Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorYin, Gaohong
dc.contributor.authorMariethoz, Gregoire
dc.contributor.authorSun, Ying
dc.contributor.authorMcCabe, Matthew
dc.date.accessioned2017-10-30T08:39:49Z
dc.date.available2017-10-30T08:39:49Z
dc.date.issued2017-08-10
dc.identifier.citationYin G, Mariethoz G, Sun Y, McCabe MF (2017) A comparison of gap-filling approaches for Landsat-7 satellite data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 38: 6653–6679. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2017.1363432.
dc.identifier.issn0143-1161
dc.identifier.issn1366-5901
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/01431161.2017.1363432
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10754/625993
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of this study is to assess the relative performance of four different gap-filling approaches across a range of land-surface conditions, including both homogeneous and heterogeneous areas as well as in scenes with abrupt changes in landscape elements. The techniques considered in this study include: (1) Kriging and co-Kriging; (2) geostatistical neighbourhood similar pixel interpolator (GNSPI); (3) a weighted linear regression (WLR) algorithm; and (4) the direct sampling (DS) method. To examine the impact of image availability and the influence of temporal distance on the selection of input training data (i.e. time separating the training data from the gap-filled target image), input images acquired within the same season (temporally close) as well as in different seasons (temporally far) to the target image were examined, as was the case of using information only within the target image itself. Root mean square error (RMSE), mean spectral angle (MSA), and coefficient of determination (R-2) were used as the evaluation metrics to assess the prediction results. In addition, the overall accuracy (OA) and kappa coefficient (kappa) were used to assess a land-cover classification based on the gap-filled images. Results show that all of the gap-filling approaches provide satisfactory results for the homogeneous case, with R-2 > 0.93 for bands 1 and 2 in all cases and R-2 > 0.80 for bands 3 and 4 in most cases. For the heterogeneous example, GNSPI performs the best, with R-2 > 0.85 for all tested cases. WLR and GNSPI exhibit equivalent accuracy when a temporally close input image is used (i.e. WLR and GNSPI both have an R-2 equal to 0.89 for band 1). For the case of abrupt changes in scene elements or in the absence of ancillary data, the DS approach outperforms the other tested methods.
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was supported by funding from King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST).
dc.publisherInforma UK Limited
dc.relation.urlhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431161.2017.1363432
dc.titleA comparison of gap-filling approaches for Landsat-7 satellite data
dc.typeArticle
dc.contributor.departmentBiological and Environmental Sciences and Engineering (BESE) Division
dc.contributor.departmentComputer, Electrical and Mathematical Sciences and Engineering (CEMSE) Division
dc.contributor.departmentEnvironmental Science and Engineering Program
dc.contributor.departmentStatistics Program
dc.contributor.departmentWater Desalination and Reuse Research Center (WDRC)
dc.identifier.journalInternational Journal of Remote Sensing
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
dc.contributor.institutionInstitute of Earth Surface Dynamics, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
kaust.personYin, Gaohong
kaust.personSun, Ying
kaust.personMcCabe, Matthew
display.relations<b> Is Supplemented By:</b> <br/> <ul> <li><i>[Dataset]</i> <br/> . DOI: <a href="https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5297071.v1">10.6084/m9.figshare.5297071.v1</a> HANDLE: <a href="http://hdl.handle.net/10754/663884">10754/663884</a></li></ul>
dc.date.published-online2017-08-10
dc.date.published-print2017-12-02


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record