Document Type : Research Paper


Assist. Professor, Department of Nature Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources, Yasouj University, Yasouj, Iran


The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of Landsat 8 and Sentinel 2 satellite data sets based on Maximum Likelihood, Support Vector Machine, Neural Network algorithms for mapping the LU/LC of Kobgian watershed in Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province. For this purpose, corrections, data preparation, data set creation, classification and analysis, mapping and verification were done using ENVI® 5.3, ArcGIS® 10.5, Google Earth Pro and Excel 2016 software. The results showed that the highest total accuracy and kappa coefficient for Landsat 8 and Sentinel 2 satellites belongs to the maximum likelihood algorithm with a value of 74.18% and 0.69 and neural network algorithm with a value of 72.84% and 0.67, respectively. The overall accuracy order of the algorithms for mapping LU/LC the watershed using Landsat 8 and sentinel 2 data was as maximum likelihood > support vector machine > neural network and using data was as neural network> maximum likelihood > support vector machine, respectively. The accuracy of the algorithms indicated that if a specific LU/LC is the main goal such as basin rangelands, the support vector machine algorithm should be used. The area of eight classes of Kabgian watershed is: agriculture 1342, residential 1356, rock 3579, forest 23289, water body 407, abandoned lands 9571, garden 3139 and pasture 54125 ha. Therefore, depending on the type of LU/LC, the type of satellite data available, and the purpose of study, the priority of using algorithms will be different and based on the desired factor, suitable algorithm should be selected.


Main Subjects

Alavipanah S. K. (2013). Aplication of remote sensing in the earth sciences (soil). University of Tehran press. 478pp [In Persian].
Asghari Saraskanrood S., khodabandelo B., Naseri A. and Moradi A. (2019). Extracting Land use map based on a comparison between pixel-based and object-oriented classification methods case study: Zanjan City. Sepehr, 28(110), 195-208 [In Persian].
Aslami F., Ghorbani A., Sobhani B. and Panahandeh M. (2015). Comparing artificial neural network, support vector machine and object-based methods in preparation land use/cover mapsusing landSat-8 images RS. GIS. Nat. Resour., 6(3), 1-14 [In Persian].
Delfan E., Naghavi H., Maleknia R. and Nouredini A. (2020). Comparing the Capability of Sentinel 2 and Landsat 8 Satellite imagery in land use and land cover mapping using pixel-based and object-based classification methods. Des. Ecos. Eng. J., 8(25), 1-12. [In Persian]
Elagouz M. H., Abou-Shleel S. M., Belal A. A. and El-Mohandes M. A. O. (2020). Detection of land use/cover change in Egyptian Nile Delta using remote sensing. Egypt. J. Remot. Sens. Space Sci., 23, 57–62.
ESA (European Space Agency). (2020). User guide of Sentinel-2. Available at: sentinel-2-msi, 64pp.
Eskandari S. (2019). Comparison of different algorithms for land cover mapping in sensitive habitats of Zagros using Sentinel-2 satellite image: (Case study: a part of Ilam province). RS. GIS. Nat. Resour, 10(1). 72-87 [In Persian].
Fathizad H., Fallah Shamsi R., Mahdavi A. and Arekhi S. (2015). Comparison of two classification methods of maximum probability and artificial neural network of fuzzy Artmap to produce rangeland cover maps (Case study: Rangeland of Doviraj, Dehloran). Iran. J. Range. Des. Res, 22(1), 59-72 [In Persian].
Fazeli Farsani A., Ghazavi R. and Farzaneh M. R. (2015). Investigation of land use classification algorithms using images fusion techniques (Case study: Beheshtabad Sub-basin). RS. GIS. Nat. Resour., 6(1), 91-105 [In Persian].
Foody G. M. (2002). Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment. Remot. Sens. Environ., 80, 185–201.
Jędrych M., Zagajewski B. and Marcinkowska-Ochtyra A. (2017). Application of Sentinel-2 and EnMAP new satellite data to the mapping of alpine vegetation of the Karkonosze Mountains. Pol. Cartogr. Rev., 49(3), 107-119.
King R. B. (2002). Land cover mapping principles: a return to interpretation fundamentals. Int. J. Remot. Sens., 23, 3525–3546.
Kwang C., Osei J. E. M. and Amoah AS . (2018). Comparing of Landsat 8 and Sentinel 2A using Water Extraction Indexes over Volta River. J. Geogr. Geol., 10, 1-7.
Labib S. M. and Harris A. (2018). The potentials of Sentinel-2 and LandSat-8 data in green infrastructure extraction, using object based image analysis (OBIA) method. Eur. J. Remot. Sens., 51(1), 231-240.
Li B. and Zhou Q. (2009). Accuracy assessment on multi-temporal land-cover change detection using a trajectory error matrix. Int. J. Remot. Sens., 30(5), 1283–1296.
Lima T. A., Beuchle R., Langner A., Grecchi R. C., Griess V. C. and Achard F. (2019). Comparing Sentinel-2 MSI and Landsat 8 OLI imagery for monitoring selective logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Remot. Sens., 11, 1-21.
Lu D. and Weng Q. (2007). A survey of image classification methods and techniques for improving classification performance. Int. J. Remot. Sens., 28 (5), 823–870.
Masria A., Nadaoka K., Negm A. and Iskandar M. (2015). Detection of shoreline and land cover changes around Rosetta Promontory, Egypt, based on remote sensing analysis. Land., 4, 216-230.
Mirzaei Zadeh V., Niknejad M. and Oladi Qadikolaei J. (2015). Evaluating non-parametric supervised classification algorithms in land cover map using LandSat-8 Images. RS GIS Tech. Nat. Resour., 6(3), 29-44 [In Persian].
Mombeni M., Nasrollahi M.,  Karimi K. and Ara H. (2018). Investigation and comparison of the maximum likelihood and fuzzy artmap methods in preparing and monitoring land use changes (Case study: Omidiyeh, Khuzestan province). Iran. J. Ran. Des. Res, 25(2), 248-262 [In Persian].
NOAA NOS. (2015). What is the difference between land cover and land use?.
Otukei J. R. and Blaschke T. (2010). Land cover change assessment using decision trees, support vector machines and maximum likelihood classification algorithms. J. Appl. Earth. Obs. Geoinf, 12, 27–31.
Rawat J. S. and Kumar M. (2015). Monitoring land use/cover change using remote sensing and GIS techniques: a case study of Hawalbagh block, district Almora, Uttarakhand, India. Egypt. J. Remot. Sens. Space Sci., 18, 77–84.
Rogan J. and Chen D. (2004). Remote sensing technology for mapping and monitoring land-cover and land-use change. Prog. Plann., 61, 301-325.
Szuster B.W., Chen Q. and Borger M. (2011). A comparison of classification techniques to support land cover and land use analysis in tropical coastal zones. Appl. Geogr., 31(2), 525–532.
Topaloglu R. H., Sertel E. and Musaoglu N. (2016). Assessment of classification accuracies of Sentinel-2 and Landsat-8 data for land cover/use mapping. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLI-B8, XXIII ISPRS Congress, 12–19 July 2016, Prague, Czech Republic.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). (2019a). LANDSAT 8 (L8) data users handbook, Version 5.0, March 29, LSDS-1574, 106pp.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). (2019b). Pages dedicated to Landsat missions. Calibration notices of december 29, 2019—Landsat 8 reprocessing to begin February 3, 2014. Available online: (accessed on 20 March 2020).
Wani S. P., Sreedevi T.K., Reddy T. S. V., Venkateswarlu B. and Prasad C. S. (2008). Community watersheds for improved livelihoods through consortium approach in drought prone rain-fed areas. J. Hydrol. Res. Dev., 23, 55–77.
Wu Q., Li H., Wang R., Paulussen J., He Y., Wang M. and et al. (2006). Monitoring and predicting land use change in Beijing using remote sensing and GIS. Landsc. Urban Plan., 78, 322-333.