Assessing Land Cover Changes Using the LUCAS Database and Sentinel Imagery: A Comparative Analysis of Accuracy Metrics
Source abstract
Abstract
Classification of remote sensing images using machine learning models requires a large amount of training data. Collecting this data is both labor-intensive and time-consuming. In this study, the effectiveness of using pre-existing reference data on land cover gathered as part of the Land Use–Land Cover Area Frame Survey (LUCAS) database of the Copernicus program was analyzed. The classification was carried out in Google Earth Engine (GEE) using Sentinel-2 images that were specially prepared to account for the phenological development of plants. Classification was performed using SVM, RF, and CART algorithms in GEE, with an in-depth accuracy analysis conducted using a custom tool. Attention was given to the reliability of different accuracy metrics, with a particular focus on the widely used machine learning (ML) metric of “accuracy”, which should not be compared with the commonly used remote sensing metric of “overall accuracy”, due to the potential for significant artificial inflation of accuracy. The accuracy of LUCAS 2018 at Level-1 detail was estimated at 86%. Using the updated LUCAS dataset, the best classification result was achieved with the RF method, with an accuracy of 83%. An accuracy overestimation of approximately 10% was observed when reporting the average accuracy ACC metric used in ML instead of the overall accuracy OA metric.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Remote Sensing in Agriculture · Remote Sensing and Land Use · Land Use and Ecosystem Services
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing, and Spatial Engineering, Faculty of Geo-Data Science, Geodesy and Environmental Engeneerinf, AGH University, al. A. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Krakow, Poland
Funding
AGH University of Science and Technology · Excellence Initiative—Research University
References (48)
Show source-provided references
1. (2024, December 25). Getting to Know LUCAS: The Land Use-Land Cover Area Frame Survey. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=LUCAS_-_Land_use_and_land_cover_survey.
2. Harmonised LUCAS in-situ land cover and use database for field surveys from 2006 to 2018 in the European Union10.1038/s41597-020-00675-z ↗
3. LUCAS Copernicus 2018: Earth-observation-relevant in situ data on land cover and use throughout the European Union10.5194/essd-13-1119-2021 ↗
4. LUCAS cover photos 2006–2018 over the EU: 874 646 spatially distributed geo-tagged close-up photos with land cover and plant species label10.5194/essd-14-4463-2022 ↗
5. (2024, December 25). Copernicus and its In-Situ Component. Available online: https://insitu.copernicus.eu/.
6. Laso Bayas, J.C., See, L., Bartl, H., Sturn, T., Karner, M., Fraisl, D., Moorthy, I., Busch, M., van der Velde, M., and Fritz, S. (2020). Crowdsourcing LUCAS: Citizens Generating Reference Land Cover and Land Use Data with a Mobile App. Land, 9.10.20944/preprints202009.0574.v1 ↗
7. Sen4Map: Advancing Mapping with Sentinel-2 by Providing Detailed Semantic Descriptions and Customizable Land-Use and Land-Cover Data10.1109/JSTARS.2024.3435081 ↗
8. Bessardon, G., Rieutord, T., Gleeson, E., Pálmason, B., and Oswald, S. (2024). High-Resolution Land Use Land Cover Dataset for Meteorological Modelling—Part 1: ECOCLIMAP-SG+ an Agreement-Based Dataset. Land, 13.10.20944/preprints202409.0953.v1 ↗
9. Dynamics of Soil Organic Carbon and Total Nitrogen in Particulate and Mineral-Associated Organic Matter Fractions Under Different Continuous Land Use Patterns Across Europe10.1016/j.agee.2024.109411 ↗
10. Continental-Scale Mapping of Soil pH with SAR-Optical Fusion Based on Long-Term Earth Observation Data in Google Earth Engine10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112246 ↗
11. European Topsoil Bulk Density and Organic Carbon Stock Database (0–20 cm) Using Machine-Learning-Based Pedotransfer Functions10.5194/essd-16-2367-2024 ↗
12. Temporal Trends in Finnish Agricultural Soils: A Comparative Analysis of National and LUCAS Soil Monitoring Datasets10.1111/ejss.13525 ↗
13. Developing a Digital Mapping of Soil Organic Carbon on a National Scale Using Sentinel-2 and Hybrid Models at Varying Spatial Resolutions10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112654 ↗
14. European Croplands under Climate Change: Carbon Input Changes Required to Increase Projected Soil Organic Carbon Stocks10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.176525 ↗
15. Benchmarking Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) Concentration Provides More Robust Soil Health Assessment than the SOC/Clay Ratio at European Scale10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175642 ↗
16. Mapping the Soil C:N Ratio at the European Scale by Combining Multi-Year Sentinel Radar and Optical Data via Cloud Computing10.1016/j.still.2024.106311 ↗
17. Soil bulk density assessment in Europe10.1016/j.agee.2024.108907 ↗
18. Determination of suitable agricultural areas and current land use in Isparta Province, Türkiye, through a linear combination technique and geographic information systems10.1007/s10668-023-04359-7 ↗
19. De Rosa, D., Ballabio, C., Lugato, E., Fasiolo, M., Jones, A., and Panagos, P. (2024). Soil organic carbon stocks in European croplands and grasslands: How much have we lost in the past decade?. Glob. Chang. Biol., 30.10.1111/gcb.16992 ↗
20. Bormpoudakis, D., Giannarakis, G., Sanchez-Cueto, P., Sanchez, S.G., Llado, S., Hartmann, M., and Kontoes, C. (2024, January 7–12). Exploring the Links between Bacterial Diversity with Vegetation and Soil Parameters Using Soil Metabarcoding Data and Sentinel-2 Indices. Proceedings of the International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), Athens, Greece.10.1109/IGARSS53475.2024.10642227 ↗
21. Verhegghen, A., D’Andrimont, R., Waldner, F., and Van der Velde, M. (2021, January 11–16). Accuracy Assessment of the First Eu-Wide Crop Type Map with Lucas Data. Proceedings of the IGARSS 2021—2021 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Brussels, Belgium.10.1109/IGARSS47720.2021.9553758 ↗
22. Semi-Supervised European Forest Types Mapping using High-Fidelity Satellite Data
23. Spatial and semantic effects of LUCAS samples on fully automated land use/land cover classification in high-resolution Sentinel-2 data
24. Mapping pan-European land cover using Landsat spectral-temporal metrics and the European LUCAS survey10.1016/j.rse.2018.12.001 ↗
25. The first map of crop sequence types in Europe over 2012–201810.5194/essd-15-5651-2023 ↗
26. Ghassemi, B., Immitzer, M., Atzberger, C., and Vuolo, F. (2022). Evaluation of Accuracy Enhancement in European-Wide Crop Type Mapping by Combining Optical and Microwave Time Series. Land, 11.10.3390/land11091397 ↗
27. Ghassemi, B., Dujakovic, A., Żółtak, M., Immitzer, M., Atzberger, C., and Vuolo, F. (2022). Designing a European-Wide Crop Type Mapping Approach Based on Machine Learning Algorithms Using LUCAS Field Survey and Sentinel-2 Data. Remote Sens., 14.10.3390/rs14030541 ↗
28. European Union crop map 2022: Earth observation’s 10-meter dive into Europe’s crop tapestry10.1038/s41597-024-03884-y ↗
29. Evaluation of the Ecological Risk of Pesticide Residues from the European LUCAS Soil Monitoring 2018 Survey10.1002/ieam.4917 ↗
30. Benevides, P.J., Silva, N., Costa, H., Moreira, F.D., Moraes, D., Castelli, M., and Caetano, M. (2021, January 13–17). Land cover mapping at national scale with Sentinel-2 and LUCAS: A case study in Portugal. Proceedings of the Remote Sensing for Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Hydrology XXIII, Online.10.1117/12.2598789 ↗
31. Automatic classification of land cover from LUCAS in-situ landscape photos using semantic segmentation and a Random Forest model
32. A Scalable High-Performance Unsupervised System for Producing Large-Scale HR Land Cover Maps: The Italian Country Case Study10.1109/JSTARS.2022.3209902 ↗
33. Gandhi, U. (2024, December 25). End-to-End Google Earth Engine Course. Spatial Thoughts. Available online: https://courses.spatialthoughts.com/end-to-end-gee.html.
34. Random Forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
35. Vapnik, V.N. (1995). The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory, Springer.10.1007/978-1-4757-2440-0 ↗
36. Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R., and Stone, C. (1984). Classification and Regression Trees, Chapman and Hall/CRC. Wadsworth and Brooks.
37. A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data10.1016/0034-4257(91)90048-B ↗
38. Foody, G.M. (2017). Impacts of Sample Design for Validation Data on the Accuracy of Feedforward Neural Network Classification. Appl. Sci., 7.10.3390/app7090888 ↗
39. Comparative assessment of the measures of thematic classification ac-curacy10.1016/j.rse.2006.10.010 ↗
40. Impacts of ignorance on the accuracy of image classification and thematic mapping10.1016/j.rse.2021.112367 ↗
41. Review of deep learning methods for remote sensing satellite images classification: Experimental survey and comparative analysis10.1186/s40537-023-00772-x ↗
42. (2024, November 11). Image Classification on Satellite Images with Deep Learning. Available online: https://medium.com/@ozgunhaznedar/image-classification-on-satellite-images-with-deep-learning-baa9813dde4e.
43. Deep Learning Detects Invasive Plant Species across Complex Landscapes Using Worldview-2 and Planetscope Satellite Imagery10.1002/rse2.288 ↗
44. Tehsin, S., Kausar, S., Jameel, A., Humayun, M., and Almofarreh, D.K. (2023). Satellite Image Categorization Using Scalable Deep Learning. Appl. Sci., 13.10.3390/app13085108 ↗
45. Classification of satellite images with deep convolutional neural networks and its effect on architecture
46. A Study on Deep Learning Models for Satellite Imagery
47. Pritt, M., and Chern, G. (2017, January 10–12). Satellite image classification with deep learning. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Applied Imagery Pattern Recognition Workshop (AIPR), Washington, DC, USA.10.1109/AIPR.2017.8457969 ↗
48. Hejmanowska, B., Kramarczyk, P., Głowienka, E., and Mikrut, S. (2021). Reliable Crops Classification Using Limited Number of Sentinel-2 and Sentinel-1 Images. Remote Sens., 13.10.3390/rs13163176 ↗