IDRISI Andes Image Classification Report

Introduction
Satellite imagery provides vast amounts of digital data. In LANDSAT 5 Thematic
Mapper images, the data is in the form of electromagnetic reflectance values at
different wavelengths. The possible reflectance values for each pixel in each band
range from 0 to 255.[1]
LANDSAT 5 Thematic Mapper records seven bands of information: blue (band 1;
0.450.52 m), green (band 2; 0.520.60 m), red (band 3; 0.630.69 m), near
infrared (band 4; 0.760.90 m), middle infrared (band 5; 1.551.75 m), thermal
infrared (band 6; 10.4012.50 m) and another middle infrared (band 7; 2.082.35
m).[2]
Reflectance is affected by season and the reflective surface among other things.
Image classification relies on identifying a unique sets (reflectance values for all
wavelengths) of reflectance values for a specific land use known as a spectral
signature. This is not entirely possible as there is not necessarily a unique set for
every different land use.[1]
While the eye provides the best interpretation, computer algorithms are quicker and
provide more consistent classification. The human eye is often used to guide digital
classification[1] or in conjunction with digital classification as in the case of the
reclassified images in this report.
Data
The data for this report are the seven bands of LANDSAT 5 Thematic Mapper for
Howe Hill, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States of America taken 10 September
1987[3] at which time the deciduous trees still had leaves. The date also indicates
that the images were taken during the harvest period so the reflectance of agricultural
land is likely to have considerable variation.
Figure 1: Google Image of Howe Hill, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States of
America. This site is used in the tutorials for both IDRISI32 and IDRISI Andes
though this image covers a larger area than the tutorials use.
Figure 2: IDRISI Andes composite image of LANDSAT 5 Thematic Mapper bands
4, 3, and 1 showing Howe Hill, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States of America.
The site used in this report and the IDRISI tutorial (both the IDRISI32 and IDRISI
Andes versions) is a 2.16 km (width) by 2.58 km (length) section of Howe Hill,
Worcester, Massachusetts, United States of America (an area of 5.5728 km2).[3] Howe
Hill is relatively undeveloped. Most of it is covered by forest (either coniferous or
deciduous). Figure 1 suggests that a clean distinction between the different forest
types may not be possible. The other features of Howe Hill are several water bodies,
some agricultural land (mostly but not exclusively in the eastern half of the image),
some housing (to the north and north-east) and an old airstrip (to the south-west).
Several roads run through the site. The roads are clearly visible in the GoogleEarth
image (Fig. 1) (presumably owing to its having been taken in a season in which the
deciduous trees had shed their leaves) but not in the LANDSAT 5 Thematic Mapper
image (Fig. 2).
Methods

All the methods used in this report are hard classifiers, which means that they assign
each pixel to a fixed class.[1]
A Principle Components Analysis (PCA) was run in IDRISI Andes (set to seven
components and full output) to determine the combination of bands carrying the most
information as an alternative to using all bands in classification. The three bands
carrying most of the information were bands 4, 3 and 1. This agrees with the IDRISI
Andes Manual[1] which indicates that the most information for many environments is
contained in the near infrared (band 4) and red (band 3) bands.
The six land use categories identified in the IDRISI Andes tutorial[1] (deep water,
shallow water, agriculture, urban area, coniferous forest and deciduous forest) were
used for this report.
Eight classification algorithms were applied to reflectance data of the LANDSAT 5
Thematic Mapper bands. The following three unsupervised classification algorithms
were used in IDRISI Andes: CLUSTER, ISOCLUST (sometimes considered semisupervised) and KMEANS. The following five supervised classification algorithms
were used in IDRISI Andes: FISHER, KNN, MAXLIKE, MINDIST and PIPED.
Unsupervised Classification.
CLUSTER
The CLUSTER algorithm makes use of a technique analysing histogram peaks. The
The broad classification looks for distinct peaks while the fine classification
recognises significant overlaps between peaks. In IDRISI Andes, CLUSTER is
specifically modified to work with three band 8-bit composite images.[1]
The IDRISI Andes CLUSTER algorithm was set to fine classification and a user
selected number of classes with all the other settings at the default position.
Experimentation indicated that the use of all seven LANDSAT 5 Thematic Mapper
bands was less effective than the use of three bands. Accordingly bands 4, 3 and 1
were used to classify the image. I selected 12 and 16 classes for this report though my
experimentation extended to 20 classes. The CLUSTER outputs were then
reclassified using the RECLASS algorithm to show the aforementioned six land use
categories. The reclassified images were analysed using the AREA algorithm in
IDRISI Andes. Both reclassified images were also compared pixel by pixel with each
other and the images from all the other classification algorithms used.
ISOCLUST
In IDRISI Andes, after entering the number of bands to be used in the classification, a
histogram is created to provide the user with a guide to choosing a meaningful
number of classes (by selecting breaks in the histogram). After the user has
determined the desired number of classes, ISOCLUST places classes then assigns
pixels to the nearest class. When this is completed, a new mean location is computed
and pixels. The placing of pixels in classes and calculation of new mean locations is
repeated until the output does not change significantly. ISOCLUST makes use of
CLUSTER to locate the seed classes and a maximum likelihood procedure for the
iterations.[1]

The number of iterations for each run of the IDRISI Andes ISOCLUST algorithm was
set at one less than the number of classes chosen. The other settings were left at the
default. Experimentation indicated that the use of all seven LANDSAT 5 Thematic
Mapper bands was less effective than the use of three bands. Accordingly bands 4, 3
and 1 were used to classify the image. I selected 10 (9 iterations) and 16 (15
iterations) classes for this report but my experimentation was more extensive. The
ISOCLUST outputs were then reclassified using the RECLASS algorithm to show the
aforementioned six land use categories. The reclassified images were analysed using
the AREA algorithm in IDRISI Andes. Both reclassified images were also compared
pixel by pixel with each other and the images from all the other classification
algorithms used.
KMEANS
The KMEANS algorithm uses a K-means clustering technique. The algorithm places
K means (centroids) then assigns pixels to the nearest mean. Euclidean distance is
used to calculate which class a pixel belongs to. The means are then updated and the
pixels are reassigned. The process is repeated until the means are fixed. The
algorithm minimises the sum of squared errors. The algorithm is highly dependent on
the initial centroids. More classes than are desired are advised to get as good a
configuration of initial centroids as possible.[1]
The IDRISI Andes Manual[1] indicates that the maximum number of classes is 256.
Using the Howe Hill data, KMEANS found a maximum of 18 classes even with the
maximum set at 20 classes.
The selection of the number of classes to be generated was the only setting altered in
the IDRISI Andes KMEANS algorithm. Experimentation indicated that the use of all
seven LANDSAT 5 Thematic Mapper bands was more effective than the use of three
bands. Accordingly all bands were used to classify the image. I selected 11 and 16
classes for this report but my experimentation went up to 20 classes. The KMEANS
outputs were then reclassified using the RECLASS algorithm to show the
aforementioned six land use categories. The reclassified images were analysed using
the AREA algorithm in IDRISI Andes. Both reclassified images were also compared
pixel by pixel with each other and the images from all the other classification
algorithms used.
Supervised Classification
Signature Files
I used a composite image of bands 2, 5 and 7 to do the on-screen digitising needed to
create spectral signatures for each land use for the supervised classification. The
digitising was done using the default settings. The resulting vector file was run
through MAKESIG in IDRISI Andes. MAKESIG indicates if more pixels are
required in a classification category and more digitising can be added to the vector file
to reach the required number of pixels (which is ten times the number of bands used
to create the signature files[1]). The classification of the six identified land use classes
was: 1 = Deep Water, 2 = Shallow Water, 3 = Agriculture, 4 = Urban Area, 5 =
Coniferous Forest and 6 = Deciduous Forest. All seven LANDSAT 5 Thematic
Mapper bands were used to create the signature files. All the other settings were left
on the default.

FISHER
The FISHER algorithm is a form of linear discriminant analysis. Linear functions are
used to classify each pixel. These functions minimise intraclass variance and
maximise interclass variance.[1]
The FISHER algorithm in IDRISI Andes was applied using all seven bands and the
default settings. The resulting images were analysed using the AREA algorithm in
IDRISI Andes and also compared pixel by pixel with the images from all the other
classification algorithms used.
KNN
The KNN algorithm uses k-nearest neighbours to determine which class a pixel
belongs to. It can be used to do either hard or soft classification. The dominant class
of the k-nearest neighbours is the one to which a pixel is assigned in the hard
classification. Euclidean distance is used to calculate which class a pixel belongs to.[1]
The KNN algorithm in IDRISI Andes was applied as a hard classifier using all seven
bands and the default settings. The resulting images were analysed using the AREA
algorithm in IDRISI Andes and also compared pixel by pixel with the images from all
the other classification algorithms used.
MAXLIKE
The MAXLIKE algorithm uses a maximum likelihood procedure derived from
Bayesian probability theory. MAXLIKE uses the mean, variances and covariance
data from the signatures to calculate which class each pixel belongs to.[1]
The MAXLIKE algorithm in IDRISI Andes was applied using all seven bands and the
default settings. The resulting images were analysed using the AREA algorithm in
IDRISI Andes and also compared pixel by pixel with the images from all the other
classification algorithms used.
MINDIST
The MINDIST algorithm in IDRISI Andes identifies each class by the mean position
it has on each band. Pixels are classified in the class with the mean nearest to the
pixel value. This means that MINDIST is less likely to classify pixels belonging to
highly variable classes classes accurately.[1]
The MINDIST algorithm in IDRISI Andes was applied using all seven bands and the
default settings. The resulting images were analysed using the AREA algorithm in
IDRISI Andes and also compared pixel by pixel with the images from all the other
classification algorithms used.
PIPED
The PIPED algorithm identifies each class by the range of values it is expected to
have on each band. The ranges for multispectral image data form box-like polygons
known as parallelpipeds which enclose the expected values. Any pixel not within a
parallelpiped is left unclassified.[1]
The PIPED algorithm in IDRISI Andes was applied using all seven bands and the
default settings. The resulting images were analysed using the AREA algorithm in

IDRISI Andes and also compared pixel by pixel with the images from all the other
classification algorithms used.
Results and Discussion
Table 1: Percentage of pixels classified to each land use for each of the hard
classifiers used in this report. The percentages were calculated from the outputs of the
AREA algorithm in IDRISI Andes. The unsupervised classification algorithms were
reclassified before the area analysis was carried out. Where the land use category of
Shallow Water was not classified, a single value for water is given under Total
Water. The PIPED algorithm did not classify 38% of the pixels.
Hard Clas- Deep
ShalTotal
AgriUrban Conife- Decisifier
Water
low
Water
culture Area
rous
duous
Water
Forest
Forest
CLUSTER 7.8
4.0
8.5
13.4
66.4
(12 classes)
CLUSTER 7.1
0.4
7.5
4.9
8.5
13.6
65.5
(16 classes)
ISOCLUST 6.3
6.5
5.0
17.6
64.6
(10 classes)
ISOCLUST 4.6
3.8
8.4
10.8
8.5
14.4
57.9
(16 classes)
KMEANS 5.8
3.0
8.8
8.7
9.3
12.6
60.7
(11 classes)
KMEANS 5.5
2.9
8.4
4.2
9.6
16.6
61.1
(16 classes)
FISHER
4.7
4.0
8.7
8.2
6.7
14.5
62.0
KNN

4.4

4.4

8.8

7.0

8.0

14.9

61.3

MAXLIKE

3.0

5.2

8.2

15.7

15.9

12.5

47.6

MINDIST

4.5

4.3

8.8

6.4

7.7

14.5

62.6

PIPED

2.1

4.4

6.5

5.5

7.1

10.2

32.7

Figure 3: CLUSTER image of Howe Hill, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States

of America produced in IDRISI Andes using LANDSAT 5 Thematic Mapper bands 4,
3 and 1, fine classification restricted to 12 classes and default settings elsewhere.
Figure 4: Reclassified CLUSTER image of Howe Hill, Worcester, Massachusetts,
United States of America produced in IDRISI Andes. The CLUSTER settings were
fine classification restricted to 12 classes and default settings elsewhere using
LANDSAT 5 Thematic Mapper bands 4, 3 and 1. The RECLASS settings were the
defaults. The reclassification was as follows: Deep Water (1) was CLUSTER class 4;
Agriculture (3) was CLUSTER classes 8 and 11; Urban Area (4) was CLUSTER
classes 6, 7 and 12; Coniferous Forest (5) was CLUSTER classes 3, 9 and 10 and
Deciduous Forest (6) was CLUSTER classes 1, 2 and 5. No CLUSTER class could
be classified as Shallow Water (2) it was combined with Deep Water (1) and
Coniferous Forest (5).

Figure 5: CLUSTER image of Howe Hill, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States

of America produced in IDRISI Andes using LANDSAT 5 Thematic Mapper bands 4,
3 and 1, fine classification restricted to 16 classes and default settings elsewhere.
Figure 6: Reclassified CLUSTER image of Howe Hill, Worcester, Massachusetts,
United States of America produced in IDRISI Andes. The CLUSTER settings were
fine classification restricted to 16 classes and default settings elsewhere using
LANDSAT 5 Thematic Mapper bands 4, 3 and 1. The RECLASS settings were the
defaults. The reclassification was as follows: Deep Water (1) was CLUSTER class 4;
Shallow Water (2) was CLUSTER class 16; Agriculture (3) was CLUSTER classes 8,
12 and 15; Urban Area (4) was CLUSTER classes 6, 7, 11 and 14; Coniferous Forest
(5) was CLUSTER classes 3, 9, 10 and 13 and Deciduous Forest (6) was CLUSTER
classes 1, 2 and 5.
The raw outputs from the CLUSTER algorithm are shown in Figures 3 and 5 while
the reclassified images are Figures 4 and 6. The raw outputs are included to allow
assessment of the reclassification.
The CLUSTER algorithm classed Shallow Water with either Deep Water or
Coniferous Forest for 12 classes. I elected to include the 12 class images (Figs 3 and
4) in this report to demonstrate the difficulties of identifying Shallow Water with the
CLUSTER algorithm. At 16 classes, some Shallow Water was identified but most
was still classified as either Coniferous Forest or Deep Water only 0.4% of the
pixels in the image were classified as Shallow Water (Table 1). Going up to 20
classes did not increase the identification of Shallow Water or noticeably improve
the classification enough to justify the increased amount of time required to assess the
reclassification.
Agriculture and Urban Area were not cleanly separated. At both 12 and 16 classes,
the reclassified image exaggerated the cover of the Urban Area and diminished the
cover of Agriculture (Table 1). Agriculture and Deciduous Forest were not
cleanly separated in some fields, e.g. the field adjacent to the main Urban Area.
Figure 7: ISOCLUST image of Howe Hill, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
of America produced in IDRISI Andes using LANDSAT 5 Thematic Mapper bands 4,
3 and 1 with 10 classes, 9 iterations and default settings elsewhere.
Figure 8: Reclassified ISOCLUST image of Howe Hill, Worcester, Massachusetts,
United States of America produced in IDRISI Andes. The ISOCLUST settings were
10 classes, 9 iterations and default settings elsewhere using LANDSAT 5 Thematic
Mapper bands 4, 3 and 1. The RECLASS settings were the defaults. The
reclassification was as follows: Deep Water (1) was ISOCLUST class 4; Agriculture
(3) was ISOCLUST class 8; Urban Area (4) was ISOCLUST class 6; Coniferous
Forest (5) was ISOCLUST classes 3 and 10 and Deciduous Forest (6) was
ISOCLUST classes 1, 2, 5, 7 and 9. No ISOCLUST class could be classified as
Shallow Water (2) it was combined with Deep Water (1) and Coniferous Forest (5).
Figure 9: ISOCLUST image of Howe Hill, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
of America produced in IDRISI Andes using LANDSAT 5 Thematic Mapper bands 4,
3 and 1 with 16 classes, 15 iterations and default settings elsewhere.
Figure 10: Reclassified ISOCLUST image of Howe Hill, Worcester, Massachusetts,
United States of America produced in IDRISI Andes. The ISOCLUST settings were
16 classes, 15 iterations and default settings elsewhere using LANDSAT 5 Thematic

Mapper bands 4, 3 and 1. The RECLASS settings were the defaults. The
reclassification was as follows: Deep Water (1) was ISOCLUST class 4; Shallow
Water (2) was ISOCLUST class 16; Agriculture (3) was ISOCLUST classes 8 and 12;
Urban Area (4) was ISOCLUST classes 6, 11 and 14; Coniferous Forest (5) was
ISOCLUST classes 9, 10 and 13 and Deciduous Forest (6) was ISOCLUST classes 1,
2, 3, 5, 7 and 15.
The raw outputs of the ISOCLUST algorithm are shown in Figures 7 and 9 while the
reclassified images are Figures 8 and 10. The raw outputs are included to allow
assessment of the reclassification.
ISOCLUST did not identify Shallow Water in under 16 classes. Below 16 classes,
Shallow Water is mostly classified as Coniferous Forest though some is also
classified as Deep Water (Fig. 8). I elected to include the 10 class images (Figs 7
and 8) in this report to demonstrate the difficulties of identifying Shallow Water with
the ISOCLUST algorithm. However, the identification of Shallow Water at 16
classes is acceptable (3.8% of pixels are assigned to Shallow Water (Table 1)). As
with CLUSTER, increasing the number of classes beyond 16 provided no noticeable
improvements.
Agriculture and Urban Area were poorly distinguished from each other in
ISOCLUST. In some fields, Agriculture was poorly separated from Deciduous
Forest. A reclassification of 10 classes produces a reasonable assessment of the area
covered by Urban Area but an underassessment of the area covered by Agriculture
(Fig. 8). The reclassification of 16 classes appears to exaggerate the cover of both
Agriculture and Urban Area (Fig. 10)
Figure 11: KMEANS image of Howe Hill, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
of America produced in IDRISI Andes using all seven LANDSAT 5 Thematic Mapper
bands with 11 classes and default settings elsewhere.
Figure 12: Reclassified KMEANS image of Howe Hill, Worcester, Massachusetts,
United States of America produced in IDRISI Andes. The KMEANS settings were 11
classes and default settings elsewhere using all seven LANDSAT 5 Thematic Mapper
bands. The RECLASS settings were the defaults. The reclassification was as
follows: Deep Water (1) was KMEANS class 4; Shallow Water (2) was KMEANS
class 5; Agriculture (3) was KMEANS classes 8 and 9; Urban Area (4) was
KMEANS classes 2 and10; Coniferous Forest (5) was KMEANS classes 3 and 11
and Deciduous Forest (6) was KMEANS classes 1, 6 and 7.
Figure 13: KMEANS image of Howe Hill, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
of America produced in IDRISI Andes using all seven LANDSAT 5 Thematic Mapper
bands with 16 classes and default settings elsewhere.
Figure 14: Reclassified KMEANS image of Howe Hill, Worcester, Massachusetts,
United States of America produced in IDRISI Andes. The KMEANS settings were 16
classes and default settings elsewhere using all seven LANDSAT 5 Thematic Mapper
bands. The RECLASS settings were the defaults. The reclassification was as
follows: Deep Water (1) was KMEANS class 12; Shallow Water (2) was KMEANS
class 13; Agriculture (3) was KMEANS classes 4 and 8; Urban Area (4) was
KMEANS classes 3, 9 and 11; Coniferous Forest (5) was KMEANS classes 1, 2, 5
and 6 and Deciduous Forest (6) was KMEANS classes 7, 10 and 1416.

The raw outputs from the KMEANS algorithm are shown in Figures 11 and 13 while
the reclassified images are Figures 12 and 14. The raw outputs are included to allow
assessment of the reclassification.
The reclassified 11 class image (Fig. 12) provides a fair first approximation of the
land cover categories in a relatively short time interval which is why I included it. It
appears to exaggerate the cover of the categories of Agriculture and Urban Area. I
consider the reclassified 16 class image (Fig. 14) superior but it also exaggerates the
Urban Area though the 'Agriculture is underestimated. The KMEANS algorithm is
second only to the MAXLIKE algorithm in the exaggeration of the cover of Urban
Area (Table 1).
Figure 15: FISHER image of Howe Hill, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States of
America produced in IDRISI Andes using default settings.
The FISHER algorithm inflates the Agriculture and Urban Area land use categories
(Fig. 15). It is visually appealing because it does not place many Urban Area pixels
in Agriculture at points which the GoogleEarth image (Fig. 1) shows to have no
buildings.
Figure 16: KNN image of Howe Hill, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States of
America produced in IDRISI Andes using default settings.
The KNN algorithm is not entirely able to separate the land use categories
Agriculture and Urban Area but otherwise provides a fair representation of the area
(Fig. 16).
Figure 17: MAXLIKE image of Howe Hill, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
of America produced in IDRISI Andes using default settings.
While maximum likelihood classification is perhaps the most frequently used
supervised classification,[1] it was neither easier to use nor more effective at
classifying the land use categories than the other supervised classifications (with the
exception of the PIPED algorithm which is definitely less effective than the
MAXLIKE algorithm).
The MAXLIKE algorithm drastically inflated the cover of the Agriculture and
Urban Area land use categories (Fig. 17, Table 1).
Figure 18: MINDIST image of Howe Hill, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
of America produced in IDRISI Andes using default settings.
As with the KNN algorithm, the MINDIST algorithm was not entirely successful at
separating the Agriculture from the Urban Area but was otherwise a fair
representation of Howe Hill (Fig. 18). The MINDIST and KNN outputs had a Kappa
Index of Agreement of 0.9599.
Figure 19: PIPED image of Howe Hill, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States of
America produced in IDRISI Andes using default settings.

The PIPED algorithm does not classify all the pixels. The unclassified pixels are
black in Figure 19. The algorithm left 38% of the pixels unclassified (Table 1) which
meant that it underestimated the cover of most of the land use classes. Interestingly
enough, the only class with a pixel percentage comparable with the other supervised
classifications was Shallow Water (Table 1).
Conclusions
The land use categories Agriculture and Urban Area were difficult to separate from
each other. Both were also confused with Deciduous Forest in some pixels. The
land use categories Deep Water, Shallow Water and Coniferous Forest were not
readily separated by all the algorithms as may be seen by comparing the southern
shore of the southern most water body in the different IDRISI Andes images with the
GoogleEarth image. A shoreline (generally classified as either Agriculture or
Urban Area) would be expected adjacent to the water rather than behind trees. I will
not try to say which land use category was the most difficult to extract overall as
where a pixel is misclassified both the correct land use category and the misapplied
category are not accurately extracted.
The agricultural land west of the water bodies that were classified as Shallow Water
by the supervised hard classifiers appears to have been harvested since its reflectance
tended to be confused with the Urban Area and was distinctly different from the
agricultural land adjacent to the main Urban Area. The latter tended to be confused
with Deciduous Forest suggesting that it had not been harvested.
For all the classifications, some of the apparently inaccurately classified urban pixels
may be accurate as there are a number of roads which appear to have been largely
obscured by the deciduous forest in the satellite imagery. The south-east end of the
western water body is probably accurately classified as urban area since it appears to
be a dam wall.
In general, producing a land use classification using the supervised classifications was
quicker and probably better than the unsupervised classifications. The best
unsupervised classification algorithm was the KMEANS and the worst one was the
CLUSTER. I was unable to decide if I preferred the FISHER or the KNN algorithms
for the supervised classification. I preferred the FISHER algorithms agriculture
where the GoogleEarth image suggested the classification is appropriate but I
preferred the KNN algorithms urban area where the GoogleEarth image suggested
the classification was appropriate (both did have pixels classified inaccurately in both
the agriculture and urban area categories). The PIPED algorithm was the worst
supervised classification algorithm as it did not classify all the pixels.
Comparison of the GoogleEarth image and the IDRISI Andes outputs indicates that
the landscape has not changed much since 1987.
References
1. Eastman JR. 2006. IDRISI Andes Tutorial. Worcester, MA: Clark Labs, Clark
University. 284 p. Provided as a PDF with the IDRISI Andes software package.
2. Landsat Project. Landsat 5 History [Internet]. Landsat Project, United States
Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior, United States

Government; Updated 2006 Jun. 7 [cited 2007 Sept. 17]. Available from:
http://landsat.usgs.gov/project_facts/history/landsat_5.php.
2. Eastman JR. 2006. IDRISI Andes Guide to GIS and Image Processing. Worcester,
MA: Clark Labs, Clark University. 328 p. Provided as a PDF with the IDRISI Andes
software package.