 98%. The objective of this research work was to
assess and compare the accuracy of unsupervised ISODATA
classification with Mahalanobis Distance. This research
analyzed the study areas with heterogeneous land cover /
land use compositions. The aim of this paper is to study
semi-urban area for urban planning purpose using supervised
Mahalanobis Distance Classification and unsupervised
ISODATA Classification with IRS Satellite Imagery.
The rest of the paper is systematized as follows, Section I
includes the introduction concerning remote sensing, Section
II comprehend the image classification, Section III comprise
the study area and the proposed methodology, Section IV
contain results and discussion, Section V concludes the
ultimate comments on the analysis work.
II. I MAGE C LASSIFICATION P ROCESS
The key steps for classifying an images might embrace
determination of an appropriate selection of training
samples, feature, extraction classification system and
selection of better classification approaches, image pre-
processing, post-classification processing and accuracy
assessment.
• Feature Determination: Get the whole feature set
which are considered for classification problem.
Because it is comparatively simple to remove
unnecessary features but hard to enhance required
features and adequate amount of features.
• Data Gathering: Collect the features of all the class
and perform normalization of all the class
considered , hence the variation of the each feature
is 0 to 1.
• Feature Optimization: Features are often optimized
by feature choice or feature extraction. While
extracting the features, the original features are
condensed into smaller variety by linear or non-
linear transformation. In this process, we tend to
examine the extracted features or gathered samples
whether or not they often classified appropriately.
• Division of Data: Here the samples which are
considered for data classification are grouped in to
two, which are training and test dataset. Training
dataset must be the demonstration of events. There
should not be many biasing in the training dataset so
that the features are related.
185
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER. Downloaded on August 25,2020 at 03:14:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
• Evaluation of Classifiers: The classifier is chosen
among completely different classifiers, for example,
fuzzy classifiers and neural network classifier. The
classifier is trained with the training dataset and
assessed the classifier using the test dataset. If the
adequate performance is not met, the classifiers
parameters have to be modified or additional
samples for training and test are added or classifiers
are modified.
A. Field Test: Here we have to evaluate the classifier
performance using the pre-existing field data.
B. Image Classification Approach
• A pattern will belong to only one class during an
exclusive classification method whereas it belongs
to several classes in a nonexclusive classification
technique. Fuzzy classification method is a non-
exclusive classifier.
• Intrinsic versus Extrinsic: An intrinsic classification
approach can cluster patterns according to the
information in proximity matrix to perform the
classification. Intrinsic classification method is
termed unsupervised learning in pattern recognition
because no categorical information is employed to
an a priori partition of the objects.
On the other hand extrinsic classification technique
uses category labels on the objects similarly
because the proximity matrix. Extrinsic
classification method is called supervised learning
in pattern recognition literature.
• Hierarchical versus Partition: The type of structure
obligatory on the information subdivides exclusive,
intrinsic classifications into hierarchical and
partition classifier. A hierarchical classifier is a
nested sequence of partitions; wherever as in
partition classifier may be a single partition.
C. Unsupervised ISODATA Classification
The steps for ISODATA clustering are as follows:
• Enter number of clusters.
• Initially, cluster centres are first selected arbitrary
using clustering and then allocates the pixels
between the cluster centres by:
Where ωi and ωj are cluster centres for cluster i and j
respectively and ω(x) is the feature vector at position x.
• The new cluster centre for class i is evaluated by
taking mean of pixels standards assigned to the
class:
2020 International Conference on Computation, Automation and Knowledge Management (ICCAKM)
Amity University

Where Qi is the total quantities of pixels present in class i

and number of clusters is given by K. Simultaneously the
covariance of the cluster is calculated.
• The categorization of pixels are done to form the new
cluster and to evaluate the nearest cluster covariance
and hence mean will be calculated.
• The process is repeated if the transformation process
in the new cluster and initial cluster is very large
otherwise, the clustering process stops.

D. Supervised Mahalanobis Distance Classification

The calculation for the Supervised Mahalanobis distance

classifier is as trails [8]:
Y = (A-mc) T (Covc-1) (A-mc) (1)
Where:
Y = Mahalanobis Distance

A = measurement vector of pixel of a candidate.

mc = the mean vector of the signature of class C

Covc-1 = inverse of covariance matrix

The pixel is assigned to the class c, for which D is the

lowest.

E. Accuracy Assessment
In a classified image the assessment of accuracy is a
laborious task .the objective of assessment is to allow the
user to describe the map’s “fitness for use”. Kappa Statistic
is originated on the difference among the real agreements in
the chance agreement and the error matrix, which is specified
by the column and row totals.

III. METHODOLOGY
A. Satellite Data Products and Study Area
The data product used in this study is the Panchromatic RS
image of IRS-P5 Cartosat-I satellite which has been launched
and further supervised by ISRO. This satellite data product
was procured from the NRSC, Hyderabad, India. Table 1
Fig. 1. Study area of Region of Interest
provides the specifications of satellite data utilized for the
purpose of semi-urban study. The paper discuss about the
semi-urban area of Arsikere taluk which is located in Hassan,
Karnataka, India. The geographical are considered in the B. Proposed Methodology
paper lies within the coordinates of 13° 18' 50" North, 76° In order to plan such a semi-urban land, the accurate
15' 22" East and with original name ARASIYA KERE. Fig. classification of land use/ land cover features is necessary.
1 shows the satellite image of Arsikere semi-urban study area In this context, the methodology is proposed which has been
of Hassan district, Karnataka state. depicted in Fig. 2. During the first phase of the work, the RS
data was procured from NRSC Hyderabad. In the second

186

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER. Downloaded on August 25,2020 at 03:14:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2020 International Conference on Computation, Automation and Knowledge Management (ICCAKM)
Amity University

phase, homogeneous sites are identified for generating were defined, supervised Mahalanobis Distance
training site samples of water, vegetation, soil and classification was performed on the study area.
impervious features of about 6000 TS. By employing
A. Mahalanobis Distance Supervised Classification
Mahalanobis distance, supervised classification confusion
matrix was analyzed for four classes with 100 validation Fig. 3 Depicts Heterogeneous training sites of the Arasikere
points for homogeneous sites. The performance comparison semi-urban study area.
of ISODATA versus Mahalanobis distance classification was
dealt with the help of OCA and cross table as well.

Start

Semi-urban Study Area

RS Data Collection
IRS-P5 PANF

Fig. 3. Homogeneous training sites of the Arasikere semi-urban study area

Training Sites for ISODATA

Unsupervised Fig. 4 shows Supervised Mahalanobis Distance Classified
Homogeneous
Area classification Image of Heterogeneous Study Area.

Mahalanobis Distance
Supervised
classification

Accuracy Assessment

Performance Comparison of
Mahalanobis Distance v/s
ISODATA
End
Fig.2. Flow Chart of proposed Methodology
IV. E XPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The classification of geo-coded 2.5m spatial resolution data
has been made using supervised Mahalanobis Distance and
unsupervised ISODATA algorithm. Evaluation of these
classifiers is also dealt with in this section. Assessment of
accuracy is performed using ERDAS IMAGINE V 9.2 RS
image processing software. Once the homogeneous areas
Fig. 4. Supervised Mahalanobis Distance Classified Image for
Homogeneous Study Area
In Table 2, out of 50 reference pixels of vegetation, 45 are
classified as vegetation and the rest 10% are misclassified to
impervious surface producing a PA of 90% for vegetation.
In other words out of the total 47 pixels which are correctly
classified as vegetation on the image, only 45 pixels
represent vegetation and produce an UA of 95.74%. The
remaining 4.26% of the pixels which are classified as
vegetation are the misclassified pixels from other classes.
Similarly, out of 42 reference pixels of impervious surface
40 are classified as impervious surface and the rest 4.58%
are misclassified to vegetation class producing a PA of
95.42% for impervious surface. In other words out of the
total 45 pixels which are classified as impervious surface on
the image, only 40 pixels represent impervious surface and

187

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER. Downloaded on August 25,2020 at 03:14:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2020 International Conference on Computation, Automation and Knowledge Management (ICCAKM)
Amity University

produce an UA of 88.89%. The remaining 11.11% of the PA of 84.62% for water. In other words all the 11 pixels
pixels which are classified as impervious surface are which are correctly classified as water on the image and
misclassified pixels from other classes. produce an UA of 100%.

TABLE III. CONFUSION MATRIX & KAPPA VALUES

TABLE II. CONFUSION MATRIX & KAPPA VALUES OBTAINED FOR ISODATA CLASSIFICATION FOR FOUR
OBTAINED FOR MAHALANOBIS DISTANCE SUPERVISED CLASSES WITH 100 VALIDATION POINTS
CLASSIFICATION WITH TS = 6000 WITH VS = 100
Row
Classes 1 2 3 4 UA%
Row Total
Classes 1 2 3 4 UA%
Total
1 11 11 100

1 11 11 100 2 2 38 2 42 90.48

2 2 38 2 42 90.48 3 2 27 29 93.10

3 2 27 29 93.10 4 5 13 18 72.22

4 5 13 18 72.22 Column
13 40 34 13 89
Total
OCA:
Column PA% 84.62 95.00 79.41 100
13 40 34 13 89 89.00%
Total
OKS:
84.6 OCA: Kappa 1.000 0.841 0.895 0.68
PA% 95.00 79.41 100 0.841
2 89.00%
1.00 OKS:
Kappa 0.841 0.895 0.680 Class Legends: 1: Water; 2: Vegetation; 3: Soil; 4:
0 0.841
Impervious surface
Class Legends: 1: Water; 2: Vegetation; 3: Soil; 4: Table 3 demonstrates Confusion Matrix & Kappa values
Impervious surface obtained for ISODATA Unsupervised Classification for four
Finally Table 2 shows that all the six pixels of water are classes with training sites of 6000 and 100 validation points
classified as water by producing PA and UA of 100%, also for homogeneous areas. In this classification, out of 40
all the two pixels of soil are correctly classified as soil by reference pixels of vegetation 38 are correctly classified as
producing a PA and UA of 100%. vegetation and the rest of 5% are misclassified to soil class
producing a PA of 95% for vegetation. In other words out of
B.ISODATA Unsupervised Classification the total 42 pixels which are classified as vegetation on the
Fig. 5 depicts ISODATA classified Image of the image, only 38 pixels represent vegetation and produce an
Homogeneous Study Area UA of 90.48%. The remaining 9.52% of the pixels which
are classified as vegetation are the misclassified pixels from
water and soil classes.
Out of 34 reference pixels of soil 27 are correctly classified
as soil and the rest of 20.59% are misclassified to vegetation
and impervious surface classes producing a PA of 79.41%
for soil. In other words out of the total 29 pixels which are
classified as soil on the image, only 27 pixels represent soil
and produce an UA of 93.10%. The remaining 6.9% of the
pixels which are classified as soil are the misclassified pixels
from vegetation class.
All the 13 pixels of impervious surface are correctly
classified impervious surface 27 and producing a PA of
100%. In other words out of the total 18 pixels which are
classified as impervious surface on the image, only 13 pixels
Fig. 5. ISODATA Classified Image of the Homogeneous Study Area represent impervious surface and produce an UA of 72.22%.
Table 3 depicts Confusion Matrix & Kappa Values obtained The remaining 27.78% of the pixels which are classified as
for ISODATA unsupervised classification for four classes impervious surface are the misclassified pixels from soil
with training sites of 6000 and 100 validation points for class.
homogeneous area. In this classification, out of 13 reference
C. Comparison of ISODATA and Mahalanobis Distance
pixels of water, 11 are correctly classified as water and the
rest 15.38% are misclassified to vegetation class producing a

188

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER. Downloaded on August 25,2020 at 03:14:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2020 International Conference on Computation, Automation and Knowledge Management (ICCAKM)
Amity University

Fig. 6 presents comparative graph of OCA for homogeneous
training sites of TS = 6000 with VS = 100 pixels using
Mahalanobis Distance and ISODATA classification
techniques.
and hence the classification of more land use/land cover is
not possible. Therefore the work can be continued by
procuring high spatial and spectral resolution data with more
number of bands. Since the Arasikere study area is semi-
urban consisting of mixed pixels soft classification
approaches can be performed for better classification
accuracy.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to graciously NRSC, Hyderabad,
INDIA for providing the data product for the study. Thanks
to the Survey of India (SOI) for providing the Topographic
Maps for this study and KSRSAC, Bangalore.

REFERENCES
[1] Robert A Schowngerdt, “Remote Sensing Models & Methods for
Image Processing”, 2nd Edn, Elsevier Publications, 2006.
[2] D. Lu and Q. Weng, “A Survey of Image Classification Methods
and Techniques for Improving Classification Performance”,
International Journal of Remote Sensing, Vol. 28, No.5, pp. 823-
870, 2007.
Fig. 6. Plot of OCA for Homogeneous Training Sites for TS = 6000 with [3] Nur Anis Mahmon, Norsuzila Ya’acob and Azita Laily Yusof,
VS = 100 pixels “Differences of Image Classification Techniques for Land Use and
Land Cover Classification”, IEEE 11th International Colloquium
on Signal Processing & its Applications (CSPA2015), Kuala
TABLE IV. CROSS TABLE BETWEEN ISODATA AND
Lumpur, Malaysia, 2015.
MAHALANOBIS DISTANCE FOR HOMOGENEOUS TS = 6000 [4] Ajay D. Nagne, Rajesh K. Dhumal, Amol D. Vibhute, Yogesh D.
WITH VS = 100 Rajendra, Sandeep Gaikwad, K. V. Kale and S. C. Mehrotra,
“Performance Evaluation of Urban Areas Land Use Classification
from Hyperspectral Data by using Mahalanobis Classifier”, 11th
Mahalanobis Distance in Pixels
ISODATA International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Control
in Pixels Impervious (ISCO), IEEE, pp. 388-392, 2017.
Water Vegetation Soil
surface [5] B. R. Shivakumar and S. V. Rajashekararadhya, “Spectral
Water 0.5454 Similarity for Evaluating Classification Performance of
Traditional Classifiers”, IEEE WISPNET Conference, pp. 1999-
2004, 2017.
Vegetation 1.1842 [6] Di Long and Vijay P. Singh, “An Entropy-Based Multispectral
Image Classification Algorithm”, IEEE Transactions on
Soil 0.0740 Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol. 51, No. 12, pp. 5225-5238,
2013.
Impervious [7] Giles M. Foody, “Status of Land Cover Classification Accuracy
3.0769 Assessment”, Remote Sensing of Environment, pp. 185-201,
surface
2002.
[8] ERDAS Field Guide, Fifth Edition, pp. 243-249, 1999.
The comparative results demonstrate that the water class [9] A L Choodarathnakara, “A Soft Computing Approach For
estimated by Mahalanobis Distance was 0.54 times the water Classification Of Land Use / Land Cover Features In Semi-Urban
estimated by ISODATA. The vegetation class estimated by Area using High Resolution Satellite Imagery”, Ph.D. Thesis,
Visvesvaraya Technological University, 2018.
Mahalanobis Distance was 1.18 times the vegetation [10] Ashok Kumar T, “Advanced Image Processing Techniques and
estimated by ISODATA. The soil class estimated by Algorithms for Classification of Semi-Urban Land Use/ Land
Mahalanobis Distance was 0.07 times the soil estimated by Cover Features using High Resolution Satellite Data”, Ph.D.
Thesis, Visvesvaraya Technological University, 2010.
ISODATA. Impervious surface class estimated by [11] A L Choodarathnakara, Sinchana G S, Sowkya H K and Ramya
Mahalanobis Distance was 3.07 times the impervious surface B R, “Automated Detection of Built-up Feature in Bangalore City
estimated by ISODATA. using LANDSAT 7 ETM+ Satellite Imagery”, International
Journal of Advanced Research in Electronics and Communication
Engineering (IJARECE) Vol. 7, Issue 4, April 2018.
V. CONCLUSION [12] M. Mohammady, H. R. Moradi, H. Zeinivand and A. J. A. M.
The study area selected for this research work has a Temme, “A Comparison of Supervised, Unsupervised and
Synthetic Land Use Classification Methods in the North of Iran”,
moderate rainfall. The experimental results concludes that International Journal Environment Science Technology, Springer,
ISODATA classification provides 89% OCA accuracy for 2015, Vol. 12, pp. 1515-1526.
Arasikere semi-urban area but Mahalanobis distance yields
out 93% OCA with TS = 6000 and VS = 100. Moreover, the
satellite data used in this study consisting of only one band

189

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER. Downloaded on August 25,2020 at 03:14:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.