Next Article in Journal
Mapping Submerged Habitats and Mangroves of Lampi Island Marine National Park (Myanmar) from in Situ and Satellite Observations
Previous Article in Journal
Optical Thickness and Effective Radius Retrievals of Low Stratus and Fog from MTSAT Daytime Data as a Prerequisite for Yellow Sea Fog Detection
Article Menu
Issue 1 (January) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Remote Sens. 2016, 8(1), 3;

Fusion of Airborne Discrete-Return LiDAR and Hyperspectral Data for Land Cover Classification

Key Laboratory of Digital Earth Science, Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100094, China
Department of Geography and Program in Planning, University of Toronto, 100St. George St., Room 5047, Toronto, ON M5S 3G3, Canada
Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto, 33 Willcocks Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3B3, Canada
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Parth Sarathi Roy and Prasad S. Thenkabail
Received: 5 November 2015 / Revised: 13 December 2015 / Accepted: 15 December 2015 / Published: 22 December 2015
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [3565 KB, uploaded 23 December 2015]   |  


Accurate land cover classification information is a critical variable for many applications. This study presents a method to classify land cover using the fusion data of airborne discrete return LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and CASI (Compact Airborne Spectrographic Imager) hyperspectral data. Four LiDAR-derived images (DTM, DSM, nDSM, and intensity) and CASI data (48 bands) with 1 m spatial resolution were spatially resampled to 2, 4, 8, 10, 20 and 30 m resolutions using the nearest neighbor resampling method. These data were thereafter fused using the layer stacking and principal components analysis (PCA) methods. Land cover was classified by commonly used supervised classifications in remote sensing images, i.e., the support vector machine (SVM) and maximum likelihood (MLC) classifiers. Each classifier was applied to four types of datasets (at seven different spatial resolutions): (1) the layer stacking fusion data; (2) the PCA fusion data; (3) the LiDAR data alone; and (4) the CASI data alone. In this study, the land cover category was classified into seven classes, i.e., buildings, road, water bodies, forests, grassland, cropland and barren land. A total of 56 classification results were produced, and the classification accuracies were assessed and compared. The results show that the classification accuracies produced from two fused datasets were higher than that of the single LiDAR and CASI data at all seven spatial resolutions. Moreover, we find that the layer stacking method produced higher overall classification accuracies than the PCA fusion method using both the SVM and MLC classifiers. The highest classification accuracy obtained (OA = 97.8%, kappa = 0.964) using the SVM classifier on the layer stacking fusion data at 1 m spatial resolution. Compared with the best classification results of the CASI and LiDAR data alone, the overall classification accuracies improved by 9.1% and 19.6%, respectively. Our findings also demonstrated that the SVM classifier generally performed better than the MLC when classifying multisource data; however, none of the classifiers consistently produced higher accuracies at all spatial resolutions. View Full-Text
Keywords: LiDAR; hyperspectral image; land cover classification; data fusion; support vector machine; maximum likelihood classification LiDAR; hyperspectral image; land cover classification; data fusion; support vector machine; maximum likelihood classification

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Luo, S.; Wang, C.; Xi, X.; Zeng, H.; Li, D.; Xia, S.; Wang, P. Fusion of Airborne Discrete-Return LiDAR and Hyperspectral Data for Land Cover Classification. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 3.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Remote Sens. EISSN 2072-4292 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top