2019
DOI: 10.3390/ijgi8030156
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of the Scale on Several Metrics Used in Geographical Object-Based Image Analysis: Does GEOBIA Mitigate the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP)?

Abstract: Using two GEOBIA (Geographical Object Based Image Analysis) algorithms on a set of segmented images compared to grid partitioning at different scales, we show that statistical metrics related to both objects and sets of pixels are (more or less) subject to the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. Subsequently, even in a same spatial partition, there may be a bias in statistics describing the objects due to some size effect of the pixel samples. For instance, pixels homogeneity based on Grey Level Cooccurrence Matric… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We refer to Levin (1992), that there is no single "correct" scale for describing ecosystems, rather we shall accompany our attention to the interaction among patterns and processes on different scales. We believe that in particular objectbased image analysis (OBIA) (Blaschke, 2010;Blaschke & Merschdorf, 2014;Blaschke & Piralilou, 2018;Burnett & Blaschke, 2003;Chen, Weng, Hay, & Yinan, 2018;Georganos et al, 2018;Josselin & Louvet, 2019;Tiede, 2014), can serve as a methodology to generating a structural hierarchy at multiple scales, in particular for the image processing domain.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We refer to Levin (1992), that there is no single "correct" scale for describing ecosystems, rather we shall accompany our attention to the interaction among patterns and processes on different scales. We believe that in particular objectbased image analysis (OBIA) (Blaschke, 2010;Blaschke & Merschdorf, 2014;Blaschke & Piralilou, 2018;Burnett & Blaschke, 2003;Chen, Weng, Hay, & Yinan, 2018;Georganos et al, 2018;Josselin & Louvet, 2019;Tiede, 2014), can serve as a methodology to generating a structural hierarchy at multiple scales, in particular for the image processing domain.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, it is necessary to establish an appropriate Scale level depending on the size of the object studied in the image [ 43 ]; for example, low Scale values for small shrubs and high Scale values for large shrubs [ 44 , 45 ]. Recent advances have been oriented in developing techniques (e.g., [ 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ]) and algorithms (e.g., [ 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 ]) to automatically find the optimal value of the Scale parameter [ 64 ], which is the most important for determining the size of the segmented objects [ 65 , 66 ]. The Shape and the Compactness parameters must be configured too.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3. Scale dependence -Following the observation that the strength of multivariate image statistics tends to degrade with smaller spatial scales due to the MAUP [88,89], it is expected that k Rr GeoFID will increase as spatial scale decreases (signaling increasing visual differences between the region as a whole and smaller subregions). However, for k rq GeoFID to be considered a reliable discriminator, the effects of the MAUP on k Rr GeoFID at smaller scales for the random synthetic shape set should not exceed the qualitative threshold considered as 'visually similar' in the literature (i.e., the two random distributions being compared are not misclassified as distinct distributions solely because of the MAUP).…”
Section: Stability -The Standard Deviations Of K Rrmentioning
confidence: 99%