Fully fuzzy supervised classification of land cover from remotely sensed imagery with an artificial neural network

Mixed pixels are a major problem in mapping land cover from remotely sensed imagery. Unfortunately, such imagery may be dominated by mixed pixels, and the conventional ‘hard’ image classification techniques used in mapping applications are unable to appropriately represent the land cover of mixed pixels. Fuzzy classification techniques can, however, accommodate the partial and multiple class membership of mixed pixels, and be used to derive an appropriate land cover representation. This is, however, only a partial solution to the mixed pixel problem in supervised image classification. It must be reognised that the land cover on the ground is fuzzy, at the scale of the pixel, and so it is inappropriate to use procedures designed for ‘hard’ data in the training and testing stages of the classification. Here an approach for land cover classification in which fuzziness is accommodated in all three stages of a supervised classification is presented. Attention focuses on the classification of airborne thematic mapper data with an artificial neural network. Mixed pixels could be accommodated in training the artificial neural network, since the desired output for each training pixel can be specified. A fuzzy land cover representation was derived by outputting the activation level of the network's output units. The activation level of each output unit was significantly correlated with the proportion of the area represented by a pixel which was covered with the class associated with the unit (r>0.88, significant at the 99% level of confidence). Finally, the distance between the fuzzy land cover classification derived from the artificial neural network and the fuzzy ground data was used to illustrate the accuracy of the land cover representation derived. The dangers of hardening the classification output and ground data sets to enable a conventional assessment of classification accuracy are also illustrated; the hardened data sets were over three times more distant from each other than the fuzzy data sets.