Performance comparison of deep learning and machine learning methods in determining wetland water areas using EuroSAT dataset

MakaleYalnız künye
  • SDG 6 · Temiz Su ve Sanitasyon

Özet

Wetlands are critical to the ecology because they maintain biodiversity and provide home for a variety of species. Researching, mapping, and conservation of wetlands is a challenging and time-consuming process. Because they produce temporal and geographical information, remote sensing and photogrammetric approaches are useful tools for analyzing and managing wetlands. In this study, the water areas of five different wetlands obtained with Sentinel-2 images in Turkey were classified. Although obtaining large amounts of high-dimensional dataset labeled for various land types is costly, it is a significant advantage to use it after model training in a wide range of applications. In this paper, the EuroSAT dataset was used in the validation process. Proposed deep learning–based 1D convolutional neural networks (CNN) and traditional machine learning methods (i.e., support vector machine, linear discriminant analysis, K-nearest neighborhood, canonical correlation forests, and AdaBoost.M1) were compared quantitatively (i.e., accuracy, recall, precision, specificity, F-score, and image quality assessment metrics) and qualitatively. Finally, pairwise comparison was made with chi-square-based McNemar’s test. There is a statistical difference between 1D CNN and machine learning method (except the support vector machine vs linear discriminant analysis in Test 1 area). CNN models outperform machine learning algorithms in terms of non-linear function approximation and the ability to extract and articulate data features. Since 1D CNNs can process data in a highly complex and unique feature space, they are very successful in segmenting strongly related and highly correlated discrete signals. It also has advantages over machine learning methods for water body extraction in that it can be integrated with sophisticated image pre-processing and standardization tools, is less susceptible to low-level random noise, and provides shift in variations and contrast-invariant image local transforms.

Anahtar Kelimeler

RDL Kalıcı Bağlantı (PID)
https://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/gumushane/14870Resmi atıflarda kullanılan kalıcı adres
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17177-zYayıncı resmi DOI adresi
Tam Kayıt
AlanDeğerDil
dc.contributor.authorGünen, Mehmet Akif
dc.date.accessioned2026-10-22T10:23:15.516631907Z
dc.date.available2026-10-22T10:23:15.516631907Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.description.abstractWetlands are critical to the ecology because they maintain biodiversity and provide home for a variety of species. Researching, mapping, and conservation of wetlands is a challenging and time-consuming process. Because they produce temporal and geographical information, remote sensing and photogrammetric approaches are useful tools for analyzing and managing wetlands. In this study, the water areas of five different wetlands obtained with Sentinel-2 images in Turkey were classified. Although obtaining large amounts of high-dimensional dataset labeled for various land types is costly, it is a significant advantage to use it after model training in a wide range of applications. In this paper, the EuroSAT dataset was used in the validation process. Proposed deep learning–based 1D convolutional neural networks (CNN) and traditional machine learning methods (i.e., support vector machine, linear discriminant analysis, K-nearest neighborhood, canonical correlation forests, and AdaBoost.M1) were compared quantitatively (i.e., accuracy, recall, precision, specificity, F-score, and image quality assessment metrics) and qualitatively. Finally, pairwise comparison was made with chi-square-based McNemar’s test. There is a statistical difference between 1D CNN and machine learning method (except the support vector machine vs linear discriminant analysis in Test 1 area). CNN models outperform machine learning algorithms in terms of non-linear function approximation and the ability to extract and articulate data features. Since 1D CNNs can process data in a highly complex and unique feature space, they are very successful in segmenting strongly related and highly correlated discrete signals. It also has advantages over machine learning methods for water body extraction in that it can be integrated with sophisticated image pre-processing and standardization tools, is less susceptible to low-level random noise, and provides shift in variations and contrast-invariant image local transforms.
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s11356-021-17177-z
dc.identifier.eissn1614-7499
dc.identifier.endpage21106
dc.identifier.issn0944-1344
dc.identifier.issue14
dc.identifier.pmid34746985
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85118582215
dc.identifier.startpage21092
dc.identifier.urihttps://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/gumushane/14870
dc.identifier.volume29
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000715190000002
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSpringer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH
dc.relation.ispartofEnvironmental Science and Pollution Research
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject1D CNN
dc.subjectClassification
dc.subjectRemote sensing
dc.subjectSentinel-2
dc.subjectWetland
dc.subject.classificationEnvironmental Sciences
dc.subject.classificationEnvironmental Sciences & Ecology
dc.subject.otherDeep Learning
dc.subject.otherMachine Learning
dc.subject.otherNeural Networks, Computer
dc.subject.otherSupport Vector Machine
dc.subject.otherWater
dc.subject.otherWetlands
dc.subject.otherTurkey
dc.subject.otherbiodiversity
dc.subject.othercomparative study
dc.subject.otherdiscriminant analysis
dc.subject.otherperformance assessment
dc.subject.otherremote sensing
dc.subject.otherSentinel
dc.subject.otherstandardization
dc.subject.otherwetland
dc.titlePerformance comparison of deep learning and machine learning methods in determining wetland water areas using EuroSAT dataset
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
rdl.citation.openalex72
rdl.citation.scopus74
rdl.citation.wos53
rdl.departmentDepartment of Geomatics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Gümüşhane University, Gümüşhane, Turkey
rdl.oa.statusclosed
rdl.sdgSDG06
rdl.source.indexSCOPUS
rdl.source.indexWOS
rdl.source.indexPUBMED
rdl.wos.indexScience Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)