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

Günen M. A.

Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol.29, no.14, pp.21092-21106, 2022 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 29 Issue: 14
  • Publication Date: 2022
  • Doi Number: 10.1007/s11356-021-17177-z
  • Journal Name: Environmental Science and Pollution Research
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, IBZ Online, ABI/INFORM, Aerospace Database, Aqualine, Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA), BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts, EMBASE, Environment Index, Geobase, MEDLINE, Pollution Abstracts, Veterinary Science Database, Civil Engineering Abstracts
  • Page Numbers: pp.21092-21106
  • Kayseri University Affiliated: No


© 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.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.