
You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.
You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
Assessment of Three Automated Identification Methods for Ground Object Based on UAV Imagery

doi: 10.3390/su142114603
Identification and monitoring of diverse resources or wastes on the ground is important for integrated resource management. The unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), with its high resolution and facility, is the optimal tool for monitoring ground objects accurately and efficiently. However, previous studies have focused on applying classification methodology on land use and agronomy, and few studies have compared different classification methods using UAV imagery. It is necessary to fully utilize the high resolution of UAV by applying the classification methodology to ground object identification. This study compared three classification methods: A. NDVI threshold, B. RGB image-based machine learning, and C. object-based image analysis (OBIA). Method A was the least time-consuming and could identify vegetation and soil with high accuracy (user’s accuracy > 0.80), but had poor performance at classifying dead vegetation, plastic, and metal (user’s accuracy < 0.50). Both Methods B and C were time- and labor-consuming, but had very high accuracy in separating vegetation, soil, plastic, and metal (user’s accuracy ≥ 0.70 for all classes). Method B showed a good performance in identifying objects with bright colors, whereas Method C showed a high ability in separating objects with similar visual appearances. Scientifically, this study has verified the possibility of using the existing classification methods on identifying small ground objects with a size of less than 1 m, and has discussed the reasons for the different accuracy of the three methods. Practically, these results help users from different fields to choose an appropriate method that suits their target, so that different wastes or multiple resources can be monitored at the same time by combining different methods, which contributes to an improved integrated resource management system.
OBIA, Environmental effects of industries and plants, NDVI, UAV, TJ807-830, TD194-195, Renewable energy sources, orthomosaic, Environmental sciences, machine learning, classification, GE1-350, UAV; NDVI; orthomosaic; classification; OBIA; machine learning; threshold
OBIA, Environmental effects of industries and plants, NDVI, UAV, TJ807-830, TD194-195, Renewable energy sources, orthomosaic, Environmental sciences, machine learning, classification, GE1-350, UAV; NDVI; orthomosaic; classification; OBIA; machine learning; threshold
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).4 popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.Top 10% influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).Average impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.Average
