skip to main content
10.1145/3658271.3658295acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessbsiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Interpretable Approaches for Land Use and Land Cover Classification

Published: 23 May 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Context: The Land Use Land Cover (LULC) undergoes various changes over time. Monitoring these changes is important for environmental disaster management, and agricultural land monitoring, among other applications. Focusing on the effects caused by environmental disasters, the Quadrilátero Ferrífero Region in Minas Gerais, Brazil, was chosen as the study area. This region has experienced dam breaks over the years, leading to an increased number of studies investigating the use of machine learning in this context. Problem: In the context of environmental disasters, making quick and effective decisions is essential, and the use of automated LULC classification systems plays a crucial role in this process. Proposed Solution: This study developed a map for the mentioned study area and presented a detailed methodology for creating a LULC classifier using machine learning techniques and discussing model interpretability in this context. SI Theory: This work is associated with Computational Learning Theory, focusing on defining and exploring automated classification methods. Method: Remote Sensing data were used to segment the area of interest, calculating indices from information obtained from different satellite bands and the digital elevation map. The models were trained with labeled samples after feature selection. Results: The tested models (Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, and K-Nearest Neighbours) demonstrated performance with no statistical difference, achieving F1-scores ranging from 0.89290 to 0.92994. Contribution: Considering the increasing research in this area, this work provides a detailed methodology that can contribute to and promote promising machine learning solutions for this field.

References

[1]
Radhakrishna Achanta, Appu Shaji, Kevin Smith, Aurelien Lucchi, Pascal Fua, and Sabine Süsstrunk. 2012. SLIC Superpixels Compared to State-of-the-Art Superpixel Methods. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 34, 11 (2012), 2274–2282. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2012.120
[2]
Abd Rahman As-Syakur, I Wayan Sandi Adnyana, I Wayan Arthana, and I Wayan Nuarsa. 2012. Enhanced built-up and bareness index (EBBI) for mapping built-up and bare land in an urban area. Remote sensing 4, 10 (2012), 2957–2970.
[3]
Paulo de Tarso Amorim Castro. 2020. Desastres de Mariana e Brumadinho: o que aprendemos ou deixamos de aprender? (2020).
[4]
Roberto Cilli, Mario Elia, Marina D’Este, Vincenzo Giannico, Nicola Amoroso, Angela Lombardi, Ester Pantaleo, Alfonso Monaco, Giovanni Sanesi, Sabina Tangaro, 2022. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) detects wildfire occurrence in the Mediterranean countries of Southern Europe. Scientific reports 12, 1 (2022), 16349.
[5]
Wendley Souza da Silva, Victória Tomé Oliveira, Sayonara Santos Araújo, Dario Vieira, and Miguel Franklin Castro. 2022. Explainability e auditability: interpretando e validando modelos de machine learning. Sociedade Brasileira de Computação (2022).
[6]
Governo de Minas Gerais. 2021. Reparação Brumadinho | Plano de Recuperação Socioambiental. https://www.mg.gov.br/pro-brumadinho/pagina/reparacao-brumadinho-plano-de-recuperacao-socioambiental-versao-preliminar Acessado em 08/12/2023.
[7]
Saul Dobilas. 2021. t-SNE Machine Learning Algorithm — A Great Tool for Dimensionality Reduction in Python. https://towardsdatascience.com/t-sne-machine-learning-algorithm-a-great-tool-for-dimensionality-reduction-in-python-ec01552f1a1e Acessado em 17/11/2023.
[8]
James Douris and Geunhye Kim. 2021. The Atlas of Mortality and Economic Losses from Weather, Climate and Water Extremes (1970-2019). (2021).
[9]
Caroline M. Gevaert. 2022. Explainable AI for earth observation: A review including societal and regulatory perspectives. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 112 (2022), 102869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2022.102869
[10]
Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. 2016. Deep learning. MIT press.
[11]
Xuming He, Richard S Zemel, and Debajyoti Ray. 2006. Learning and incorporating top-down cues in image segmentation. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2006: 9th European Conference on Computer Vision, Graz, Austria, May 7-13, 2006. Proceedings, Part I 9. Springer, 338–351.
[12]
J Richard Landis and Gary G Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics (1977), 159–174.
[13]
Vasileios Linardos, Maria Drakaki, Panagiotis Tzionas, and Yannis L Karnavas. 2022. Machine learning in disaster management: recent developments in methods and applications. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction 4, 2 (2022).
[14]
Kotapati Narayana Loukika, Venkata Reddy Keesara, and Venkataramana Sridhar. 2021. Analysis of land use and land cover using machine learning algorithms on google earth engine for Munneru River Basin, India. Sustainability 13, 24 (2021), 13758.
[15]
Patrick E McKight and Julius Najab. 2010. Kruskal-wallis test. The corsini encyclopedia of psychology (2010), 1–1.
[16]
Leann Myers and Maria J Sirois. 2004. Spearman correlation coefficients, differences between. Encyclopedia of statistical sciences 12 (2004).
[17]
Mirka Saarela and Susanne Jauhiainen. 2021. Comparison of feature importance measures as explanations for classification models. SN Applied Sciences 3 (2021), 1–12.
[18]
Vincent V Salomonson and I Appel. 2004. Estimating fractional snow cover from MODIS using the normalized difference snow index. Remote sensing of environment 89, 3 (2004), 351–360.
[19]
Mariana Schaefer, Carlos Brumatti, Gustavo Veloso, Jugurta Lisboa-Filho, Elpídio Fernandes Filho, and Julio Reis. 2022. Técnicas de Mineração de Dados e Aprendizado de Máquina Aplicadas a Dados Ambientais de Uso e Cobertura de Solo. In Anais do XXXVII Simpósio Brasileiro de Bancos de Dados (Búzios). SBC, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 361–366. https://doi.org/10.5753/sbbd.2022.225356
[20]
Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE.Journal of machine learning research 9, 11 (2008).
[21]
Junye Wang, Michael Bretz, M. Ali Akber Dewan, and Mojtaba Aghajani Delavar. 2022. Machine learning in modelling land-use and land cover-change (LULCC): Current status, challenges and prospects. Science of The Total Environment 822 (2022), 153559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153559
[22]
Yong Zha, Jay Gao, and Shaoxiang Ni. 2003. Use of normalized difference built-up index in automatically mapping urban areas from TM imagery. International journal of remote sensing 24, 3 (2003), 583–594.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
SBSI '24: Proceedings of the 20th Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems
May 2024
708 pages
Publication rights licensed to ACM. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 23 May 2024

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. LULC
  2. machine learning
  3. model interpretability
  4. remote sensing

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

SBSI '24
SBSI '24: XX Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems
May 20 - 23, 2024
Juiz de Fora, Brazil

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 181 of 557 submissions, 32%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 13
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)13
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
Reflects downloads up to 25 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media