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

Pixel-based and object-based image analysis approaches for classifying broad land cover classes over agricultural landscapes are compared using three supervised machine learning algorithms: decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), and the support vector machine (SVM). Overall classification accuracies between pixel-based and object-based classifications were not statistically significant (p > 0.05) when the same machine learning algorithms were applied. Using object-based image analysis, there was a statistically significant difference in classification accuracy between maps produced using the DT algorithm compared to maps produced using either RF (p = 0.0116) or SVM algorithms (p = 0.0067). Using pixel-based image analysis, there was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) between results produced using different classification algorithms. Classifications based on RF and SVM algorithms provided a more visually adequate depiction of wetland, riparian, and crop land cover types when compared to DT based classifications, using either object-based or pixel-based image analysis. In this study, pixel-based classifications utilized fewer variables (15 vs. 300), achieved similar classification accuracies, and required less time to produce than object-based classifications. Object-based classifications produced a visually appealing generalized appearance of land cover classes. Based exclusively on overall accuracy reports, there was no advantage to preferring one image analysis approach over another for the purposes of mapping broad land cover types in agricultural environments using medium spatial resolution earth observation imagery.

► Pixel-based (PB) and object-based (OB) classifications are compared.
► Three machine learning algorithms (MLAs) are examined.
► No statistical difference between PB and OB classifications was found.
► For OB classifications, significant differences between MLAs were found.