remote sensing

Article
Comparison of Random Forest and XGBoost Classifiers Using
Integrated Optical and SAR Features for Mapping Urban
Impervious Surface
Zhenfeng Shao, Muhammad Nasar Ahmad * and Akib Javed

State Key Laboratory of Information Engineering in Surveying, Mapping and Remote Sensing, Wuhan University,
Wuhan 430079, China; shaozhenfeng@whu.edu.cn (Z.S.); akibjaved@whu.edu.cn (A.J.)
* Correspondence: mnasarahmad@whu.edu.cn

Abstract: The integration of optical and SAR datasets through ensemble machine learning models
shows promising results in urban remote sensing applications. The integration of multi-sensor
datasets enhances the accuracy of information extraction. This research presents a comparison of
two ensemble machine learning classifiers (random forest and extreme gradient boost (XGBoost))
classifiers using an integration of optical and SAR features and simple layer stacking (SLS) tech-
niques. Therefore, Sentinel-1 (SAR) and Landsat 8 (optical) datasets were used with SAR textures
and enhanced modified indices to extract features for the year 2023. The classification process uti-
lized two machine learning algorithms, random forest and XGBoost, for urban impervious surface
extraction. The study focused on three significant East Asian cities with diverse urban dynamics:
Jakarta, Manila, and Seoul. This research proposed a novel index called the Normalized Blue Water
Index (NBWI), which distinguishes water from other features and was utilized as an optical feature.
Results showed an overall accuracy of 81% for UIS classification using XGBoost and 77% with RF
while classifying land use land cover into four major classes (water, vegetation, bare soil, and urban
impervious). However, the proposed framework with the XGBoost classifier outperformed the RF
algorithm and Dynamic World (DW) data product and comparatively showed higher classification
accuracy. Still, all three results show poor separability with bare soil class compared to ground
truth data. XGBoost outperformed random forest and Dynamic World in classification accuracy,
Citation: Shao, Z.; Ahmad, M.N.;
Javed, A. Comparison of Random
highlighting its potential use in urban remote sensing applications.
Forest and XGBoost Classifiers Using
Integrated Optical and SAR Features Keywords: data fusion; impervious surface; Landsat 8; random forest; XGBoost
for Mapping Urban Impervious
Surface. Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 665.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16040665
1. Introduction
Academic Editors: Guo Wei and
Elahi Ehsan Accurate and timely mapping of urban land use and land cover is crucial using a
single satellite dataset [1]. Therefore, integrating multiple data sources to extract more
Received: 9 January 2024 valuable information than individual sources in remote sensing can provide comparatively
Revised: 1 February 2024
higher accuracy [2,3]. The importance of data fusion techniques has grown significantly,
Accepted: 2 February 2024
playing a crucial role in improving the reliability and interpretability of remotely sensed
Published: 13 February 2024
data. It combines data of different types, formats, spatial and temporal scales, and other
characteristics to create a unified view [4]. Data fusion techniques are increasingly used
in various applications, including remote sensing [5], robotics, surveillance, and medical
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
science. A key benefit of remote sensing data fusion is that it allows the complementary
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. strengths of different data sources and modalities. The aggregated view from fusion
This article is an open access article techniques can reduce noise [6], fill gaps, resolve uncertainties [7], and improve overall
distributed under the terms and data quality [8]. Fusing optical and radar satellite data mitigates issues like cloud cover in
conditions of the Creative Commons optical data [9].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// In remote sensing, data fusion methods are broadly categorized into image-, feature-,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ and decision-level fusion [10]. Image-level fusion combines pixel values from differ-
4.0/). ent images to create composite images [11]. Feature-level fusion extracts features from

Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 665. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16040665 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing

Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 665 2 of 18

each data source and merges them into a unified representation before classification [12].
Decision-level fusion maintains distinct features, performs separate categorization, and
then integrates the decisions [13].
There are several sophisticated optical–SAR (OS) fusion-based methods [14,15] that
are available, such as intensity–hue–saturation (IHS) transformation, principal compo-
nent analysis (PCA), wavelet transform, Gram–Schmidt spectral sharpening, and Brovey
transform [16]. In contrast with simple layer stacking (SLS), these methods involve vari-
ous transformations such as intensity, uncorrelated components, frequency bands, use of
panchromatic data, and ratio-based processing [17], respectively. These methods provide
benefits like spatial sharpening, multi-resolution analysis, and dimensionality reduction
for some particular remote sensing applications. Also, applying sophisticated fusion
techniques for urban applications sometimes poses challenges, including computational
demands and variations in data consistency [18].
SLS is a simple technique that does not require any data transformation or mathe-
matical manipulation. It involves stacking layers from different sensors, such as SAR and
optical, to generate a composite image [19]. Specific research studies have been conducted
to explore the effectiveness of SLS with data and methods in improving classification
results [20].
Research conducted by [21] applied the simple method of layer stacking for data
fusion and found that integrating all spectral and backscattering bands yielded the highest
mapping result. An overall classification accuracy of 91.07% was achieved with S1-S2, com-
pared to S-2 only (89.53%) and S-2 with radiometric indexes (89.45%). Ref. [22] mentioned
that the integrated layer stack composed of Sentinel radar and VNIR data outperformed
(OA 88.75%) when applied through the SVM classification. In comparison, the RF (ran-
dom forest) algorithm achieved an OA of 55.50%, while the K-nearest neighbor algorithm
achieved an OA of 39.37%. The authors in [23] used SAR and simulated Sentinel-2 images
and after spatial resampling, the fused image stack, which was obtained through layer
stacking, was used by SVM for classification. However, they did not make any comparison
with existing products. In another study, Ref. [24] implemented the simple layer stacking
to fuse Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 data at the pixel level.
The aforementioned studies highlighted the potential of data fusion, fusion types, fu-
sion methods, and their advantages for enhancing classification results and accuracy. There-
fore, new approaches are still required to be developed for fusing multiple-sensor datasets
at city, regional, and global scales. Therefore, the current research focuses on applying the
SLS method using extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost). This study presents a framework
based on optical and SAR features-based data fusion using SLS and XGBoost algorithms.
The novelty of this research is integrating features extracted from Landsat 8 using modified
indices and textures from Sentinel-1 SAR datasets to improve classification accuracy.
In this study, we implemented an innovative framework based on an open-source,
available multi-sensor datasets to extract impervious surface information in densely pop-
ulated urban areas. An additional innovative component in our approach involves inte-
grating SLS with the XGBoost machine learning algorithm, which is aimed at significantly
improving classification accuracy, particularly in urban land cover scenarios.
Furthermore, previous studies have explored the applications of data fusion in urban
mapping, and there is a notable gap regarding the comparison with existing land cover
products. This study additionally aims to validate the obtained results against the estab-
lished global product DW [25]. It assesses the accuracy of the current approach in selected
cities, providing valuable insights for the future application of the research findings.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Proposed Framework
The proposed research framework, presented in Figure 1, integrates optical–SAR
data using the SLS technique. The primary objective is to enhance the accuracy of urban
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 665 3 of 18

Remote Sens. 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW

impervious 4 of 18
surface (UIS) extraction by combining multi-sensor remote sensing datasets
from Sentinel-1 (SAR) and Landsat 8 (optical) sensors.

Figure 1. Proposed framework.

Figure 1. Proposed framework.

2.2. Study Area 8 data, a novel index, the Normalized Blue Water Index (NBWI), and
For Landsat
modified
This indices
researchsuch as the
focuses on Visible Atmospherically
three cities: Jakarta, Manila,Resistant
and Seoul.Index (VARI)
These and
cities the
exhibit
Normalized Differenceregarding
distinct characteristics Built-up Index (NDBI)
climate, were implemented,
population utilizing all available
densities, and urbanization rates. Ta-
images for the selected
ble 1 provides the detailsyear
of (2023).
all citiesThis
withallows
their for the capture
climatic of surface
zones based characteristic
on Köppen–Geiger
variations. For Sentinel-1 data, textural features such as local variance,
climate classification [26] and population in 2023, according to the World Bank. dissimilarity, and
entropy were derived from the SAR data to capture spatial patterns and heterogeneity in
urban surfaces.
Table 1. Population and climatic zones of the Selected Cities.
The SLS approach involves stacking multiple layers to capture the spectral charac-
No. City
teristics Name withClimatic
associated impervious Zonesurfaces, including attributes such Population
as color,2023
texture,
1 Jakarta Tropical
and reflectance. This technique provides a comprehensive view of impervious surfaces 11,248,839
at2 the city
Manila
scale. However, Humid subtropicaladvanced data fusion techniques
implementing 14,667,089
for large-scale
3 Seoulposes challenges,
applications Humidsuch continental with dry winters
as computational requirements and 9,988,049
integrating diverse
decision-making sources. The study integrates optical–SAR datasets using SLS, stacking
the features
Jakarta,from bothand
Manila, sensors
Seoul into
area densely
composite image. This
populated creates
capital citiesa in
comprehensive
Indonesia, theinput
Phil-
dataset
ippines,for the
and subsequent
South classification
Korea. Each city, with process,
its unique which uses RF features
geographical and XGBoost machine
and urban land-
learning classifiers.
scapes, presents distinct challenges and opportunities. Jakarta is experiencing rapid urban
The accuracy
expansion, Manilaof is UIS extraction
a vibrant is evaluated
and dynamic by comparing
cityscape results with
serving as the country centerexisting
region,
global data products, specifically the Dynamic World (DW) global data
and Seoul is known for its modern and cosmopolitan environment. Studying impervious product provided
surfaces in these cities can provide valuable insights for urban planning, environmental
 Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 665 4 of 18

by Google for 2023. The methodology and materials used in the study are described in
detail in the subsequent sub-sections.

2.2. Study Area

This research focuses on three cities: Jakarta, Manila, and Seoul. These cities exhibit
distinct characteristics regarding climate, population densities, and urbanization rates.
Table 1 provides the details of all cities with their climatic zones based on Köppen–Geiger
climate classification [26] and population in 2023, according to the World Bank.

Table 1. Population and climatic zones of the Selected Cities.

No. City Name Climatic Zone Population 2023

1 Jakarta Tropical 11,248,839
2 Manila Humid subtropical 14,667,089
3 Seoul Humid continental with dry winters 9,988,049

Jakarta, Manila, and Seoul are densely populated capital cities in Indonesia, the Philip-
pines, and South Korea. Each city, with its unique geographical features and urban land-
scapes, presents distinct challenges and opportunities. Jakarta is experiencing rapid
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW urban
5 of 18
expansion, Manila is a vibrant and dynamic cityscape serving as the country center region,
and Seoul is known for its modern and cosmopolitan environment. Studying impervious
surfaces in these cities can provide valuable insights for urban planning, environmental
management, and resilience, including land use management, green infrastructure de-
management, and resilience, including land use management, green infrastructure design,
sign, mitigation of urban flooding [27], and water quality impacts [28,29]. Their geograph-
mitigation of urban flooding [27], and water quality impacts [28,29]. Their geographical
ical locations are shown in Figure 2.
locations are shown in Figure 2.

Figure
Figure 2. 2. Selected
Selected cities
cities from
from three
three different
different geographical
geographical locations.
locations.

2.3. Datasets
2.3. Datasets
This study integrated SAR and optical satellite datasets to delineate urban impervious
This study integrated SAR and optical satellite datasets to delineate urban impervi-
surfaces, utilizing both VV and VH polarizations from Sentinel-1 and modified indices
ous surfaces, utilizing both VV and VH polarizations from Sentinel-1 and modified indi-
from Landsat 8 OLI data. This integration was pivotal in overcoming challenges associated
ces from Landsat 8 OLI data. This integration was pivotal in overcoming challenges asso-
with land use classes, building shadows, and cloud cover, ultimately leading to enhanced
ciated with land use classes, building shadows, and cloud cover, ultimately leading to
accuracy in mapping urban impervious surfaces. Table 2 presents detailed information
enhanced
about theaccuracy
datasetsinand
mapping urban impervious
their corresponding bandssurfaces. Table
used in this 2 presents
research. detailedinin-
Moreover, the
formation about the datasets and their corresponding bands used in this research. More-
over, in the year 2023, a total of 37 satellite images were taken for Jakarta, 5 images for
Manila, and 20 images for Seoul. The availability of a significant number of satellite scenes
for Jakarta and Seoul within 12 months suggests a higher focus on monitoring and study-
ing the region, possibly due to their large population and urbanization rate.
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 665 5 of 18

year 2023, a total of 37 satellite images were taken for Jakarta, 5 images for Manila, and 20
images for Seoul. The availability of a significant number of satellite scenes for Jakarta and
Seoul within 12 months suggests a higher focus on monitoring and studying the region,
possibly due to their large population and urbanization rate.

Table 2. Detailed information on datasets, bands, and polarization used.

No. Datasets Bands/Polarization

1 Sentinel-1 (SAR) VV (vertical vertical) and VH (vertical horizontal)
Band 2 (blue), Band 3 (green), Band 4 (red), Band 5
2 Landsat 8 OLI (optical)
(NIR), Band 6 (SWIR 1), Band 7 (SWIR 2)

2.4. Processing
This research used Landsat 8 multispectral imagery and Sentinel-1 SAR data. Landsat 8
provided six primary bands for generating normalized indices and calculating annual
statistical compositions. Sentinel-1 SAR data contributed VV and VH polarizations, with
textures generated using the grey level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) technique in Google
Earth Engine (GEE). Sampling datasets were generated using European Space Agency (ESA)
and ESRI datasets, with points selected based on consensus regarding LULC classes [30].
These points were combined into a unified classification dataset. The dataset is then split
into training and testing sets using an 80–20 percentile split. Before training the model, the
forward stepwise selection (FSS) method used the 5-fold k validation method to define
which feature and feature combination provides better accuracy. The training set of 80%
data was used to train the model. The testing set of 20% data was used to calculate
the model accuracy. The accuracy presented in the paper comes from the ground truth
(GT) values. Concerning post-classification, an accuracy assessment was conducted by
comparing model-generated classifications with reference datasets, providing insights to
identify different land use and land cover types.

2.4.1. Preprocessing, Sampling, and Ground Truth Labels

Prior to the implementation of the machine learning classifier in this research study, a
comprehensive preprocessing and dataset sampling procedure was conducted. This crucial
phase involved the systematic preparation and transformation of the dataset to ensure
optimal input for the subsequent machine learning model.
Three datasets, namely Dynamic World (DW) [25], European Space Agency (ESA)
World Cover [31], and Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) Land Cover [32],
for the year 2021 were used. These three products have been carefully selected based
on their significance and suitability for the present research. Details of all three selected
products regarding dataset, model, and other characteristics are provided in Table 3.
These datasets were divided into four distinct classes: water, vegetation, bare soil, and
urban impervious surfaces (UIS). Pixels where all three datasets agreed on the class were
selected, and their corresponding classes were assigned. To generate a training dataset,
random sample points were generated within the areas of 55 selected cities. For each
generated sample point, the feature values and the agreed class from the three datasets
were exported. This training dataset serves as the basis for further analysis and model
development in the research paper. Furthermore, Table 4 provides a comprehensive
overview of the three datasets, presenting detailed information regarding their respective
classes and associated values. Subsequently, a systematic process was implemented to
transform the initial class values into a new set of values. This process contributes to the
clarity and consistency of the dataset, laying a foundation for accurate and meaningful
interpretations in the context of the study. Because all three global products have different
values for each class, the first step was taken to standardize their class code to a new code
scheme from 0 to 6 (Table 4). Next, similar land cover classes were merged and assigned
new codes from 0 to 4 based on a four-class scheme used for the present research.
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 665 6 of 18

Table 3. Detailed information on DW, ESA, and ESRI datasets.

Training Dataset Used Platform Used for

Dataset Model Methods Features Name Training Data Input Label
for Training Training
9 classes (water, trees, grass,
Fully Convolutional Blue, green, red, redEdge1, 24,000 image (510 × 510 pixels) Sentinel-2 L2A surface
flooded vegetation, crops,
Dynamic World DL Neural Network redEdge2, redEdge3, NIR, tiles were labeled by expert and reflectance, NASA GEE, Cloud AI
scrub/shrub, built area, bare
(FCNN) swir1, swir2 non-expert group MCD12Q1;
ground, snow/ice)
Data access from
9 classes (water, trees, grass, Microsoft
ESRI 6 primary bands (red, green, 24 k 5 km × 5 km image chips, flooded vegetation, crops, Sentinel-2 L2A surface Planetary Computer
DL Large UNET
Land Cover blue, nir, swir1, swir2) all hand-labeled scrub/shrub, built area, bare reflectance G6M5H6:J6 and trained in Microsoft
ground, snow/ice) Azure Batch,
AI-based
64 features are extracted
11 classes (open water, trees,
from Sentinel-2, 12 features
grassland, herbaceous
from Sentinel-1, 2 features 10% of the points are sampled, GEE
ESA World wetland, cropland, shrubland, Sentinel-1, Sentinel-2,
ML CATBoost from the DEMs, with a maximum of 30 points Terrascope
Cover built-up, bare ground/sparse TerraClimate
23 positional features, and per class per location with Python
vegetation, snow/ice,
14 meteorological features,
mangroves, moss and lichen)
for a total of 115 features
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 665 7 of 18

Table 4. Datasets used for sample generation, existing values, and recoding.

DW DW Value ESA ESA Value ESRI ESRI Value Recode Value

Permanent water
Water 0 80 Water 1 0
bodies
Trees 1 Tree cover 10 Trees 2 1
Mangroves 95 1
Bare/sparse
Bare 7 60 Bare ground 8 2
vegetation
Grass 2 Shrubland 20 Rangeland 11 3
Shrub_and_Scrub 5 Grassland 30 3
Moss and lichen 100 3
Crops 4 Cropland 40 Crops 5 4
Herbaceous Flooded
Flooded_Vegetation 3 90 4 1
wetland vegetation
Built 6 Built-up 50 Built area 7 5
Snow_and_Ice 8 7 Snow and ice 70 7 6
Where 0 = water, 1 = vegetation and flooded vegetation, 2 = bare soil, 3 = shrubland, grassland, and moss and
lichen, 4 = cropland, 5 = built-up area, and 6 = snow/ice.

In a subsequent step, the snow/ice class was excluded from the analysis, and a revised
classification scheme was implemented only for class for all three data products and for
research results. Specifically, all types of vegetation, including vegetation, shrubland,
grassland, moss and lichen, and cropland, were merged into a single category. The new
classification system was simplified into four distinct categories: 0 for water, 1 for vegetation
(encompassing shrubland, grassland, moss and lichen, and cropland), 2 for bare soil, and 3
for built-up areas.
During the feature selection process, 33,000 resample points (Appendix B) were
extracted per class from the dataset, while allowing replacement. Therefore, the total
dataset size became 132,000 points for four classes. The training dataset was split into
80/20 percentile as training and testing set. The training dataset was constructed using
these resampled points. For the feature selection step using FSS, the training dataset
was used, and a 5-fold cross-validation approach was implemented. This 5-fold cross-
validation was performed inside the FSS method for better feature combination selection.
This procedure enabled the selection of optimal features for further analysis without bias.

2.4.2. Random Forest Classifier

RF is a highly effective ensemble machine learning algorithm known for its ability to
perform classification tasks [33]. It achieves this by constructing an ensemble of decision
trees that are randomly selected from the training samples [34]. Random forest utilizes
parallel processing and the bagging technique. Random forest, as a parallel classifier,
constructs an ensemble of decision trees by independently training each tree on a different
subset of the training data.

2.4.3. XGBoost Classifier

According to [35], XGBoost outperformed other classifiers in landslide susceptibility
mapping. Ref. [36] also found XGBoost to be the most accurate predictor in their review of
ensemble learning algorithms. XGBoost is a highly efficient machine learning algorithm for
complex classification tasks and high-dimensional urban mapping.
One strength of XGBoost is its ability to handle noise and outliers, ensuring reliable
performance. It also helps identify significant variables and provides insights into the
underlying processes driving urban patterns through feature importance ranking. XG-
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 665 8 of 18

Boost effectively addresses imbalanced data issues using weighted loss functions and
subsampling techniques. The scalability and speed of XGBoost make it well-suited for
urban applications with large datasets and real-time processing requirements. In ensemble
learning, XGBoost enhances prediction accuracy and mitigates overfitting, resulting in
more robust and reliable results. In this study, the XGBoost classifier was implemented
using equations outlined by [37], showing the working principle of the XGBoost. We have
omitted the specific details of these equations, and the reference has been provided above.

2.4.4. Optical Temporal Indices

This study used a wide range of optical temporal indices derived from two band
combinations of the six primary bands of Landsat (Table 2) and their four annual statistical
composites (minimum, median, maximum, and standard deviation). From a pool of
60 spectral and temporal indices, VV and VH polarization, 122 Sentinel-1 GLCM textures,
and bare soil-related indices are given in Appendix A. However, the study selected an
optimized features list for random forest (RF) and XGBoost classifiers separately. For
the selection process, the study uses the forward stepwise selection (FSS) method [38].
Therefore, based on FSS [39], eight features were selected for RF, and the first eleven
features were selected for XGBoost.
The innovation of these modified indices is their utilization of annual statistical com-
posites of each optical dual-band normalized indices. These modified indices incorporate
both spectral and temporal information. By considering the temporal dimension of the
data, these indices capture changes and patterns using multiple images for a single year,
enabling a more comprehensive analysis of land use and land cover dynamics. The integra-
tion of spectral and temporal composite imagery enhances the accuracy and depth of the
research analysis.
The nomenclature of optical features conveys three key pieces of information for each
feature. Firstly, the abbreviation “ND” stands for normalized difference. Secondly, the
combination of an uppercase and lowercase letter represents each corresponding band’s
first and last letter, with two bands denoted in this manner. Lastly, the final part of
the feature name indicates the type of temporal composition undertaken. For instance,
a feature like “ND_GnNr_Min” signifies that it involves normalized difference (“ND”),
utilizing the green band (“Gn”) and the near-infrared band (“Nr”), and employs a minimum
operation for temporal composition. Finally, Min is short for minimum composition. All
of these temporal compositions involve compositing all available images from the year
2023. The full list of optical features is given in Appendix A. Furthermore, details of all the
optical features selected with some existing similar indices are illustrated in Table 5. Also,
an additional NBWI novel index was implemented for the feature extraction process in
this research.

Table 5. Description of optical temporal features and references of optical indices.

Selected Optical Features Similar Index Reference

Normalized Pigment Chlorophyll Ratio
ND_BeRd_SD [40]
Index (NPCRI)
ND_GnNr_Min, ND_GnNr_SD, ND_GnNr_Max Green–Red Vegetation Index (GRVI) [41]
ND_GnRd_Median Visible Atmospheric Resistant Index (VARI) [42]
ND_RdNr_Median Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) [43]
ND_S1S2_Max, ND_S1S2_Median Normalized Difference Tillage Index (NDTI) [44]
NSAI1_median Normalized Soil Area Index 1 (NSAI1) [45]
swirSoil_median swirSoil [46]
A novel index was
ND_BeS2_Median NBWI
developed in this research
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 665 9 of 18

Among all the optical temporal indices used in this study, a newly developed index,
NBWI (Equation (1)), exhibits high reflectance in water areas to separate water from other
land use classes.

NBWI = [(Blue − SWIR2)/(Blue + SWIR2)]Median (1)

The NBWI index is calculated by taking the difference between the reflectance values
in the blue and shortwave infrared 2 (SWIR2) bands and dividing it by their sum. The
index is typically applied to a median composite, which is created by taking the median
value of multiple satellite images from the year 2023.
Although the NBWI is primarily a water-based index, it can still provide valuable
insights in urban area studies. The NBWI helps in identifying and delineating water
features within urban landscapes, assisting in mapping and understanding the distribution
and extent of water bodies. This information is essential for urban planning, as it permits
effective stormwater runoff assessment and mitigation strategies. By classifying water
bodies, the NBWI also aids in assessing and managing flood-prone areas, optimizing
drainage systems, and mitigating the effects of heavy rainfall events in urban areas.
Moreover, the NBWI contributes to studying the urban heat island effect. Water bodies
have a cooling effect on their surroundings, and by accurately identifying and characteriz-
ing these features, researchers can analyze their influence on urban microclimates. This
information can support strategies for urban heat island effect, urban green infrastructure
planning, and enhancing the overall livability and sustainability of cities.

2.4.5. Textural Features

The authors utilized Sentinel-1 SAR data and the GLCM texturing function available
in Google Earth Engine mentioned by [47]. These measurements provided insights into
the randomness of grey-level distribution and the texture patterns present in the SAR
data and contributed to the characterization and quantification of spatial structure and
variability in the studied cities. The study designed each SAR polarization to be derived
from a 10 m square ground spatial area. Each SAR texture feature name also shows three
pieces of information. The naming started with polarization, the texture name, and the
neighborhood length. For example, one such texture feature is “VV_dent_90m”, based on a
VV polarization-based texture of difference entropy with four neighborhoods. Similarly, all
the SAR textures were generated, and a list is given in Appendix A.
The research methodology performance was evaluated using metrics such as overall
accuracy, F1 score, precision, and recall.

2.5. Accuracy Assessment Method

The research proceeded to evaluate the accuracy of the developed framework by
conducting an accuracy assessment task. A ground truth task was initiated, entailing
the generation of 525 reference points for each city using the “create random point” tool
in ArcMap. This process was conducted systematically, resulting in a cumulative total
of 1600 reference points across all three cities. However, for each class, including water,
vegetation, bare soil, and UIS, around 125 ground truth points were validated. Addition-
ally, 25 points for each city were allocated for potential adjustments in the event of any
identified errors.
The “Extract Values to Points” tool in ArcGIS Spatial Analyst (ArcGIS 10.8) obtained
classified raster values at each reference point, which were exported to a CSV file. The accu-
racy assessment task was performed using Python code embedded in a Jupyter Notebook.
This allowed for the execution of the necessary computations and facilitated the evaluation
of model performance.
A random point sample was compared with ground truth points to ensure method per-
formance, allowing a comprehensive evaluation of accuracy and reliability. The evaluation
of classification model performance and key metrics was conducted based on the formulas
outlined by [48]. Equations (2)–(5) were utilized to calculate overall accuracy, precision,
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 665 10 of 18

F1 score, and recall. These mathematical formulations provide a robust framework for
assessing the performance of the classification model and determining important metrics.
where
Overall Accuracy (OA) = (TP + TN)/(TN + FP + FN + TP) (2)
TP
Precision = (3)
TP + FP
TP
Recall = (4)
TP + FN
2 ∗ TP
F1 score = (5)
2 ∗ TP + FP + FN
i. True positives (TP): number of samples correctly predicted as “positive”.
ii. False positives (FP): number of samples wrongly predicted as “positive”.
iii. True negatives (TN): number of samples correctly predicted as “negative”.
iv. False negatives (FN): number of samples wrongly predicted as “negative”.

3. Results
This section presents the research findings on extracting urban impervious surfaces
with improved accuracy using the proposed fusion approach described in the methodology
section. The results are further explained below, providing separate explanations for the
UIS extraction process and other relevant parameters.
Research outcomes present the accuracy assessment of the results and compare them
with the DW Google data product. The results indicate that the proposed framework
outperformed DW regarding classification performance. The proposed approach achieved
the highest overall accuracy of 81%, along with an F1 score of 78%, precision of 83%, and
recall of 81%, indicating improved performance.
Table 6 provides a comparative accuracy assessment of the proposed framework with
DW 2023. The evaluation used identical validation sample points for both datasets, ensuring
a fair and consistent comparison. Table 7 presents the accuracy metrics, allowing for a
comprehensive analysis of the performance of the proposed framework concerning DW.

Table 6. Selected features through forward stepwise selection (FSS) for different classifiers from
Appendix A.

Classifiers Selected Features

“ND_GnNr_Min”, “ND_GnRd_Median”, “VV_dent_90m”, “VV”,
Random Forest “ND_RdNr_Median”, “VH”, “ND_GnNr_SD”, and
“ND_BeS2_Median”
“ND_GnNr_Min”, “ND_GnRd_Median”, “VH”, “VV_dent_90m”,
“ND_S1S2_Max”, “NSAI1_median”, “ND_GnNr_Max”,
XGBoost
“swirSoil_median”, “ND_S1S2_Median”, “ND_BeRd_SD”, and
“VV_shade_90m”

Table 7. Accuracy assessment values of DW dataset, RF, and XGBoost.

Row Labels Accuracy F1 Score Precision Recall

DW 0.763433333 0.733433 0.763167 0.763
RF 0.785633333 0.752867 0.784567 0.786
XGB 0.8109 0.7769 0.831033 0.811
Note: Colors shows the highest values of accuracy assessment metrics from red to green colors.

3.1. Confusion Matrix

The current framework’s confusion matrix presents the predicted and true values
for all three cities with two algorithms and one global product, as presented in Figure 3.
 RF 0.785633333 0.752867 0.784567 0.786
XGB 0.8109 0.7769 0.831033 0.811
Note: Colors shows the highest values of accuracy assessment metrics from red to green colors.

Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 665 3.1. Confusion Matrix 11 of 18

The current framework’s confusion matrix presents the predicted and true values for
all three cities with two algorithms and one global product, as presented in Figure 3. It
provides
It providesa comprehensive
a comprehensive overview of each
overview of class’s accurate
each class’s and inaccurate
accurate predictions.
and inaccurate predic-
The confusion matrix is particularly useful in identifying classes
tions. The confusion matrix is particularly useful in identifying classes thatthat are being confused
are being
and misclassified
confused by the model,
and misclassified bythus
the providing
model, thus insights into potential
providing insightserrors
into and misclas-
potential errors
sifications [49]. Figure 3 provides an evaluation of the classification accuracy
and misclassifications [49]. Figure 3 provides an evaluation of the classification accuracy across four
different
across classes
four to showcase
different classes tothe ability ofthe
showcase theability
proposed framework
of the proposedtoframework
classify samples
to classify
correctly.correctly.
samples It shows Itthe collective
shows performance
the collective for all three
performance forcities withcities
all three four with
classes.
fourCon-
classes.
cerning all four classes and cities, the XGBoost classifier performed better
Concerning all four classes and cities, the XGBoost classifier performed better compared compared to to
random forest.
random forest.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Confusion
Confusionmatrix:
matrix:DW,
DW,RF,
RF,and
andXGBoost.
XGBoost.

In Seoul, the DW dataset struggles to accurately identify positive samples, leading

to lower true positives (TP). RF and XGB improve upon this, achieving higher TP values
and overall better accuracy. XGB particularly excels in minimizing false positives (FP) and
false negatives (FN), resulting in higher precision and recall. In Manila, the DW dataset
faces difficulties in classifying samples as negative, resulting in lower true negatives (TN).
RF and XGB again outperform DW, showcasing better precision and recall. XGB stands
out with a balanced performance in identifying both positive and negative samples. For
Jakarta city, the DW dataset struggles with both TP and TN counts, indicating challenges in
identifying both positive and negative instances. RF and XGB consistently outperform DW,
with XGB achieving the highest TP and TN counts, resulting in superior precision, recall,
and overall accuracy.
Moreover, the analysis of confusion in Seoul showed both RF and XGB classifiers
revealed higher accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 scores compared to the DW dataset.
Particularly, XGBoost stands out with the highest values across all metrics, demonstrating
its effectiveness in accurately classifying data points in the Seoul dataset. Similarly, in
Manila, RF and XGB consistently outperform the DW dataset, with RF displaying a slightly
higher accuracy, while XGB maintains competitive precision, recall, and F1 score values.
The trend continues in Jakarta, where both RF and XGB classifiers demonstrate better
performance than the DW dataset, with XGB achieving the highest accuracy, precision,
recall, and F1 score.
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 665 12 of 18

The comparative analysis of confusion matrices underscores the enhanced classifica-

tion capabilities of machine learning classifiers, specifically random forest and XGBoost,
over a baseline dataset like DW. These results emphasize the importance of employing
sophisticated algorithms for urban mapping tasks, with XGBoost emerging as the preferred
choice due to consistently higher performance across multiple evaluation metrics in the
given datasets from Seoul, Manila, and Jakarta.

3.2. Extraction of Urban Impervious Surface (UIS)

The methodology was implemented in three cities: Jakarta, Manila, and Seoul. The
classified results of all three cities, representing four classes (urban impervious surface,
water bodies, vegetation, and barren land), are presented in Figure 4. It is worth noting that
although the method’s primary objective was to extract urban impervious surface (UIS),
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18
the training process incorporated these main land use classes to ensure comprehensive
training and classification accuracy.

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Classified
Classifiedmap
mapofof
selected cities
selected using
cities DW,DW,
using RF, and XGBoost.
RF, and Numbers
XGBoost. show the
Numbers same
show the same area
areathree
for for three different
different datasets
datasets (DW,
(DW, ESRI,ESA).
ESRI, ESA).

3.3. Comparison
The land with Dynamic
use/land World
cover Google Data Product
classification was conducted on selected cities using two
The study
different outcomes
algorithms: were cross-validated
random forest (RF) andusing a reputable
extreme gradientbenchmark dataset,
boosting (XGBoost). The
which providedwas
classification an independent
based on the evaluation
fusion ofof the classification
features accuracy.
extracted fromDue to the una-
Sentinel-1 (SAR) and
vailability of ESRI, ESA, and other well-known datasets with similar characteristics for
2023, the cross-validation was specifically conducted using the DW Google dataset alone.
To ensure the reliability of the classification results, they were cross-checked and validated
against the DW Google dataset. Dynamic World is a real-time dataset developed collabo-
ratively by Google and the World Resources Institute, as described by [25]. This reference
source is widely regarded as authoritative due to its rigorous production methods and
stringent quality control measures.
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 665 13 of 18

Landsat 8 (optical) datasets. The integration of modified indices and textures significantly
improved the ability to identify urbanization patterns and map impervious surface areas.
The results showed that RF tended to underestimate the impervious surface (UIS) area
across all cities, achieving an overall accuracy of 79%. On the other hand, the XGBoost
classifier outperformed RF, achieving an overall accuracy of 81%. The research findings
were not directly reached through the fusion of the two remote sensing datasets. Initially,
the individual datasets were tested with both classifiers independently. The fusion of SAR
and optical data through a stacked approach [50] discussed in Section 2, incorporating
indices and textural features, improved classification results for all three cities.
This suggests that combining SAR and optical remote sensing data through a simple
layer stacking fusion approach can yield more accurate land use/land cover mapping
than relying solely on a single dataset. Fusing multiple data sources allows for synergistic
utilization of their complementary information, enhancing classification performance.
Therefore, the combined strengths of both Sentinel-1 SAR and Landsat 8 optical data, using
the SLS fusion approach, provide a more comprehensive understanding of land cover
characteristics, leading to improved accuracy in land use/land cover classification tasks.

3.3. Comparison with Dynamic World Google Data Product

The study outcomes were cross-validated using a reputable benchmark dataset, which
provided an independent evaluation of the classification accuracy. Due to the unavailability
of ESRI, ESA, and other well-known datasets with similar characteristics for 2023, the
cross-validation was specifically conducted using the DW Google dataset alone. To ensure
the reliability of the classification results, they were cross-checked and validated against
the DW Google dataset. Dynamic World is a real-time dataset developed collaboratively
by Google and the World Resources Institute, as described by [25]. This reference source
is widely regarded as authoritative due to its rigorous production methods and stringent
quality control measures.
A comparison of DW with the current research results is presented in (Figure 4)
and corresponding accuracy metrics are shown in Table 7. The map shows three cities
situated in diverse geographical settings, emphasizing the significant difference in UIS
extraction. To emphasize the difference between the results obtained from DW and the
current research findings, specific regions within all cities were magnified for specific
regions. These highlighted areas from 1 to 18 (Figure 4) draw attention to the variations
and discrepancies observed.
However, our approach demonstrated improved results in accurately delineating
urban impervious surfaces at the city scale. Overall, research findings exhibit improved
results compared to the other datasets, particularly in terms of distinguishing between
classes and achieving higher accuracy in diverse cities.

4. Discussion
This research aims to improve the precision of urban impervious surface (UIS) extrac-
tion by combining optical and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) features. The study found
that integrating these data types is more effective than using each dataset separately. Fea-
tures such as texture and index, derived from the Landsat 8 surface reflectance dataset and
Sentinel-1, were used. These features helped capture a mix of spectral, spatial, temporal,
and scattering characteristics, enhancing the classification performance. A unique aspect of
optical spectral indices is their annual composition, which gives them both spectral and
temporal characteristics.
On the other hand, the textures of SAR polarization, which use varying neighborhood
sizes, can capture spatial characteristics. Based on the fused features, the RF and XGBoost
classifiers effectively modeled the complex relationships between land use classes. Accuracy
assessment against ground truth and comparison with well-established global products
validated the superiority of the proposed methods.
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 665 14 of 18

Many researchers fused two or more datasets, especially optical and SAR. For example,
Ref. [22] achieved 75% accuracy using Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 fusion for land cover
mapping in Colombia, but the authors implemented basic data from both sensors.
Another study conducted by [23] reported 76% accuracy for urban ecosystem map-
ping using Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 fusion. Similarly, research in the Eastern Brazilian
Amazon [21] fused Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 and obtained 79% accuracy for land cover
classification. As with the above studies, only the original band datasets were fused without
additional derived inputs. However, the proposed approach of combining multiple feature
types (indices, textures, and annual composites) extracted from Sentinel-1 and Landsat 8
provided improved classification performance over typical single or dual dataset fusion.
The proposed approach, which integrates multi-sensor open-source datasets, out-
performs existing global dataset DW. The current method’s claims of better results are
supported by the higher accuracy of classification results compared to DW. This improve-
ment can be attributed to the integration of the Sentinel-1 dataset with Landsat 8. Whereas
DW only used the Sentinel-2 dataset, this inclusion of SAR data provided an advantage
over DW. Furthermore, the temporally composited spectral index features were used. These
composited spectral indices were derived from annually collected image collections; thus,
capturing both spectral and temporal information enhanced the accuracy. However, unlike
the deep learning (DL) model used by DW, simpler ML classifiers were selected but with a
larger number of data points, which contributes to achieving higher accuracy.
However, it faces challenges in time series analysis due to the scarcity of historical
images. It is often impracticable to acquire all datasets from the same historical year. While
optical datasets are available through Landsat missions, the SAR Sentinel-1 dataset is
not available before October 2014. Despite these limitations, the approach could enhance
classification accuracy when applied to high-resolution datasets. Many data providers now
offer preprocessed imagery, which is beneficial for analysis. However, despite the use of
cloud removal algorithms in preprocessing, any remaining clouds can impact classification
accuracy. Machine learning algorithms might even misclassify clouds or treat them as
a separate class. Moreover, NBWI, a newly developed optical index, demonstrates high
reflectance in water regions. This novel index holds promise for making substantial
contributions to remote sensing applications, particularly in the identification and analysis
of water bodies. One limitation identified in this study was the poor separability of the
bare soil class compared to the ground truth data. This indicates that further improvements
are needed to accurately classify bare soil in urban areas. Further research is still needed to
improve distinguishing spectrally similar classes like bare soil and impervious surfaces for
urban applications. Future research could explore alternative feature extraction methods
or incorporate additional datasets to address this limitation and further improve the
classification accuracy.

5. Conclusions
This research presents an optical–SAR data fusion approach for improved urban
impervious surface extraction. Integrating texture, indices, and temporal features from
optical and SAR datasets enables comprehensive land use classification. A unique aspect
of this research is generating features through annual temporal composite features, rarely
seen in other studies except for MaxNDVI. It can be concluded that using the XGBoost
classifier outperforms RF and the existing Google data product (DW) for urban land cover
classification. XGBoost achieves an overall accuracy of 81% and a precision score of 83%,
demonstrating its superiority over RF and the Dynamic World global product. The uti-
lization of multi-sensor data fusion in detailed urban mapping demonstrates effectiveness,
offering improved accuracy in mapping impervious surfaces across diverse cities. Despite
these advantages, the current approach encounters limitations, particularly in accurately
classifying the bare soil category. It can be concluded that further enhancements are possi-
ble in the future to improve the separation of bare soil using the existing approach. This
research contributes to the field of urban remote sensing by demonstrating the effectiveness
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 665 15 of 18

of ensemble machine learning classifiers and data fusion techniques for mapping urban
impervious surfaces. The integration of optical and SAR features through the SLS technique,
along with the use of the NBWI index, showed promising results in enhancing classification
accuracy. However, the methodology can still contribute to sustainable urban planning
and environmental management strategies by accounting for impervious surface dynamics
under changing climatic conditions.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.N.A.; methodology, A.J. and M.N.A.; validation,

A.J. and M.N.A.; formal analysis, M.N.A.; data curation, A.J. and M.N.A.; writing—original draft
preparation, M.N.A.; writing—review and editing, Z.S.; visualization, M.N.A.; supervision, Z.S.;
funding acquisition, Z.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program
of China with grant number SQ2023YFE0100956, in part by the Guangxi Science and Technology
Program Guangxi Key R&D plan, GuiKe (2021AB30019), Sichuan Science and Technology Program
(2022YFN0031, 2023YFN0022, and 2023YFS0381), and Hubei key R&D plan (2022BAA048).
Data Availability Statement: Data will be available on request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. Features Collection for Forward Stepwise Selection

Category Features Names
“ND_BeGn_Min”, “ND_BeGn_Median”, “ND_BeGn_Max”, “ND_BeGn_SD”, “ND_BeRd_Min”,
“ND_BeRd_Median”, “ND_BeRd_Max”, “ND_BeRd_SD”, “ND_BeNr_Min”, “ND_BeNr_Median”,
“ND_BeNr_Max”, “ND_BeNr_SD”, “ND_BeS1_Min”, “ND_BeS1_Median”, “ND_BeS1_Max”,
“ND_BeS1_SD”, “ND_BeS2_Min”, “ND_BeS2_Median”, “ND_BeS2_Max”, “ND_BeS2_SD”,
Landsat dual-band “ND_GnRd_Min”, “ND_GnRd_Median”, “ND_GnRd_Max”, “ND_GnRd_SD”, “ND_GnNr_Min”,
normalized and “ND_GnNr_Median”, “ND_GnNr_Max”, “ND_GnNr_SD”, “ND_GnS1_Min”, “ND_GnS1_Median”,
temporal indices from “ND_GnS1_Max”, “ND_GnS1_SD”, “ND_GnS2_Min”, “ND_GnS2_Median”, “ND_GnS2_Max”,
six primary bands “ND_GnS2_SD”, “ND_RdNr_Min”, “ND_RdNr_Median”, “ND_RdNr_Max”, “ND_RdNr_SD”,
“ND_RdS1_Min”, “ND_RdS1_Median”, “ND_RdS1_Max”, “ND_RdS1_SD”, “ND_RdS2_Min”,
“ND_RdS2_Median”, “ND_RdS2_Max”, “ND_RdS2_SD”, “ND_NrS1_Min”, “ND_NrS1_Median”,
“ND_NrS1_Max”, “ND_NrS1_SD”, “ND_NrS2_Min”, “ND_NrS2_Median”, “ND_NrS2_Max”,
“ND_NrS2_SD”, “ND_S1S2_Min”, “ND_S1S2_Median”, “ND_S1S2_Max”, and “ND_S1S2_SD”
“VV”, “VH”, “VV_asm_30m”, “VV_contrast_30m”, “VV_corr_30m”, “VV_var_30m”, “VV_idm_30m”,
“VV_svar_30m”, “VV_sent_30m”, “VV_ent_30m”, “VV_diss_30m”, “VV_dvar_30m”, “VV_dent_30m”,
“VV_imcorr1_30m”, “VV_imcorr2_30m”, “VV_inertia_30m”, “VV_shade_30m”, “VH_asm_30m”,
“VH_contrast_30m”, “VH_corr_30m”, “VH_var_30m”, “VH_idm_30m”, “VH_svar_30m”,
“VH_sent_30m”, “VH_ent_30m”, “VH_diss_30m”, “VH_dvar_30m”, “VH_dent_30m”,
“VH_imcorr1_30m”, “VH_imcorr2_30m”, “VH_inertia_30m”, “VH_shade_30m”, “VV_asm_50m”,
“VV_contrast_50m”, “VV_corr_50m”, “VV_var_50m”, “VV_idm_50m”, “VV_svar_50m”,
“VV_sent_50m”, “VV_ent_50m”, “VV_diss_50m”, “VV_dvar_50m”, “VV_dent_50m”,
“VV_imcorr1_50m”, “VV_imcorr2_50m”, “VV_inertia_50m”, “VV_shade_50m”, “VH_asm_50m”,
“VH_contrast_50m”, “VH_corr_50m”, “VH_var_50m”, “VH_idm_50m”, “VH_svar_50m”,
Sentinel-1 VV and VH
“VH_sent_50m”, “VH_ent_50m”, “VH_diss_50m”, “VH_dvar_50m”, “VH_dent_50m”,
polarization after
“VH_imcorr1_50m”, “VH_imcorr2_50m”, “VH_inertia_50m”, “VH_shade_50m”, “VV_asm_70m”,
GLCM textures with
“VV_contrast_70m”, “VV_corr_70m”, “VV_var_70m”, “VV_idm_70m”, “VV_svar_70m”,
Neighborhood Square
“VV_sent_70m”, “VV_ent_70m”, “VV_diss_70m”, “VV_dvar_70m”, “VV_dent_70m”,
Size
“VV_imcorr1_70m”, “VV_imcorr2_70m”, “VV_inertia_70m”, “VV_shade_70m”, “VH_asm_70m”,
“VH_contrast_70m”, “VH_corr_70m”, “VH_var_70m”, “VH_idm_70m”, “VH_svar_70m”,
“VH_sent_70m”, “VH_ent_70m”, “VH_diss_70m”, “VH_dvar_70m”, “VH_dent_70m”,
“VH_imcorr1_70m”, “VH_imcorr2_70m”, “VH_inertia_70m”, “VH_shade_70m”, “VV_asm_90m”,
“VV_contrast_90m”, “VV_corr_90m”, “VV_var_90m”, “VV_idm_90m”, “VV_svar_90m”,
“VV_sent_90m”, “VV_ent_90m”, “VV_diss_90m”, “VV_dvar_90m”, “VV_dent_90m”,
“VV_imcorr1_90m”, “VV_imcorr2_90m”, “VV_inertia_90m”, “VV_shade_90m”, “VH_asm_90m”,
“VH_contrast_90m”, “VH_corr_90m”, “VH_var_90m”, “VH_idm_90m”, “VH_svar_90m”,
“VH_sent_90m”, “VH_ent_90m”, “VH_diss_90m”, “VH_dvar_90m”, “VH_dent_90m”,
“VH_imcorr1_90m”, “VH_imcorr2_90m”, “VH_inertia_90m”, and “VH_shade_90m”
“NSAI1_min”, “NSAI1_median”, “NSAI1_max”, “NSAI2_min”, “NSAI2_median”, “NSAI2_max”,
Soil-related indices (10)
“swirSoil_min”, “swirSoil_median”, “swirSoil_max”, and “SISAI”
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 665 16 of 18

Appendix B. Features Collection for Forward Stepwise Selection

Dataset LULC Recoded LULC
Value Samples Value Samples Training Class Value Samples
Class Class
Water 0 88,834 Water 0 88,834 Water 0 33,000
Trees 1 81,179 Vegetation 1 162,795 Vegetation 1 33,000
Bare 2 19,445 Bare 2 19,445 Bare 2 33,000
Grassland 3 28,176 Built-up 3 66,930 Built-up 3 33,000
Crops 4 53,440 Snow/ice 4 4341
Built-up 5 66,930
Snow/ice 6 4341

References
1. Ban, Y.; Jacob, A. Fusion of multitemporal spaceborne SAR and optical data for urban mapping and urbanization monitoring. In
Multitemporal Remote Sensing: Methods and Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 107–123.
2. Li, J.; Zhang, J.; Yang, C.; Liu, H.; Zhao, Y.; Ye, Y. Comparative Analysis of Pixel-Level Fusion Algorithms and a New High-
Resolution Dataset for SAR and Optical Image Fusion. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 5514. [CrossRef]
3. Adrian, J.; Sagan, V.; Maimaitijiang, M. Sentinel SAR-optical fusion for crop type mapping using deep learning and Google Earth
Engine. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2021, 175, 215–235. [CrossRef]
4. Zhang, Z.; Zeng, Y.; Huang, Z.; Liu, J.; Yang, L. Multi-source data fusion and hydrodynamics for urban waterlogging risk
identification. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2528. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Chen, S.; Wang, J.; Gong, P. ROBOT: A spatiotemporal fusion model toward seamless data cube for global remote sensing
applications. Remote Sens. Environ. 2023, 294, 113616. [CrossRef]
6. Moreno-Martínez, Á.; Izquierdo-Verdiguier, E.; Maneta, M.P.; Camps-Valls, G.; Robinson, N.; Muñoz-Marí, J.; Sedano, F.;
Clinton, N.; Running, S.W. Multispectral high resolution sensor fusion for smoothing and gap-filling in the cloud. Remote Sens.
Environ. 2020, 247, 111901. [CrossRef]
7. Sara, D.; Mandava, A.K.; Kumar, A.; Duela, S.; Jude, A. Hyperspectral and multispectral image fusion techniques for high
resolution applications: A review. Earth Sci. Inform. 2021, 14, 1685–1705. [CrossRef]
8. Meng, T.; Jing, X.; Yan, Z.; Pedrycz, W. A survey on machine learning for data fusion. Inf. Fusion 2020, 57, 115–129. [CrossRef]
9. Meraner, A.; Ebel, P.; Zhu, X.X.; Schmitt, M. Cloud removal in Sentinel-2 imagery using a deep residual neural network and
SAR-optical data fusion. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2020, 166, 333–346. [CrossRef]
10. Ounoughi, C.; Yahia, S. Ben Data fusion for ITS: A systematic literature review. Inf. Fusion 2023, 89, 267–291. [CrossRef]
11. Kalamkar, S. Multimodal image fusion: A systematic review. Decis. Anal. J. 2023, 9, 100327. [CrossRef]
12. Liu, S.; Zhao, H.; Du, Q.; Bruzzone, L.; Samat, A.; Tong, X. Novel cross-resolution feature-level fusion for joint classification of
multispectral and panchromatic remote sensing images. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2021, 60, 5619314. [CrossRef]
13. Pinar, A.J.; Rice, J.; Hu, L.; Anderson, D.T.; Havens, T.C. Efficient multiple kernel classification using feature and decision level
fusion. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2016, 25, 1403–1416. [CrossRef]
14. Karathanassi, V.; Kolokousis, P.; Ioannidou, S. A comparison study on fusion methods using evaluation indicators. Int. J. Remote
Sens. 2007, 28, 2309–2341. [CrossRef]
15. Xu, L.; Xie, G.; Zhou, S. Panchromatic and Multispectral Image Fusion Combining GIHS, NSST, and PCA. Appl. Sci. 2023,
13, 1412. [CrossRef]
16. Yan, B.; Kong, Y. A fusion method of SAR image and optical image based on NSCT and gram-Schmidt transform. In Proceedings
of the IGARSS 2020-2020 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 26 September–2
October 2020; pp. 2332–2335.
17. Singh, S.; Singh, H.; Bueno, G.; Deniz, O.; Singh, S.; Monga, H.; Hrisheekesha, P.N.; Pedraza, A. A review of image fusion:
Methods, applications and performance metrics. Digit. Signal Process. 2023, 137, 104020. [CrossRef]
18. Salcedo-Sanz, S.; Ghamisi, P.; Piles, M.; Werner, M.; Cuadra, L.; Moreno-Martínez, A.; Izquierdo-Verdiguier, E.; Muñoz-Marí, J.;
Mosavi, A.; Camps-Valls, G. Machine learning information fusion in Earth observation: A comprehensive review of methods,
applications and data sources. Inf. Fusion 2020, 63, 256–272. [CrossRef]
19. Sun, G.; Cheng, J.; Zhang, A.; Jia, X.; Yao, Y.; Jiao, Z. Hierarchical fusion of optical and dual-polarized SAR on impervious surface
mapping at city scale. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2022, 184, 264–278. [CrossRef]
20. Li, Z.; Zhou, X.; Cheng, Q.; Fei, S.; Chen, Z. A Machine-Learning Model Based on the Fusion of Spectral and Textural Features
from UAV Multi-Sensors to Analyse the Total Nitrogen Content in Winter Wheat. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 2152. [CrossRef]
21. Tavares, P.A.; Beltrão, N.E.S.; Guimarães, U.S.; Teodoro, A.C. Integration of sentinel-1 and sentinel-2 for classification and LULC
mapping in the urban area of Belém, eastern Brazilian Amazon. Sensors 2019, 19, 1140. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 665 17 of 18

22. Clerici, N.; Valbuena Calderón, C.A.; Posada, J.M. Fusion of Sentinel-1A and Sentinel-2A data for land cover mapping: A case
study in the lower Magdalena region, Colombia. J. Maps 2017, 13, 718–726. [CrossRef]
23. Haas, J.; Ban, Y. Sentinel-1A SAR and sentinel-2A MSI data fusion for urban ecosystem service mapping. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc.
Environ. 2017, 8, 41–53. [CrossRef]
24. Bui, D.H.; Mucsi, L. Comparison of layer-stacking and Dempster-Shafer theory-based methods using Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2
data fusion in urban land cover mapping. Geo-Spatial Inf. Sci. 2022, 25, 425–438. [CrossRef]
25. Brown, C.F.; Brumby, S.P.; Guzder-Williams, B.; Birch, T.; Hyde, S.B.; Mazzariello, J.; Czerwinski, W.; Pasquarella, V.J.; Haertel, R.;
Ilyushchenko, S.; et al. Dynamic World, Near real-time global 10 m land use land cover mapping. Sci. Data 2022, 9, 251. [CrossRef]
26. Peel, M.C.; Finlayson, B.L.; McMahon, T.A. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst.
Sci. 2007, 11, 1633–1644. [CrossRef]
27. Ahmad, M.N.; Shao, Z.; Javed, A. Mapping impervious surface area increase and urban pluvial flooding using Sentinel Application
Platform (SNAP) and remote sensing data. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 125741–125758. [CrossRef]
28. Wu, W.; Guo, S.; Shao, Z.; Li, D. Urban Impervious Surface Extraction Based on Deep Convolutional Networks Using Intensity,
Polarimetric Scattering and Interferometric Coherence Information from Sentinel-1 SAR Images. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1431.
[CrossRef]
29. Shao, Z.; Ahmad, M.N.; Javed, A.; Islam, F.; Jahangir, Z.; Ahmad, I. Expansion of Urban Impervious Surfaces in Lahore (1993–2022)
Based on GEE and Remote Sensing Data. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2023, 89, 479–486. [CrossRef]
30. Liu, S.; Wang, H.; Hu, Y.; Zhang, M.; Zhu, Y.; Wang, Z.; Li, D.; Yang, M.; Wang, F. Land Use and Land Cover Mapping in China
Using Multi-modal Fine-grained Dual Network. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2023, 61, 4405219.
31. Zanaga, D.; Van De Kerchove, R.; Daems, D.; De Keersmaecker, W.; Brockmann, C.; Kirches, G.; Wevers, J.; Cartus, O.;
Santoro, M.; Fritz, S. ESA WorldCover 10 m 2021 v200. 2022. Available online: https://zenodo.org/records/7254221 (accessed on
2 February 2024).
32. Karra, K.; Kontgis, C.; Statman-Weil, Z.; Mazzariello, J.C.; Mathis, M.; Brumby, S.P. Global land use/land cover with Sentinel 2
and deep learning. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium IGARSS, Brussels,
Belgium, 11–16 July 2021; pp. 4704–4707.
33. Rodriguez-Galiano, V.F.; Ghimire, B.; Rogan, J.; Chica-olmo, M.; Rigol-sanchez, J.P. An assessment of the effectiveness of a random
forest classifier for land-cover classification. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2012, 67, 93–104. [CrossRef]
34. Belgiu, M.; Drăgu, L. Random forest in remote sensing: A review of applications and future directions. ISPRS J. Photogramm.
Remote Sens. 2016, 114, 24–31. [CrossRef]
35. Sahin, E.K. Assessing the predictive capability of ensemble tree methods for landslide susceptibility mapping using XGBoost,
gradient boosting machine, and random forest. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 1308. [CrossRef]
36. Zhang, Y.; Liu, J.; Shen, W. A review of ensemble learning algorithms used in remote sensing applications. Appl. Sci. 2022,
12, 8654. [CrossRef]
37. Kavzoglu, T.; Teke, A. Predictive Performances of ensemble machine learning algorithms in landslide susceptibility mapping
using random forest, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) and natural gradient boosting (NGBoost). Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2022, 47,
7367–7385. [CrossRef]
38. Saeys, Y.; Inza, I.; Larranaga, P. A review of feature selection techniques in bioinformatics. Bioinformatics 2007, 23, 2507–2517.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Guyon, I.; Weston, J.; Barnhill, S.; Vapnik, V. Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines. Mach. Learn.
2002, 46, 389–422. [CrossRef]
40. Sosa, L.; Justel, A.; Molina, Í. Detection of crop hail damage with a machine learning algorithm using time series of remote
sensing data. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2078. [CrossRef]
41. Khadanga, G.; Jain, K. Tree census using circular hough transform and grvi. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 171, 389–394. [CrossRef]
42. Schneider, P.; Roberts, D.A.; Kyriakidis, P.C. A VARI-based relative greenness from MODIS data for computing the Fire Potential
Index. Remote Sens. Environ. 2008, 112, 1151–1167. [CrossRef]
43. Carlson, T.N.; Ripley, D.A. On the relation between NDVI, fractional vegetation cover, and leaf area index. Remote Sens. Environ.
1997, 62, 241–252. [CrossRef]
44. Lacaux, J.P.; Tourre, Y.M.; Vignolles, C.; Ndione, J.A.; Lafaye, M. Classification of ponds from high-spatial resolution remote
sensing: Application to Rift Valley Fever epidemics in Senegal. Remote Sens. Environ. 2007, 106, 66–74. [CrossRef]
45. Javed, A.; Shao, Z.; Bai, B.; Yu, Z.; Wang, J.; Ara, I.; Huq, M.E.; Ali, M.Y.; Saleem, N.; Ahmad, M.N. Development of normalized
soil area index for urban studies using remote sensing data. G Eofizika 2023, 40, 1–23. [CrossRef]
46. Javed, A.; Shao, Z.; Ara, I.; Ahmad, M.N.; Huq, E.; Saleem, N.; Karim, F. Development of Soil-Suppressed Impervious Surface
Area Index for Automatic Urban Mapping. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2024, 90, 33–43. [CrossRef]
47. Haralick, R.M.; Shanmugam, K.; Dinstein, I.H. Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. 1973,
SMC-3, 610–621. [CrossRef]
48. Chicco, D.; Jurman, G. The advantages of the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) over F1 score and accuracy in binary
classification evaluation. BMC Genom. 2020, 21, 6. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 665 18 of 18

49. Görtler, J.; Hohman, F.; Moritz, D.; Wongsuphasawat, K.; Ren, D.; Nair, R.; Kirchner, M.; Patel, K. Neo: Generalizing Confusion
Matrix Visualization to Hierarchical and Multi-Output Labels. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, New Orleans, LA, USA, 29 April–5 May 2022.
50. Chen, Y.; Bruzzone, L. Self-supervised sar-optical data fusion of sentinel-1/-2 images. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2021,
60, 5406011. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.